One World Money System ?

Godfather.

I had mentioned on another thread I thought I saw something on the news about it.....maybe
so looked it up on Google and there is a ton of stuff on it, any thoughts ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/curr ... ollar.html


Godfather.

usamamasan1

fuck that.

Godfather.

usamamasan1 wrote:

fuck that.

agreed.

Godfather.

DriftingByTheStorm

It actually makes a lot of sense.

And the Foreign Exchange market is one of the biggest inefficiencies in the modern global marketplace.
The notion of regional and national currencies also inherently sets up the stage for exploitative capitalism. The flow of dollars from areas of dollar surplus to those areas of dollar shortage is one of the primary mechanisms that the western world has used to exploit the undeveloped world. Essentially we take advantage of the fact that extremely poor countries are desperate for "dollars".

There is also a lot to be said for the Global Equity inherent in the notion that every country would be on a level playing field. It would be parity by default, which would be great for those still developing nations whose own currencies are worth nothing, and who thus suffer at their inability to transact effective trade.

I have (if you can't tell) recently started to wholeheartedly embrace "one world order" "one world sytem" and "one world currency". If we are talking about GLOBAL equity, this is the first true step towards it.

PS - here is an article about Keynes' original "Bancor" (one world money) plan, and some follow up "updates" and modifications: Bancor Plan and Updates

inlet13

Would the money be backed by anything?

DriftingByTheStorm

inlet13 wrote:

Would the money be backed by anything?

Gold was Keynes' notion.

This is a PDF of the section of the 2009 UN Report from whence the article Godfather linked was based upon: Reform of the International monetary and Financial System

I'm definitely still skimming\reading this, but so far, i've found the following, inlet:

UN Paper wrote:

The new global reserve system could be built on the existing system of SDRs (Akyüz, 2009). One possibility is for countries to agree to exchange their own currencies for the new currency, so that the global currency would be backed by a basket of currencies of all the members.

All though this is still talking about a "reserve currency" not an outright disappearance of local currency and the use of a One World Money in ordinary transactions. To be clear, I'm not even sure that is part of this current discussion at all. They seem to be more concerned with Forex problems, Current Account problems, etc.

[another edit] ... and to that point:

UN wrote:

A fundamental question to be resolved at the outset would be what purpose the SDR as the main medium of international liquidity should fulfil. For example, would it be used for clearing among central banks or could it also be used by the private sector?

Godfather.

I don't see it happening the change that it would take to make it happen is huge and there would be more to it than everyone sharing the same dollar, for instance counterfitting...with all the nations of the world using the same plates to make money don't you think that the temptation to print of a few extra sheets of money might be just a bit much ? ...shit there was or is a counterfiter in china that was making what is called "super notes"
dang neer perfect $100 bills and the chinese government has or had their hand in the kitty as well so I say no there is just too much risk.

Godfather.

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Would the money be backed by anything?

Gold was Keynes' notion.

This is a PDF of the section of the 2009 UN Report from whence the article Godfather linked was based upon: Reform of the International monetary and FinancIal System

I'm not talking about Keynes.

P.S. If you didn't know this by now, I really, really really dislike Keynes.

DriftingByTheStorm

inlet13 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Would the money be backed by anything?

Gold was Keynes' notion.

This is a PDF of the section of the 2009 UN Report from whence the article Godfather linked was based upon: Reform of the International monetary and FinancIal System

I'm not talking about Keynes.

P.S. If you didn't know this by now, I really, really really dislike Keynes.

re read above. i edited it.
and, yeh. i know your take.

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

re read above. i edited it.
and, yeh. i know your take.

Ok. I read your summary. I don't think I like it then. We need the system backed by something tangible that acts as a true unit of account, store of value, medium of exchange. Otherwise, I think this could be quite pointless.

Printing money, be it here or abroad - is still printing money.

DriftingByTheStorm

Ok so.
It is REALLY complicated, but this proposal is NOT for a global money system for YOU AND ME.
It is about creating an "artificial currency" to address problems with the Balance of Payments system currently in use (current & capital accounts) ... and is primarily aimed at resolving global crisis BETWEEN COUNTRIES without further exacerbating conditions in anyone country. It is trying to stop damaging inflows and outflows of the real currency of any one country in a crisis by relegating those inflows\outflows to a "artificial currency" that can be used instead.

Like i said it is pretty complicated, and parts of it are over my head\desire to understand ... but they are NOT talking about a new World Dollar that you would use at 7-Eleven.

At least, not yet.
:P

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Ok so.
It is REALLY complicated, but this proposal is NOT for a global money system for YOU AND ME.
It is about creating an "artificial currency" to address problems with the Balance of Payments system currently in use (current & capital accounts) ... and is primarily aimed at resolving global crisis BETWEEN COUNTRIES without further exacerbating conditions in anyone country. It is trying to stop damaging inflows and outflows of the real currency of any one country in a crisis by relegating those inflows\outflows to a "artificial currency" that can be used instead.

Like i said it is pretty complicated, and parts of it are over my head\desire to understand ... but they are NOT talking about a new World Dollar that you would use at 7-Eleven.

At least, not yet.
:P

How does having a "one united states" dollar help a broke US state or US municipality? Just curious.

DriftingByTheStorm

inlet13 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Ok so.
It is REALLY complicated, but this proposal is NOT for a global money system for YOU AND ME.
It is about creating an "artificial currency" to address problems with the Balance of Payments system currently in use (current & capital accounts) ... and is primarily aimed at resolving global crisis BETWEEN COUNTRIES without further exacerbating conditions in anyone country. It is trying to stop damaging inflows and outflows of the real currency of any one country in a crisis by relegating those inflows\outflows to a "artificial currency" that can be used instead.

Like i said it is pretty complicated, and parts of it are over my head\desire to understand ... but they are NOT talking about a new World Dollar that you would use at 7-Eleven.

At least, not yet.
:P

How does having a "one united states" dollar help a broke US state or US municipality? Just curious.

I'm not quite sure what the question really is,
but if you bother trying to read that UN paper on the topic,
the implication is that there are systemic problems involving liquidity and the ability to bail out the effected areas that are caused by regional currencies. Having a single RESERVE currency (that is not ALSO a regional currency: ie. The US Dollar) backing the globe allows for the affected regions to be normalized in a more efficient and less damaging manner.

I have to go to the store, but I'll look this paper over again tonight and try to pull out some succinct answers to what I believe is your posed question.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

re read above. i edited it.
and, yeh. i know your take.

Ok. I read your summary. I don't think I like it then. We need the system backed by something tangible that acts as a true unit of account, store of value, medium of exchange. Otherwise, I think this could be quite pointless.

Printing money, be it here or abroad - is still printing money.

What if whatever money is backed by was also backed by the responsibility taken by individuals and companies to conserve the limited resources of the lone planet we live on as well as factoring into the equation efforts made by said individuals and companies to produce durable goods with said limited resources?

I'm not sure how that would work but I'm confident that those of you with greater economic prowess could find a way to incorporate that kind of responsibility into money matters.

While you're at it, would you please find a way to more equitably distribute money? The whole money distribution thing is a disgrace. Most of the people who work the hardest make the least and too many of those who can't work are left with almost nothing.

The only one world money system that exists in the world-wide money clusterfuck.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

While you're at it, would you please find a way to more equitably distribute money? .

Seems to be quite a socialistic/communistic concept here, Brian. Not that it has much to do with the thread's topic though.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

While you're at it, would you please find a way to more equitably distribute money? .

Seems to be quite a socialistic/communistic concept here, Brian. Not that it has much to do with the thread's topic though.

It was an aside. I said, "while you're at it".

Besides, that's "Kenyan Socialist Marxist Pink Elephant" to you, buddy!

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Ok so.
It is REALLY complicated, but this proposal is NOT for a global money system for YOU AND ME.
It is about creating an "artificial currency" to address problems with the Balance of Payments system currently in use (current & capital accounts) ... and is primarily aimed at resolving global crisis BETWEEN COUNTRIES without further exacerbating conditions in anyone country. It is trying to stop damaging inflows and outflows of the real currency of any one country in a crisis by relegating those inflows\outflows to a "artificial currency" that can be used instead.

Like i said it is pretty complicated, and parts of it are over my head\desire to understand ... but they are NOT talking about a new World Dollar that you would use at 7-Eleven.

At least, not yet.
:P

How does having a "one united states" dollar help a broke US state or US municipality? Just curious.

I'm not quite sure what the question really is,
but if you bother trying to read that UN paper on the topic,
the implication is that there are systemic problems involving liquidity and the ability to bail out the effected areas that are caused by regional currencies. Having a single RESERVE currency (that is not ALSO a regional currency: ie. The US Dollar) backing the globe allows for the affected regions to be normalized in a more efficient and less damaging manner.

I have to go to the store, but I'll look this paper over again tonight and try to pull out some succinct answers to what I believe is your posed question.

At the end of the day, the problems in this area typically come back to debt and revenues. That's kinda my point. Sticking on my theme, in the US we share a currency - let's pretend the world is only the US for arguments sake - if a US state goes broke, let's say they go to the US government for a bailout (akin to a country receiving assistance from the world currency). Having the same currency, doesn't solve the issue of the state going broke, nor does it solve the issue that the US is still having to pay them (which adds to debt).

If the US government, in this example, is also kinda broke, they may just take on more debt to bailout that said state. This is exactly what's happening now.

It's just extended to a multitude of states/countries/industries. I'm not really one who's super anti-one world currency, mind you. I'm simply pointing out that the problems we have now aren't due to different currency denominations. It's due to spending too much and taking on too much debt.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

While you're at it, would you please find a way to more equitably distribute money? .

Seems to be quite a socialistic/communistic concept here, Brian. Not that it has much to do with the thread's topic though.

It was an aside. I said, "while you're at it".

Besides, that's "Kenyan Socialist Marxist Pink Elephant" to you, buddy!

Said it before - I'll say it again. I notice a consistent theme with the super-duper global warming alarmists - they tend to be socialists/communists at heart. Global warming could be a way to gain entry into regulatory matters and increase that goal. Most in here, who fall in to that line of environmental thinking, such as yourself, seem to make statements on occasion that seem consistent with that theory. But, that's for another thread I suppose.

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

brianlux wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Seems to be quite a socialistic/communistic concept here, Brian. Not that it has much to do with the thread's topic though.

It was an aside. I said, "while you're at it".

Besides, that's "Kenyan Socialist Marxist Pink Elephant" to you, buddy!

Said it before - I'll say it again. I notice a consistent theme with the super-duper global warming alarmists - they tend to be socialists/communists at heart. Global warming could be a way to gain entry into regulatory matters and increase that goal. Most in here, who fall in to that line of environmental thinking, such as yourself, seem to make statements on occasion that seem consistent with that theory. But, that's for another thread I suppose.

"super-duper"...
golley gee and aww shucks! :P

"alarmist"...
...
...



"...they tend to be socialists/communists at heart. Global warming could be a way to gain entry into regulatory matters and increase that goal."

Jawohl!!


You're hittin' on 8 today, inlet!

MotoDC

inlet13 wrote:

At the end of the day, the problems in this area typically come back to debt and revenues. That's kinda my point. Sticking on my theme, in the US we share a currency - let's pretend the world is only the US for arguments sake - if a US state goes broke, let's say they go to the US government for a bailout (akin to a country receiving assistance from the world currency). Having the same currency, doesn't solve the issue of the state going broke, nor does it solve the issue that the US is still having to pay them (which adds to debt).

If the US government, in this example, is also kinda broke, they may just take on more debt to bailout that said state. This is exactly what's happening now.

It's just extended to a multitude of states/countries/industries. I'm not really one who's super anti-one world currency, mind you. I'm simply pointing out that the problems we have now aren't due to different currency denominations. It's due to spending too much and taking on too much debt.

See I think you kinda nailed in there, inlet, except for the part where you don't make it evident that the result you describe is in fact the underlying goal of the whole exercise -- the forced semblance of equality that Brian alluded to. Just as in your example, where the broke state has the US Federal Govt to bail them out, in this new monetary approach, third world country XYZ has all the richer countries to bail them out. Personally I think a more apt example is the European Union, with its myriad national fiscal policies overlaid by (theoretically) one EU monetary policy, but tomato tomato. Greece makes an accident on the rug, Germany scoops the poop and attempts to dictate the terms.

Personally I think it's well within Germany's right to dictate terms, given the situation, but one could also say that it sheds light on what will really happen with the one world currency/monetary policy -- the haves will still have and will still dictate terms to the have nots. It could even exacerbate the situation. Which of course plays nicely back into NWO conspiracy theories, I'll readily admit.

MotoDC

inlet13 wrote:

Said it before - I'll say it again. I notice a consistent theme with the super-duper global warming alarmists - they tend to be socialists/communists at heart. Global warming could be a way to gain entry into regulatory matters and increase that goal. Most in here, who fall in to that line of environmental thinking, such as yourself, seem to make statements on occasion that seem consistent with that theory. But, that's for another thread I suppose.

I think it makes perfect sense. <Large generalizations that make MotoDC feel comfortable incoming>...

They tend to see capitalism (which they of course equate with consumerism and the mindless greed it implies) as the ultimate source of man's excesses and thus his untoward impact on the earth. In addition, a controlled economy is, well, much easier to control. If only they could control it for the good of nature, then whatever sacrifice of freedom that was made along the way would be well worth it.

brianlux

MotoDC wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Said it before - I'll say it again. I notice a consistent theme with the super-duper global warming alarmists - they tend to be socialists/communists at heart. Global warming could be a way to gain entry into regulatory matters and increase that goal. Most in here, who fall in to that line of environmental thinking, such as yourself, seem to make statements on occasion that seem consistent with that theory. But, that's for another thread I suppose.

I think it makes perfect sense. <Large generalizations that make MotoDC feel comfortable incoming>...

They tend to see capitalism (which they of course equate with consumerism and the mindless greed it implies) as the ultimate source of man's excesses and thus his untoward impact on the earth. In addition, a controlled economy is, well, much easier to control. If only they could control it for the good of nature, then whatever sacrifice of freedom that was made along the way would be well worth it.

The control (I prefer the term "restraint") should be for the good of human's as well because nature bats last.

What do you mean by "freedom"? If by that you mean the unrestrained freedom to take whatever we want from the earth that provides for us then don't we exercise that freedom at our own inevitable peril? I don't understand an economic philosophy that doesn't acknowledge the limits of natural resources and the danger to ourselves of unchecked consumption of resources by humans. It is illogical.

inlet13

brianlux wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Said it before - I'll say it again. I notice a consistent theme with the super-duper global warming alarmists - they tend to be socialists/communists at heart. Global warming could be a way to gain entry into regulatory matters and increase that goal. Most in here, who fall in to that line of environmental thinking, such as yourself, seem to make statements on occasion that seem consistent with that theory. But, that's for another thread I suppose.

I think it makes perfect sense. <Large generalizations that make MotoDC feel comfortable incoming>...

They tend to see capitalism (which they of course equate with consumerism and the mindless greed it implies) as the ultimate source of man's excesses and thus his untoward impact on the earth. In addition, a controlled economy is, well, much easier to control. If only they could control it for the good of nature, then whatever sacrifice of freedom that was made along the way would be well worth it.

The control (I prefer the term "restraint") should be for the good of human's as well because nature bats last.

What do you mean by "freedom"? If by that you mean the unrestrained freedom to take whatever we want from the earth that provides for us then don't we exercise that freedom at our own inevitable peril? I don't understand an economic philosophy that doesn't acknowledge the limits of natural resources and the danger to ourselves of unchecked consumption of resources by humans. It is illogical.

Let's take global warming out of it..

Can you imagine a system where communism or socialism actually worsen the environment, rather than strengthening it? Can you imagine the possibility that enlarging government's shareCan you imagine the possibility that capitalism could actually be the better of the two/three options for the environment? Just curious.

As for your latter points, not quite sure understand economic philosophies at all. Economics is the study of scarcity. Economics is about maximization subject to constraints (think maximizing happiness subject to income). The subject is basically all about getting the most out of what we have. If you claim that is illogical, you're claiming economics is illogical.

I've said this before to you - Brian. I'm pretty sure you didn't take my advice, but I'll say it again. Look up Thomas Malthus. He was just like you. If I recall he was put forth his theories in late-1700s/early-1800s. He was basically the guy who got the "dismal science" name linked to economics. He thought that as economic growth occurred, populations expand. The problem was (like Brian says constantly) resources were scarce... including, most notably food. So - as populations expand (originating from economic growth) food became more scarce. Eventually, the population expansion would fall back to the norm because people the numbers above trend would starve to death --- very dismal --- hence, dismal science. Problem is - he was totally factually wrong. And statistics from 1800-2012 prove it. For one, he didn't realize how many resources actually existed. Second, and more importantly he didn't account for technology. Economies have expanded. As has population. BUT... the average person is better off and living much, much longer. Not worse and dying off. Less people starve than 20-50-100 years ago, not more. The trends were wrong. The thought process is incorrect. Look into it.

Even if there is a problem with the environment, who's to say technology won't solve it? Further, who's to say capitalism won't be the inventor of such. It has tackled many similar problems in the past.

inlet13

MotoDC wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

At the end of the day, the problems in this area typically come back to debt and revenues. That's kinda my point. Sticking on my theme, in the US we share a currency - let's pretend the world is only the US for arguments sake - if a US state goes broke, let's say they go to the US government for a bailout (akin to a country receiving assistance from the world currency). Having the same currency, doesn't solve the issue of the state going broke, nor does it solve the issue that the US is still having to pay them (which adds to debt).

If the US government, in this example, is also kinda broke, they may just take on more debt to bailout that said state. This is exactly what's happening now.

It's just extended to a multitude of states/countries/industries. I'm not really one who's super anti-one world currency, mind you. I'm simply pointing out that the problems we have now aren't due to different currency denominations. It's due to spending too much and taking on too much debt.

See I think you kinda nailed in there, inlet, except for the part where you don't make it evident that the result you describe is in fact the underlying goal of the whole exercise -- the forced semblance of equality that Brian alluded to. Just as in your example, where the broke state has the US Federal Govt to bail them out, in this new monetary approach, third world country XYZ has all the richer countries to bail them out. Personally I think a more apt example is the European Union, with its myriad national fiscal policies overlaid by (theoretically) one EU monetary policy, but tomato tomato. Greece makes an accident on the rug, Germany scoops the poop and attempts to dictate the terms.

Personally I think it's well within Germany's right to dictate terms, given the situation, but one could also say that it sheds light on what will really happen with the one world currency/monetary policy -- the haves will still have and will still dictate terms to the have nots. It could even exacerbate the situation. Which of course plays nicely back into NWO conspiracy theories, I'll readily admit.

Let me ask you - do you think we're heading in this direction (long term) regardless if it's right or wrong? I kinda do. I pretty much agree with you, but think this will occur. I just think the timing couldn't be worse to try it now.

Now, say 20-30 years, post-WWIII (I know - I'm crazy, I think it's coming).... yeh, that time should work. At that point I do think debt won't be the issue it is today.

peacefrompaul

It's working for Europe, so, it would work worldwide.... correct?

brianlux

inlet13 wrote:

Let's take global warming out of it..

Can you imagine a system where communism or socialism actually worsen the environment, rather than strengthening it? Can you imagine the possibility that enlarging government's shareCan you imagine the possibility that capitalism could actually be the better of the two/three options for the environment? Just curious.

As for your latter points, not quite sure understand economic philosophies at all. Economics is the study of scarcity. Economics is about maximization subject to constraints (think maximizing happiness subject to income). The subject is basically all about getting the most out of what we have. If you claim that is illogical, you're claiming economics is illogical.

I've said this before to you - Brian. I'm pretty sure you didn't take my advice, but I'll say it again. Look up Thomas Malthus. He was just like you. If I recall he was put forth his theories in late-1700s/early-1800s. He was basically the guy who got the "dismal science" name linked to economics. He thought that as economic growth occurred, populations expand. The problem was (like Brian says constantly) resources were scarce... including, most notably food. So - as populations expand (originating from economic growth) food became more scarce. Eventually, the population expansion would fall back to the norm because people the numbers above trend would starve to death --- very dismal --- hence, dismal science. Problem is - he was totally factually wrong. And statistics from 1800-2012 prove it. For one, he didn't realize how many resources actually existed. Second, and more importantly he didn't account for technology. Economies have expanded. As has population. BUT... the average person is better off and living much, much longer. Not worse and dying off. Less people starve than 20-50-100 years ago, not more. The trends were wrong. The thought process is incorrect. Look into it.

Even if there is a problem with the environment, who's to say technology won't solve it? Further, who's to say capitalism won't be the inventor of such. It has tackled many similar problems in the past.

Wait a minute- before we go any further- I never said anything about socialism or communism being better or worse than capitalism. You said that about me. Not me. I thought that was rather amusing, actually.

My idea of a sensible economy is one that is based locally. I'm not sure there's a name for that beside what Bill McKibben calls "Deep Economy". I also suggested you read his book by that title but you never responded so I'm not sure you did.

You say "[Economics] is basically all about getting the most out of what we have." I'm trying to point out that trying to do that will deplete what the earth has to give us with regard to our population numbers.


"Even if there is a problem with the environment, who's to say technology won't solve it?"

I've been following environmental issues since the 1960's. Technology has increase a thousand fold. Does it look like technology has made our world any cleaner, any less likely to becoming inhospitable to our numbers as a species? Not as far as I can see.


"the average person is better off and living much, much longer."

The sad thing is, we've reached that peak already and that trend is reversing. No one wants that, but that's what's happening.

catefrances

brianlux wrote:

...While you're at it, would you please find a way to more equitably distribute money? The whole money distribution thing is a disgrace. Most of the people who work the hardest make the least and too many of those who can't work are left with almost nothing...

i think a more equitable distribution of wealth is what is called for, not money. imo they are not the same thing... and a nations wealth is measured by more than just money.

DriftingByTheStorm

peacefrompaul wrote:

It's working for Europe, so, it would work worldwide.... correct?

I knew someone would make this quip eventually.
I'm glad someone did, because it is 100% topical.
The EU is failing BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A MONETARY UNION there. The ECB is not structured properly to have the necessary monetary authority to take proper corrective action in a crisis, or even function *normally* (like a normal Central Bank) without certain cumbersome steps.
This is why Germany's High Court Just OK'd a Permanent Euro Bailout Fund that is really a sneaky way of getting a Permanent Monetary Union (ie. a full fledged "Euro Fed") in place.
I don't agree with the "backdoor tactics" being used to assemble this permanent "Beast System", but I have come around to the notion of the system more generally.

catefrances wrote:

i think a more equitable distribution of wealth is what is called for, not money. imo they are not the same thing... and a nations wealth is measured by more than just money.

You are correct, Cate. They are not the same thing. It is one of the finer points of basic economics that is missed by many. Money is a place holder for wealth, and is what is used in the current system to procure wealth. It is part of what is being discussed by the UN in their paper, but the language is obtuse. It is what I meant when I said poor countries suffer because of exploitation by Western powers of "dollar shortages" in these areas. Carroll Quigley (Clinton's favorite professor at Georgetown, and self-admitted historian to The World Order Shadow Government) spends a lot of time talking about this in the beginning of his book, Tragedy and Hope. I will sort of get around to readdressing this topic in a minute, when I get to a response to Brianlux.

inlet13 to Brianlux wrote:

If you claim that is illogical, you're claiming economics is illogical.

I think he IS claiming that, and I agree with him. Economics IS, from a certain prospective, illogical. There is a great "movie", Ecological Design: Inventing The Future that interviews a bunch of the worlds leading environmental designers (and also sort of tells the gospel of Buckminster Fuller), and I always remember the part where one of them explains that Economics has failed the planet because it deals SOLEY WITH EFFICIENCY AND NOT SUFFICIENCY. It could care less about what is SUFFICIENT for people, only about a mathma-theoretically "efficient" distribution of those resources.

I also don't think it is fair to keep throwing Malthus in Brian's face. MOST of the problems that 2\3rds of humanity (the desperately poor 2\3rds) face are related to SUFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION of perfectly abundant resources (food and shelter) ... ultimately their problems can be reduced to a failure of the current system to provide a proper allocation of HUMAN RESOURCES to get these people what they need. In other words, because economics says it is inefficient (there is no profit in it) to distribute resources to these people, no one bothers to do it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are CERTAIN RESOURCES where MALTHUS PROVES CORRECT ... and to that you only need look towards the FIRST WORLD and WATER. See? The Colorado River Runs Dry ... Malthus' specific theory fails, because the resource question is LARGELY a HUMAN resource question -- how can labor (and now, ultimately, technology) be properly deployed to get everyone what they need. Most of what is needed is superabundant or at least plenty abundant enough to keep even this "overpopulated" earth fed, clothed, and at least moderately "happy". But certain resources ARE proving to be problematic, and chiefly, at the moment, that resource is clean, fresh water.

@BRIANLUX: Brother, I think you are brave to keep sticking your neck out so much, even when you are told you are off topic. Personally, I think you were right on the money (har har), if only that you did no bother to clarify the relationship of your post to the OP. The more equitable distribution of resources based on the limits of those resources IS what the GOOD powers that be are ULTIMATELY PLANNING and what this new reserve currency plan is a FIRST STEP (probably not the "first" by a long shot, but) towards.

@ALL (and specifically inlet13 at points)
Certainly this step is not going to fix all the current woes (particularly the extreme overabundance of DEBT problems the world faces) but it is a necessary FIRST STEP towards rectifying a great many of the "problems with money" as they currently exist. The establishment of a One System now will allow for an easier transition to a more "complete" system at a later date, or at the very least make "the great crash" more navigable systemically. I am still assuming that at some point there will be a day when we wake up and everything violently jolts. Some news will send some chart the wrong way, the entire "Street" the world over will react negatively and put too much strain on too many parts of the system. Surely the catalyst event will be of *some* relation to the sovereign bond markets the world over (if not specifically US and EU country bonds) and this event will FORCE THE HAND of the powers that be to DO SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT.

The establishment of a one world money system would actually be the prerequisite for ELIMINATING THIS PROBLEM ENTIRELY. Although this ultimate glory relies heavily on directly socialist class restructuring (elimination of class), in theory a One Bank System could mean that the bank was capable of making HUMAN decisions and of EXPIRING DEBT just as well as ISSUING CURRENCY. The expiration of debt will remain tricky though, as long as there is a class which demands that it get paid no matter what for the circulation of the currency it helped create. One day true altruism may arise though, and with it, a system where money is issued solely for the good of all people, and "debt" (which will lose conventional meaning, and be thought of solely in terms of "accountability" of certain parts - 'countries' - of the system to the system as a whole) expired when it no longer becomes fruitful to leave on the books.

Ultimately the entire world system could be reduced to one where those who are capable of working receive payment for that work by a local branch of a global authority, and those who can not work are given a charitable living wage. The only complaint will be from The Class Which Does Not Find "Work" Agreeable, and for this, i can only say that some sort of "work multiplier" might be a necessary forerunner to a Fully Equal world. In other words, maybe the work multiplier for "you and me" is 1. But for "The Class" it is 3.'
You: 100 hours of work x 1 = $100
The Class: 100 hours of "work" x 3 = $300

lol.

peacefrompaul

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

peacefrompaul wrote:

It's working for Europe, so, it would work worldwide.... correct?

I knew someone would make this quip eventually.
I'm glad someone did, because it is 100% topical.
The EU is failing BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A MONETARY UNION there. The ECB is not structured properly to have the necessary monetary authority to take proper corrective action in a crisis, or even function *normally* (like a normal Central Bank) without certain cumbersome steps.
This is why Germany's High Court Just OK'd a Permanent Euro Bailout Fund that is really a sneaky way of getting a Permanent Monetary Union (ie. a full fledged "Euro Fed") in place.
I don't agree with the "backdoor tactics" being used to assemble this permanent "Beast System", but I have come around to the notion of the system more generally.

catefrances wrote:

i think a more equitable distribution of wealth is what is called for, not money. imo they are not the same thing... and a nations wealth is measured by more than just money.

You are correct, Cate. They are not the same thing. It is one of the finer points of basic economics that is missed by many. Money is a place holder for wealth, and is what is used in the current system to procure wealth. It is part of what is being discussed by the UN in their paper, but the language is obtuse. It is what I meant when I said poor countries suffer because of exploitation by Western powers of "dollar shortages" in these areas. Carroll Quigley (Clinton's favorite professor at Georgetown, and self-admitted historian to The World Order Shadow Government) spends a lot of time talking about this in the beginning of his book, Tragedy and Hope. I will sort of get around to readdressing this topic in a minute, when I get to a response to Brianlux.

inlet13 to Brianlux wrote:

If you claim that is illogical, you're claiming economics is illogical.

I think he IS claiming that, and I agree with him. Economics IS, from a certain prospective, illogical. There is a great "movie", Ecological Design: Inventing The Future that interviews a bunch of the worlds leading environmental designers (and also sort of tells the gospel of Buckminster Fuller), and I always remember the part where one of them explains that Economics has failed the planet because it deals SOLEY WITH EFFICIENCY AND NOT SUFFICIENCY. It could care less about what is SUFFICIENT for people, only about a mathma-theoretically "efficient" distribution of those resources.

I also don't think it is fair to keep throwing Malthus in Brian's face. MOST of the problems that 2\3rds of humanity (the desperately poor 2\3rds) face are related to SUFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION of perfectly abundant resources (food and shelter) ... ultimately their problems can be reduced to a failure of the current system to provide a proper allocation of HUMAN RESOURCES to get these people what they need. In other words, because economics says it is inefficient (there is no profit in it) to distribute resources to these people, no one bothers to do it.

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are CERTAIN RESOURCES where MALTHUS PROVES CORRECT ... and to that you only need look towards the FIRST WORLD and WATER. See? The Colorado River Runs Dry ... Malthus' specific theory fails, because the resource question is LARGELY a HUMAN resource question -- how can labor (and now, ultimately, technology) be properly deployed to get everyone what they need. Most of what is needed is superabundant or at least plenty abundant enough to keep even this "overpopulated" earth fed, clothed, and at least moderately "happy". But certain resources ARE proving to be problematic, and chiefly, at the moment, that resource is clean, fresh water.

@BRIANLUX: Brother, I think you are brave to keep sticking your neck out so much, even when you are told you are off topic. Personally, I think you were right on the money (har har), if only that you did no bother to clarify the relationship of your post to the OP. The more equitable distribution of resources based on the limits of those resources IS what the GOOD powers that be are ULTIMATELY PLANNING and what this new reserve currency plan is a FIRST STEP (probably not the "first" by a long shot, but) towards.

@ALL (and specifically inlet13 at points)
Certainly this step is not going to fix all the current woes (particularly the extreme overabundance of DEBT problems the world faces) but it is a necessary FIRST STEP towards rectifying a great many of the "problems with money" as they currently exist. The establishment of a One System now will allow for an easier transition to a more "complete" system at a later date, or at the very least make "the great crash" more navigable systemically. I am still assuming that at some point there will be a day when we wake up and everything violently jolts. Some news will send some chart the wrong way, the entire "Street" the world over will react negatively and put too much strain on too many parts of the system. Surely the catalyst event will be of *some* relation to the sovereign bond markets the world over (if not specifically US and EU country bonds) and this event will FORCE THE HAND of the powers that be to DO SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT.

The establishment of a one world money system would actually be the prerequisite for ELIMINATING THIS PROBLEM ENTIRELY. Although this ultimate glory relies heavily on directly socialist class restructuring (elimination of class), in theory a One Bank System could mean that the bank was capable of making HUMAN decisions and of EXPIRING DEBT just as well as ISSUING CURRENCY. The expiration of debt will remain tricky though, as long as there is a class which demands that it get paid no matter what for the circulation of the currency it helped create. One day true altruism may arise though, and with it, a system where money is issued solely for the good of all people, and "debt" (which will lose conventional meaning, and be thought of solely in terms of "accountability" of certain parts - 'countries' - of the system to the system as a whole) expired when it no longer becomes fruitful to leave on the books.

Ultimately the entire world system could be reduced to one where those who are capable of working receive payment for that work by a local branch of a global authority, and those who can not work are given a charitable living wage. The only complaint will be from The Class Which Does Not Find "Work" Agreeable, and for this, i can only say that some sort of "work multiplier" might be a necessary forerunner to a Fully Equal world. In other words, maybe the work multiplier for "you and me" is 1. But for "The Class" it is 3.'
You: 100 hours of work x 1 = $100
The Class: 100 hours of "work" x 3 = $300

lol.

Huh. Interesting! Thanks

inlet13

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I knew someone would make this quip eventually.
I'm glad someone did, because it is 100% topical.
The EU is failing BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A MONETARY UNION there. The ECB is not structured properly to have the necessary monetary authority to take proper corrective action in a crisis, or even function *normally* (like a normal Central Bank) without certain cumbersome steps.
This is why Germany's High Court Just OK'd a Permanent Euro Bailout Fund that is really a sneaky way of getting a Permanent Monetary Union (ie. a full fledged "Euro Fed") in place.
I don't agree with the "backdoor tactics" being used to assemble this permanent "Beast System", but I have come around to the notion of the system more generally.

See – here’s the deal Driftin’ you continue to ignore debt. Debt IS the issue. You’re saying the EU is failing because there is “not a monetary union”. That’s false. They are failing because – as a system of individualized governments - they have too much debt. That is the real problem. We are having trouble not because we’re not part of our own union – we are – we are having problems because we also have too much debt. Debt is the issue.
I’d like to hear your response to this, because you seemed to dodge it before.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I think he IS claiming that, and I agree with him. Economics IS, from a certain prospective, illogical. There is a great "movie", Ecological Design: Inventing The Future that interviews a bunch of the worlds leading environmental designers (and also sort of tells the gospel of Buckminster Fuller), and I always remember the part where one of them explains that Economics has failed the planet because it deals SOLEY WITH EFFICIENCY AND NOT SUFFICIENCY. It could care less about what is SUFFICIENT for people, only about a mathma-theoretically "efficient" distribution of those resources.

Another way of stating what you’re writing is equality vs. efficiency. At the end of the day, that is exactly what I was saying. Some socialists/communists may use the environmental issue to try to increase public support for government involvement and regulation – when they really want equality – it’s a scapegoat they hope the public doesn’t fact check. Most who want equality would link up in the socialist/communist camp. Most who want efficiency would link up in the capitalist camp. My point is that capitalism is the reason we have an opportunity for some, like brian, to even argue for equality – or as you put it sufficiency (the condition of something being adequate). Which is a very subjective term and one could argue is relative - for example, if Bob has more peas than Bill is Bob's serving sufficient? - But, who knows if adequacy is relative? From my point of view, it's not relative and it's possible to increase sufficiency and efficiency at once (more on that later)... but, if adequacy IS relative it reinforces the notion that this is equivalent to seeking complete equality (Bob and Bill get same amount of peas).

I’d say capitalism tends to grow the pie, socialism/communism tend to cut slices equal. If one is seeking adequacy and if “adequacy” is based in relative terms then socialism and communism win because you get exactly equal slices of a smaller pie. But, the smallest pie slice could potentially be bigger under capitalism than the equal pie slices under socialism/communism. That's my point. The poorest could be better off under capitalism.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I also don't think it is fair to keep throwing Malthus in Brian's face. MOST of the problems that 2\3rds of humanity (the desperately poor 2\3rds) face are related to SUFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION of perfectly abundant resources (food and shelter) ... ultimately their problems can be reduced to a failure of the current system to provide a proper allocation of HUMAN RESOURCES to get these people what they need. In other words, because economics says it is inefficient (there is no profit in it) to distribute resources to these people, no one bothers to do it.

It’s absolutely fair to use Malthus as an example. I laid out why, and I think I defended why Brian is very similar. Your points here on “sufficient distribution” don't really make sense. More people today - worldwide, even the poor, live longer than they did 20, 50, 100 years ago because there is greater access to food, shelter and medicine. This is not because of equality, it’s because of capitalism.

You know, I laugh at some posters here who claim on the one side of their mouth – “they’re stealing our jobs” when countries can perform the same task at lower wages – and at the other side of their mouth say they want to help the world’s poor. This, a capitalist mantra of profit maximization through lower costs, is exactly what’s providing those developing countries with better life-styles. It’s happened and happening in many countries and will continue to do so. It’s the reason why average life expectancy, per capita incomes, etc have been rising for the past 100-200 years world wide.

This disputes every single aspect of “sufficient distribution”. By it’s very nature the rise in life expectancy pretty much across every country over the past 100-200 years priovides evidence that as we moved towards capitalism the world has BEEN MORE SUFFICIENT…. AND IT HAS BEEN MORE EFFICIENT. Bob and Bill both get more peas than they would have otherwise, but yes - Bob does get more than Bill.
Sufficiency and efficiency are not mutually exclusive like you’re trying to make it sound.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

ON THE OTHER HAND, there are CERTAIN RESOURCES where MALTHUS PROVES CORRECT ... and to that you only need look towards the FIRST WORLD and WATER. See? The Colorado River Runs Dry ... Malthus' specific theory fails, because the resource question is LARGELY a HUMAN resource question -- how can labor (and now, ultimately, technology) be properly deployed to get everyone what they need. Most of what is needed is superabundant or at least plenty abundant enough to keep even this "overpopulated" earth fed, clothed, and at least moderately "happy". But certain resources ARE proving to be problematic, and chiefly, at the moment, that resource is clean, fresh water.

I don’t disagree with you that there are times when resources seem to be depleting. But, at these times human nature has a way of dealing with those problems. Inventing new technologies, for example. It’s been done over and over and over and over throughout time. The fact that we sit here and pretend “we know” that it can’t be done it again, is completely ignorant and ignores history.

The water example you’re using is exactly like the food example Malthus was using. He was right in his time period that food was relatively fixed. He didn’t forsee what the industrial revolution would provide via technology. He didn’t know that one could be more efficient in the production of food and increase supply in that way.

He was, and is arguing what Brian constantly argues – (and what you’re trying to defend). Hence, why he’s a great example that should be used until someone like Brian actually reads about him and how his theory was proven wrong.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Certainly this step is not going to fix all the current woes (particularly the extreme overabundance of DEBT problems the world faces) but it is a necessary FIRST STEP towards rectifying a great many of the "problems with money" as they currently exist.

Oh…. So you actually talk about Debt now?

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The establishment of a One System now will allow for an easier transition to a more "complete" system at a later date, or at the very least make "the great crash" more navigable systemically. I am still assuming that at some point there will be a day when we wake up and everything violently jolts. Some news will send some chart the wrong way, the entire "Street" the world over will react negatively and put too much strain on too many parts of the system. Surely the catalyst event will be of *some* relation to the sovereign bond markets the world over (if not specifically US and EU country bonds) and this event will FORCE THE HAND of the powers that be to DO SOMETHING RADICALLY DIFFERENT.

I used the example before that you didn’t respond to. The one of the US federal government bailing out a state government or municipality. They all have the same currency. That federal government may need to go into more debt to do that. And the snowball continues. Let’s keep this in mind while moving to this next point.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

The establishment of a one world money system would actually be the prerequisite for ELIMINATING THIS PROBLEM ENTIRELY. Although this ultimate glory relies heavily on directly socialist class restructuring (elimination of class), in theory a One Bank System could mean that the bank was capable of making HUMAN decisions and of EXPIRING DEBT just as well as ISSUING CURRENCY. The expiration of debt will remain tricky though, as long as there is a class which demands that it get paid no matter what for the circulation of the currency it helped create. One day true altruism may arise though, and with it, a system where money is issued solely for the good of all people, and "debt" (which will lose conventional meaning, and be thought of solely in terms of "accountability" of certain parts - 'countries' - of the system to the system as a whole) expired when it no longer becomes fruitful to leave on the books.

Basically, you’re arguing that by setting up a one world money system, and let’s be more real here, a one world government - that government will have the authoritative power to dismiss all debt owed by government. Thing is – I agree, if that occurred that would be the case. Trouble is – that’s scary as fuck for a variety of reasons. First, this means all private enterprise involved will also be out of money when seeking it back from governments. Don't invest in government - like for example, have cash! The powerful government will give a giant fuck you to all who challenge. Let’s be frank – debts should be repaid under a reasonable system. Second, this government sounds like an all-powerful entity if they can do what you say. What are the checks on this government to ensure it won’t abuse it’s people like governments have done in various places over and over and over and over and over again throughout the history of time? You say altruism, right? Ha. Tell that to North Korea. Because if there aren’t incredibly large checks – our people are completely and totally fucked. Third, what exactly was it in the US that allowed us to have our citizenry so powerful, and have government not abuse us? This is important.

Fourth, who’s to say this DEBT problem (notice I didn’t say currency problem) won’t happen again under the system you just put forth, particularly if we continue to utilize Keynesian ideology. That ideology preaches debt financing being a good thing. Countries get into debt and according to that ideology, that’s not a bad thing it can be very, good. Why couldn't the one world government get into debt problems? Will they just wipe the slate clean every single time? Who the fuck would loan them money? Or would they ummm... confiscate it?

So let me close with this. If you go back to my two-three sentence posts at the beginning of this thread that we never really answered (money backed by something), maybe we would have had some common ground. My issue - first is - with a one world currency is actually backed by something, so they won’t issue debt and turn on the printers constantly.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Ultimately the entire world system could be reduced to one where those who are capable of working receive payment for that work by a local branch of a global authority, and those who can not work are given a charitable living wage. The only complaint will be from The Class Which Does Not Find "Work" Agreeable, and for this, i can only say that some sort of "work multiplier" might be a necessary forerunner to a Fully Equal world. In other words, maybe the work multiplier for "you and me" is 1. But for "The Class" it is 3.'

You: 100 hours of work x 1 = $100
The Class: 100 hours of "work" x 3 = $300

lol.

This part here makes me want to vomit. And I loved how you just added the word “multiplier” – probably to cause that response. Not only is this downright communistic, it simply won’t work. People always want more. That’s inherent. And I agree, sometimes it’s unfortunate. But, the truth is they do. Coming to grips with that is important.

This ideology you're preaching would lead to stagnation in output as well. Why would I work hard at my job if I'm guaranteed that I will simply get paid exactly what my neighbor does? It ignores the thought of competition. Why would a company try to succeed? They know they can't get paid for succeeding? Why would new ideas or new technology emerge if the person behind those ideas can't profit from them? The economy would be constrained under your logic. So you’re hope for a large enough economy to redistribute properly would be completely lost. This would be a disaster.

Moreover, it’s human nature to want to work to better your life and the ONLY way you’re plan would even be able to stay afloat is if the government didn’t allow the people any power. Otherwise, there would be black markets or (like in France) people taking on more than one job to get around the system and be “rich”. Would the government know? Would they have lines of whips to ensure you're working hard?

This also all assuming the government has the money to do this. Basically, you’re arguing (whether you know it or not for a totalitarian, one world government). This totalitarian approach has been tried and tried again in little country case studies. It fails repetitively. And it’s normally ruthless and sadistic.

I offer an alternative one-world approach:
One world money system – backed by a tangible asset – gold…. So that printers can’t be turned on and debt driven into a new abyss. So we avoid this “debt” problem that is the cause of our current fiscal mess worldwide.
I do agree that we’re heading towards a one world government too – not that I necessarily want it – I KNOW I don’t want what you just described. Instead, the more positive view on it, I see it being a government just like the US government. Proper checks against it, the heavey majority of power going to the countries that comprise it (just like states should have most power under our system).
I see this continuing to be a capitalist enterprise for the most part. With welfare programs like the ones we currently have, maybe more or less so. Basically, countries would run themselves, with a sort of small oversight. I honestly think it will occur after WWIII.
I’ll give you this – a one world government will solve war. The question is will it solve fiscal issues, civil unrest and persecution by government. That latter part needs to be part of the equation. You seem to dismiss the probability that a government can do wrong – which is seemingly naïve, at least to me.

polaris_x

what is interesting is that the environmental platform used to fall under the conservative banner ... reading the shit being spewed here is both exacerbating and funny at the same time ... it basically eliminates the notion of reality ... forget about theorizing about environmental problems and its consequence - just see for yourself ...

it's fucked ... and the whole paradigm of economics is fundamentally flawed ... i mean - we measure the health of an economy by the simple notion of growth ... how absurd is that? ... no mention of sustainability or social consequence ...