The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

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