Should Canada promote the creation of a world currency?

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
Machjo
Should Canada promote the creation of a world currency?

Considering how much money money brokers make as middlemen just buying and selling money but not producing anything of economic value themselves, thus essentially making themselves parasites on society, profitting from other peiole's need to buy foreign currencies by marking up the price and taking a cut for themsevles, could we not make cut this waste by creating a world currency like the EU created the euro?

abnormal

One thing to remember - if a country doesn't have it's own currency it loses much (most?) of its ability to control its own economy - it can't set interest rates which can be a very bad thing if the country in question wants (or needs) to adjust interest rates in a manner that's somehow out of synch with whatever the rest of the world wants.

Doug

We're not ready yet. For a single currency to be practical, a common monetary policy has to be practical. There isn't enough economic integration or similarity throughout the world to make that the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_currency_area

remind remind's picture

"mach"jo is running around babble advocating for a 1 world order and nothing more with his "should Canada" nonsense.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Actually, I'm not sure whether "Machjo" is advocating World Federalism or attempting to imply that Babble and the rest of "the left" advocate it.  The critter does seem a mite fixated on the subject, though.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

Fidel

I think I could support a world government and common currency. Just not with capitalists running the show. The western world already insists on installing their own choice of central bankers, and often in countries with resource wealth and typically former Soviet-friendly or Soviet block nations but not all, and sometimes they are not even nationals of those countries. 

One world currency, I believe, would eliminate global currency speculation responsible for destabilizing developing economies and impoverishing workers when money and peoples' incomes are devalued after global gamblers with herd mentality destroy economies in just a few hours of buying and selling.

But giving up sovereign control of money creation and credit to foreigners and strangers would be handing the reins of the country to someone else. The new power mongers had better be democratically elected and trustworthy to everyone involved. I'm sure Wilf Day, babbling PR gurus et al could figure out how that might work.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Any world government would need to develop a form of world democracy.  This would mean either persuading the large number of nations that currently practice no form of internal electoral democracy to allow real voting in global elections that would inevitably result in policies those countries had adopted forms of dictatorship to prevent, or it would require some sort of concerted effort by somebody to overthrown those states.

I'm not thinking either of those things are gonna happen anytime soon.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________ Our Demands Most Moderate are/ We Only Want The World! -James Connolly

Jacob Two-Two

There's no need for a world currency. It could simplify matters to reduce the number of currencies in the world, but one global currency would create a rigid and unresponsive system, under the dictates of whoever controls the way this currency is implemented. Look at how the US controls the nature of oil production and consumption with their currency as the official petrodollar. Just like in nature, diversity builds strength, and uniformity creates vulnerability.

While we're on this subject, however, I would like to say to the mods that I was interested to hear what people would have to say in the global military force thread that Machjo also started, and didn't think that the discussion should have been closed so hastily. Yes, probably everyone would disagree with it, and on that basis you considered it a done deal conversationally, but for those who feel like it, why can't they have the space to say why they disagree? I understand why a number of topics are off-limits on babble, but I don't see why a global military should be among them.

 

Acadieman

I think it already exists!  If you go on the IMF website, they are called Special Drawing Rights.  They come in handy if you have ever lost your luggage on an ICAO/IATA international flight and need to file a claim.

http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/sdr.HTM

 

 

mybabble

I recommend mojo try another world because this world isn't ready for a one world order. 

mybabble

Money is money and Swiss money can get you Canadian money and Canadian money can get you American money but just not as much of it.  I do believe your headed in the right direction but the money isn't the problem so much as what the money can buy you as everyone is looking for more bank for the buck for better word for the ruble.  But mostly People need to feel confident the systems put into place to ensure their investments are relatively safe from fraud and deceit are up and running and then you will see some real action.   Its also helps if there is a safety net in place as people less likely to fear the unthinkable.  And throw in a couple Regulations for luck. 

Anyways these guys need to knock their heads together and see what they come up with and the sooner the better as world trade gets the money flowing into a stream of global prosperity as countries not only trade their trinkets and bombs and their services but the more countires trade together and invest in each others countries and businesses the less likely they are to blow each other up.   Did I say guys meant Leaders but now thinking back there sure aren't to many women at the helm but that is changing.  Hilary Clinton sure is doing a bank up job and if she keeps this up the future holds many possiblities as countires not only share their wealth but their wealth of knowledge. 

You will see more of a global workforce as workers will go where the employment is and when its finished return home.  America has the most money in its banks and the greatest number of Billionaires.  Russia took second place as prior to the meltdown Russia had the greatest wealth in her banks and the greatest number of Billionaires. 

Machjo

abnormal wrote:
One thing to remember - if a country doesn't have it's own currency it loses much (most?) of its ability to control its own economy - it can't set interest rates which can be a very bad thing if the country in question wants (or needs) to adjust interest rates in a manner that's somehow out of synch with whatever the rest of the world wants.

 

Perhaps, but this applies not only to countries but to regions too. To take an example, many Scotts support the EU as it essentially ensures that all groups are a minority in it. There simply is no majority. Whereas with an independent UK, the English are a clear majority.

The same could apply to any country. If we had a more integrated system, it would essentially make all groups a minority on such a scale, thus giving more voice to what would strictly be dominated minorities in sovereign states, but who would be equal minorities on a larger scale. Loss of some sovereignty is not necessarily a bad thing as long as it's on equal terms and that as integrated as the system might be, that political power remain decentralized.

Machjo

remind wrote:
"mach"jo is running around babble advocating for a 1 world order and nothing more with his "should Canada" nonsense.
Thanks for your very constructive contribution to the thread.

Machjo

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, I'm not sure whether "Machjo" is advocating World Federalism or attempting to imply that Babble and the rest of "the left" advocate it.  The critter does seem a mite fixated on the subject, though.

 Just to clarify:

 1. Though I support the idea of a decentralized world federation, 'advocate' might be too strong a word for the purpose of this thread. Since I'm still not too familiar with you all, and am still not yet clear on various definitions or understandings of the term 'progressive' as used in these threads, I'd decided to just through these questions out as ways to get to know you all. Some might disagree with some legitimate and well thought out arguments. Some might agree. Some might agree in part. And some might disagree with no lear understanding themselves of why? All of these positions are fine. I'm just testing the waters before I dive in on future threads to avoid igniting any future bombs in these threads as I'd unwittingly done before.

Machjo

Ken Burch wrote:

Actually, I'm not sure whether "Machjo" is advocating World Federalism or attempting to imply that Babble and the rest of "the left" advocate it.  The critter does seem a mite fixated on the subject, though.

 Just to clarify:

 1. Though I support the idea of a decentralized world federation, 'advocate' might be too strong a word for the purpose of this thread. Since I'm still not too familiar with you all, and am still not yet clear on various definitions or understandings of the term 'progressive' as used in these threads, I'd decided to just through these questions out as ways to get to know you all. Some might disagree with some legitimate and well thought out arguments. Some might agree. Some might agree in part. And some might disagree with no lear understanding themselves of why? All of these positions are fine. I'm just testing the waters before I dive in on future threads to avoid igniting any future bombs in these threads as I'd unwittingly done before.

Machjo

Fidel wrote:

I think I could support a world government and common currency. Just not with capitalists running the show. The western world already insists on installing their own choice of central bankers, and often in countries with resource wealth and typically former Soviet-friendly or Soviet block nations but not all, and sometimes they are not even nationals of those countries. 

One world currency, I believe, would eliminate global currency speculation responsible for destabilizing developing economies and impoverishing workers when money and peoples' incomes are devalued after global gamblers with herd mentality destroy economies in just a few hours of buying and selling.

But giving up sovereign control of money creation and credit to foreigners and strangers would be handing the reins of the country to someone else. The new power mongers had better be democratically elected and trustworthy to everyone involved. I'm sure Wilf Day, babbling PR gurus et al could figure out how that might work.

Interesting. Though I lean more towards capitalism than socialism, I'm also opposed to extreme capitalism, and I would probably prefer a world currency under a decentralized moderately socialist government than to continue wasting money on what we might call 'currency welfare' (i.e. wasting money on the salaries of currency speculators), which is obviously inefficient as it produces nothing of economic value, but merely increases the cost to consumers, including the poor who might need to purchase something from abroad. Having said that, I would still prefer a world currency under a moderately capitalist government. I'm just saying though that if it was a choice between a world currency under a moderately socialist government and a continuation of myriad currencies under capitalist ones, then I'd opt for a world currency under a moderately socialist government.

Machjo

Ken Burch wrote:

Any world government would need to develop a form of world democracy.  This would mean either persuading the large number of nations that currently practice no form of internal electoral democracy to allow real voting in global elections that would inevitably result in policies those countries had adopted forms of dictatorship to prevent, or it would require some sort of concerted effort by somebody to overthrown those states.

I'm not thinking either of those things are gonna happen anytime soon.

As an incrementalist myself, I'd have no qualms about Canada sharing a common currency with similar nations, such as joining the Euro-zone for example. It would still be a step in the right direction by at least removing one more currency from the list, and thus if not eliminating completely, at least shrinking the current money market somewhat. The unemployed currency speculators this would create could then be re-educated to do other more constructive work. I don't see why the move towards a world currency would have to be done in a one-step process, unless one opposed incrementalism for some reason.

Machjo

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

There's no need for a world currency. It could simplify matters to reduce the number of currencies in the world, but one global currency would create a rigid and unresponsive system, under the dictates of whoever controls the way this currency is implemented. Look at how the US controls the nature of oil production and consumption with their currency as the official petrodollar. Just like in nature, diversity builds strength, and uniformity creates vulnerability.

Then why not reduce the number of world currencies? Think of the schools we could fund with the money saved from 'currency speculation' welfare. 

Jacob Two-two wrote:

While we're on this subject, however, I would like to say to the mods that I was interested to hear what people would have to say in the global military force thread that Machjo also started, and didn't think that the discussion should have been closed so hastily. Yes, probably everyone would disagree with it, and on that basis you considered it a done deal conversationally, but for those who feel like it, why can't they have the space to say why they disagree? I understand why a number of topics are off-limits on babble, but I don't see why a global military should be among them.

I agree. My idea was simply that for every nation to have its own military force is just too expensive. Imagine, let's say, that every nation had a military force of 100,000 well-trained and equipped men. Multiply that by about 300 countries and we'd have about 30,000,000 well-trained and equipped me. That's lot's of money that could otherwise be diverted to helping the poor. Now let's say we shared a military force of, let's say, a maximum of 100,000 well-trained and equipped men for the world. That would mean considerable demilitarization, major savings in money, freeing up labour that could otherwise be used to more productive ends, and more freedom on the part of governments to decentralize. After all, as long as each nation is militarized, strong central governments are required to defend the national borders. With a common world military force, governments could gradually demilitarize as they gain faith in this force's abilityty to defend them, thus allowing them to transfer more power to local governments rather than the current extreme centralization national govenments require today.

The money saved from this could help the poor too. In my mind, sacrificing some level of sovereignty for the common good and world peace would seem worthwhile and progressive, or at least more so than supporting continued military welfare on such a large scale worldwide, along with the currency welfare, which puts quite a burden on the peoples of the world. Why not help to eliminate this burden? Why insist on such militarism and nationalism?

 

Machjo

And even a world military could be implemented incrementally. For example, why not an EU force?