Talk:World currency/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV issues

Contrary to the statement in the entry,"Global Currency" that there will never be a global currency, the world WILL see a Single Global Currency, managed by a Global Central Bank, within a Global Monetary Union. The remaining questions are When and How smooth will the transition to that 3-G world be.

Paul Volcker has said, "A global economy requires a global currency", and Nobel Prize winner Robert Mundell has long advocated for a global currency. The establishment of the euro has shown the benefits of a common currency.

See the website of the Single Global Currency Association at www.singleglobalcurrency.org for more information. In April, the Association will publish the book, "The Single Global Currency: Common Cents for the World". Our goal is a Single Global Currency by the year 2024.
morrison bonpasse
President
Single Global Currency Association
Newcastle, Maine
morrison@singleglobalcurrency.org

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Morrisonbonpasse (talk • contribs) 16:36, February 18, 2006

This article reads like an original research opinion/position paper. The whole thing starts with "this will never happen..." and goes on to argue that position. Salvageable? Non-WP:OR material on the concept available? Weregerbil 16:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is far from neutral and needs major rewriting. Nevertheless, this is an important topic that needs an article. —Lowellian (reply) 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've completely rewritten the article. It is now more neutral and does not read like a position paper. —Lowellian (reply) 01:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work, Lowellian. The article is much more appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia now. --Happy-melon 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the example

In the "economical difficulties" section, the following example is presented:

As an example, consider a hypothetical Country A that is a petroleum exporter and a hypothetical Country B that is an oil importer. If the price of oil goes up, this is an advantage for Country A, and a disadvantage for Country B. If the oil price goes up, this stimulates the economy of Country A; to avoid "overheating" the economy, Country A's central bank would support increasing the interest rate of Country A. At the same time, Country B's economy is damaged by the increased price of oil, and Country B's central bank would seek to lower the interest rate in order to stimulate the economy. However, Country A and Country B would be unable to do this if they shared the same currency.

I believe this needs to be fixed. First of all, no explanation is made of what Country A does with the money it receives for oil, or where Country B finds the money to continue buying gold from Country A. How the money "stimulates the economy" of Country A is also unclear - is there any reason the money couldn't be reinvested in Country B instead, resulting in a trade deficit for Country B?

And what's "overheating the economy" supposed to mean? Some people use it as a synonym for inflation, while others believe there is a bona fide problem with strong economic growth, inflation or no.

And Country B's economy is "damaged"? How so?

Note that this example implicitly assumes a free market for both goods (oil, at least) and investments. It also seems fairly trivial to tax investment in a country or subsidise it to achieve the same effect as higher respectively lower interest rates ...

RandomP 14:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is too much simple an example. You could add that Country A is a chocolate importer and B a chocolate exporter. And if you added this, you could tell that both countries would benefit of the single world currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.118.66.176 (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I wrote this example, and I would like to argue in favour of it.

The orgiginal example was more spesific, it was generalized by another person, not changing the meaning though. I belive what is written is correct.

In the original example I used my homecountry Norway as an example state. Norway is a well developed economy, and because the oilmoney is spread on many hands is boosts practicly every industry in the country (widespread money equals widespread spending). I dont think it to be neccesary to go more into why the oil money is an advantage for the economy. Because of the strong economy Norway has in many periods had higher interest rate then EU and USA to keep the pressure on the economy down.

I dont understand at all why I need to explain why oil importers have a disadvantage when the oil price go up. To subsidice oil does not on a country level help on the disadvantage from increased oilprice, it only reallocates it.

By «overheating the economy» I mean the situation you are in when the unemployment is so low that increased spendings (increased GNP) trigger a relatively high level of inflation (caused by increased salaries). This happens when the unemployment is on the level with this country's «natural rate of unemployment». This is indeed where my country is today, and for Norway today it is important to use the interest rate to actively control the economy. And the needs are indeed different from many other counties in Europe. Few other countries have a similar unemplyment rate.

Books could be written on this, which is exacly why I like small «on the spot» examples, trying to explain some of the effects that it usually takes a major in economics to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.145.232 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reserve Currency edit

Just wanted to emphasize that the dollar remains a large portion of global currency reserves. --67.164.94.98 (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Single interest rate

I don't get it. Why having a single currency imply having a single interest rate? Is every entity supposed to offer the same interest rate within the same country? If not, why should the countries do it? Sure, money would have different value on different countries (a BigMac could cost 1 BigMacSingleCurrencyDollar in NY and 1.45 in London), but it's roughly the same when compared to Dollars, Euros or BigMacs today. And if a country wishes to pay higher interests it can do so, just as it does now if you list the values in Dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.48.220 (talk) 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think whoever wrote that was thinking of the prime rate or the overnight rate; but you're right, the statement is probably untrue and in any case it needs a citation (like many other OR-seeming statements in this article). I just fact-tagged the sentence. Tempshill (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it seems you (you who don't understand "Why having a single currency imply having a single interest rate?") dont realize that bigmacs cannot be transfered digitally. Bigmacs or other goods or services have to be offered, and partly produced, on spot, which means there will be price differences due to different economical stages of economical development. Higher developed economies have higher salaries for instance, all in all the result is higher prices for goods and services.

         Currensies flow over borders whenever the owner see a chance for having a higher profit in another market. So the whole idea of one country giving lets say 2% interest rate on us dollars, and another country giving 4% is really just nonesence.
         Even if it logically could work with 2 different interest rates, it still would not work, because the central banks that prints the money also determins the interest rate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.243.145.232 (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 

List removed

From the "Arguments for a global currency" section, I removed a bulleted list that was taken from [[1]]. There was a comment that it was taken "by permission" but Wikipedia doesn't allow "by permission" text or images; it all has to be licensed under the GFDL; so I removed it. I summarized the bullet points into one sentence. Tempshill (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Terms

Just a quick note that the current terms for Global Currency and World Currency, are starting to have more separate, and unique meanings due to the recent developments in the economic crisis. Global Currency is starting to become more associated with an actual trade currency, whereas World Currency remains a phrase in regards to the plural means of multiple national currencies. [1] [2] [3] We might need to create a new page to separate the two. ---Wolfe (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Google summary

Google of "global currency" returns this wikipedia page with following summary: "The dollar continues to dominate global currency reserves, with 63.9% held .... argue that a single global currency is unworkable given the vastly different ..." I find the second part biased, who argues? Some economists? -> [citation needed] 89.176.185.139 (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory now proven true

I have been looking for things once considered conspiracy theories that have since been proven to be true. This should be noted. BenW (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Other Arguments

Many Christians believe that a single world currency is a sign of the End Days, when the world is united under a One World Order.

Sorry, I am Christian and have lived my life in pedominantly Christian countries. I have never heard of this nonsense. Until this is clarified I have changed "Christians" to "Americans" which seems closer to the truth... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.251.95 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 16 May 2007

I am not familiar with this either. Checked the often misquoted Book of Revelations also. No such direct reference. Maybe an absurd contextual interpretation could be construed to support such statement. If that has to go in, then have it say "SOME" Christians...Americans (and not just people from the U.S.) may believe this but a European or Asian could believe it as well.BaileytheDog 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As a comment on «Arguments for a global currency». Many of these are not more then half true, and the way to argue is immature. One of the arguments is just completely wrong: «eliminates the risk of currency failure..........». By saying this the author seemingly dont see that money can become worthless, like it was in Germany in the twenties, and how it still occurs in many developing countries from time to time. The whole idea of anything being "safe", in other wordshaving stable value under any circumstance is wrong, and the value of money is indeed no exception.

People tend to forget that the value of money is not safe, because the money politics has come a long way the last century, and the stabilizing effect from a modern and effectivce money policy. How many knows that the gold standard ceased to excist just over 30 years ago? People just go spending their money on useless or usefull things in their everyday life, without even knowing the basics of the money system and its history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahege (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You have posted this in the wrong section, but I'll respond (2 years late) anyway. The idea is not that it eliminates the chance of a currency failing, but that it makes it much less likely. The Euro is much less likely to fail, for example, than any of its constituents were on their own. The size and diversity of the combined economy, as well as increased political reliability of the system, make it more stable. Inter-war Germany devalued its currency on purpose to pay off war debts. It is much less likely that the European central bank would allow massive amounts of Euros to be minted in a similar manner, because while it may serve individual areas well, it would not be of benefit to the majority of the currency's member countries. Is it possible the Euro could be massively devalued? Perhaps, but I'd say it's about as likely as the US dollar doing the same thing, as they represent similar sized economies and have similar political stability behind them. TastyCakes (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether TastyCakes would make his argument as confidently today given Greece's problems that are undermining both the Greek economy and the Euro? Riversider (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Futurist Christian eschatological view

Hi everyone. I hope the section I added on the Futurist Christian eschatological view of the currency is an improvement over whatever was deleted ref the above, with increased references and explanations. I know this is a controversial point, but my understanding is that controversy is not something we delete on Wikipedia, just unsourced info. Feel free to message me on the subject. Tntdj (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Under the subject heading "Mark of Commerce" the definition of Xαραγμα has other meanings besides "Mark." If U look at this reference from an Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon, U can see that is also means, MONEY or coin. Hence: "No one buys and sells without the MONEY of the beast." See also what I wrote at the talk page for Number of the beast. Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I agree with the initial readers - this is fringe at best and seemed to me to have clear undue weight in the article. I have deleted the whole section. TastyCakes (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Biscuit Tin

Where did the 'biscuit tin' analogy come from? Is it referenced, or is it original material?

It also begs the question "Who owns the bakery?" Riversider2008 (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Over a year now since I asked this question. I'm beginning to think it's original research, unless someone can put me straight. Riversider (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Global currency, World currency or Supranational currency

So which term "Global currency" or "World currency" is the dominating one? Or which term is more correct in English? I noticed several news articles referring to it as Global Currency, but this article seems to prefer the term word currency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.38.167 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I agree I think Global currency seems to be used more often. I don't know if one is more accurate than the other, they both seem to mean pretty much the same thing. TastyCakes (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Supranational currency" may be the most correct in terms of English.

• Supra: "above, over, beyond"
• National currency: Any approved currency issued by a central bank or monetary authority as the official unit of account for valuation of foreign exchange and payment of debts. Also called monetary unit. In the United States, Federal Reserve Notes issued by the Federal Reserve Banks are the official national currency."

We should call the "World currency" by what it is, a currency that will be more powerful (& influential) than any "National currency" - A.K.A. - "Supranational currency"

We should use the term most commonly used in authoritative published sources - On WP, we follow rather than lead the prevailing use of terminology. If there are several different terms used, then a short section explaining the different meanings of the terms would be useful - and the article should reflect the relative balance between the different terms. Riversider (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Faith-based and Religious Objections:

Can we delete this bunch of crap? I have never heard of it and it seems to be quite American-Evangelist-Conspiration-Theory like.. I'll delete it if no reference is given :) Karibou (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with deleting this section and have taken the 'bold' step of deleting it myself, it is referenced to texts that bear no relationship to 21st Century economics and can only be described as WP:FRINGE . Perhaps though it could be argued that calls for a single world currency are almost as fringe in relation to economics today? Riversider (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On reflection it might be legitimate to have an entirely separate article "Religious Objections to a Single World Currency" (and possibly even for this article to link to it, despite the risk of becoming a 'coatrack'), but there is simply no place for a discussion of biblical exegesis and the Book of Revelations in an article on 21at Century economics. Riversider (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the note of religious issues, the following quote I find to be lacking evidence, specifically regarding its discussion of Christianity:

Usury – the accumulation of interest on a loan principal – is outlawed by most major religions. In Christianity this is especially true, although awareness of the taboo has been lost to most Christians.[citation needed]

Having read through the Bible myself, the evidence is mixed. The best I can come up with is that usury is forbidden among the Jews and/or your family, but Deuteronomy specifically allows the use of usury when lending money to foreigners. Is there a historical case to be made outside of the Bible? If not, this needs to be rephrased, if not entirely removed. ScottKolo (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Rephrased the sentence to improve accuracy. As Scott said, the original text was written too broadly. The Bible only disallows interest when both sides of the loan are adherents, or the borrower is poor. Dtvjho (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile if t can be sourced that concerns over the prophecy have had any actual effect on policymakers attitudes toward the idea. Have any voices in the religious right been successful in introducing legislation to block such an idea, kinda like the Bricker Amendment? Are there other religious groups that have documented objections to a one world currency? It deserves investigation. --Dudeman5685 (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Inflation

Why would a single currency be immune from inflation? All that is needed is that someone, preferably sane, has argued that this is the case, anyone found a legitimate example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.50.8 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. Whoever wrote this article is an idiot. 78.51.91.197 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be immune to inflation, but it would be much less susceptible to hyper inflation and the like. Please read Wikipedia's civility page before calling anyone else an idiot. TastyCakes (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Only immune to inflation if it's regulated by a central authority.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.231 (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no- Only a central authority has the ability to cause inflation. The physical existence of inflation does not exist in terms of physical resources having a real value of some sort, whether it's value is Zero, or greater. But, zero what? Since those who control the printing and distribution of our currency are under no obligation to trade anyone anything in exchange for it. This is the underlying reason why we are NOT a "Capitalist" system, and inflation is nothing more than one of many tricks that are used to exchange "Imaginary Resources" for Actual Resources. Any time you exchange something real for something imaginary, you are being robbed. And any time that anyone not directly involved in the transaction of goods and services has control over the rate at which transactions they are not directly involved in are able to be made, both parties are being robbed. Even if the Central Authority were the United States Government, as opposed to the only private Authority allowed to distribute currency, the fact that the two parties are not able to negotiate the value of their transaction is the antithesis of a "free market". Some may argue that if they are not prohibited from conducting a transaction- that means it's a free market, but trading 20 chickens for 2 cows shouldn't somehow magically equate 17.64 Chickens for 1.024 Cows ten years from now- as long as we're still in agreement that 20 chickens for 2 cows is a fair deal. Someone else deciding to devalue my cows, or tell me that I'm not allowed to sell 2 cows at the same time, contributes nothing to our trade agreement- and is therefore a Fascist- which please do not be fooled, is anti-capitalism at it's finest. Also: A government body that lets certain parties conduct transactions freely, but expects to be treated favorably in return- is and extortionist, which is also an anti-capitalist activity. In a capitalist scenario, the two parties would agree WHICH, if any- Privately minted currency, backed by a fixed value which all parties agree to be a fair standard with which to base other transactions upon- deliberately chosen to ensure neither party is unwittingly tricked into conducting transactions for which they are not fully in agreement of the terms. We may even decide to issue some type of certificate between ourselves, if no trustworthy third party exists. I am not aware of this having actually ever been the case of any economic system in Earth's history. And I certainly do not see it being the case anywhere in the foreseeable future. But who knows, maybe *I* have simply never been a party to capitalism173.30.88.155 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

link is dead!

ref 3 is a 404 now. Thanks Reedman72 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)