Would you support a one world currency/bank?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
I would oppose it unless there was some way to prevent corrupt concentration of power.

We can't even prevent it here.

Exactly. Consider how crazy it sounded to talk about getting rid of the British rulers in the America around 1750? That seems about where we are. No one has an idea yet.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: halik
No way, it strips away each country's monetary policy, which is really bad in crisis. Just take a look at what's going on in euroland right now - a group of very heterogeneous economies will always struggle to find the proper cental bank policy.

Hey, if one central bank policy work for New York and Alabama, why can't it work in a larger context?

The issue is really politics. Politicians want to have the freedom to ask for and do things that on the surface make his/her supporters happy. How much difference those policies make is highly debatable.


Because our economies are by far the most homogeneous of all economic unions out there. Just try to compare the U.S. to the EU... cultural similarity, freedom of labor, regulations, gdp/capita etc. The reason why United States is and has been the most powerful country in the world is because we de facto are 50 identical countries.

Think about the synergies from having the same language alone...it's huge.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: gingermeggs
A whole host of Political, Environmental and Human rights standards would need to go along with such an idea, for it to fly'
I'm with "ski" on this one it's along way off- just hope it is well centered when it does finally eventuate.

Yeah I'll say not going to happen on that bolded part. Power that is concentrated will be abused, regardless of the scale. If one does come around, whoever the ones muscling everyone else into going along with the one world bank/currency will be the ones that benefit the most from it and influence it the most.

Having a 'one world anything' sounds nice in a utopian situation until you realize it will just be a vector for some countries to take advantage of others

:thumbsup:
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: halik
No way, it strips away each country's monetary policy, which is really bad in crisis. Just take a look at what's going on in euroland right now - a group of very heterogeneous economies will always struggle to find the proper cental bank policy.

Hey, if one central bank policy work for New York and Alabama, why can't it work in a larger context?

The issue is really politics. Politicians want to have the freedom to ask for and do things that on the surface make his/her supporters happy. How much difference those policies make is highly debatable.


Because our economies are by far the most homogeneous of all economic unions out there. Just try to compare the U.S. to the EU... cultural similarity, freedom of labor, regulations, gdp/capita etc. The reason why United States is and has been the most powerful country in the world is because we de facto are 50 identical countries.

Think about the synergies from having the same language alone...it's huge.

Most western countries now accept English language as the central language, so that edge will be lost in the near future.
 

gingermeggs

Golden Member
Dec 22, 2008
1,157
0
71
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Craig234
I would oppose it unless there was some way to prevent corrupt concentration of power.

We can't even prevent it here.

Exactly. Consider how crazy it sounded to talk about getting rid of the British rulers in the America around 1750? That seems about where we are. No one has an idea yet.

should of finished the job after WW1.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Originally posted by: gingermeggs
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: halik
No way, it strips away each country's monetary policy, which is really bad in crisis. Just take a look at what's going on in euroland right now - a group of very heterogeneous economies will always struggle to find the proper cental bank policy.

Hey, if one central bank policy work for New York and Alabama, why can't it work in a larger context?

The issue is really politics. Politicians want to have the freedom to ask for and do things that on the surface make his/her supporters happy. How much difference those policies make is highly debatable.


Because our economies are by far the most homogeneous of all economic unions out there. Just try to compare the U.S. to the EU... cultural similarity, freedom of labor, regulations, gdp/capita etc. The reason why United States is and has been the most powerful country in the world is because we de facto are 50 identical countries.

Think about the synergies from having the same language alone...it's huge.

Most western countries now accept English language as the central language, so that edge will be lost in the near future.

HA!
Have you been to europe? It's ethnically and culturally different every 3hours' worth of car drive. The fact that they can speak a common language doesn't make it any more homogeneous than people in Quebec speaking the same language as people on Ontario.
 

Jiggz

Diamond Member
Mar 10, 2001
4,329
0
76
Yes,! As long as:
1. The US Dollar is the currency
2. Only the US can print the currency.
3. All major banks sources located in the US
4. And only the US can make monetary policy
Any other questions?
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,653
100
106
Originally posted by: Jiggz
Yes,! As long as:
1. The US Dollar is the currency
2. Only the US can print the currency.
3. All major banks sources located in the US
4. And only the US can make monetary policy
Any other questions?

That's why it'll never happen, the rational assumption and fear that the US will influence the money supply too much to their liking, at the expense of vulnerable countries.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Sure, and let's have a one world dictator while we're at too!

:roll:
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
Absolutely not.

Why is it that when crisis happens (most of the time out of thin air it seems) there is always a push to give the power to a central place like its necessary to prevent the sky from falling much like today. Be it a world currency/bank or government position.

Just seems very suspicious.
 

blahblah99

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2000
2,689
0
0
Originally posted by: vhx
http://www.theaustralian.news....25173126-12377,00.html

I have seen this being mentioned more and more in the news recently. About how we need a new world bank, or that a global currency is needed. If something like this were to happen, would anyone be against it or for it? If you are against it, would it take a complete economic collapse for you to agree to this? I guess the perk would be not losing billions/trillions to currency exchanges.

IMO this seems like it could end more on the bad side than good. We saw what happened when just our own banks started to fail and essentially hijacked the taxpayer. What would happen if the world bank was in trouble? Would we even be a sovereign country if our entire economy wasn't even handled by ourselves? Seems like we would be at the mercy of those in charge of it in terms of power and control. Look how that has worked out for us so far in just our own country... And if corruption were to happen on a global scale (as if corruption wouldn't be possible) then SWHTF.

Also one might have to worry about this evolving into a bigger deal. Afterall, didn't the EU start as a trade deal then turn into a currency unification, and now its basically turning into a government unification.

Thoughts?


No way... take a look at OPEC and see how well that turned out. Now imagine an "IBBC". How many times have OPEC met over the last 6 months to "cut oil production"?
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
I'll never understand the human brain. The fiat reserve system fails, a monopoly within each country that is pegged to ours, and the solution you want is to have a global currency monopoly run by a small committee of magical issuers incapable of corruption and greed?

Money should be a PRODUCT that best facilitates trade between other products. Something like gold derives its value from its material scarcity. Fiat is an IOU note that derives its value from confidence in a MANUFACTURED scarcity of a COMMON/WORTHLESS material. It is entirely dependent on (a) coerced acceptance and (b) trust in a few men to uphold its scarcity, which has never worked, ever, in the whole of human history, but we keep trying like drunk lemmings to make it work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If you are on a 100% gold standard, you simply don't have to worry about laboring to obtain something that another man can generate with no effort at all. The dollar will end like the continental did, it's inevitable, and we'll go back to the global market currency we had under gold, perhaps with a little less arrogance.
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: halik
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: halik
No way, it strips away each country's monetary policy, which is really bad in crisis. Just take a look at what's going on in euroland right now - a group of very heterogeneous economies will always struggle to find the proper cental bank policy.

Hey, if one central bank policy work for New York and Alabama, why can't it work in a larger context?

The issue is really politics. Politicians want to have the freedom to ask for and do things that on the surface make his/her supporters happy. How much difference those policies make is highly debatable.


Because our economies are by far the most homogeneous of all economic unions out there. Just try to compare the U.S. to the EU... cultural similarity, freedom of labor, regulations, gdp/capita etc. The reason why United States is and has been the most powerful country in the world is because we de facto are 50 identical countries.

Think about the synergies from having the same language alone...it's huge.

Yeah right, 50 identical countries. Maybe you need to travel to different states a little more and talk to people from different states a little more. Not only is the economy different from state like CA and Indiana different, the culture and language (like Spanish is everywhere in CA) is quite different as well.

I will give you that US is relatively similar compare to other union, but that's the result of the 200+ years of under one, not only economic system, but government system as well. Think 200 years ago how different each part of the US is. And if we ever want the world to enjoy the same prosperity, homogeneity, and the closeness (some people would probably argue that...hehe) between the union in the US, we have to start slowly integrate different parts of the world into one. (keyword is slowly)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,858
6,394
126
Originally posted by: BansheeX
I'll never understand the human brain. The fiat reserve system fails, a monopoly within each country that is pegged to ours, and the solution you want is to have a global currency monopoly run by a small committee of magical issuers incapable of corruption and greed?

Money should be a PRODUCT that best facilitates trade between other products. Something like gold derives its value from its material scarcity. Fiat is an IOU note that derives its value from confidence in a MANUFACTURED scarcity of a COMMON/WORTHLESS material. It is entirely dependent on (a) coerced acceptance and (b) trust in a few men to uphold its scarcity, which has never worked, ever, in the whole of human history, but we keep trying like drunk lemmings to make it work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If you are on a 100% gold standard, you simply don't have to worry about laboring to obtain something that another man can generate with no effort at all. The dollar will end like the continental did, it's inevitable, and we'll go back to the global market currency we had under gold, perhaps with a little less arrogance.

The glitter has blinded you. Fiat Currency makes much more sense than Gold Currency. Even with the Gold Standard Economic troubles were major issues.

The main reason the California Gold Rush was such a big deal was mainly because the US was effectively Bankrupt after spending all its' Gold. Suddenly it had Gold again and everything went from Bust to Boom. It wasn't because the US began Exporting Goods or Services, it was simply because some Hobo found some yellow metal in a Crick. That makes no sense at all.
 

KlokWyze

Diamond Member
Sep 7, 2006
4,451
9
81
www.dogsonacid.com
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Wouldn't this be similar to when the world used to use gold and then paper money was just a representation of gold? Then eventually this gold standard was removed, so without clicking your link it sounds like a request back to the gold standard in some manner.

we *might* end up going to a semi-gold standard. no way in hell we can repay the deficit. we will force the world to "recap" us debt and currency and we will probably revert to semi-gold standard and the world will end 12/21/2012 and prove obama was the anti-christ.

haha
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: brandonb
Absolutely not.

Why is it that when crisis happens (most of the time out of thin air it seems) there is always a push to give the power to a central place like its necessary to prevent the sky from falling much like today. Be it a world currency/bank or government position.

Just seems very suspicious.
But the central bank of the US did such a bang up job, why wouldn't you want the entire world to benefit from the same kind of efficacy? :p

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: BansheeX
I'll never understand the human brain. The fiat reserve system fails, a monopoly within each country that is pegged to ours, and the solution you want is to have a global currency monopoly run by a small committee of magical issuers incapable of corruption and greed?

Money should be a PRODUCT that best facilitates trade between other products. Something like gold derives its value from its material scarcity. Fiat is an IOU note that derives its value from confidence in a MANUFACTURED scarcity of a COMMON/WORTHLESS material. It is entirely dependent on (a) coerced acceptance and (b) trust in a few men to uphold its scarcity, which has never worked, ever, in the whole of human history, but we keep trying like drunk lemmings to make it work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If you are on a 100% gold standard, you simply don't have to worry about laboring to obtain something that another man can generate with no effort at all. The dollar will end like the continental did, it's inevitable, and we'll go back to the global market currency we had under gold, perhaps with a little less arrogance.

The glitter has blinded you. Fiat Currency makes much more sense than Gold Currency. Even with the Gold Standard Economic troubles were major issues.

The main reason the California Gold Rush was such a big deal was mainly because the US was effectively Bankrupt after spending all its' Gold. Suddenly it had Gold again and everything went from Bust to Boom. It wasn't because the US began Exporting Goods or Services, it was simply because some Hobo found some yellow metal in a Crick. That makes no sense at all.

He still doesn't get that gold is a desire priced commodity with no intrinsic value. People can manipulate it just as easily and our economy can be borked from simple currency war quite easily under a gold system.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
To OP. Better question. Would you willing become a slave . Whos going to get Best of Everthing. The poor going to catch a break. Not,

Gold works as a standard so long as you do not circulate the metal. Use Gold notes.

If you circulate Gold its worse than what we have.

Its mute anyway the Gold in knox was stolen by the Fed along time ago. Now the IMF has it. Prove their is Gold in knox. AN audit would work LOL!!!
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: BansheeX
I'll never understand the human brain. The fiat reserve system fails, a monopoly within each country that is pegged to ours, and the solution you want is to have a global currency monopoly run by a small committee of magical issuers incapable of corruption and greed?

Money should be a PRODUCT that best facilitates trade between other products. Something like gold derives its value from its material scarcity. Fiat is an IOU note that derives its value from confidence in a MANUFACTURED scarcity of a COMMON/WORTHLESS material. It is entirely dependent on (a) coerced acceptance and (b) trust in a few men to uphold its scarcity, which has never worked, ever, in the whole of human history, but we keep trying like drunk lemmings to make it work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. If you are on a 100% gold standard, you simply don't have to worry about laboring to obtain something that another man can generate with no effort at all. The dollar will end like the continental did, it's inevitable, and we'll go back to the global market currency we had under gold, perhaps with a little less arrogance.

A gold standard fails because it allows the government to lose control of the economy, and thus is more easily manipulated by external situations and people. With a government(s) that knows what it's doing and is working toward the good of the people, the 'fiat' money system is the lesser of two evils.
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorskiThe glitter has blinded you. Fiat Currency makes much more sense than Gold Currency.

Uh huh, that's why it always fails and lays waste to its people. Name one 100% fiat currency that has lasted for more than a century.

Even with the Gold Standard Economic troubles were major issues.

Right, because even when we were on a gold standard, banks were allowed to create redeemable notes for which no metal existed and loan it out at interest. When you allow fraud on such a fundamental level, shit happens. It's called fractional reserve banking, it causes banks to be fundamentally insolvent and experience runs, and 90% of the people who attempt to argue with gold advocates don't realize this, losing the argument before it even begins.

The gold standard also can't stop the government from price fixing interest rates and other things, or heavily taxing or oppressing the property and political rights of its people. Gold money is AN ingredient to lasting prosperity, not THE ingredient. Psychotic policies can and will fuck you elsewhere even when you have market-determined money.

The main reason the California Gold Rush was such a big deal was mainly because the US was effectively Bankrupt after spending all its' Gold.

Wow, going off the gold standard and issuing wads of unconstitutional cash to fight a possibly unnecessary war raises demand for a money that maintains its value relative to other goods?

Suddenly it had Gold again and everything went from Bust to Boom. It wasn't because the US began Exporting Goods or Services, it was simply because some Hobo found some yellow metal in a Crick. That makes no sense at all.

The U.S. has always had exports, and gold can and did facilitate stable trade for the reasons I outlined above. Plus, you never export for the sake of exporting. You export to get something you lack in return. If you're making products and shipping them overseas for an endless stream of paper IOUs, how is that beneficial to you? It isn't. Sometimes consuming more of what you are producing is the best thing to be doing.

Originally posted by: LegendKillerHe still doesn't get that gold is a desire priced commodity with no intrinsic value.

First of all, nothing has "intrinsic value," that is a bullshit term, so why are you using it as criticism? Value as we perceive it depends on the human situation surrounding it. A box of fruity pebbles is worth more than a suitcase full of cash to a man starving alone on a mountain. To the extent that gold is desired to facilitate trade with others in a society and store wealth for its unique set of characteristics (voluminously rare, doesn't rust, spoil, die, or require upkeep), gold has fucking value. That's why 60% of currently mined gold is sitting in a bank or government vault somewhere. That's why humans used it for centuries to build entire civilizations. Buy a freaking clue already, enough with the arrogance and tinfoil.

Originally posted by: LegendKillerPeople can manipulate it just as easily and our economy can be borked from simple currency war quite easily under a gold system.

Explain a situation in which this could be brought about. Country A is on a gold standard, Country B is going to manipulate them into poverty.

Originally posted by: Fox5A gold standard fails because it allows the government to lose control of the economy, and thus is more easily manipulated by external situations and people.

Care to elaborate, I have no idea what you are talking about? The gold standard doesn't allow the government to lose control of the economy, YOU allow the government to lose control of the economy by letting them shirk its discipline. So yes, congrats to you and your doomed offspring for being convinced that something which always gets counterfeited into oblivion by its issuer is a superior means of facilitating trade and preserving the working man's wealth.