Singular Monetary Union

Canadians wouldn´t stand for monetary union with the USA. There are psychological as well as economic reasons for rejecting the idea; one of them is that Canada´s economic composition is different from the USA´s, since our resource extraction sector as a percentage of GDP is about 20% vs the USA&quot;s 5%. And psychologically, we prefer our own currency rather than a foreign nation´s. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Tawakalnistani dinars, a fine currency based on a sound economy

I will accept any currency so long as I get my fair percentage.<img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> Plus a nominal fee for the exchange of course, a token charge for handling, documentation bill for the admin, and any other spurious add on I can get away with.

<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>the euro is evil, and that is that <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> Care to expand upon that ff? I mean, its a sweeping enough statement that (in my opinion) has been imprinted by the media onto your mind, and not actually brought about by any other means. Why is it evil? In what way is it evil? I ask because I think it highlights the primary issue with any country accepting another currency... and that is simply knee **** tendancies without any grounds to base it from. If you believe its going to be damaging to the economy of Great Britain - then how exactly? *edit* - thats novel, you can say bollocks, **** and bastard - but not j3rk? Edited by - Spanner Monkey on 5/21/2005 10:25:14 AM

Spanner is def arcon. On topic I dont like a single currency. I like the Good ole American Dollar.

in a way, that´s a single currency operating across a customs-free zone. what if (as might have happened) each state minted its own currency and imposed duties on goods crossing its borders? and North America is already a free trade area, US, Canadia, and Mezzico all forming one economic bloc? as for the Euro, I think it´s inevitable and we might as well join it and make the most of it. I can´t say I like it and the Pound has tremendous cultural symbolism for us, esp as regards its implications for the surrender of our economic sovereignty. But it would in fact really be a formal recognition that our economic and political future is bound with mainland Europe now. Europe is by far our major trading partner and has been for many years. Our choices are limited; the Commonwealth we can write off, i think we could manage to live without NZ lamb and butter which is about all it really means to us. And our other trading partner id the US, somewhat more so than people realise. it´s not just expensive cars and luxury foods one way and tourists the other, many companies trade equally in the US and UK and the financial services market is very closely integrated between the two countries. But I wouldnt want the US as a political partner anymore, our interests are better served by a closer union with our European partners. if that means ditching the Pound in favour of the Euro and agreeing to a binding European constitution, then I´d accept that as a price worth paying.

i´ll keep the good ol´ washington thank you.

Arton... <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>So, what are peoples thoughts about currency.<b> Should we be retaining our individual currencies </b>, which ensure that to buy anything anywhere - someone will have to change the funds into another currency... or should (like in the EU) we all start to adopt several or one single currency. <b>What would be the advantages and disadvantages of each? </b> Would it really matter if you spent pounds instead of dollars, or euro´s instead of yen? How would you feel if your currency DID change, and <b>why? What is the reason? </b> Do you just not care? What currency should we all be working in? <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> The thread isn´t about making a single statement of &quot;I don´t want a new currency thanks&quot;. It was an attempt to motivate a discussion into the positives and negatives that are to be had IF there was a single currency - indeed - whether you actually want one as well. It was an attempt to view some mis-conceptions that some will certainly have, and also for people to read into a subject that has importance to the world. Obviously I am at the wrong forum if I wish an actual discussion. Would love to see some others prove me wrong, but I don´t hold out hope. Taw - I agree to a certain extent. Europe has potential to be a very good thing, but the only issues I have is that its prone to corruption, and also prone to taking too long to decide anything. America is alot more impulsive - which can be both good OR bad.

The major problem with one currency, is product value. In a slightly depressed economy, they will benifit the increase, but a higher inflated economy, will suffer. I myself totally oppose any move to a joined monitary unit. Can´t list reasons here though. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Canadia <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> you bloody heathen Britain... <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> <font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Our choices are limited; the Commonwealth we can write off <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> In that case, do we still have to keep the old broad you call a queen on our currency? xD Edited by - Wilde on 5/21/2005 4:00:23 PM

you can do what you like. you´ll be incorporated into that burgeoning empire to your south soon enough.

Unifying currencies ties the economic fates of the member nations together. It would seriously affect us if we decided to share our economy with rapidly failing economies since our money would quickly become worth much, much less. Basically a bad harvest year in Germany and France would adversely affect the UK as the value of the Euro dropped. The EU however is very strong so long as it retains membership for the more affluent countries. The main question is how far east will it expand? Places like Albania and Turkey for example could seriously affect the value of the Euro.

@ final. My reasons are same as yours but you cant stop it from happening. <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

There is a lot that can be said on this topic. Some people have made statements such as ´we will not adopt a foreign currency.´ However, the idea of a singular currency is that it is a new currency not currently used by any country. Before the Euro was introduced by the EU to those participating in the scheme, the Euro did not exist anywhere. A country would not be adopting another counties currency, but instead adopting a global currency. Should the Euro be this currency? No, if only for the connotations sake of the word that it is linked to Europe which hardly suggests a global currency. However, the Euro has proved that introducing such a currency system across a number of nations is not as hard or as difficult as might be expected and it is viable. However, as most are aware, Britian choose to retain the Pound Sterling in light of this. The reason was clear, when the Euro was first introduced, it´s overall value and economic implications were, at the time, not suitable for Britian in it´s current climate and state. The Euro has successfully become more stable recently and it has now come under due consideration as to whether the time will be soon that economically it will become a viable currency that can be used across the British state to benefit of the British people. As to the sovereignty of the Pound Sterling, this currently means very little. History has shown that changes in currency value have less impact than people may think. Even taking Britian as an example, we have in the last 100 years discarded the Guinea and the Farthing and moved to adopt a decimal system for the Pound Sterling (i.e. 100 pennies = 1 pound sterling). The terms Tuppence and Shilling are no virtually non existant (though in essence, can still be used as a Shilling is a 10 pence piece and Tuppence is a two pence piece). We have also removed some elements of currency in more recent decades such as the one and two pound notes and then introduced the two pound coin and abandoned the half pence piece completely. Likewise, the actual value of money has also dramtically changed in the last half a century. My Nan, may her soul rest in peace, bought her house back in the 50´s/60´s for £400. Now a days, that house is worth approx £90´000. It is not just property inflation that has caused that massive change in value in 40 odd years. Back in those days, if you were on £5 a week, you were lucky. Now people moan if they get less than £200-300 a week (depending on the area you live in - some parts of britian have higher costs of living than others). So whats one more change? I think only hide bound traditionalists will grumble on this point, but then again, if you were a true traditionalist, you would hate the current decimal pound system and actually want to bring back the guinea and farthing systems. Nor would this have an impact on the commonwealth. The vast majority of the commonwealth runs of their own local currencies. The commonwealth does not use the pound sterling. As to the disregarding the commonwealth? Whoever wrote that has a lot to learn in global and in particular, British and commonwealth politics. The commonwealth is what keeps Britian as one of the key players in the world. It is our influence through the Commonwealth that enables as so much sway in the world. Britian learnt a long time ago that actual Empires would inevitably collapse in time and has thus evolved to make their Empire more time perservering. This is what the commonwealth is. While not taking direct command of each country in the commonwealth and allowing them their own individual control that best suits their localised region, Britian has kept the commonwealth still united through trade and shared interrest. To pick on one member of the commonwealth is to incur the wrath of Britian. To incur the wrath of Britian of is incur the wrath of the rest of the Commonwealth. And considering that the Commonwealth is still one of the largest global communities (it´s influence, power and territory extends far beyond that held by the US), that is not a position most people want to be in. Meanwhile, on the public surface, Britian keeps the world from realising that it still has it´s Empire as all they see is lots of individual little countries just sharing trade and having some nice talks every now and then. The Commonwealth can almost become the model upon which a true Globalised Community can be developed from. Further more, though Britian has a lot of say and trade with the EU, it has also maintain a distance from the EU at the same time. Why? One: because they also wish not to cause aggreviation with the US and a move more into the EU will cause further strains on our relationship on the US and two: because Britian is head of it´s own little secret Empire where as in the EU, Britian will just become a little member country of the EU family. Politicians know there is currently strain between Europe and the US and one of those things that keep that strain from getting out of control is the intermediate intercession of Britian and the Commonwealth. Disregard the Commonwealth? That would be a bad, very bad, move. (however, I have no problems with countries rubbing the queen off their currency. The queen and the royal family are little more now than glorified over priced land lords and media circus freaks. Though as demonstrated recently, they still hold certain sway over the commonwealth and this country when the Queen made her speech to the Commons. Though most of that speech is made in discussion between the newly voted Prime Minister (which just happened to be Tony Blair... again) and the Queen, the Queen can still influence that speech and add her own details as to what she wants ´her´ government to do for ´her´ country. The truth is, by British law, the Royality can still supersede anything laid down by Parliament, but do not because to do so could possibly errupt into another English Civil War). Anyway, I drift off topic. Back to single Currency. I believe it to be a good idea and a positive step in the right direction, though there is a lot of kinks that would need to be sorted out to make it work properly. A global currency would most likely benefit poorer countries but would have a detrimental effect on richer nations. Until those richer countries can get over themselves and begin adopting the old ´love thy neighbour like you love thyself´ attitude, they are not likely to sign up to the deal without something that will give them enhanced benefits for themselves (the same reason Britian has stayed out of the Euro thus far). Globalisation of many things, including currency, should be seen as positive steps towards not only an easier future for all, but a more peaceful future. BUT all must be on the watch out for where Globalisation has it´s failings. The most particular note of this is becoming blind to localised issues in favour of the Global Picture. Such an act may cause descension from localised areas that will spread and lead to a chaotic and anarchaic break down of modern society in all areas. You must be careful as to what to globalise and what not to globalise (as Britian has begun to discover and hence why they de-evolved Wales and Scotland and are now even considering de-evolving Northern England into it´s independant country state with it´s own assembly as well). Freeworlds Mod Developer Author of Modular Station ´There is no Good nor Evil in the universe, just perceptions and circumstances.´

&quot;As to the disregarding the commonwealth? Whoever wrote that has a lot to learn in global and in particular, British and commonwealth politics.&quot; not so. for many years I was imbued with the idea that the Commonwealth did exactly that, maitain Britain´s position and influence in the world. I learned different. it doesn´t. Economically it´s an irrelevance. Politically, well it doesn´t count for much either. Symbolically it still has some merit but that´s mostly wishful thinking on our (Britain´s) part. The invasion of Grenada pretty much proved what relevance the Commonwelath had; the US didn´t even bother to inform Britain, who´s Queen was titular Head of State of Grenada, that they were going to invade it. The British Govt found out on the news. And that was at the height of our Cold War relationship with the US. even back in the 60s when we counted for a bit more than we do now, when we still had a proper Navy and the RAF had a global reach still (ah, V-Bombers..) I remember wondering what exactly the Commonwealth was all about and how it measured up to the Americans and Russians, and we were taught what a wonderful thing the British Commonwealth was and all the &quot;empire on which the sun never set&quot; - and it was all poo-kak really wasn´t it? delusion. Canada had long been bound to the US and Australia had grown closer to the Far east economies, india and Pakistan were always at each others throats, Rhodesia and Sith Efrika had been kicked out and isolated, leaving little islands and various African semi-dictatorships as the rump of the Commonwealth. And other than some shady business dealings and a lucrative ground for mercenaries, what has that ever achieved? I´m just recognising a situation that has existed for quite a while now, but its taken time for most people to see it.

<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>Unifying currencies ties the economic fates of the member nations together. It would seriously affect us if we decided to share our economy with rapidly failing economies since our money would quickly become worth much, much less. Basically a bad harvest year in Germany and France would adversely affect the UK as the value of the Euro dropped. <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> What if these rapidly failing economies that are mentioned in the above quote decided to print money (as has been done in the past)? This would have a terrible effect on the rest of the world, since it would create mass-inflation worldwide rather than in just one country. It would definitely be better for each country to keep its own currency. I´m not even crazy about the idea of a continental currency like the Euro. There´s just too much room for the mistakes of other governments to hurt your own country´s economy. Besides, I would imagine that exchanging current currencies for a universal currency would be extremely difficult. Some countries wouldn´t choose to accept it at first while others would...I just think it would get too complicated. And it´s not like it´s <i>that </i> difficult or time-consuming to exchange money (or at least not in my limited experience). Basically, I vote against the idea of a worldwide currency. Edited by - njhockeyboy on 5/21/2005 11:41:38 PM

spanner you misunderstood me it´s just not a good idea given foreign relations and all between the US and others so for now it´s good to stick with the current systems as i recall the change over in europe wasn´t widly welcomed either, so if it isn´t broke don´t fix it <img src=smilies/icon_smile_big.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

If you know anything about macroeconomics, you can see how a global currency would work- and why nobody´s signed up for one... yet. A global currency would have huge advantages, if the Central Bank that was responsible for the supply of the currency was committed to anti-inflationary policy, much like the European Union and US Federal Reserve Board are. The advantages: 1. No more price speculation on currencies by institutional investors and the super-rich, which has adverse effects on the values of local governments´ currencies, making it hard for them to pay their debts or sell their products. The value of the currency wouldn´t be truly uniform (more on this in a second), but it´d be much closer than it is right now. 2. All of the transactional fees associated with currencies would be eliminated. Let´s see here- we´re talking everything from the taxes raised to hire government employees to monitor, politicize and sometimes change currency policies, much lower trading costs because import/export would become a much simpler transaction... and no bank fees. All of these things add up to very large percentages of the total costs of buying and selling things internationally, and can sometimes have disasterous effects on economies if they´re mishandled, such as the Southeast Asian currency crisis. 3. Debt management for debtor nations would be greatly simplified, because their debt loads as a percentage of GDP wouldn´t fluctuate as they do now. This would be both good and bad (more on this in a second). 4. Nations with poor fiduciary policy would no longer be able to hide the extent to which they´re bankrupting themselves and destroying their economies with poor policy by manipulating their currencies. This has already been seen in the EU, where the Euro has revealed to member nations the full extent of the economic problems they´ve been creating through over-expanding the welfare state- one of the biggest hurdles the Euro member states had was putting together deals that would allow some of the worst offenders (such as France) to gradually adjust their tax systems so that the transition wouldn´t be quite so painful. The Euro´s implementation has been a great thing for Europe´s economy, in the long-term view, because it´s going to force Europe to adjust its economic politics to be more competitive with the rest of the world. 5. It would forever remove the incentives of dictators and foolish politicians to boost their short-term popularity at the expense of long-term gain. For example, politicians would no longer have the option to introduce hyperinflation as a method of &quot;reducing&quot; a country´s real debt- a tactic that´s been used many times over the last century in the Second and Third World. Hyperinflation has disasterous long-term effects on everybody, especially debtor nations (because even if they´ve &quot;cancelled&quot; their debts, they´re really just forgoing future loans to their governments, which usually has lead to economic stagnation- and the &quot;gains&quot; realized are usually pockete by dictators and the venal). 6. It would raise the incomes of all of the Second and Third World nations, and raise per-capita income considerably, because many of these nations have artificially low incomes- the First World has been stacking the deck very effectively to keep the costs of labor down in these nations as they´ve developed, with a fair degree of success. Why haven´t the people of the world demanded that all of the (relatively) wonderful things outlined above happen? Simply put: because the short-term pain would be tremendous, for just about everybody. This is why a world-wide currency is unlikely to arrive in our lifetimes- it´s all tied to the development of the global economy. And for too many governments, including all of the big First World nations, currency manipulation of various kinds (usually subtle) is a bargaining tool and weapon that few politicians can resist. What would happen, if everybody´s kronor, yen, dollars and euros were transformed into World Money overnight? In one word: chaos. Specifically: Let´s pretend, for the sake of argument, that this World Money is the US Dollar in disguise... so it breaks into 100 Pennies at the lowest possible spendable denomination. It really doesn´t matter what currency we use as a starting value, of course. 1. Overnight, the lowest possible payment that could be given/taken for a service payable in cash or its equivalent would be one penny. One US penny is worth quite a bit in many Third World countries- it´s the equivalent of several minutes of a low-level-laborer´s time. You cannot buy that much of someone´s time for a penny in the US or other nations, even if they´re doing the same labor and have a similar standard of living, so there´s an issue right there- the huge discreptency between what things are worth in various places. This seemingly-small change would have a huge impact on labor costs, which would, in turn, effect the prices of things pretty sharply, and also have a dramatic effect on labor markets. This would be compounded by the similar effects it would have on materials costs, which are closer to true &quot;commodity&quot; pricing througout the world (i.e., your costs in Bangaledesh for pure gold aren´t a whole lot different than your price of pure gold in the US), but still aren´t totally flat. In the United States, where we have a relatively capitalist economy, we see these things on a local level all the time. For example, I live in Indiana, which (for those of you who aren´t familiar with our geography) is a large, flat state near the center of the country, and it is not particularily wealthy. Here, living in an apartment is pretty cheap, even compared to wages, which are less here for the same job than elsewhere in the US. I have friends who work in Maryland, Boston and Washington DC who make a lot more money than I do... on paper. But their costs of living are a higher percentage of their wages than mine... for equivalent circumstances. IOW, they aren´t really any &quot;richer&quot; than I am, in terms of the goods and services they can purchase locally. If they could purchase every good/service online (which is rather unlikely- how´s some guy in India going to wash my car in America?), they´d be &quot;richer&quot; by quite a bit, but that´s not how things really work out. Still, Internet commerce and globalization favor them, not me- a 20% reduction on something that costs 1% of my income but only 0.33% of theirs works in their favor. Luckily for me, though... the long-term effects of such commerce will eventually create pressure to lower their wages, except for people who´re working in unique circumstances that are highly resistant to outside market pressure (for example, working for the US Government in Washington, DC). 2. Europe and Japan would get eaten alive by the world economy. Europeans and the Japanese have been hiding the real costs of their economic policies for decades behind trade barriers of various kinds. Some are governmental policies (such as the barriers erected in Europe to foreign farmers), some are political (such as the French and German unions, which throw hissy-fits on a regular basis to keep their governments from tightening spending restraints) and some are cultural (Japanese business circles rely heavily on social circles that are very hard for gaijin or other &quot;barbarians&quot; to penetrate, despite the anti-competitive nature of same). World Money would cause the current pain being inflicted on Euro member nations to increase by quite a bit, because their trade barriers would become even more detrimental to their economies than they already are. The US, which definately does restrict more trade than it should, would also be punished, but far less. The biggest losers here would be trade unions, because their labor would look even more over-priced than it does today. No trade union will ever encourage global currencies or global trade agreements because of this fact. Which is pretty short-sighted of them, considering that it´s just driving ever-more labor overseas. Remember... like it or not, in any more-than-nominally capitalist nation, currency, labor and capitol can all move around with a certain amount of freedom. And nobody in their right mind is going to pay more than they have to, when they´re trying to make money. World Money would make the short-sightedness of current labor unions much more readily apparant, and I have a feeling that it would spell doom for either the labor unions in their current form (although surely India and Eastern Europe need them more than ever) or the governments of Europe and Japan, who´d be torn down by the very unions that supported them for decades... in favor of ever-tighter trade restrictions to prop up the unions. This sort´ve shenanigans has been happening for a while now, and I think it´s obvious that it´s not working, but World Money would make it so obvious that everybody with half a brain would have to see it and pick their poison. The current system of multiple currencies and &quot;free trade zones&quot; allows the politicians to blur the effects somewhat, though, which is why the globalization of the world´s financial system has been less crushing to Europe than it will be later... unless they change their policies to be more competitive. ************************************************************************************************* At any rate... that´s a short, glossing-over analysis of this issue, as I see it. Note that I´m not saying we in the US are the &quot;smart ones&quot; or the &quot;winners&quot; here- we´re also taking a lot´ve lumps from the rise of China and India... and as other countries in Eastern Europe and South America (and maybe, one day... Africa and the Middle East) get their economies working better, the pressure on the US and other First World nations is going to be very intense. We´re doing better than most of the First World, at least for now... because we´ve been pretty good about allowing our labor and capital to move around, we´ve kept taxes low, and the rest of the world keeps investing in our economy, allowing us to find ever-more-creative ways to keep everybody employed. I think that Europe´s in big trouble, and that the UK is probably not going to resist joining them... because socialism sounds much better, at least until you start to see the long-term effects. The Japanese are actually starting to dismantle their welfare state, though, so look for them to resume their growth as a high-tech partner to China´s growing might as a manufacturer. India´s probably the biggest long-term winner here, despite China´s higher growth rate over the last few years, because eventually China´s going to have to cross the perilous gap between having a truly transparent market (which requires a transparent political system) and India´s already a functional democracy, if a raucus one.

Firstly, apologies Aargh...your post, which is undoubtably an intelligent analysis, is far too bloody long for me to be bothered to read in my 5 minute morning break <img src=smilies/icon_smile_wink.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle> I just wanted to give my two penneth....I´m with Taw mostly on this. I´ll be sad to see the British Pound go, but the Euro is (and should be) inevitable to formalise our status in europe. I say we should make the most of it. Besides, I´m trying to run a small business and I get a lot of clients approaching me from Europe nowadays. I can do without the hassle of conversion rates, I always seem to lose out....the Euro could solve my problems *and* most importantly, open my business up to a wider audience. There will inevitably be teething problems, but I´m prepared to live with them. Edited by - gromit on 5/25/2005 3:39:00 AM