One World Money System ?

Godfather. · September 2012

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 · September 2012

fuck that.

Godfather. · September 2012

usamamasan1 wrote:

fuck that.

agreed.

Godfather.

DriftingByTheStorm · September 2012

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 · September 2012

Would the money be backed by anything?

DriftingByTheStorm · September 2012

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. · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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 · September 2012

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.

One World Money System ?

Comments

Categories