Could a World Currency Replace the Dollar?

Despite the initial U.S. demurrals, China is correctly leading the way to a Single Global Currency, which will be managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union. As China requests, this next global currency will not be the responsibility of just one country. This proposal is similar to the pending proposal from the U.N. Task Force on Financial reform, let by Joseph Stiglitz. The U.S. should join that panel and China in urging the G20 to begin planning for a Single Global Currency.
The success of the euro shows that monetary union is the best way to ensure monetary stability. The primary problem with the euro and currencies of other monetary unions is that they still must co-exist within the international multi-currency system itself where the value of those common currencies must still fluctuate in value against each other.
With a Single Global Currency, there will be no such fluctuations, by definition. What the people of the world want is stable money.
If 16 countries can use the same currency, why not the U.N.’s 192 members? Presently, 141 currencies are used by those 192 countries, and 51 countries share currencies with other members.
In addition to eliminating currency fluctuations, the use of a Single Global Currency would eliminate the current foreign exchange trading expense of $400 billion annually, eliminate currency risk, eliminate
current account imbalances, eliminate the need for foreign exchange reserves (now
totaling more than $4 trillion); and bring other benefits worth trillions, such as reducing the impact of global financial turmoil such as we are now experiencing.
The Single Global Currency Assn. (www.singleglobalcurrency.org) promotes the implementation of a Single Global Currency by 2024, the 80th anniversary of the 1944 conference. That’s only 15 years away.
The world is moving toward a Single Global Currency through the creation, expansion and merger of regional monetary unions. Another route is through international monetary conferences proposals and agreements,
such as were seen at Bretton Woods.
The challenge now is to reach that goal deliberately, as soon as possible, with as little cost and as few crises as possible. Yes, as you note, it will be a “massive, complicated undertaking”, but so was the creation of the euro, and the world now knows that it can be done.
See the book, “The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World.”
Morrison Bonpasse
Single Global Currency Assn.
Newcastle, Maine, United States

This chick obviously has her head in the sand, in addition to not understanding basic economics. I would love to see how bad her track record is when it comes to predicting key economic variable changes

Morrison,

Wake up and smell the roses. Neither the world economy nor the any country is ready for the concept you are proposing.

Amazingly, you use EURO as a success. It is again headed for a collapse and Dollar will again have to bail it out. The EURO is in fact a clear example of why a “global currency” will never work. Please read some of my other blogs on this. There is a reason UK did not join the EURO bandwagon. Spain’s unemployment went from 10% to 18% while the ECB kept raising interest rates to fight inflation in Germany and France.

The 25 countries that form the EU cannot agree on a policy, I cannot see where how you fathom over 200 countries agreeing to a common policy. After this many years in the market, EURO has not helped stability – in fact it is messing up the market and total lack of coordination between ECB and Fed has led to exchange rate gyrations.

Try controlling Money supply based on consensus of 200 countries – your concept defies reality. Get over it.

It is these kinds of theoritical extreme views based on little logic and nose-length foresight of how this can be executed in the real world create paper tigers.

The fundamental problem with a global currency is that somebody has to control the currency. Whoever controls that currency will have all the power in the world and a global government will surely follow. The problem with a global government is that we will all be slaves to that government. If we don’t like the laws we will have no place to go. That was the idea behind the U.S. constitution. The federal government was supposed to be limited with the local and state governments making most of the laws. If you didn’t like the local laws and taxes you could move somewhere else. Therefore, the local governments with good laws would thrive while the ones with bad laws would die out.

But look at where we are today. The corrupt takeover of the U.S. monetary system by the Federal Reserve in 1913 (yes our country did quite well without the federal reserve for 137 years) allowed for unlimited borrowing and spending of the federal government. This obviously led to a larger and larger federal government. Contrary to the deceiving name the federal government does not own the Federal Reserve. It is actually massively influenced by private banking institutions who use the Federal Reserve to manipulate the money system for their own gains. If you look deep into the system I think you will see what I mean.

Here is a start:

http://www.onedollardvdproject.com/DVD-new/Vids10.html

To Madwesh: Yes, the euro IS a stunning success, and the proof is that most of the remaining countries of Europe want to join, and countries and groups of countries around the world are researching and planning for their own regional monetary unions.
Nonetheless, the use of stable money is not a guarantee of stable and continuous and fair economic growth. It’s a major part of the foundation for such economic success, but not a guarantor. In Ireland, Spain and the U.S., the regulation of real estate and financial transactions caused market bubbles which were increasingly vulnerable to popping. If Europe or the U.S. had multiple currencies when those bubbles were bursting, the financial crises would have been far worse.
Today, the U.N.’s 192 members use 141 currencies, and the number is declining as more and more countries realize that stable money is better for their citizens than nationally controlled money which is subject to large fluctuations and crashes.
To Victor: It’s agreed that the future Global Central Bank will be a powerful organization, and its political support must come from ALL sectors of our global society, including orgnizations (banks, corporations, non-profits), countries and their peoples. The work of the Global Central Bank must be transparent, i.e. visible to all.

Morrison,

Obviously, your metric for success is different from mine. EURO is not well thought thru and if UK does not join it, it will remain a marginal player. The countries that you are talking about are smaller than villages in India or China. They don’t count.

I am not sure if you see the fallacy in your promotion of EURO as the global currency. If the currency is used the world over but is tied to one country or region (like the US dollar) it is not a good thing according to you. But how is EURO different from that? I already quoted examples of German, France versus Spain. Trichet decided to raise short term lending rates to Spain’s detriment. This does not look like a great model either. What you don’t want to admit with your concept is that humans will be humans and will side with where ever their bias are.

In concept what you say is a good thing, it is impossible to execute it.

I am not saying that the US dollar should be declared as the world currency, but since it already is for the most part, making the Fed and Congress more responsible and tying their hands up so that they cannot play with the monetary or fiscal policy with due consideration to the ramfications to the 60+ countries that operate with the US dollar is a better solution than creating a brand new alternative. In fact that is in many ways in line with what ECB wants to achieve.

Institute an automated Fed Funds rate policy and M1 supply – better still, like the other gentleman stated, tie it back to Gold or a basket of commodities.