One global currency and one world central bank?

[ProfJohn]

We are at least 100 years away from the idea of a one world government.

Ask out great great grandchildren this question.

BTW 50 years ago anyone who suggested the idea of the Euro would have been laughed at. Times change and so do attitudes.

 

[manowar821]

No global bank, ever. Perhaps a global currency, but those who have the means and motive to put that into effect right now are terrible monsters who deserve death, not our respect.

A global society is inevitable, though. I just hope that it's done right.

 

[mageslayer]

Yes to global currency. No to global bank.

 

[UglyCasanova]

No global currency. Individual economies are so diverse and have different problems/need different solutions that a one world currency would not grant them the flexibility to do as they please. Different things like inflationary pressures are going to make one country want to adjust their money supply in a way that another country might want the exact opposite of. You could see where in a one world currency this could create all sorts of problems, economic followed by political. Hell the Euro hasn't been around too long. It will be a learning experience.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Some are saying that these two ideas, or at least one of them, will be the "solution" to the current financial crisis. Economic leaders throughout the world are meeting to come up with a plan to solve the financial problems.

Personally, I would be against both of these ideas. What do the rest of the P&N'ers think?

i'm in favor of 'fewer' currencies and their corresponding central banks, for instance i would like a common currency for the us and canada.

a single global common currency gives one group to much power to majorly fuck it up.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: mageslayer
Yes to global currency. No to global bank.

how d o you have a global currency without a global bank?

 

[RichardE]

I think we will see a "continent" country shift before we see a world goverment.

Heh, sort of 1984 style I suppose (with the continents)

 

[dsity]

um gold?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: SagaLore
<*** HELL NO!!! ***

Can we make this thing ^^^ flash?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: dsity
um gold?

OMG!! GOLD IDOLATERS!! ARCHAIC!!! BETTER OFF JUST TRADING PEANUTS!!111!

 

[venkman]

It is always a great idea to centralize power into as few people as you possibly can. No really, it has worked out so very well throughout history. The OP is the smartest guy on the internet.

 

[compuwiz1]

The idea is preposterous.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: bamacre
Some are saying that these two ideas, or at least one of them, will be the "solution" to the current financial crisis. Economic leaders throughout the world are meeting to come up with a plan to solve the financial problems.

Personally, I would be against both of these ideas. What do the rest of the P&N'ers think?

That's eventually going to lead to one world government. That'll be the end of social evolution and the beginning of global enslavement.

This amuses me. People are all "united we stand," but when it comes to increasing the spread of that unity, it's suddenly a bad thing.

I think a globally unified government is inevitable, and will be beneficial to everyone - but this depends on how it's done. We're not ready for it yet. The species still clings to primitive urges, and is overly xenophobic, separating everything into "them and us," still equating military strength to not only patriotism, but also a country's net value.

The population of the planet will need more time to homogenize itself. As more third-world countries are able to bring themselves out of poverty, they can become more connected with the outside world. Their culture will mix with the outside, and the outside will mix with theirs. I think we'll also eventually wind up with one language, though it will have many dialects.
It relates heavily to the speed and ease with which information can travel.

Yup. North America's rise in dominance has pretty much lead to the inevitable Homogenization of humanity. It is a clear example that People of all Races, Ethnic origins, Religions, and Creeds can co-exist and all be better as a result.

Some have already mentioned the Poison Pill though, Religion. Built into Judeo-Christian(I also assume Islam) belief is the idea that such Homogenization is Bad and Doomed to failure.

In ancient Jewish texts is the Tower of Babel story with its' audacious citizens who built a giant tower to reach the Heavens. Supposedly this offended "God"(for some reason) and "He" cursed them all by suddenly causing everyone to speak different languages, thus making communication impossible. Unable to communicate, everyone just scattered across the Earth seeking their own Territory. Personally I think the story is like the Creation story, just an attempt to understand something beyond the comprehension of the people of the time. For some Religious people though, the meaning is much more cynical and reinforces a Christian fear.

For Christianity, the fear of Global(anything) organization lies within the Anti-Christ/Beast story of the Book of Revelations and elsewhere in the New Testament. Add in some Red Scare and you've got the dominating idea within certain Christian circles that a Global Currency or Government is the fulfillment of the Anti-Christ/Beast "Prophecy". The UN has figured strongly within these peoples thinking, hence the Left Behind/UN usage. Personally, the Anti-Christ/Beast story gives all sorts of details beyond Global Currency/Government and though those 2 factors are noted, the story doesn't really exclude the possibilty of Global Government/Currency existing and being perfectly fine.

A Global Government will eventually be necessary, but as Jeff said, and as you were alluding to, humanity is far from ready. Something is going to need to force the situation, and I am very interested in the future scenario that forces the hands of man to actually come together. Because as we can see, mankind is far from ready to do it voluntarily for the foreseeable future.
A change in religion will either be the first thing ordered by a global government, or will be the event that leads to the acceptance. I'm extremely curious as to how we can get all of mankind to accept either a singular religion, or more desirably, ditch organized religion, and force a more-or-less agnostic society, possibly back to the style of belief in multiple deities, without religious texts, churches, etc etc.

I still think, with my lack of faith in humanity, that it'll take something potentially extinction-level to really shake us from our current ways and unite globally. But short of an alien invasion (where we'd need to unite due to military concerns), I think the best chance to unite would be with colonization of space. We'd be a more scientific society, and thus religion would be easier to shake up. That, and a concern of equal representation and the desire to spread scientific knowledge equally (and thus allow for a pooling of all our scientific knowledge, instead of science sticking in countries, with multiple teams world wide actually working toward the same goal on their own instead of working together to find answers faster), would probably be what pushes everyone to bringing certain concepts to the global level, which much like I predict with the E.U., would lead to a slow movement to a true global government.

edit:
and to add, taking in concerns - of the above posters - of a global currency, they are completely right.
Which is part of the reason I think colonization will be what is necessary. If we colonize the moon, and it grows to the point of being a large society, this would help spark the idea of managing it politically. Likely, that society would want to become a unified body, a country of sorts, which would help make trading more efficient and important in terms of economy. A global government could then manage Earth's economy, and depend upon trade with space.

Now, I haven't given that concept a lot of thought, and an economy based on trades between only two bodies could very well be complete failure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Forget "should" or "should not" because it's completely unworkable now. Currencies cannot be effectively tied to completely disparate economies. The Euro was possible because Europe finally arrived to the place where economies were at least fairly comparable. Perhaps Canada and the US could come to a common currency, however America and Zimbabwe? The value of the currency would swing wildly out of balance with the real economy of a given nation.

It just won't work.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Forget "should" or "should not" because it's completely unworkable now. Currencies cannot be effectively tied to completely disparate economies. The Euro was possible because Europe finally arrived to the place where economies were at least fairly comparable. Perhaps Canada and the US could come to a common currency, however America and Zimbabwe? The value of the currency would swing wildly out of balance with the real economy of a given nation.

It just won't work.

You're sorta correct. What I mean by that is, there is too much Economic Disparity for a Global Currency. Africa, Central/South America, much of Asia, and parts of Europe need to be more Developed before a Global Currency is workable. I really can't see that being possible until we do one of two things:

1) The First World scaling back its' Wealth. I suspect this might not be necessary if Technology advances to a point where available Resources exceed the ability to maintain that Wealth and to cover the rest of the Worlds population, which is certainly not possible at this time.

2) Or that we begin acquiring Resources outside of Earth. From Asteroids or Planets/Moons within the Solar System. This could have problems as well though, as off-Earth Colonies may want Independence.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: blahblah99

Originally posted by: bamacre
Some are saying that these two ideas, or at least one of them, will be the "solution" to the current financial crisis. Economic leaders throughout the world are meeting to come up with a plan to solve the financial problems.

Personally, I would be against both of these ideas. What do the rest of the P&N'ers think?

That's eventually going to lead to one world government. That'll be the end of social evolution and the beginning of global enslavement.

This amuses me. People are all "united we stand," but when it comes to increasing the spread of that unity, it's suddenly a bad thing.

I think a globally unified government is inevitable, and will be beneficial to everyone - but this depends on how it's done. We're not ready for it yet. The species still clings to primitive urges, and is overly xenophobic, separating everything into "them and us," still equating military strength to not only patriotism, but also a country's net value.

The population of the planet will need more time to homogenize itself. As more third-world countries are able to bring themselves out of poverty, they can become more connected with the outside world. Their culture will mix with the outside, and the outside will mix with theirs. I think we'll also eventually wind up with one language, though it will have many dialects.
It relates heavily to the speed and ease with which information can travel.

Yup. North America's rise in dominance has pretty much lead to the inevitable Homogenization of humanity. It is a clear example that People of all Races, Ethnic origins, Religions, and Creeds can co-exist and all be better as a result.

Some have already mentioned the Poison Pill though, Religion. Built into Judeo-Christian(I also assume Islam) belief is the idea that such Homogenization is Bad and Doomed to failure.

In ancient Jewish texts is the Tower of Babel story with its' audacious citizens who built a giant tower to reach the Heavens. Supposedly this offended "God"(for some reason) and "He" cursed them all by suddenly causing everyone to speak different languages, thus making communication impossible. Unable to communicate, everyone just scattered across the Earth seeking their own Territory. Personally I think the story is like the Creation story, just an attempt to understand something beyond the comprehension of the people of the time. For some Religious people though, the meaning is much more cynical and reinforces a Christian fear.

For Christianity, the fear of Global(anything) organization lies within the Anti-Christ/Beast story of the Book of Revelations and elsewhere in the New Testament. Add in some Red Scare and you've got the dominating idea within certain Christian circles that a Global Currency or Government is the fulfillment of the Anti-Christ/Beast "Prophecy". The UN has figured strongly within these peoples thinking, hence the Left Behind/UN usage. Personally, the Anti-Christ/Beast story gives all sorts of details beyond Global Currency/Government and though those 2 factors are noted, the story doesn't really exclude the possibilty of Global Government/Currency existing and being perfectly fine.

A Global Government will eventually be necessary, but as Jeff said, and as you were alluding to, humanity is far from ready. Something is going to need to force the situation, and I am very interested in the future scenario that forces the hands of man to actually come together. Because as we can see, mankind is far from ready to do it voluntarily for the foreseeable future.
A change in religion will either be the first thing ordered by a global government, or will be the event that leads to the acceptance. I'm extremely curious as to how we can get all of mankind to accept either a singular religion, or more desirably, ditch organized religion, and force a more-or-less agnostic society, possibly back to the style of belief in multiple deities, without religious texts, churches, etc etc.

I still think, with my lack of faith in humanity, that it'll take something potentially extinction-level to really shake us from our current ways and unite globally. But short of an alien invasion (where we'd need to unite due to military concerns), I think the best chance to unite would be with colonization of space. We'd be a more scientific society, and thus religion would be easier to shake up. That, and a concern of equal representation and the desire to spread scientific knowledge equally (and thus allow for a pooling of all our scientific knowledge, instead of science sticking in countries, with multiple teams world wide actually working toward the same goal on their own instead of working together to find answers faster), would probably be what pushes everyone to bringing certain concepts to the global level, which much like I predict with the E.U., would lead to a slow movement to a true global government.

edit:
and to add, taking in concerns - of the above posters - of a global currency, they are completely right.
Which is part of the reason I think colonization will be what is necessary. If we colonize the moon, and it grows to the point of being a large society, this would help spark the idea of managing it politically. Likely, that society would want to become a unified body, a country of sorts, which would help make trading more efficient and important in terms of economy. A global government could then manage Earth's economy, and depend upon trade with space.

Now, I haven't given that concept a lot of thought, and an economy based on trades between only two bodies could very well be complete failure.

The example of the US shows that Religion is not necessary to form a coherent Society. You can have divergent Religion and a Coherent Society at the same time. What is necessary for such a mixture to work is a greater Philosophical Idea to be considered as more important. In the US that idea was Freedom and Democratic rule(no lame "Republic" arguments please). Separation of Church/State works, because it allows People to hold onto their Beliefs in diety(ies) without needing to incorporate their Belief into Governance. So I disagree, a Global Government would have no Need to institute a New Religion. That doesn't mean that one wouldn't try, but it would be unnecessary.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Some have already mentioned the Poison Pill though, Religion. Built into Judeo-Christian(I also assume Islam) belief is the idea that such Homogenization is Bad and Doomed to failure.

Not necessarily that it's bad or doomed to fail, it's just been long believed by Jews/Christians that it will happen.

Originally posted by: sandorski
In ancient Jewish texts is the Tower of Babel story with its' audacious citizens who built a giant tower to reach the Heavens. Supposedly this offended "God"(for some reason) and "He" cursed them all by suddenly causing everyone to speak different languages, thus making communication impossible. Unable to communicate, everyone just scattered across the Earth seeking their own Territory. Personally I think the story is like the Creation story, just an attempt to understand something beyond the comprehension of the people of the time. For some Religious people though, the meaning is much more cynical and reinforces a Christian fear.

God hates sin, there was no end to the sin that the people of the Tower of Babel could come up with. Your interpretation is the most common one cited by non-Christians, but among people that actually study the Bible, it's not that simple. They were practicing witchcraft and the like, instead of destroying them God scattered them.

Originally posted by: sandorski
For Christianity, the fear of Global(anything) organization lies within the Anti-Christ/Beast story of the Book of Revelations and elsewhere in the New Testament. Add in some Red Scare and you've got the dominating idea within certain Christian circles that a Global Currency or Government is the fulfillment of the Anti-Christ/Beast "Prophecy". The UN has figured strongly within these peoples thinking, hence the Left Behind/UN usage. Personally, the Anti-Christ/Beast story gives all sorts of details beyond Global Currency/Government and though those 2 factors are noted, the story doesn't really exclude the possibilty of Global Government/Currency existing and being perfectly fine.

I'd say that's pretty accurate but I believe that separate powers are favorable for all people. The thing to fear with a one world government is that if that one government becomes corrupt, everyone in the world is going to suffer.

Personally I believe that if we see a one world government in my lifetime, it will take the USA getting knocked out of the picture and Islam Extremists taking over other governments through force, fear of force, or simply election via high Muslim populations. This being the premises that Islam Extremism is not going away.

 

[BansheeX]

We already have a global money, it's called gold. A global fiat currency would never work, because paper money derives its value on a manufactured scarcity that spendthrift government inherently can't sustain. Every nation would be vying for the biggest piece of the inflationary pie. It's physically impossible to do that with gold, it's scarcity is worldly and every ounce is backed by the labor and resources expended to obtain it. It allows for the most stable interest rates and trade, way better than this floating nonsense where exchange rates are so volatile for exporters. I believe interest rates were generally 3-5% annually with gold and market-based rather than centrally price fixed interest rates.

 

[ericlp]

As long as it doesn't have "in god we trust" printed on it ... I'll be all for it!

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: IsLNdbOi
Isn't that one of the signs of the end of times (one global currency)?

That's what's drilled in the church ona weekly basis

Like I said, the sky is falling

What Church do you go to?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
We already have a global money, it's called gold. A global fiat currency would never work, because paper money derives its value on a manufactured scarcity that spendthrift government inherently can't sustain. Every nation would be vying for the biggest piece of the inflationary pie. It's physically impossible to do that with gold, it's scarcity is worldly and every ounce is backed by the labor and resources expended to obtain it. It allows for the most stable interest rates and trade, way better than this floating nonsense where exchange rates are so volatile for exporters. I believe interest rates were generally 3-5% annually with gold and market-based rather than centrally price fixed interest rates.

negative

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: IsLNdbOi
Isn't that one of the signs of the end of times (one global currency)?

That's what's drilled in the church ona weekly basis

Like I said, the sky is falling

What Church do you go to?

If I was a betting man i'd say most liberal's knowledge of Christians comes from Ned Flanders.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: sandorski
negative

Positive. In fact, you're seeing shades of it now with the American dollar as the reserve currency, which it gained under gold but retained after abandonment in 1971. Countries that peg their fiat to our fiat intentionally debase their own currency to maintain stable exchange rates for their export sectors, effectively causing global inflation that sends commodity prices, including gold, skywards in all fiat denominations.

Gold is money, always has been. Whether governments choose to monetize it or not is another matter entirely. I recommend "Gold - The Once and Future Money" off Amazon if you want to learn more, you clearly haven't a clue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: IsLNdbOi
Isn't that one of the signs of the end of times (one global currency)?

That's what's drilled in the church ona weekly basis

Like I said, the sky is falling

What Church do you go to?

If I was a betting man i'd say most liberal's knowledge of Christians comes from Ned Flanders.

No, Dave hears God through his Prophet, Dave's dog.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: sandorski
negative

Positive. In fact, you're seeing shades of it now with the American dollar as the reserve currency, which it gained under gold but retained after abandonment in 1971. Countries that peg their fiat to our fiat intentionally debase their own currency to maintain stable exchange rates for their export sectors, effectively causing global inflation that sends commodity prices, including gold, skywards in all fiat denominations.

Gold is money, always has been. Whether governments choose to monetize it or not is another matter entirely. I recommend "Gold - The Once and Future Money" off Amazon if you want to learn more, you clearly haven't a clue.

Some smart people will tell you why Gold isn't perfect, yet they'll also ignore the huge problems of fiat money.

This is one issue that I hadn't bought into previously, but I am all for it now. We need a dollar as good as gold.

And btw, the Schiff speech in your sig is wonderful.