Question: whats wrong with going to a one world currency?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Nobody controls money.

If that wasn't obvious already, the events of the last year should have made it so.

And a single world currency won't make money any more controllable. The people on the thread that have been making that claim should show us their evidence.

Tell you what: when there are numerous freely traded currencies in parallel use in the world (as is presently the case), then it is quite easy to manipulate the value of a currency by buying or selling large amounts of it on the money markets. Happens all the time. That's what was beyond the SE Asia financial crisis of 1997.

Come on, currency fundamentalists. Hit us with your best shot.

Bang, Bang:

Lets say that we have a one world currency... hypothetically.

Lets say that *I* have several trillion dollars at my disposal (not too much of a stretch for one person to hold that much wealth)

Lets say that I decide to dump the lot of my dollars and purchase gold, silver, platinum, etc...

Lets say that after I do this, the reintroduction of this money into the economy saturates the market with ALOT of new dollars, thus, decreasing their overall value.

While at the same time, since I have purchased a LARGE percentage of the precious metals, the price of these commodities increases based on the relative supply (decreased) vs demand (increased)

So, now I have all of these metals, and they are worth more in "Dollars" than they originally were, and the money is worth less.


Lets say that I then SELL the LOT of these metals, For cash.

I can sell the gold at the inflated price because of increased demand, and can snatch up dollars on the cheap.

I have effectively made a HUGE profit off of this buy and sell scheme, and thus, your prediction of decreased market manipulation with a single currency falls flat on its face.

Face facts... Currencies ARE commodities.

Period.

Their relative value is subject to the laws of supply and demand, no matter HOW many there are.



Furthermore, the PROBLEM with a One World Currency, is threefold:

1. We pay taxes to different Governments, and thus, the competition for different regions would strain the relative value of goods and services.

2. Different nations have different labor standards. (First world wages vs third world wages) and thus, with a one world currency you would effectively be removing one of the wage protections between rich and poor nations. (Wage wise)

3. The issuer of the currency would have the power to contract and expand the monetary supply at a whim, timing these changes with their own personal investment strategies.

(Contract the money supply over the course of a few years, and then at rock bottom, buy up assets on the cheap, then you immediately inflate the money supply, sell the assets for the inflated price, then contract the money supply again to maximize dirty profits.)


So, yeah... a One world currency controlled by private institutions is a bad idea... mainly because private institutions do not have to worry about the overall well being of their constituents, since private institutions HAVE no constituents. (where as governments would be hesitant to do this, for fear of shortchanging their own economy.)

-Edrick

There would just be a big fight about which language to print it in.
I'm already having to learn spanish just to live in America.

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you explain, please, the advantages inherent in a multiple-currency world economy?

In a multiple-currency world economy one doesn't worry about the advantages of a multiple-currency world economy. The effect of this is one of multiple managers from different countries, dealing with problems of a smaller scale, instead of one manager dealing with a hugely complex problem.

Great answer and one reminiscent of a cogently argued case against global financial regulation recently made by the Harvard academic Dani Rodrik in a recent Economist guest column. But many of the problems of which we speak are native to a multicurrency world and would disappear along with it. The activities collectively known as Treasury operations - those concerned with maintaining the value of a currency relative to other currencies - would no longer be required.

The advantage of having one's own currency is like the advantage of having one's own tailor. A monetary policy made to measure for one's own needs will be better than a monetary policy made abroad.

As you imply, it would be wise at first to allow each country's own central bank the independence to set its own monetary policy. In such case an obvious worry would be that a person or company resident in a country with a high interest regime could choose instead to borrow from a lender in a country with more relaxed credit access, thus gaining an unfair competitive advantage in the home market or, if everyone started doing it, breaking the domestic credit system entirely. But I think something like the independent country credit rating system currently in operation might be able to take care of that - without even needing to prohibit it.

Still, in the end, a borderless, free-trading world is a globalized world. At least three ways forward present themselves. The first, which I think we can both agree would not be desirable, would be a vast, centralized federation like the former USSR. The second is, of course, the EU model. But the third is the United States.

America is still a union of states, isn't it? The states have their own exchequers, and legislatures which set taxes and levies, often in the form of effective 'tariffs' on 'imports' from other states, don't they? And all those states use a single currency, don't they?

In a primitive way, ipsedixit, the one world currency already exists. It's known as the United States dollar. It is the benchmark against which other currencies are judged. It is the preferred reserve currency for most of the world. It is the only currency, to my knowledge, that has been adopted as legal tender in countries as far away as Africa, where Zimbabweans, as somebody pointed out, now do their buying and selling in US dollars.

I wouldn't discount the possibility - or the viability - of a one world currency, though obviously not in the near future. Then again, you never can tell.

[edit on 25/3/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by sizzle
There would just be a big fight about which language to print it in.
I'm already having to learn spanish just to live in America.

Thats easy to solve use no language Just put a map and a number that represents the value for example take the 5 euro note get rid of everything but the bridges, the colours and the number 5 problem solved.

Currency is a basic expression of sovereignty. If the UK & USA adopt the proposed global currency, Parliament & Congress will surrender so much of their powers & influence to the IMF & UN they might as well just cease to exist. By us adopting the global currency the IMF & UN would quickly start extending their powers in many areas of our public life, the health system, social security, common security, tax & revenue raising. Without that brake which individual Parliamentarians & Congressmen currently provide, the IMF & UN will change our countries in ways we couldn't possibly imagine.

It's a decision which can only be taken once ... for once we adopt the new global currency it'll be damn near impossible to extricate ourselves from it. And by adopting it, we bind the hands of future generations by preventing them from overturning the decision. That is anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Perhaps being so incompetent with all things economic, our governments would be all too happy to see such matters passed to unelected beaurocrats.

The day that happens is the day I take to the streets.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by ipsedixit

Originally posted by Astyanax
Could you explain, please, the advantages inherent in a multiple-currency world economy?

In a multiple-currency world economy one doesn't worry about the advantages of a multiple-currency world economy. The effect of this is one of multiple managers from different countries, dealing with problems of a smaller scale, instead of one manager dealing with a hugely complex problem.

Great answer and one reminiscent of a cogently argued case against global financial regulation recently made by the Harvard academic Dani Rodrik in a recent Economist guest column. But many of the problems of which we speak are native to a multicurrency world and would disappear along with it. The activities collectively known as Treasury operations - those concerned with maintaining the value of a currency relative to other currencies - would no longer be required.

The advantage of having one's own currency is like the advantage of having one's own tailor. A monetary policy made to measure for one's own needs will be better than a monetary policy made abroad.

As you imply, it would be wise at first to allow each country's own central bank the independence to set its own monetary policy. In such case an obvious worry would be that a person or company resident in a country with a high interest regime could choose instead to borrow from a lender in a country with more relaxed credit access, thus gaining an unfair competitive advantage in the home market or, if everyone started doing it, breaking the domestic credit system entirely. But I think something like the independent country credit rating system currently in operation might be able to take care of that - without even needing to prohibit it.

Still, in the end, a borderless, free-trading world is a globalized world. At least three ways forward present themselves. The first, which I think we can both agree would not be desirable, would be a vast, centralized federation like the former USSR. The second is, of course, the EU model. But the third is the United States.

America is still a union of states, isn't it? The states have their own exchequers, and legislatures which set taxes and levies, often in the form of effective 'tariffs' on 'imports' from other states, don't they? And all those states use a single currency, don't they?

In a primitive way, ipsedixit, the one world currency already exists. It's known as the United States dollar. It is the benchmark against which other currencies are judged. It is the preferred reserve currency for most of the world. It is the only currency, to my knowledge, that has been adopted as legal tender in countries as far away as Africa, where Zimbabweans, as somebody pointed out, now do their buying and selling in US dollars.

I wouldn't discount the possibility - or the viability - of a one world currency, though obviously not in the near future. Then again, you never can tell.

[edit on 25/3/09 by Astyanax]

Your directly on point basically have each country of the 192 countries as a state or maybe breaking up a few of them so you dont have states that are two large. Then have maybe a global version of congress with maybe 2 or 3 representatives to the NWO from each state and together all these people decide what goes. We already do it with the US, Russia, China and UK.


The UK is a real good example take the

Bank of England Pound notes
Bank of Scotland Pound notes
Royal Bank of Scotland notes
Northern Ireland notes
Gibraltar notes
Jersey notes
Guernsey notes

They all exchanged at par and they are all supposed to be accepted in the other places, now imagine if we had that on a global scale. You would have a

USA nwo note
Canada nwo note
Australia nwo note
Japan nwo note
China nwo note
Egypt nwo note

and so on, which people use in there country and if you went overseas you don't exchange them that way it could look like the note your using is by your country and not just one currency but infact there all the same

reply to post by The Lass


Didn't the states kinda get into that situation after the civil war one your in you cant leave well unless the country is no more.

A common currency is a dreadful proposition and clearly the final step to global socialism and world government.

The problem with a common currency, including the many thoughtful posts above is that it will be the primary lever to create a global welfare state. The third world is the part of the world that needs its own currency. Absent a soverign currency, these nations would really fall into the abyss due to a complete lack of incentive to improve their economies. The standard of living of the modernized world would drop and never recover. There is a terrific example that is worthy of examination as to why this won't work - the Euro.

The Euro is convenient. It makes travelling in Europe easy, creates some notion of solidarity amongst EU members, all of that pap.

In reality all the Euro does is prop up weak states by strong ones. The common currency has standards that members are supposed to abide by(they seldom do in the EU). Things like debt to GDP ratios, labor practices, currency reserve levels, precious metal reserves, etc..

What happens is that weak states simply don't abide by these standards and thus erode the value of the common currency. In the EU for example, the let Greece into the EU. Now Greece never hit the standards for EU admission, but they were granted EU membership. The Greek debt/GDP ratios are off charts, the country is essentially a disaster. Hostile to business, no innovative space in the economy, high unemployment. As a place, it is fantastic. The people are fantastic. The country has been essentially a disaster for 2000 years. Greece has limited incentive to clean up their own financial house because their currency is propped up by the healthier members of the EU. Greece has such a limited impact on the Euro, that EU member states pretty much shrug their heads and move on.

The Eastern European states are also having a rough time, although they are business friendly and pretty dynamic countries. They just needed a loan from the EU and the EU told them to stuff it.

Europeans like the notion of the Euro. Folks in Germany, France and Italy when you talk with them on a personal level wish they had their old currency back and with it the independance that comes with it

Think about the EU/Greece example and then think about the entire third world sharing a common currency with the G8. It would be a massively fantastic deal for them, it would drive the rest of the world to third world status.

I also think it would create a world war.

reply to post by dolphinfan


You have a point with Greece but please explain to me why are they not allowing Turkey in the club; Turkey has more wealth than all the Eastern European countries that joined over the past 2 years put together. They can let Greece and the others slide in when they should not be there but Turkey has the wealth to stand on its own can't whats the logic in that.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
A common currency is a dreadful proposition and clearly the final step to global socialism and world government.

World government? Socialism? Could you explain, please, how exactly these would follow from the adoption a single world currency?

The problem with a common currency, including the many thoughtful posts above is that it will be the primary lever to create a global welfare state.

Again, you post no facts to support this opinion. Why should a common currency lead to a global welfare state? Can you show us how it would?

The third world is the part of the world that needs its own currency. Absent a soverign currency, these nations would really fall into the abyss due to a complete lack of incentive to improve their economies.

Could you explain how a national currency is needed to improve a national economy? Cuba and Zimbabwe are examples of countries where the adoption of a foreign currency has been used to relieve pressure on the national economy.

The standard of living of the modernized world would drop and never recover.

Can you explain how and why that would happen?

There is a terrific example that is worthy of examination as to why this won't work - the Euro... all the Euro does is prop up weak states by strong ones.... What happens is that weak states simply don't abide by these standards and thus erode the value of the common currency.

You are wrong. In the EU it is the rich states, like Germany, France and the UK, who most often flout EU regulations or insist on national exemptions, such as Britain's over adopting the euro - because they can.

This year marks the tenth anniversary of the euro. It is holding up very well indeed, as the following articles from the Economist demonstrate:

The euro at ten: demonstrably durable 30 Dec 2008

The euro at ten: testing times 30 Dec 2008

Currency Affairs: the euro's tenth birthday 5 Feb 2009

The euro zone: bigger and better? 15 Nov 2007

These articles don't all sing the euro's praises. They recognize that the euro zone, like all economic groupings, has its problems, and that the euro itself has, like all currencies, its ups and downs. But they are all agreed that the European single currency has been an overall success.

In the EU for example, the let Greece into the EU. Now Greece never hit the standards for EU admission, but they were granted EU membership. The Greek debt/GDP ratios are off charts, the country is essentially a disaster.

Why? There is a very important reason why this was done. In fact, there are more than one. Do you know them? Do you understand them?

[Greece is] hostile to business, no innovative space...

With all these drawbacks, Greece exerts no measurable drag on other EU economies. Can you show us otherwise? Besides, the reasons for Greece needing to be part of the EU far outweigh any such effects.

Think about the EU/Greece example and then think about the entire third world sharing a common currency with the G8. It would be a massively fantastic deal for them, it would drive the rest of the world to third world status... I also think it would create a world war.

It is true that selfishness and fear are the prime movers of the conservatie heart.

Enough already with the scaremongering assertions. How about some explanations, supported by some facts?

reply to post by deepwoods


The question is not what's wrong.

The question should be why do we need money at all?

Money was invented by the corrupt few to enslave humankind via debt and servitude.

The only solution to emancipate human from money is The Venus Project.

Please check out my signature link.

wouldn't a one world currency crush
developing countries?
the equilibrium across the planet would be horrifying on many angles.

I think a lot of the financial ills of the world have to do with predatory practices, particularly emanating from the United States of America, but no doubt other offenders are in line behind the States, like the rest of the G8 countries, who, I would bet, are all up to monkeyshines in their own "spheres of influence".

What I am trying to say is that I think a lot of problems that we think of as "monetary" are really only manifesting in monetary terms.

I'm all for trade between nations. I'm not so sure about "free" trade, meaning trade without tariffs, but I realize that regimes of tariffs are difficult to balance properly and can degenerate into tit for tat impasses leading to trade gridlock. The problem is that trade generates problems. The bigger problem is how to solve those problems to the appropriate benefit of everyone.

I'm just leery of something like a one world currency that may give those with all the advantages, one more advantage.

I think we have to face up to the fact that there are unscrupulous globalists. These people are already very powerful. I'm in favor of prudently placed impediments to globalization on their terms. I wish these people would stop using the IMF and the World Bank as instruments of conquest. I think they would use a One World Currency as another tool.

Why are so many countries around the world, that should be rich, poor? The reasons are largely political, not monetary. At the root of it are to be found two things, usually: local politicians corrupted from abroad and their corrupters, the globalists.

For me it is almost a rule of thumb. If the globalists want it, go the other way.

Its not a bad idea. Its like communism it would be a very good idea if the people in charge are not corrupt and good people. So the reason its bad is because the people that are manufacturing this collapse are going to be in charge of all that money, instead of being able to have control of one countries currency there going to have control of everyone's money.

If you are someone with a real knack for business. If you are a financial conquistador. If you are filthy rich and loving it, there is no stopping you.

People like this are insatiable. They won't stop until they have all the marbles in the game.

They don't earn 3 or 4 billion dollars and then decide that they've done the finance thing and now they are going to conquer spiritual and intellectual worlds. They just keep going relentlessly, using money as a way of keeping score in a game that they are playing.

This kind of behavior is a symptom of spiritual impoverishment. It's a kind of mental imbalance. It's a mental illness.

The victims of this behavior are people who had their jobs exported to countries with cheaper labor costs, or people starving to death in Africa, or people driven to crime in the streets of America, or people living lives of grinding poverty and exploitation in barrios and favelas and tin shack villages around the world.

There is one major reason for those ills and that is that the top level of the "one world society" take too much off the table and don't leave enough for everyone else. They are the real hooligans of this world. They are the problem.

When they advocate something, you can bet your life (and it is your life that is at stake) that they are not advocating it for your benefit, though they might be selling it on that basis.

Going to a one world currency would seem easier but that would facilitate the forming of a one world government, and the dissolution of the USA would be much easier indeed. It would be a currency between many nations that do not get along and that is a problem. I think that our monetary system will not be consolidated soon because of the differences between many of the nations of the world. Some countries money is worth much more than others and they will not want to give up their market advantage. Why would a rich nation at the economic top want to merge with a third world dump, monetarily speaking? It is like having a trialer in the middle of a rich neighborhood, it just don't make cense and really wouldn't look good.

Simple answer:

It means Capitalism is forever gone.

-kdial1

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by dolphinfan

Again, you post no facts to support this opinion. Why should a common currency lead to a global welfare state? Can you show us how it would?

While nobody can predict with certainty if the move to a global currency would lead to world gov, socialism and a declining standard of living, I believe this is almost a certainity, and here's why:

A global currency would lead directly to a reduction of the independance a nation states. Reduction in liberty is perhaps the most central tenet of socialism. The global elite who would manage the currency would undoubtably place guidlines on economic activity of nations, much as the EU does. Setting standards such as debt/gdp, % of GDP to national security, %/GDP to environmental causes, % GDP to global sustainability funds are likely candidates. Set levels of support for the UN, IMF and World bank would be enforced economically. All three have publically stated their desire for enforcement ability. Other global efforts, such as the Law of the Sea treaty, Kyoto Accord and the World Court and others would also require adoption else penalities would accrue. Forced compliance with these regimes is socialism.

An excellent analogy can be found in the United States. The US was founded as a Republic. Its a Republic now in name only. The US today is clearly a macro and micro welfare state. Healthy, well run states subsidize poorly run (almost exclusively liberal) states. Similiarly, functional Americans subsidize those Americans who make poor life choices.

Were it not for the disparity between communities in America, we never would have embarked on the Great Society, which is socialist and by every measure, an unmitigated disaster. Out of wedlock births, divorce, criminal behaivor, disease, and education levels have all dropped since the inception (and $3 Trillion) of the Great Society. I believe that the artificial "kinship" created by a global currency would lead the world down that path on a global level, despite the "noble" objectives of the elite. The future is impossible to predict, these are simply my views.

On the Euro, you are foolish to simply state "you're wrong". You site three examples of works that positively depict the results of the Euro. Below are three that paint a different view:

Problems with the Euro
Danger ahead for the Euro
Problems with the Euro?

These are complex matters and statistics can tell you anything you want them to tell you. I do find it curious that the elites tend to be pro Euro whilst the acedemic folks (particularily those schooled in econometrics) are a bit less sanguine.

Of course, the wealthy nations of the EU set the standards. Their ability to "set standards" is their compensation for having their currency slammed by the poor EU states. The poor states don't comply with the standards anyway, so what do the standards really mean?

Greece, despite its poor economic condition and the near impossibility of achieving EU standards (debt/GDP ratio is currently 98%) for one reason. Greece represents a blunt for Europe against the muslim world. Current immigation trends accounted for, a failed Greece would be a disaster for Europe. Greece's inclusion in the EU is geopolitical, not economic. Think about it as economic NATO.

Could you explain how a national currency is needed to improve a national economy? Cuba and Zimbabwe are examples of countries where the adoption of a foreign currency has been used to relieve pressure on the national economy.

You site Zimbabwe as an example of a country who benefited from pegging to a different currency. A few bits about Zimbabwe:

Per capita income = $340.00
82% of the population is currently seeking asyulm

This is exactly my point. We are not talking about PEGGING a currency. We are talking about ADOPTING a global currency. Why anyone would want to share a currency with a nation like Zimbabwe is beyond me. Peg their currency to gold, peg it to the US dollar, peg it to hotdogs, it does not matter. Its a disaster and the healthy nations of the world should not get involved with that state.

Bottom-line for me is that the migration to a global currency will drive us to global socialism and decrease OUR standard of living. It will by definition reduce our freedom. Your seeking facts to support something that has yet to occur and therefore impossible to support directly with facts is the hallmark of an emotional post, not one based on solid thought.

Finally, your comment about conservatives and them being selfish. Grow up. That is the same, old liberal diatribe that all of us who value freedom and the individual over the government have been hearing for years. It's old. Its tired and it is yet another typical liberal, emotional response to an argument.

Hey - if you are really interested and that keen on a global currency, why not convert your entire retirement savings to that stellar example and convert them to Zimbabwe Rands? If you don't think thats a good idea, ask yourself why, my friend. Ask yourself why.

Originally posted by deepwoods
Thanks folks, these replies are along the lines of my thought process as well. I agree it does sound like a good idea. But its just a matter of who is in control of that money. the way I understand it the "fed" isn't actually the federal government or is sort of a quasi government agency. So don't we have something similar now, where the bankers are in control of the currency? -- Isn't the IMF already in control?
(If there are other threads regarding this please feel free to post the links to help us understand)

You gotta ask an even deeper question? Who exactly is the IMF? It's the Rothschild family and their entire cabal. It is said that as of today, they own approximately 1/2 of the wealth of this planet. But they want it all, and a one world currency will ensure that they get the other half. Then they own you as well. That is not an exaggeration, they will literally own you and rule you.

This is not a good idea for you and me. It's a great idea for the black pigs who already own the Fed, and look what they've done to us with that institution alone.

reply to post by Albertarocks



The IMF has a lofty name - think sanitation engineer. It does not really do anything but extract money from countries that have it and give it to poor countries. Thats all it does. It does not control money other than that which is given to it by other countries (which by the way the ruin by placing terms on loans that destroy the very countrys they are seeking to help). The US stiffed the IMF for several years straight under Reagan because they felt they were giving too much dough without terms to potential communists. There may be a global cabal controlling global money (don't think so), but if there was, it would not be something so inept or as public as the IMF.