DiscussEconomics

The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World

·

Originlaly posted in our forums and moved to the blog.

Many of the problems of the existing multi-currency international financial system will be remedied with the implementation of a Single Global Currency, managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union.

The benefits of a Single Global Currency will be substantial:

– Annual transaction costs of $400 billion will be eliminated.
– The need for foreign exchange reserves will be eliminated and the
existing $3 trillion reserves can be used for more productive purposes.
– Worldwide asset values will increase by about $36 trillion due to the
reduction in currency risk.
– Worldwide GDP will increase by about $9 trillion.
– Global currency imbalances will be eliminated by definition.
– Currency crises will be prevented.
– Currency fluctuations will no longer hamper international trade and
investment.
– Currency speculation will be eliminated.


Such gains are realistic and attainable if the world decides to pursue them. The monetary unions of Europe, the Caribbean, Africa and Brunei/Singapore have shown the way. If 13 countries in Europe can prosper within a monetary union, and that number will increase to 22 within a few years, then why not most of the 192 members of the United Nations?

The goal of a Single Global Currency should be announced by the world’s financial leaders, including the IMF. Research and planning should begin now to implement a Single Global Currency by 2024, the 80th anniversary of the Bretton Woods conference.

For more information, see http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org, the website of the Single Global Currency Assn.

26 responses to “The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World”

  1. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    There are too many global powers that will not risk losing autonomy to the greater global cause. A singel united currency will fail. The leaders like US and UK will never sign on since it doesn’t benefit them as much as other products. There is no equality in the world, no matter how hard you try, products are not equal, resources are not equal, etc. As such you can’t use an equal currency. Look right now, Britain won’t lose the pound for the Euro, not a chance, and the only people dying to get into the Euro trade are those who would stand to gain the most–poor Eastern Euro countries.

    Reply
  2. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Barry, Who would have thought that Germany and France would give up their marks and francs? But it happenedm and Europe is the better for it, as are the residents of all 13 eurozone countries. Soon, the other 9 of the 10 Accession (2004) countries will join the eurozone, and later there will be more.
    The Persian Gulf countries are forming a monetary union in 2010. South Asia and East Asia are considering monetary unions.
    The beauty of a Single Global Currency, managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union is the value of the common currency will not rise and fall relative to other currencies, because there will be no other substantial currencies. Once there is a monetary union of countires representing about 40% of the world’s GDP and trade, the tipping point will be reached and the remaining countries will join rapidly.
    Yes, the U.S. may be reluctant, but it won’t be long before the U.S. gets serious about forming a monetary union with Canada and Mexico as the dollar will need to grow in order to keep up with the euro. The existing Eastern Caribbean Monetary Union will likely join, too. At some point the South American countries will form a monetary union and they will then either join the North American Monetary Union or the eurozone.
    What the people of the world want is stable money, and the Single Global Currency will be far more stable than any money since the reign of gold – whenever.

    Reply
  3. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    There are far too many intangibles and assumptions to make this work. Firstly, you assume that there is equality in resources and economies. This is not so. Under developed economies will always exist because of scarcity and power. America won’t give up power just as the UK hasn’t. France and Germany are really better off? More powers in that system (EU) would ensure they wouldn’t have as much influence.

    You also assume that there is impartiality in the so called ‘Global CEntral Bank’. Who will run it? Don’t tell me everyone will have equal say, don’t suggest that harmony will exist in such a system. As it stands the IMF and World Bank exist and they reflect the superpowers.

    The UN barely works and can’t actively engage quickly what makes you think a Global Central Bank would be any better?

    Reply
  4. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Barry. Implementing a Single Global Currency does not require equality of resources and economies. Within the eurozone, and within other monetary unions, there are large differences, just as there are within nation states and within our own United States.

    To what other “intangibles” and “assumptions” were you referring?

    Regarding whether the U.S. would “give up power,” I think the U.S. will support a Single Global Currency when it’s believed to be in the U.S.’s interest. Former Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker supports a Single Global Currency and he was a close to the levers of power as could be. At some point the bargain may be that joining a Single Global Currency is preferable to seeing the accumulated current account deficits result in a giant currency crisis for the U.S. dollar.

    The governance of the prospective Global Central Bank is a negotiable matter. There are several models from which to choose, such as the U.N., IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, U.S. Congress and Senate, U.S. Federal Reserve system and European Central Bank. The core principle should be that stakeholders in the economy of the world, i.e. everyone, should be represented in some way. That doesn’t mean “equally,” just as the U.S. Senate does not represent U.S. voters equally. That system was the result of a political compromise. Sure, the governing body of the Global Central Bank would likely have significant representation for large economic powers, and their central banks; but the representatives of other countries and NGO’s would also be at the table – and all open to the public via the Internet.

    Rather than comparing the future Global Central Bank to the United Nations, the best comparison could be made to the European Central Bank which now governs monetary policy for 13 countries. In a few years, that number will certainly grow to 22 and likely more thereafter as more countries join the EU, with the required commitment to subsequently join the EMU. Why not 32 or 52, 102 or 192?

    Reply
  5. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    In Reply To
    I think the U.S. will support a Single Global Currency when it’s believed to be in the U.S.’s interest.

    YOu know what, you’re right, only when it will meet there interests. DO you really think that with 130 countries in a single system all will have influence? Africa will never get on board, Middle East will never get on board, and I doubt the whole world will….You just can’t represent everyone and someone is always bound to get ticked off.

    Reply
  6. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Let’s think of a Single Global Currency in the context of other global standards, such as the time system. We all use the same 24 hour day, 7 day week 12 month year throughout the world. We all use the same computer technology. Most of the world uses the metric system, and it’s used in the U.S. more than people realize – as we take our milligrams of medicine and drink from liter bottles.

    Regarding your examples, the six nation Gulf Cooperation Council is implementing a common currency by 2010 and most of Southern Africa is planning a common currency by 2016. East Africa is planning for 2009 and West Africa already has two monetary unions and is working on a larger one.

    In short, the peoples of the world are seeing that the stability of their money is best achieved by monetary union, and the best possible option is the Global Monetary Union.

    If Germany and France can join together isn’t every combination of countries possible? Please know that there were many in Europe who said of the euro exactly what critics of the Single Global Currency are saying now – that it won’t work because…… Well, it will work. The remaining questions are how long will it take to get there, and how much international financial turmoil will occur in the meantime.

    Reply
  7. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    Well so far you’ve described on regions, I can see regions joining forces since they are like minded. But when you jump regions… wow, that’s gonna get tough. You can’t represent everyone and people are definitley bound to be apprehensive. I.e. Africa has all the resources but no power in the currency…..

    Reply
  8. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Agreed, it will be difficult to achieve worldwide agreement. Actually, what will likely happen is that the “tipping point” will be achieved when one common currency is serving about 40-50% of the world’s GDP. That would happen, for example, if the U.S. dollar and the euro joined together, or the euro + yen + yuan + rupee. Once the tipping point is achieved, then there will be a rush to join as the benefits will become more obvious.
    At present, we have some cross-region monetary cooperation, but not as a monetary union. It may be minor, but there are French islands off the east coast of Canada which use the euro. El Salvador, Ecuador and Panama are ized to the U.S. dollar. That means that the dollar is not just used, as it is around the world, for commerce, but it can be used to pay local taxes and debts. In those countries, the U.S. dollar IS the legal tender. The West African CFA monetary unions are closely tied to the euro, as the successor to the previous ties to the French franc.

    These arrangements are working because the people of the world, and sometimes their leaders, want stable money. They don’t want money that goes up and down in value unpredictably, and they certainly don’t want currency crashes, and they don’t want currency speculation. Gradually, as the alternative of the Single Global Currency becomes more widely known to people, the movement in that direction will accelerate.

    Reply
  9. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    There are additional problems. Germany France joined EU because they would be the powerhouses, they wanted to rival the US. If Germany was the US and had the vehicle currency we would have no euro. Same applies to China, they like the power. Why would they opt to share policy with non-communist states? And they have a 1/3 of the population.

    What language do you print currency in? Chinese? You also imply everyone has the same value for paper money. Africa, the majority of Africa, INdia, these people probably woudln’t recognize any value added to their paper currency.

    Reply
  10. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Countries may have different motivations for joining a monetary union, but the bottom line is that they believe that their money will be more stable than if they continued with a national money. Whatever the motivations, monetary unions are expanding (EMU) and new ones are forming (Gulf Cooperation Council)

    Agreed, that there are different perceptions of money and credit around the world, thus leaving a role for the national central banks to ensure that the local money supply meets those perceptions.

    It’s also possible that some countries will want to have their own parallel currencies along with the Single Global Currency, as does Panama with the Balboa alongside the U.S. dollar. It’s not the best solution, but it’s what the Panamanians want at this time. The Europeans considered maintaining the legacy currencies in a similar way, but decided it would be too confusing and cumbersome.

    Reply
  11. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    Again, you assume the major powers in the world can come to some form of consensus. Case in point, UK won’t join Euro because their interests wouldn’t be protected. Do you really think China, Russia, and the US would all get along? Throw France in the mmix with the UK and Germany? Wow…. and how about the entire Mid-east! 😛

    Reply
  12. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Agreed. Countries which join monetary unions, and which will be joining the Global Monetary Union, will do so when they beleive it’s in the best interests of their citizens and governments (not always the same thing.)
    The UK will join the euro, or a common currency for the British Commonwealth or even a North Atlantic Monetary Union, when it’s perceived to be in its self interest. London is becoming THE money center of the world, but as the British Pound fades in importance, the British commercial interests may wish to persuade the country to join the euro. That could happen at a time when the eurozone economy is doing better and the British economy is sagging.
    Next year, Cyprus and Malta will be joining the eurozone, and it will be as successful for their citizens as the inclusion of Slovenia this past January has been for its citizens. Slovenians can now trade with the eurozone without having to pay transaction fees for money changing and without having to worry about a balance of payments, or about keeping a foreign exchange reserve in the Slovenian Central Bank, or about a potential currency crisis, or about how to manage inflation.
    The six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council will be forming a monetary union in 2010 and the world will be better for it. That monetary union will grow, as will other regional monetary unions and then, one or more will join together, just as the West African monetary unions are linked to the European Monetary Union.
    China will do what it’s in its self-interest, as will Japan and Russia, which is seeking to form monetary unions with some of its former partner states.
    The Single Global Currency will not come from altruism or as a foreign aid project. It will come because of cold calculations of what is best for each country, and for the world.

    Reply
  13. Support Israel Avatar
    Support Israel

    I don’t know if there are any Christians involved in this forum, especially any interested in eschatology, but a global currency is part of a global government planned by the antichrist. Just thought I throw that out there.

    Reply
  14. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    While some religions have different views of money and interest, the creation of a Global Monetary Union, with a Global Central Bank managing a Single Global Currency is an economic goal for the betterment of humanity. People can interpret such projects as they wish.

    If a Single Global Currency has something to do with an “antichrist,” what is the meaning of the European Monetary Union, or a future Asian Monetary Union? Are the regional monetary unions devoid of religious meaning, but when they decide to join together, then it’s a representation of an “antichrist”? It doesn’t make cents, and from what authority does such a label come?

    Is this the same problem as Galileo faced when telling religious authorities that the earth moves around the sun?

    Reply
  15. Support Israel Avatar
    Support Israel

    You make a really good point, and I don’t doubt that this would benefit global society in a monetary way, but when you look at the end times as described in the Bible, you see that he will create a single religion, a global government, and a global monetary system. I wasn’t putting the possibility down, and I’m not necessarily against it, but stuff like that is predicted in the Bible. Smile

    Reply
  16. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Thanks. Do you have the Chapter and Verse in the Bible where those predictions are made? We do have a section on our website about religion and the Single Global Currency, at http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/related.html and I’d like to add the exact quotes from the Bible.

    My guess is that there were other predictions, too, that have not come true and will have no chance of coming true. At the time the Bible was compiled, there was little sense of what other peoples were on the earth, and little sense of their money, too. Coins and currency began in Turkey, India and China at about the same time in the 7th century B.D. At the time of Jesus, the money changers were handling foreign exchange among the Israeli, Roman and Arab coins.

    Reply
  17. Support Israel Avatar
    Support Israel

    Hey, first of all. You need to understand that Biblical prophecy is no joke. If you read Jeremiah 23:7-8, you see Biblical prophecy coming true right now. But more convincing yet, are the prophecys made by Ezekial. Read Ezekial 36:19, now look back about 100 years.The jews were everywhere, but in the land God gave them. Now look at Isaiah 66:8-10. He predicts that Israel will be deemd a state in one day. This was fulfilled in 1948. There are tons more in Ezekial chapters 37-38. You ought to read that. Anyway. The antichrist and his control over the monetary system is predicted in Revelation 13:16-17. Also, go to http://www.geocities.com/…view_3/prophecy.html

    Reply
  18. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Ok, bear with me here.

    I’ve looked up Revelation 13:16 and found this: “He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead,”

    And Revelation 13:17 give me this: “so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.”

    Was I looking in the right place?

    I am sincerely looking for the Antichrist/global monetary connection, but ask you to help me further on this.

    Can you give me the cited passages and quotes?

    Reply
  19. Support Israel Avatar
    Support Israel

    I’m about to leave to go to Atlanta, and don’t have time to look through all my notes. If you read Daniel Chapter 2, then it might be in there. That’s where the four kings are mentioned. Or maybe in the Thessalonians. Basically, a global government can’t function without a standard currency, and as you see in revelation, the antichrist controls the government, thus the monetary system, and is the ruler over all. I’ll find you the verse on monday when i get back.

    Reply
  20. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Thank you, “Support Israel” for getting that text next week. In the meantime, let me note that we do not need a “global government” to have a Single Global Currency. All we need is a Global Monetary Union with member countries which delegate the management of their money supply to a Global Central Bank. In earlier times, individuals issued prommissory notes and they were regarded as money by some. Then kings and queens, corporations and banks issued currency, and then the modern nation state. Monetary unions have also been formed since the Middle Ages, but now we know how to make a monetary union work, and the European Monetary Union is the best example of a monetary union with the European Central Bank managing the euro.

    The world has International Standards Organizations which control the measurements we use, and a Global Central Bank would manage the value and supply of money. While most national governments now have an indirect role vis a vis the central banks of their countries, the management of money does not have to be considered a function of government, or a global government.

    Reply
  21. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    Agreed. Countries which join monetary unions, and which will be joining the Global Monetary Union, will do so when they beleive it’s in the best interests of their citizens and governments (not always the same thing.)
    The UK will join the euro, or a common currency for the British Commonwealth or even a North Atlantic Monetary Union, when it’s perceived to be in its self interest. London is becoming THE money center of the world, but as the British Pound fades in importance, the British commercial interests may wish to persuade the country to join the euro. That could happen at a time when the eurozone economy is doing better and the British economy is sagging.

    Next year, Cyprus and Malta will be joining the eurozone, and it will be as successful for their citizens as the inclusion of Slovenia this past January has been for its citizens. Slovenians can now trade with the eurozone without having to pay transaction fees for money changing and without having to worry about a balance of payments, or about keeping a foreign exchange reserve in the Slovenian Central Bank, or about a potential currency crisis, or about how to manage inflation.

    The six nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council will be forming a monetary union in 2010 and the world will be better for it. That monetary union will grow, as will other regional monetary unions and then, one or more will join together, just as the West African monetary unions are linked to the European Monetary Union.
    China will do what it’s in its self-interest, as will Japan and Russia, which is seeking to form monetary unions with some of its former partner states.

    The Single Global Currency will not come from altruism or as a foreign aid project. It will come because of cold calculations of what is best for each country, and for the world.

    I have to acknowledge that the nature of the free market enterprise would dictate countries sign on to this when it fits their purpose. Do you really think there will be a point when the entire world will agree and benefit at the same time? Someone is always exploited 😀

    Reply
  22. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    You make a really good point, and I don’t doubt that this would benefit global society in a monetary way, but when you look at the end times as described in the Bible, you see that he will create a single religion, a global government, and a global monetary system. I wasn’t putting the possibility down, and I’m not necessarily against it, but stuff like that is predicted in the Bible. Smile

    This is a notion perpetuated by what’s called ‘dispensationalism’. It began in the 19th century (the view) and started in the UK. The UK dumped it because it was bad theology/exegesis, however, America ate it all up. The peak of dispensationalism really happened in the 1990’s IMO. You can still find pockets of American fundamentalist (very right wing) who still adhere to literal interpretations of Revelation. Some would call it a bad read of an apocalyptic piece of literature, others would say Tim LaHaye speaks truth. (For those of you who don’t know, the whole notion of single currency = anti-Christ stems from a fiction book series called ‘Left Behind’ that supports dispensationslist readings of the text.)

    Reply
  23. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    Mbon,

    Another question is, who is ‘we’? Tongue

    Reply
  24. barry econ Avatar
    barry econ

    Who are ‘we’? The Single Global Currency Assn. is a U.S. 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation with a board of directors. A small group, so far, but we are growing. See the online copy of “The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World at http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/book_about.html and at the Munchen personal REPEC archive at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/1175/.

    On the subject of religion and the single global currency, I recalled after the earlier posting that for the Bahai religion, and perhaps others, too, a Single Global Currency is entirely consistent with a religious view of humanity. The subject of religion and the single global currency is addressed on our website at http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/related.html.

    Reply
  25. Davidb888 Avatar
    Davidb888

    I’ve seen the list of benefits envisioned by implementing a single global currency, but what are the disadvantages for the US?

    Eventual loss of our national sovereignty?

    Concentration of global financial power attracts corruption?

    Stepping stone to single world government (no theological implications, just preference for keeping some form of democracy) ?

    Lack of consequence for fiscal mismanagement – if we have one global currency would we really have the guts to let a nation suffer the consequences for its fiscal mismanagement? Or would we pay off their debts with an inflation tax on the rest of the world (much like a failed bank is bailed out by the FDIC) and ask them not to do it again?

    I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on this topic, just trying to learn so I can have an informed opinion instead of my current knee-jerk negative reaction Sly

    DB

    Reply
  26. mbonpasse Avatar
    mbonpasse

    Hello DB,

    Thanks for your comment and openness. As the originator of today’s primary world currency, the U.S.’s position is unique. Upon the implementation of a Single Global Currency, the U.S. would lose some status, but not much else. It’s position would be analogous to Germany, with its strong deutschmark, before the implementation of the euro. It’s usually good to be the owners of the world’s primary currency, but it’s also a burden which can be expensive.

    Yes, the control over the worldwide interest rate and of the money supply, and therefore the ability to control inflation, would be in the hands of a representative Global Central Bank, but Germany, France, Italy, Spain and nine other European countries still appear to be healthy sovereign nations without having such control. With a Single Global Currency, the worldwide interest rate would be slightly lower than the current world average, because there would be no currency risk, i.e. risk of currency failure or crisis. Thus, with less risk, lenders are more able to lend with less fear of loss.

    The world has the same time system (60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, etc.) and the same computer protocols and the same metric system (with one major nation moving ever so slowly to that standard as its citizens drink from 1 liter bottles and take their medicines in milligrams) and the development of those global standards are not feared as the leading prongs toward world government. The standardization of money would be similar, but more important.

    Yes, a Global Central Bank would have concentrated power, but it will be established as a representative organization with committees and delegates from all over the world. Its operations would be more open or transparent than those of current central banks because there would be no need to hide currency transactions.

    With a Single Global Currency, each country will still have its own central bank which will be responsible for the management of banks within the country, just as is now the case in Europe, and with other monetary unions. Each national government would continue to be responsible for its own fiscal management, just as each U.S. state and each European EMU member state is responsible. With the current multicurrency international financial system, one of the IMF’s functions is to “rescue” countries whose currencies fail, but that need will disappear with a Single Global Currency. There still will be market crises and fiscal crises, and the world will deal with them as it does now. They are not currency problems. For example, the current U.S. real estate bubble is not a U.S. dollar problem. Neither is a stock market crash. When the City of New York was almost bankrupt in the 1970’s, it was saved by its own internal austerity program. Neither the Federal Government nor the Federal Reserve stepped in with a life preserver.

    The Single Global Currency will be part of a more stable international monetary system, but it will not be a panacea for all international financial difficulties.

    MB

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Get updates

From art exploration to the latest archeological findings, all here in our weekly newsletter.

Subscribe

%d bloggers like this: