Sebastian Helenius

This conversation is closed.

A Single World Currency and a World Central Bank - For or Against?

The debate is in the headline. Any opinions?

  • Aug 22 2012: Take a look at the Euro Zone, Germany (the mega bailer), Green, Spain (failed states), UK (smirking observer).

    Need I say more?

    No.
  • Aug 21 2012: I think establishing such a currency would be really a difficult if it's not an impossible process , many questions would arise.
    1- would it be possible to convince the First World and Second World countries to distribute a part of their economy power to the Third World countries ? ( the Arabian Peninsula countries (about 7) are having plans to unify their currency since years , and they didn't apply it yet.
    2-Is it possible to ensure that the currency would have the same power overall the world (i.e. unified prices?)
    3-Is it possible to protect it against counterfeiting over this large space ?
    Those questions are from me as a simple person , not from the economical domain , which of course would have many many comments about this , so i think establishing such an idea is very difficult.
  • thumb
    Aug 19 2012: there is a trend going on for hundreds of centuries. it all started with fractional reserve banking. as the establishment sided with it, and banks were free to overissue notes without risking criminal charges, the world's descent into madness began. at the first stage of madness, bank runs ended the local credit expansion of individual banks. the threat of a bank run put a limit on expansion. soon, the banks sought remedy for bank runs. the solution was the central bank, the second stage of madness. with the central bank, entire countries were able to expand the amount of notes and lower the reserve ratio in a synchronized fashion. together with government guarantees, the era of bank runs ended, and the era of continued inflation arrived. but there still is a limit to inflation, and that is the competition between currencies. so as expected, governments now seek ways to put an end to currency competition or ultimately synchronize their credit expansion. competition limiting laws are in effect in every country. and central banks everywhere on the globe put great effort in synchronized inflation. but sooner or later that system can not be maintained anymore. and at this point we need to get to the third level of madness: unifying all the currencies. then, with competition perfectly excluded, the world will be finally set for the great collapse of the entire monetary system. the final bank run. we don't know whether this final stage will be reached, or the system will fail before that. but the tendency is clear.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: Agreed! Now if we could just create a cushion for the economy before its ultimate collapse? New World Order?
  • Aug 19 2012: Sounds good to me. At last we can acknowledge that we are all EARTHLINGS, first and foremost. Perhaps this would increase respect for others and bring peace to the world. Sure. Let's go. Just make sure it's designed and run by ethical people. There are lots of them on our precious planet, though few nations seem to use these valuable human resources in managing their countries. I wonder why.
  • Aug 26 2012: But the George Could it be kicked out of the zero zone? Could happ[en.
  • Aug 24 2012: Impossible, and kind of a waste of time/energy to think about.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: First of all, it would be too hard to implement in the status quo.
    Secondly, Just like "Changing The World" said, the importance of diversity will be forgotten.
    And lastly, I am afraid that another economic crisis will inevitably happen, one that nobody will have a solution to.
  • Aug 24 2012: It would indeed be the death of nation states as we know them. Just as the Euro is struggling to manage a central currency without a central government so too would the world. Star Ship Troopers here we come!

    I fear a single currency would lead inevitably to a world government. Values, culture, etc would all mold into one. I guess we are already doing all of this, I don't like it. I think diversity is important.
  • thumb
    Aug 24 2012: Isn't this what the NWO is about? One ring to rule them all?
  • Aug 24 2012: Until you don't have a vibrant sustainable local communities it just doesn't make sense to create a unified global front.
    Also who would be responsible for managing contagion when all hell breaks loose? Centralization or Concentration of power for a long time of any kind have created havoc doesn't matter even if the smartest human or mortal is running the show.
  • Aug 23 2012: I would say against, for the one soul reason that elite countries would be in control of this world bank and currency. I could help developing countries with infrastructure. But it could also impose harsh restrictions to certain countries or tough laws about the money.
  • Aug 23 2012: Banks are in existence to make money for bankers. Banks are and always have been a fraud to the people. Money, like oil, is the problem not the solution.
    • thumb
      Aug 23 2012: 3 claims, 3 of them wrong. in a way, it is perfect.

      banks exists because people demand their services. if people did not demand their services, banks could be as greedy as they want, they could not make a single dime. if they give people what they demand, it does not matter if they are greedy or not. just like with any other business.

      banks are not fraud, they have many legitimate services. one can say that fractional reserve is fraud, but it was not always allowed for them.

      oil is not a problem, but a very useful commodity, just as money.
      • Aug 23 2012: People demand their service because there are little other ways of survival with out money. Its a cycle that can't be broken by 1 or even 1,000,000. And I would agree it is their business to manage their money the way they seem fit after all they are the professionals, but where there is a lot of money, there is a lot of power too. Weather it be Political influence or means of investing to make more money. Because we all know if you have money (a lot of money) and you gamble in the stock market and fail, you just get a bail out. (obviously not true for all companies but certainly true for some).

        I also agree banks aren't a fraud.

        And oil inst a major problem but basing an economy on a fossil fuel is a problem because of the simple fact that some time in the future it will run out. And according to a quick google search it sounds like we have already passed peak oil.
      • Aug 23 2012: Which government controls the World Bank Group?
      • Aug 24 2012: Ya, I was really talking about central banks such as in the topic. I'm not going to go into a ton of detials because it is easily researched but tell me how this thinking is wrong. In the US the Federal Reserve prints money for Congress and charges them interest for this "service". We can never repay this money because they only print the principle, not the interest. This turns money into debt and is a drag on the economy.

        I stand by my comment about banks being made to fraud people, heck the only people Jesus ever got made at where bankers.
        • thumb
          Aug 24 2012: yet again, a "student" of the zeitgeist movie.

          i can't possibly know what you have in mind. i can only react to what you are saying. you said banks, not central banks. central banks are called banks, but they are totally different kind of institutions.

          interest has nothing to do with money creation, and in fact not a problem at all. it does not matter if the central bank charges interest, because 1, you don't have to borrow from the central bank and 2, its revenues are going to the central budget, they don't keep it.

          banks do nothing fraudulent these days. governments do, but it is a weird situation as they do it by the ignorant authorization of the people.

          v.p./zeitgeist is stupid. avoid a all cost. if you want to learn how banking works, read murray rothabard's mystery of banking. available for free in pdf format.
  • Aug 23 2012: Having such a system requires many nations to give up some control over there economies to a multinational institution that will cater to the interests of larger nations.
    It may be a good idea on a regional level where all members are significant trade partners and enjoy a similar level of human and economic development.
  • Aug 22 2012: while a standard currency world wide would be great for various industries, certain ones (specifically tourism) rely on their currency being weak, and to force them to go into a single currency could be disastrous for them
    • thumb
      Aug 23 2012: if tourism relies on weak currency, how can there be tourism within a country?
      • Aug 24 2012: I meant foreign travel, like from Canada/US to Mexico.

        Tourism within a country often relys on physical characteristics (mountains, beaches, historical sites) that are harder to find where the person is originally from, or where family is located
        • thumb
          Aug 24 2012: just like all other tourism is. you fell for the lies of an interest group. of course those who rely on tourists wants weak currency to further increase their revenue. but they don't need it. they just lament in hope to get some more cash. everyone does that. interest groups try to paint a grim picture of their future unless the state rushes to help them out.
  • Aug 22 2012: I see a World Currency as the grand goal we should try to achieve. This doesn't mean we should shoot for it now. In fact it would be extremely foolish to do so. Therefore the real question should be this;

    What should we do NOW to create steps to achieving World Currency?
    • Aug 22 2012: thats easy, first you consolidate areas, for example the europeans have already started the process, then you keep growing each currency until it comes to a point where it does not make sense anymore to have separate currencies
  • Aug 22 2012: Against. I think the Euro experiiment has shown that countries need to have control of their currency in order to flourish.
  • thumb
    Aug 21 2012: S H, one thought: I guess there are pros and cons to a global currency.

    I'm not sure what is so bad with the current system overall. There are transaction fees and currency fluctuation risks, but those risks are part of doing business.

    I guess Greece would be doing better if they could have devalued their currency like Argentina did.
  • Aug 21 2012: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
    "don't want to dilute my competitive dollar"----"you need to have 'one economy" managed consistently"

    "a unified currency standard would create a much easier way of tracking global economic progress/regression"
    "the banking system that drives the world economy may not be the most effective-----it provides an easy medium for capital to flow in and out....."I could easily exchange my American currency for any I please and with up to date rates" :) :(
    " Now, if someone could convince a high ranking political official....." ha ha ha ha ha
    "There will be no "New World Order" or global "mark of the Beast" in our lifetimes" and things will just continue on as they are with no collapse in the economy :,)
    "3-Is it possible to protect it against counterfeiting over this large space ?" NO. Money, any money, causes greed and crime because one can gain power, privacy and privilege. People do things they wouldn't do because of money. IT IS NOT HUMAN NATURE. (sorry, not really yelling)
    "I think the best we can hope for is free-floating market-driven exchange rates between currencies and something akin to a Geneva Convention establishing some common principles for economic standards and regulations. (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha) Even that is likely something not to be achieved in the next couple of decades."

    Hope is not real. Let's keep money. Let's keep all our problems and in fact let's double them, or even triple them because I cannot envision, NO,no, no, I refuse to envision a different world without them and I refuse to give up what we have and are so familiar with.

    Nothing here that doesn't revolve around wanting to keep the monetary system even though it is so blatantly unfair, unjust, completely broken, failing rapidly and with nothing new being talked about to replace it.
    When it goes, you will take what they give you.
    • Aug 21 2012: Are you going to actually propose a solution, support your argument, or simply mock others on their views? Because it's not exactly productive to do the latter.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Aug 21 2012: The current global economic model is a barbaric and unsustainable system. I'm very against any economic paradigm that requires poverty, war, suffering, hunger, illness, ignorance, crime, and other social ills to support it.
  • thumb
    Aug 21 2012: I think a world central bank would only tolerate the existence of only one country, or one culture.

    Against.
  • thumb
    Aug 21 2012: I'd like to keep the Aussie dollar away from other currencies.
    Not sure I want to dilute our competitive advantage etc.
    It might sound selfish but what is in it for us.

    I bet the Brits are pleased they didn't buy into the euro. The Germans must be spewing.

    At the very least you need to have 'one economy" managed consistently to have one currency, otherwise you have the risk of the European Fiasco.

    And maybe the most effective economic approach is not one world government/economy.
  • Aug 21 2012: I find this question to bring up several points that need to be touched upon.

    First off, with economic instabilities across the world stage, a unified currency standard would create a much easier way of tracking global economic progress/regression. However, even in that case, the division of wealth between countries would be too great to overcome due to the inconsistency in a standard that one could measure upon. For example, what is to say that an apple grown in Chile has the same economic impact as an apple grown in the United States? And, therefore, would create an inadequate indicator.

    Second, though the banking system that drives the world economy may not be the most effective, it does provide an easy medium for capital to flow in and out of international markets. With exchange rates fluctuating every millisecond due to the fast paced world market, I could easily exchange my American currency for any I please and with up to date rates.

    Finally, and this is the nail in the coffin for me, there is no way that this proposition would ever gain ground upon any stage. Ignoring the current Eurozone crisis, it goes to primary human nature. As the realm of psychological egotism clearly defines, human beings are only motivated by self interest. Politicians have their country's interests at heart and, in the case of a democratic republic such as the United States, those officials have gained that power due to their views coinciding with those of the voting populous. Now, if someone could convince a high ranking political official, say the Prime Minister of the U.K., that the currency of the world is based on both the economy of their country and that of a Third World nation, I could see this idea work. Unfortunately, this would devalue that country and, in the process, kill the idea.

    It's a great idea for a Utopian society; sadly, the closest this world has seen to Utopia is that of which Sir Thomas Moore wrote. And that, ladies and gentleman, was fiction.
  • thumb
    Aug 21 2012: Ben Shalom Bernanke for

    Me against
  • Aug 21 2012: There would be no more monetary policy for any country... against.
  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: against.
  • Aug 20 2012: Doesn't matter, we will all get screwed ether why.
  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: On paper, yes. I would advocate for a single currency, with a single "system" to govern its development. However, contrary to a few of the comments on this discussion, I don't see any practical way this will happen in the foreseeable future. There will be no "New World Order" or global "mark of the Beast" in our lifetimes. There is no secret UN plan or capability to create a world government, with a world economy run by a single small group of world leaders. As such, there will be no world currency or world central bank.

    The Eurozone can't even get 10% of the world's countries, with a comparatively common set of cultural principles, to put aside their national interests and cooperate for the long term in creating an economy with a single governing body and currency.

    Who is going to get countries as disparate as China, the U.S., Brazil, Greece, Nigeria, and Iran to agree to such a scheme? The negotiations about the logistics of the pre-meetings to initial concept meetings that must precede a meeting of those with the power to negotiate who will represent their countries at the real planning meetings will take years. The world is not unified enough in any respect to accomplish something so bold as a single currency, with a single governing body, much less a world government.

    I think the best we can hope for is free-floating market-driven exchange rates between currencies and something akin to a Geneva Convention establishing some common principles for economic standards and regulations. Even that is likely something not to be achieved in the next couple of decades.
  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: I think Europe shows that you can't have a single world currency unless you also have a single fiscal manager and a single body controlling industrial relations. Otherwise you would end up with (Greece and Germany) situations world wide. Sounds like a good way to start world war three to me.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: So a solution would be to have a domestic currency for any nation (nation chooses their own domestic currency) and then an international currency managed by a single fiscal manager or at least panel of managers?
      • thumb
        Aug 20 2012: That's basically what we have now. You do international business in either USD or Euros as a quasi-international currency as they are (or were) attached to an old stable economy. Now we may have to pick something else. Yuan perhaps?
        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: Swiss Franc! Of course it's interesting watching the Swiss try everything in the book to keep people from giving their currency too much attention.
      • thumb
        Aug 21 2012: Yes the mythical Swiss Franc from that mythical land that seems to have a massive economy all based on cuckoo clocks or something, no one seems to really know. Swtzerland it disappears if you look directly at it.
  • thumb
    Aug 20 2012: That would put a few number of people in control of a large population. Kind of scary if you ask me. However if done correctly it could mitigate a number of problems. Though, look at how well the central bank of the U.S. does. It's a pretty tricky business and in my opinion, there's not much you can do to effectively control economics (at least not by using the oversimplified and "rational" modals economists tend to gravitate towards)
  • Aug 19 2012: Sebastian, by "headline" are you referring to the stories about the Euro and its struggles?

    The Euro is teaching us that a stable currency requires ALL of the countries involved to exercise fiscal discipline.

    That prospect is not realistic in the foreseeable future, if ever.
    • thumb
      Aug 20 2012: Yes discipline is most certainly required.

      The Euro is failing, in my opinion, because it is run these days by, well, Germany mostly. There is very little cohesion.

      I enjoy the vision of two forms of currency - one for the domestic market, managed by the Nation, and one for the global market, managed by the World Central Bank. Micro, Meso, Macro.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Aug 19 2012: I imagine this World Central Bank would operate under the observation of some global democracy/technocracy of united nations. Perhaps a Committee such as in the General Assembly of the UN, which would elect a panel of leaders to represent the bank over a period of, say, 4 years?

      Clearly a single individual nation cannot represent an international organization.

      Debate as to what this currency might be based upon and how to construct such a bank remains open.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: Yes I agree on the "What wealth really is" conundrum.

          Secondly, an organization ''like'' the UN but in control of the wealth of the world? If you think about it that would make such an organization the one and only superpower.
    • thumb
      Aug 19 2012: if it happens, i suspect the USA will be one of the main promoters of the idea, and one of the main controller of the world currency. that gives us the hope that it will never happen, not on china's watch anyway.
  • thumb
    Aug 19 2012: Hi Sebastian.

    Revelation 13:16-17 (KJV)
    And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: [17] And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    Common (virtual) World Currency is in the pipeline. It will do away with all fiscal fraud, & allow the World Government to keep a tight reign on things. Politicians will love it, but I'm not in favour.

    :-)
    • thumb
      Aug 19 2012: And is this currency based upon Gold Exchange Standard? Otherwise how have they formatted such an idea?
      • thumb
        Aug 19 2012: Hi Sebastian.
        I think maybe I was a bit confusing; perhaps English is not your native tongue, I apologise.
        The quotation is from the bible; written around 90AD. It tells of conditions near the end of history. There will be an attempt to form a world government with a world currency. This will be partially successful; including around 1/3 of the population. Many think the plastic card system is a precursor to such a system, but ultimately the population will be permanently tagged; perhaps with a microchip. The technology is available today, & it is obvious that the banking system is bankrupt, & corrupt. Things are coming to a head as prophecied.
        I doubt that the gold standard will return, the new regime is unlikely to want to be encumbered by such an honest & fair control system. For many the bible is just a collection of dusty old books, but for those who take the time, it is full of interesting insight.

        :-)
        • thumb
          Aug 20 2012: Peter, please note that your interpretation of the book of Revelation is one of several, and many (including myself) consider it a historical prophecy pointing to the downfall of the Roman empire after the emperor Domitian during the time of John. As such, it would be irrelevant to this discussion.
      • thumb
        Aug 21 2012: Hi Eric.
        I agree, there are lots of interpretations. Many go with you, many go with me, still others go elsewhere.
        IF I happen to be right, then it is very relevant, if not it isn't. Such is life.

        :-)