Moving To A Single Currency… Or Lots Of Local Currencies?

from the or-a-combination-of-both? dept

A few days ago, Kyle Brady sent over his blog post wondering if the world would eventually move to a single currency. His suggestion would be that it would be based on the Euro, though can you just imagine the political uproar in the US if anyone actually took a step in that direction? Politically, it’s a total non-starter. If you think that people are freaking out over health care reform, just wait until anyone in power suggested something like this. It simply won’t happen. Brady’s post goes on to suggest that this could help us move to a more digital currency, though I think we’re already pretty much there. Actual paper money is a tiny fraction of the real money supply these days. Money is digital for all intents and purposes right now.

However, just after reading that… I came across an article suggesting pretty much the exact opposite: that we’re perhaps more likely to move to more splintered currencies as local regions start creating their own currencies. The article, in particular, talks about Brooklyn trying to create a Brooklyn-specific currency. Such things are hardly new. Having spent five years of my life in Ithaca, NY, I was quite familiar with Ithaca Hours, the local currency that is often held up as the model on which such local currencies can work. Of course, we’ve seen other attempts to do this in the past, and I’m not sure any can really get big enough to matter. But I can see how they are appealing to some during economic downturns, as they look for better ways to try to get people to focus on local businesses. Designing a currency that encourages you to spend locally might seem like a good idea, and it can work in small doses. In the end, though, I doubt either movement (single world currency, splintering local currencies) is likely to become that big of a deal in the near future. The system we have now actually works pretty well (despite the economic mess faced today).

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Moving To A Single Currency… Or Lots Of Local Currencies?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Chargone (profile) says:

Re: Currenency?

if you mean Specifically the American dollar, [the NZ dollar is a coin, not paper, and even if it were, it’d be a note, not a bill :)], then people love it for the same reason they used to love british pounds.

it’s comparatively valuable, there’s plenty of them floating around, and it’s Stable.

if the US economy crashes badly enough, and there’s someone else around who’s doing a fair bit of trade and who’s currency is pretty stable, the love of the dollar will go out the window pretty quickly, i think. likewise if such places got their own national/local currency out of whatever hole it’s fallen in, as that’s often another reason people take US dollars. they’re more meaningful than the local equivalent.

for now.

ChrisB (profile) says:

Re: Re: Currenency?

The US dollar is the global currency for one reason: oil. The largest supplier of oil in the world, Saudi Arabia, has agreed to only take US dollars for oil. Almost all trade in oil is done with US$, however there were some rumbling by Iran that they would start only taking Euros (or a basket of currencies).

No country uses the gold standard anymore, which was a truly global currency. Gold was used, not because it is _valuable_ but because production rates are relatively stable (i.e., inflation is low — inflation being the general expansion of available money).

Countries all moved to fiat currency to basically not repay their IOUs. Fiat currency is backed by a governments word that it will pay you back. But because governments control the amount of money in circulation (paper, and digital through the central bank) they control inflation, which slowly makes their money worthless. So you buy a Japanese car with US$, and then 5 years later when they come back to buy a US car, whoops, their US$ don’t buy as much.

A global currency (other than one based on a tangible object) will never work because who is going to back it? The US$ is kept alive by oil on one hand, and blind faith on the other. If OPEC decided to charge in Euros, the US would be so screwed its not even funny.

All the middle east wars should start to make sense now.

Arnold Bocklin says:

Can you imagine France giving up the franc? Or Germany the mark? A century ago that would have been unthinkable too. But when those nations stopped being world powers, the advantages of joining a currency union started to outweigh their patriotic desire to keep their own currencies. Now, look another 100 years into the future, when India and China are the big hitters internationally, and the US is just another has-been minor power – mightn’t the advantages of abandoning the dollar start to look good?

Lisae Boucher (profile) says:

We already have a World-Wide currency

We already have a World-Wide currency. It’s called “Gold” and is a favorite currency all over this World. Other currencies are often related with the price of gold. This is called the “Gold Standard”. However, most countries have stopped more or less recently to uphold this Gold Standard.

I think quite a few people might want to return to this Gold standard instead, linking their other currencies to the value of gold. Such a system did exist and thus it could be re-introduced.

Fred McTaker (profile) says:

Re: We already have a World-Wide currency

Gold is a metal, not a currency. Using it as a currency inflates its value, which is a net harm because gold is a really good electrical conductor, so its most efficient use value is demonstrably in the form of electronics. Converting it into exchange trinkets is a total waste of time and energy. Resetting the world to the time when gold was used as an exchange trinket, to track the value of other (possibly less-useful) things, is a horrible idea. Currency with broad public oversight that strictly follows Real Bills Doctrine beats metal value tracking any day.

If we have any current world-currency, I would argue it’s the international electronic currency/market exchange system itself. Different services have different exchange rates and fees, but if you took an average or mean of current exchange rates, you can basically figure out the worth of any one currency via the mean of all currencies it can be converted to, and examples of products and services that it can be “converted” to, at any point in time. This would include conversion to hard goods, like gold, which have conversion values that vary wildly over time. With enough exchange information access, you could automate the calculation, including cross-checks and failsafe calculations. With some exchange markets, you can even pin down value to the second, though expanding the stability time frame would make it more manageable.

You could make up an imaginary currency based on broad averages in these exchange markets — let’s call it “Mean World Currency” or MWC for short. The only thing keeping it from becoming a real currency is whether one or more exchangers will take it in exchange for another currency, or some asset with equal value. They would have to agree to only “create” more MWC when given another currency or asset of equal current value, and to “destroy” it when converted back to another currency or asset.

Let’s just say all the currency exchangers agreed on some central MWC calculation standard, and agreed to exchange equal MWC amongst themselves freely. A central MWC authority would help arbitrate exchange disagreements, but for the most part MWC standardized exchanges happen naturally without much disruption. Then you could go to any exchange service, convert your local money into MWC for a small fee, and go to any other exchange, and get another locality’s currency out for their current MWC exchange rate.

Going further, let’s say that the MWC authority decided to allow exchange via printed bills, as well as electronically. Electronic exchange of MWC could happen just like money is “wired” between banks and credit payment services now. Bills could be printed cryptographically with a face MWC value, and a hidden MWC exchange key. That bill’s face value could be exchanged to electronic MWC currency, to a bill holder’s designated account, at bill key-reveal time. The bill would be destroyed/recycled from there. In between printing and key-reveal, anyone with certified bill-inspection equipment could confirm that the bill value matches face value, and the bill key-guard hasn’t been tampered with, and thus exchange it as paper currency. In the era of online banking, the bill-inspection equipment could be almost any trusted computer/smart-device with a camera or other key-guard inspection device. Destruction errors wouldn’t be a big issue, as the bills would cease to exist from the exchange database as soon as they are converted at key-reveal time, so really they are “destroyed” more in an electronic/database sense than a physical one. Copies would be worthless, as the key would be hidden behind the key-guard, and made impossible to copy until conversion time. Premature key-guard tampering would constitute destruction without transfer, but the full value would revert to originating account. This would prevent the same value loss from the system that occurs when treasury documents are destroyed before exchange.

This model doesn’t have to be used at a world-wide level. This same model could be used for a national currency exchange with smaller locality currencies. I think currency stability would increase by greater exchange aggregation level, but I’m sure there’s some economist who could prove that better than I can. The main point is that you could have both locality and wider currency exchange systems coexisting. The biggest sticking point is consumer confidence in any given currency or exchange system. The U.S. Dollar is losing mine, and a metal standard wouldn’t change that at all. You can’t survive by eating metal, and the best foods rot too fast to maintain stable valuation. A *stable currency* is better than either for market exchange, no matter if it’s made of electrons or paper. Anything else is just reversion to barter.

Kyle Brady (profile) says:

Quick Comment

First, thanks for the mention.

But I wanted to clarify things:

While I agree that we already have a digital currency in the idea that it’s mostly transferred/handled digitally, it’s only by an ad hoc system and still subject to the whims of corporations as well as currency exchange rates.

Which is why I bring up both ideas together: if the world were to trade on a single currency, there would be no transactional issues – and if the digitization of our currency came along afterward, completely replacing paper notes, it would be by design.

The difference here is that when the currency is planned/mandated to be digital, it becomes subject to the same oversight and regulation that paper notes have in America today.

But if current trends continue, the digital currency will be in the hands of banks, financiers, and other greedy interests that have already proven themselves unable to handle such a burden without bias or self-interest.



Nick says:

Gold was just another currency

Gold is just a shiny soft metal that conducts electricity well. It was only useful as a currency base because people agreed that it was valuable.

But you can’t eat it or do anything much useful with it except make electronic components or catalyse certain chemical reactions. The gold standard was no more significant than the currency systems based on particular kinds of shell that were used on some Pacific islands.

So long as the major associated countries don’t fall into hyperinflation then there are plenty of currencies that are going to stick around for a while (yuan, yen, euro, pound, rupee, USD, assorted-other-D-like-AUD-NZD-CD). If a country falls into hyperinflation the way Zimbabwe or Argentina did, then their currency is likely toast as well.

Roy Underthump says:

Re: Gold was just another currency

Gold is just a shiny soft metal that conducts electricity well. It was only useful as a currency base because people agreed that it was valuable.

It also has the advantage of not being reproducable so the Federal Reserve can “print” more to provide invisible tax hikes.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Gold was just another currency

“That’s rather his point.”

Okay, so again, maybe I’m not getting what’s being said. He talks about the gold standard and then the govt. printing money. It doesn’t print money based on gold/silver reserves, it does so based on the concept of the Fed creating future prosperity (which is fucked up).

It’s essentially mortgaging the future.

Anonymous Coward says:

“It simply won’t happen.”

That’s why you’re mistaken. (sorry to bring religion into this).

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. (Rev 13:16-17 KJVA)

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

God may have written the first bible but the subsequent copies and translations were all written by men. Back then vary few people could read and even less could wright, and those who could did not like to share knowledge (they liked being elite). Why do you think there are so many different versions of the bible? Why do you think there are so many different religions?

That out of the way, I don’t think a splintered economy would work. Look into the past, The US had different currency for different states. That was ended when most states would only take their money, and if they took another’s, it was like 2 cents on the dollar.

A global currency could work, but I can’t see all countries accepting it.

Chronno S. Trigger (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Don’t want to stray too far off topic, but I do want to say this: All religions offend all other religions. That’s the point of a religion, only one is correct and all others are going to hell (or not going to be saved depending on the religion). Personally, I get offended every time someone tells me I’m going to hell just because I don’t believe in their translation of a book.

So, we all are offended. It’s something we need to get use to. The first amendment is lost on a lot of people now a days.

Free Capitalist says:

Re: Re:

Well, actually, one part of religion, ‘faith’, is arguably the primary player in the value of all currencies.

No, not faith in God so much, though that might help.

Be it the gold standard, or a fiat currency, it is largely faith that drives value.

Faith in the value of gold (based on realities of world supply and demand, or more impulsive indicators for some investors) keeps people buying gold.

And in a fiat currency, it is faith in the solvency of the issuer (The U.S. Government where I live) that drives the value. Investors also have(or lose) faith in fiat currency based on objective and impulsive determinations. Everything from the amount of currency printed to the subjective ‘reputation’ of the issuer creates or destroys faith in that currency. Then of course there is the faith of lemmings, where one invests with faith based on what everyone else is doing/buying. (The absolute “worst” kind of faith, imho, if there is such a thing as bad faith).

I can’t decide which direction is the worse as far as vulnerabilities for the affected economies are concerned. Highly localized currencies can very rapidly gain and lose value. And a centralized global currency may create imbalances, placing the burden of sustaining value on larger, more productive nations, while less industrious nations get to go along for the ride.

I guess I’m more inclined to want to keep things the way they are, at least we’re getting to know this devil pretty well.

Can I have some golden fries now?

Anonymous Coward says:

“The system we have now actually works pretty well (despite the economic mess faced today).”

No, the system we have now requires everyone to try to accurately determine exchange rates which is inefficient. Imagine if every single individual had their own specific currency how inefficient it would be for every single individual to try to figure out how much of one currency should be exchanged for another currency. The more currency the more economic waste that goes into figuring out this stuff. Not saying I support a one world currency, just that economically speaking it makes more sense. It allows open trade much more efficiently, anyone can buy things from anyone else without worrying about needing to exchange one currency for another first (ie: tourists, etc…) which is, of course, economically more efficient.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

and if you think about it, if you buy something from one currency to another online and allow the computers to do all the computations and figuring out of exchange rates, it’s almost as if you’re trading using one currency. It’s also like everyone is trading using only their own currency. You may say that there is more than one currency but what’s the difference, everyone looks at everyone else in terms of their very own currency so to each individual only one currency exists. The differences in names is artificial, kinda like the difference between a meter and a yard. You may have 5 yards of land and I may have 5 yards expressed in meters. What’s the difference? We can simply arbitrarily come up with a more universally accepted “currency” or unit of length and agree to that or we can all just decide to use our own personal arbitrary measurement of length and exchange allowing the computer to compute one length in terms of others based on some universally accepted measurement of length. It’s like me arbitrarily saying, “well, I exchange in terms of decacents which is 10 cents. You exchange in terms of dollars. Since 10 decacents are a dollar if you say I owe you a dollar that just means, to me, I owe you ten decacents.” What’s the difference?

Christopher Froehlich (profile) says:

Re: "The system we have now actually works pretty well (despite the economic mess faced today)."

I agree to some extent, though I do not think the problems of the dollar are limited to the efficiency of currency exchange. I would posit that our system of valuing the dollar is fundamentally broken for several reasons: first, the dollar is not commodity supported (by gold, beads or cattle), instead as a FIAT currency, the value of the dollar rests on a promise from the Fed to “honor” the currency in trade. As such, the dollar is only as valuable as that promise. Second, as Mr. Masnick rightly points out, the flow of new dollars into the economy is now largely digital–so one of the key, former barriers to monetary inflation (the printing of paper money) has been excised from the system. Very little prevents banks from issuing new lines of credit, new loans, and new money other than their own risk assessments of the transaction. See Money as Debt (and take with two grains of salt)
Third, currency is already highly subjective in its local valuation. Consider the cost-of-living adjustments we must make when traveling or moving even within our own states. An Ithacan myself, a dollar spent in Ithaca will get you (optimistically) 25 cents in New York City. A ratified global currency (ignoring the digital currency that already exists) would only expand and accentuate the problems already facing the U.S. currency.
There’s an interesting bit on the history of currency in China, which is a country and economy worth studying specifically for its use (or lack thereof) of currency over thousands of years:

Alistair Dent says:

Optimum currency area

A currency union can be an excellent idea if the economies in question behave similarly, however if you have several economies based on wildly different types of products/services that move separately, a single currency does more harm than good.

The US is already a stretch in this regard and the benefits of the single currency probably equal the costs, but the idea of a global currency would mean that you could no longer have currency movements to help even out things like differences in interest rates. A single world interest rate anybody? Way to make any recession worse…

Anonymous Coward says:

Why is it no one has mentioned the Amero yet? It’s coming. If you do make your own money it’ll never be more than a novelty. Lincoln tried. He made the “green backs” and look what they did to him. Don’t get me started on Andrew Jackson. You are under (and forever will be under) a central banking system ran by the financiers (Rothschild,Warburg,Morgan,ect.) for private gain.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“So I guess you’re telling us that the meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910 was actually a far-reaching conspiracy to control the money supply of the US? Ok.”

Are you saying it wasn’t? Consider the facts:

Frank Vanderlip, one of the men who created the Fed and attended the meeting on Jekyll Island, said “I was as secretive, indeed, as furtive as any conspirator…our SECRET EXPEDITION to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve Sysetm. He eventually became a President of Citibank, an internaitional banking house that funded both Red Russian and the National Socialist Party.

That meeting took place on November 22nd, a coincidence I still have trouble wrapping my head around, between 7 men that personally controlled an estimate 1/4 of the total wealth of the entire world. The reps there all were under some industry control of a few famalies: Rockefellers, Warburgs, Morgans (and by extension, Rothschilds). The only non-banker was a member of the Rhode Island Senate named Nelson Aldrich, who just happened to be an associate o J.P. Morgan and father-in-law of J.D. Rockefeller Jr.

After studies released by the University of Chicago (a Rockefeller-created school) whipped up decent support for a FED institution, was signed by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Wilson went to Princeton with two directors of Citibank, Rockefeller’s bank. The bill was pushed through and signed just before Christmas, with many congressman already on holiday and unable to vote on the bill.

Even it’s name is deceptive, since the FEDERAL Reserve Bank is not part of the Federal government at all, it is controlled by private banks, each with a section of the country to control, but all ultimately under the parentage of the NY Fed. Reserve Bank.

Anonymous Coward says:

We've been moving in this direction for a long time

Read ‘Life Inc.’ by Douglas Rushkoff, especially Chapter 6 in this regard. The elimination of local currencies in favor of central control has been a project of those who wish to gain further wealth and control dating back to the late Middle Ages. In our recent and evolving situation, as the world gets “smaller”, it merely becomes a matter of scale as to what constitutes ‘local’ versus ‘central’ currencies.

MC says:


A global currency would really need to be a brand new, currently non-existing currency. The EU created the Euro, in part, to circumvent the National Pride issue. Early on, they also had to create exchange standards for it’s member nations local currencies. Initially, you have the global currencies and the local currency working interchangebly (so long as the minimum exchange standard is maintained). Eventually, the local currencies aren’t printed anymore. Voila, you have a single, global currency.

Anonymous Coward says:

The Euro experiment is the proof that a single large area currency has plenty of advantages and fewer disadvantages. It actually keeps the member countries from adopting economic strategies (such as tariffs and interest rate adjustments) that favor their country are the detriment of others, helps to knock down the barriers between countries, and encourages the free flow of ideas and materials.

A common global currency is very unlikely. There are still major differences in approach and mentality that make this very unlikely. Those pushing the global currency today (like China) are attempting to benefit from the short term run of the US dollar being weak, which would likely lock them into their current stronger position. They were exactly all against it 10 years ago, when their currency was at the “toilet paper” stage. Amazing, isn’t it?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Commenting on commentors

First, on topic, this whole one world currency thing IS going to happen, and the only shame of it is that it’s going to serve the wrong people. If you want to clean up the American, and propogatingly worldwide economic situation, there is simply only one move: dismantle the The Federal Reserve. Even the most skeptical establishment-oriented person will scoff when the actual concept and working of the Fed is explained to them.

“I think quite a few people might want to return to this Gold standard instead, linking their other currencies to the value of gold. Such a system did exist and thus it could be re-introduced.”

It really can’t happen; or rather it WON’T happen. Because for us to return to the gold standard, we would need to take such a significant amount of money out of circulation as to cripple our economy, not because of any real devaluation, but because of a perceived devaluation.

“and if the digitization of our currency came along afterward, completely replacing paper notes, it would be by design”

Yes, but WHO’S design? If it’s anyone with the last names of Warburg or Rothschild, then no thanks. The Fed has been the secret disaster for nearly a century, if it were up to me those families would be hung.

“The Bible is a BOOK(more specifically a Library of books).”

Even more specifically, a Library of HAND-PICKED books chosen 300 years AFTER Christ’s death by an elite group of religous hierarchy that looked an awful lot like the hierarchy that Christ dismantled in the first place.

“Surely a God that could create the universe and all that is in it could get one little ole book right? Man was just the pen, God was the hand using the pen.”

A non-argument, because you’re not telling me WHICH pen and WHICH hand. Which of the Christian bibles is correct? The Roman Catholic bible? The King James? The Book of Mormon? And why does the fact that there are all of these interpretations not IMMEDIATELY refute this insane “God directed man’s hand in writing today’s bible” nonsense? When did faith turn into gang warfare, where everyone has to choose a side, where the colors, and claim that everyone else is BAD and WRONG? That’s not MY religion, and it certainly doesn’t sound like the teachings of Christ to me.

But then again, that’s because in addition to the hand-picked books in your bibles, chosen by men in power that wanted to keep the status quo, I also read things like the Gnostic texts, findings on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and religious theory from around the world.

Gordon says:

@John Doe
And You missed my point entirely.
He didn’t write it. Oh and religion? C’mon now. I’m not even going to say I’m Roman Catholic anymore. From this point forward in my whole life, but I DO believe in a Higher than everything power.
Since you first brought up the religion card unless you’re not the original AC who started it, then he did and I’m sorry I was mistaken. But since it was brought up and we’re talking about money here. How in the WORLD can a “religion” who claims to speak the word of God and His son be one of the wealthiest independent states in the World?

THAT….and yeah the Amero is probably coming, unfortunately.

david says:

jonathan may

you may recall the story of jonathan may. he started his own private currency. it was backed by silver and his design was very conservative. it looked as if his currency would actually be stable, and it was until the Fed got jealous.

the Fed put Jonathan May in jail for the rest of his life. now that’s a currency i can believe in.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: jonathan may

Hi “David”

They actually didn’t put me in jail for the rest of my life – I am alive and well and was released from prison in the Staters in 1993.

This is Jonathan May – yes the actual one – Not a crook – but these days a much wiser fellow.

If you or anyone else wish to contact me – my e-mail address is There’s still plenty of work to be done – Non-confrontationally – to enlighten people 🙂
Love & Blessings
Jonathan May

Mark Herpel (profile) says:

Local currency is growing, private digital currency is already huge.

There are two things to remember when discussing ‘local currency’ (1) the local stuff is only good in that tiny local area or region (2) it’s not meant to replace the country’s national currency. ‘Community currency’ fills in the cracks where the dollar leaves off. Re-circulating local currency strengthens the area. It is never designed to replace the dollar. If tomorrow we see 10,000 new local currencies, that will NOT replace the dollar.
To answer the article, YES, the future holds many thousands of private/local and digital currencies. Most of these will be backed by precious metal and interchangeable with each other on the basis of weight, many will not be. There are now 6 US States with pending honest money legislation which provides for the State to accepts gold, silver and digital gold as payment for certain taxes and which permits people to save with and use digital gold currency. The issue with government paper money is that they print all they want (you may think your saving account is growing but in reality it can’t buy as much), gold preserves value…paper inflation robs citizens of their savings value. That is one of the reasons to push forward for the use of gold and silver alongside the dollar, so everyday people can preserve their lifetime savings/wealth. It’s NOT a replacement for the dollar, it’s not a competition, it works alongside the $ for those who wish to voluntarily use it. See: for more info.
Private digital currency, that can be issued by everyday individuals is already on the rise. I have my own currency I pay friends with at an open source ‘value transfer’ system. Also see where you can create your own version of an online bank and allow others to issue private currency. Software is free and OS. The future, is thousands of private digital currencies and local ‘community currency’ but they will function alongside government legal tender, they do not replace it. Big gov. still needs to build bombs and wage war, they are NOT giving up their free printing press, but YOU as a citizen don’t need to get burned each time they up the debt ceiling to pay for a new gov program. Use some gold and silver to preserve your life savings.
Here is our local currency backed by silver, notice this is the first time a local paper currency is denominated by weight. This also translates well into a digital version.
Mark Herpel

Josh (profile) says:

Does it matter?

Does whether we have a single currency or hundreds really matter? I have, in the past month, made purchases seamlessly in both euros and GB pounds from a US bank account (US dollars) debit/credit card.

So long as the conversion process is easy, and the transaction cost is not unbearable for both large and small transactions, I think the question is pretty pointless.

Lachlan Hunt (profile) says:

I would really love to have a single global currency. It would be so much more convenient, especially for travellers, as there would be no more exchange rates or messing around with currency exchanges if you’re left with a lot of foreign cash after a trip.

I think the whole idea of a small local currency, like Ithica Hours, is just absurd. Just imagine having to exchange money just because you happened to drive into the next town to buy something. That would be absolutely crazy.

Anonymous Coward says:

Local Currencies--Global Currency

Canadian Tire money is used and trusted by most folks who have seen it, and even though theoretically, it can only be exchanged for goods or services at the one merchant, it has made its way into the larger market.

As for a universal currency, how about we all use World of Warcraft gold as the reference? Would that have a prosperity leveling effect? Would it provide a job for anyone willing to work?

weneedhelp (profile) says:

“The system we have now actually works pretty well”

W H A T ! ! ! !
You ARE kidding right?
Dont kid yourself into thinking there isn’t a push for a world currency.
Or that The Federal(Express) Reserve has our best interest:
Part 1 – of 5:
Part 2 of 5: (Follow the this is a video response to for the rest)

Dont put you head in the sand as to the push for a North American Union.
Europeans used to put that off as a conspiracy, look at them now.

KingofthePaupers (profile) says:

Time Standard of Money

Jct: When the local currency is pegged to the Time Standard of Money (how many dollars per unskilled hour child labor) Hours earned locally can be intertraded with other timebanks globally! In 1999, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with an IOU for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours.
U.N. Millennium Declaration UNILETS Resolution C6 to governments is for a time-based currency to restructure the global financial architecture.
See on growth of the international time-trading network.

Morrison Bonpasse (profile) says:

Moving to a Single Global Currency will save the world - trillions

What is needed is a Single Global Currency, managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union.
The success of the euro shows that monetary union is the best way to ensure monetary stability. If 16 countries can use the same currency, why not 192?
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 are no such fluctuations, by definition.
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, and eliminate the need for foreign exchange reserves.
The world should begin researching and planning now for a Single Global Currency, which will save the world – literally: trillions. It is not a cure for the current recession, but will help lay the groundwork for a more stable future.
The Single Global Currency Assn. promotes the implementation of a Single Global Currency by 2024, the 80th anniversary of the 1944 Bretton Woods conference. We will reach that point through the creation, expansion and merger of currencies of nations and monetary unions.
That’s only 15 years away. The Assn’s website is See, also, the book, “The Single Global Currency – Common Cents for the World,” and the ICFAI University Press book, “A Single Global Currency -Perspectives and Challenges.”

Morrison Bonpasse
Single Global Currency Assn.
Newcastle, Maine, USA

shawnmichle (profile) says:


I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone.The initiative taken for the concern is very serious and need an attention of every one. This is the concern which exists in the society and needs to be eliminated from the society as soon as possible.
Best Currency Rate

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »