This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Placed on reserve list PhD- advice
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- NINE DTP Applicants 24/25
- Gordon Brown calls for new poverty fund to halt slide into ‘hungry decade’
- History
- 25 Marker
- Kingston University International Black Scholars Programme
- How I got an MPhil in Development Studies at Cambridge
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Work coach Merseyside EO 2023
- UCL global undergraduate scholarship
- Study proposal and video task - Postrgraduate LCF
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Guide: Which Language Should I Study?
- PhD DTP Funding
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- History edexcel communism russia and china
- Uni of Exeter - BA Drama
Russia proposes creation of global super-reserve currency
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13682035&PageNum=0
MOSCOW, March 16 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia suggests the G20 summit in London in April should start establishing a system of managing the process of globalization and consider the possibility of creating a supra-national reserve currency or a “super-reserve currency.” The Russian Federation’s proposals for ways out of the ongoing financial and economic crisis and for a post-crisis order of the world financial system have been published on the Kremlin’s website. The proposals have been dispatched to the leadership of the G20 countries, the CIS and international organizations.
“The current global economic crisis points to the need for discarding standard approaches and requires the adoption of collective decisions, agreed at the international level and geared to creating a system of globalization process management,” the document says. Russia suggests “acting with the maximum resolution in order to restore sustainable economic development and also confidence and stability in the financial markets.”
The Russian side believes the summit should seek and achieve accord on the main parameters of a new world financial system. It suggests calling an international conference that would produce the basic parameters of a world financial architecture and adopt international conventions regarding a new financial world order.
Russia believes that the “obsolete mono-polar structure of the world economy should give way to a system based on cooperation by several major centers.”
In the sphere of control and supervision Russia suggests drafting and adopting an international agreement setting global standards of control and supervision in the financial sector – a Standard Universal Regulatory Framework (SURF).
Russia calls for reforming the international currency and financial system with the aim to strengthen its stability and control. In that connection the Russian side suggests discussing the possibility of expanding the list of currencies to be used as reserve ones, on the basis of the adoption of agreed measures to stimulate the development of major regional financial centers, and also “the creation of a supra-national reserve currency that will be issued by international financial institutions.”
“It looks expedient to reconsider the role of the IMF in that process and also to determine the possibility and need for taking measures that would allow for the SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to become a super-reserve currency recognized by the world community,” the document says.
Also, Russia in the medium and long-term is for a revision of the role and mandate of the IMF in order to adjust both to a new structure of the world currency and financial system, whose modification is to be completed as a result of the current crisis.
For the purpose of overcoming the current crisis it will be necessary to considerably increase the resources of the IMF.
“The decisions we shall make at the London summit must be not only adequate to the current situation, but also meet the requirements of a new, post-crisis world,” the document says.
-----------------------
A good idea?
MOSCOW, March 16 (Itar-Tass) -- Russia suggests the G20 summit in London in April should start establishing a system of managing the process of globalization and consider the possibility of creating a supra-national reserve currency or a “super-reserve currency.” The Russian Federation’s proposals for ways out of the ongoing financial and economic crisis and for a post-crisis order of the world financial system have been published on the Kremlin’s website. The proposals have been dispatched to the leadership of the G20 countries, the CIS and international organizations.
“The current global economic crisis points to the need for discarding standard approaches and requires the adoption of collective decisions, agreed at the international level and geared to creating a system of globalization process management,” the document says. Russia suggests “acting with the maximum resolution in order to restore sustainable economic development and also confidence and stability in the financial markets.”
The Russian side believes the summit should seek and achieve accord on the main parameters of a new world financial system. It suggests calling an international conference that would produce the basic parameters of a world financial architecture and adopt international conventions regarding a new financial world order.
Russia believes that the “obsolete mono-polar structure of the world economy should give way to a system based on cooperation by several major centers.”
In the sphere of control and supervision Russia suggests drafting and adopting an international agreement setting global standards of control and supervision in the financial sector – a Standard Universal Regulatory Framework (SURF).
Russia calls for reforming the international currency and financial system with the aim to strengthen its stability and control. In that connection the Russian side suggests discussing the possibility of expanding the list of currencies to be used as reserve ones, on the basis of the adoption of agreed measures to stimulate the development of major regional financial centers, and also “the creation of a supra-national reserve currency that will be issued by international financial institutions.”
“It looks expedient to reconsider the role of the IMF in that process and also to determine the possibility and need for taking measures that would allow for the SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) to become a super-reserve currency recognized by the world community,” the document says.
Also, Russia in the medium and long-term is for a revision of the role and mandate of the IMF in order to adjust both to a new structure of the world currency and financial system, whose modification is to be completed as a result of the current crisis.
For the purpose of overcoming the current crisis it will be necessary to considerably increase the resources of the IMF.
“The decisions we shall make at the London summit must be not only adequate to the current situation, but also meet the requirements of a new, post-crisis world,” the document says.
-----------------------
A good idea?
Scroll to see replies
'I want some money from the reserve.'
'Well you can't have any'
'Why not?'
*cold war*
'Well you can't have any'
'Why not?'
*cold war*
Bagration
No. We need an end to Government created currencies and a return to the free circulation of private, competitive currency.
Ok. Tell everyone how that's going to be fair on the average citizen, and how either a private currency monopoly or a multiple currency system in one country is going to make life easier.
Liquidus Zeromus
Ok. Tell everyone how that's going to be fair on the average citizen, and how either a private currency monopoly or a multiple currency system in one country is going to make life easier.
This.
Just read the rest of his posts, he's always "pro free markets1!1one!" but he never explains why lol.
Will this do?
The Hypocrisy of Contemporary Economic Policy
True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
“The age of failed laissez-faire dogma is over!” Phew. Thanks for that Gordo; despite receiving his degree in History from Edinburgh, he’s still a bit behind the times. By 165 years no less.
11. It shall not be lawful for any banker to draw, accept, make, or issue, in England or Wales, any bill of exchange or promissory note or engagement for the payment of money payable to bearer on demand, or to borrow, owe, or take up, in England or Wales, any sums or sum of money on the bills or notes of such banker payable to bearer on demand, …
While a few banks were still allowed to issue their notes, they quickly died out; and in any case, the state monopoly had existed in forms of differing regulation since 1694. No, England, and eventually the United Kingdom, has not had privately issued currency for hundreds and hundreds of years. And yes, some banks, both in England and Scotland, can print currency themselves; but a.) the Government, not the Market, chooses who can print and, more importantly, b.) they can only print Sterling. There is no free market in money in the United Kingdom: Banknotes, whether privately or publically issued, are only in a single currency which lies at the mercy of the Bank of England. However, the Banking Bill proposed in 2008 will probably remove even the right of private banks to issue public currency.
Of course, you wouldn’t expect any opposition MP to even consider for just one moment that regulation did not cause the economic crisis. No, while the Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems all oppose the Government owning, producing, and setting the price of food, they have no compunction with allowing the Government to own, produce, and set the price of money. Money is the essential medium by which advanced forms of barter can take place. It is the living blood of an economy.
I expect an analogy would go something like this. Gordon Mugabe and Communist Cameron are sitting in the bath. “WTF!” Cameron screams. “Too many bubbles, retard!”
Gordo sums up all the might of an angry Scotsman and returns fire furiously. “It was the banker’s fault! They wanted all the bubbles the greedy bastards!”
“You should have let me choose how much bubble bath to put in the water! I’m more responsible, look at this mess, it’s spilling over the top!”
They continue arguing for some time while Nick Clegg drowns a bubbly death and Nick Griffin shoves all the bubbles that aren’t pure white to one side of the bath. The real answer, of course, is that neither of these idiots, or any of their competitors, ought to have been trusted to decide how much bubble bath to put in the bath. The next day, it’s time for Gordo and David’s bath. When arguing on who should have the responsibility to put in the bubble bath, they look upwards in dismay. The bubble bath itself is suspended in mid air and the cap of the bottle pops open. Just the right amount. Afterwards, both parties agreed while having their talcum powder that it was the best bath they’d ever had. But what magical force could have provided just the right amount of credit in the economy bubbles in the bath?
It was, as we know full well, the invisible hand of the free market.
Privately issued currencies, backed by a commodity (or a collection of commodities), will always be superior to a single currency issued by a central bank. Firstly they are immune to political pressures such as big business demanding lower rates. Secondly they possess more market information and a greater incentive to maximise its use than the Government. Thirdly they will compete for the lowest rates of inflation and the highest rate of purchasing power. Fourthly, laws against fraud will prevent bank runs as 100% reserves are ensured. This has the simultaenous effect of destroying investment banking and rechanneling human resources into areas of the economy where they can be better utilised: all the while reducing the power of the Government to intervene in the economy.
And because there will be a market controlled and competitive amount of currency and credit in the economy, business cycles will cease to exist. Huge bubbles of great growth will be resigned to the dustbin of history; and instead, steady rates of economic growth and improvements in the standard of living will be the norm for the nations who adopt a policy of free banking. Tautological much? Yes, perhaps. But the arguments against central planning in food, cars, electronics, anything, are equally applicable to money. The Government does not have the market information or reaction time to set correctly the price of a good. In this case, it’s money, and the price was too low, for too long, and now we’re paying for it.
Privately issued currency vs the Fiat Empire
I expounded a little in a previous entry the value of private currency and the current restrictions on its use in this country. But now I plan an analysis of the value of private currency on its own.
I defined an Empire once in a discussion on private currency as an entity that forcibly coerces people under its rule. That was my opening question - what is the definition of an Empire - and the person who responded, who I’d say is intelligent and well educated, replied - “That’s a pretty good definition of Empire.”
H.M. Government runs its own Empire. It forces the people to use a currency that is not backed by any commodity - it’s really quite worthless - and is controlled by the Government. Sure, the BofE may have nominal “independence” (which is even worse now that its power is less checked by the legislature) but the Government can force interest rates and therefore an expansion in credit and the money supply, creating bubbles out of nowhere that are bound to pop, as we’ve seen recently.
What I advocate is a system whereby currency is privately issued and the Government has no control over. We already accept that we should be free to choose between supermarkets, housing, basic commodities - why not currency?
In the absence of a Government currency, private banks will issue their own currencies, partially out of necessity, and partially out of profit. It would at first be difficult to implement but would eventually take its own course, and this is not unheard of: in past times private currencies have circulated all over the globe. Let me give you an example…
Bank A decides that it will use its assets to buy a commodity - gold, grain, whatever - and print off certificates valued at an amount of this commodity, redeemable by this commodity. It could also be a basket of commodities, or it could be a speculation currency bartered upon whereby the Bank would ensure that the currency would always be worth X amount of goods (i.e. a litre of milk.)
People will then buy this currency either directly or by loans (you can loan X of this currency and pay it back at a later date plus interest).
A word on fractional reserve banking. At present a bank has few rules on how many reserves it can carry: i.e. 10 people could have a total of 100,000 deposited in a bank but that bank may only have 50,000 in its reserves, which would cause a problem if 6 people wanted to withdraw 10,000 each. Now if you have 10,000 in the bank but the bank only keeps 9,000 of that, that is plainly fraudulent. Therefore full reserve banking would be ensure by fraud laws. And you can bet in my society nobody could escape violating fraud laws and then get off with a 700,000 pound pension.
So how would banks make profit? By setting agreements to loan out money. Let’s say you have 10,000 in the bank, the bank offers you a deal: they’ll loan out 6,000 of that, reducing your personal reserve to 4,000, and when they get the loan back at let’s say, a 5% profit - you keep 2.5% of the profits earned and they keep the other 2.5%. This means after a year (or however long the agreement is) your bank balance would be 10,150, because you get your money back plus the interest (the bank makes 150). That doesn’t sound like a very good deal for the bank, but that’s because we’re talking arbitrary figures. But probably everybody would sign to this as there is no loss for it and banks would make profits because mega earners and businesses would also sign on for considerable profit to themselves.
And anyway, who said that banks have to be as intrinsically profitable as they currently are?
But why is a system of private currency a good thing? Simply because in the present condition we can only conduct trade via one currency. The current crisis is a disruption in the ability of people to conduct trading - and by trading I mean buying and selling anything. In the world of free banking, the Government’s ability to mismanage the money supply would disappear. They could no longer destroy the economy with low interest rates that create artificial bubbles. Sure, you might blame the banks for the crisis, but look a bit deeper - what currency do the banks trade in? The Pound. Who controls the Pound Sterling? The Government. Remove their control and things will become more stable.
This doesn’t mean private currency is perfect - sure, there might be some screw ups with some currencies. But the overall economy is vastly less effected because people can easily switch to other currencies.
When the Government creates a shortage of food like in Red China, where thirty million die - that’s a failure of central planning. When the Government creates an overabundance of credit, like the buildup to the Credit Crunch - that’s a failure of central planning because the Government centrally plans money.
It doesn’t necessarily dilute Government power to spend. We can still have welfare programs. We can still have the NHS, or State Education (as I advocate) - because the Government can simply collect tax and pay for spending based on purchasing power and not an arbitrary amount of Pound Sterling.
What exactly does central banking do to the poor? Does it provide them with a basic service like healthcare or education? No. Does it provide them with basic sustenance from a welfare check? No. If you are a left-winger, you may think these things are good - but central banking doesn’t bring them about! The inflationary central banks decrease the value of the savings of people, which hits the poorest and especially pensioners the hardest, and furthermore colludes with big business. This is a threat to the common liberty and the common prosperity and can be treated with equal disdain from Socialists or Libertarians alike.
And why is this so absurd to so many people? It is simply a free market in one area, just like we have a free market in bread or a free market in radios. If you advocate a free market you are a total hypocrite to advocate the banning of private currency. Even a controlled competitive market is better than a command economy.
The Hypocrisy of Contemporary Economic Policy
True, governments can reduce the rate of interest in the short run. They can issue additional paper money. They can open the way to credit expansion by the banks. They can thus create an artificial boom and the appearance of prosperity. But such a boom is bound to collapse soon or late and to bring about a depression. - Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government
“The age of failed laissez-faire dogma is over!” Phew. Thanks for that Gordo; despite receiving his degree in History from Edinburgh, he’s still a bit behind the times. By 165 years no less.
11. It shall not be lawful for any banker to draw, accept, make, or issue, in England or Wales, any bill of exchange or promissory note or engagement for the payment of money payable to bearer on demand, or to borrow, owe, or take up, in England or Wales, any sums or sum of money on the bills or notes of such banker payable to bearer on demand, …
While a few banks were still allowed to issue their notes, they quickly died out; and in any case, the state monopoly had existed in forms of differing regulation since 1694. No, England, and eventually the United Kingdom, has not had privately issued currency for hundreds and hundreds of years. And yes, some banks, both in England and Scotland, can print currency themselves; but a.) the Government, not the Market, chooses who can print and, more importantly, b.) they can only print Sterling. There is no free market in money in the United Kingdom: Banknotes, whether privately or publically issued, are only in a single currency which lies at the mercy of the Bank of England. However, the Banking Bill proposed in 2008 will probably remove even the right of private banks to issue public currency.
Of course, you wouldn’t expect any opposition MP to even consider for just one moment that regulation did not cause the economic crisis. No, while the Tories, Labour, and Lib Dems all oppose the Government owning, producing, and setting the price of food, they have no compunction with allowing the Government to own, produce, and set the price of money. Money is the essential medium by which advanced forms of barter can take place. It is the living blood of an economy.
I expect an analogy would go something like this. Gordon Mugabe and Communist Cameron are sitting in the bath. “WTF!” Cameron screams. “Too many bubbles, retard!”
Gordo sums up all the might of an angry Scotsman and returns fire furiously. “It was the banker’s fault! They wanted all the bubbles the greedy bastards!”
“You should have let me choose how much bubble bath to put in the water! I’m more responsible, look at this mess, it’s spilling over the top!”
They continue arguing for some time while Nick Clegg drowns a bubbly death and Nick Griffin shoves all the bubbles that aren’t pure white to one side of the bath. The real answer, of course, is that neither of these idiots, or any of their competitors, ought to have been trusted to decide how much bubble bath to put in the bath. The next day, it’s time for Gordo and David’s bath. When arguing on who should have the responsibility to put in the bubble bath, they look upwards in dismay. The bubble bath itself is suspended in mid air and the cap of the bottle pops open. Just the right amount. Afterwards, both parties agreed while having their talcum powder that it was the best bath they’d ever had. But what magical force could have provided just the right amount of credit in the economy bubbles in the bath?
It was, as we know full well, the invisible hand of the free market.
Privately issued currencies, backed by a commodity (or a collection of commodities), will always be superior to a single currency issued by a central bank. Firstly they are immune to political pressures such as big business demanding lower rates. Secondly they possess more market information and a greater incentive to maximise its use than the Government. Thirdly they will compete for the lowest rates of inflation and the highest rate of purchasing power. Fourthly, laws against fraud will prevent bank runs as 100% reserves are ensured. This has the simultaenous effect of destroying investment banking and rechanneling human resources into areas of the economy where they can be better utilised: all the while reducing the power of the Government to intervene in the economy.
And because there will be a market controlled and competitive amount of currency and credit in the economy, business cycles will cease to exist. Huge bubbles of great growth will be resigned to the dustbin of history; and instead, steady rates of economic growth and improvements in the standard of living will be the norm for the nations who adopt a policy of free banking. Tautological much? Yes, perhaps. But the arguments against central planning in food, cars, electronics, anything, are equally applicable to money. The Government does not have the market information or reaction time to set correctly the price of a good. In this case, it’s money, and the price was too low, for too long, and now we’re paying for it.
Privately issued currency vs the Fiat Empire
I expounded a little in a previous entry the value of private currency and the current restrictions on its use in this country. But now I plan an analysis of the value of private currency on its own.
I defined an Empire once in a discussion on private currency as an entity that forcibly coerces people under its rule. That was my opening question - what is the definition of an Empire - and the person who responded, who I’d say is intelligent and well educated, replied - “That’s a pretty good definition of Empire.”
H.M. Government runs its own Empire. It forces the people to use a currency that is not backed by any commodity - it’s really quite worthless - and is controlled by the Government. Sure, the BofE may have nominal “independence” (which is even worse now that its power is less checked by the legislature) but the Government can force interest rates and therefore an expansion in credit and the money supply, creating bubbles out of nowhere that are bound to pop, as we’ve seen recently.
What I advocate is a system whereby currency is privately issued and the Government has no control over. We already accept that we should be free to choose between supermarkets, housing, basic commodities - why not currency?
In the absence of a Government currency, private banks will issue their own currencies, partially out of necessity, and partially out of profit. It would at first be difficult to implement but would eventually take its own course, and this is not unheard of: in past times private currencies have circulated all over the globe. Let me give you an example…
Bank A decides that it will use its assets to buy a commodity - gold, grain, whatever - and print off certificates valued at an amount of this commodity, redeemable by this commodity. It could also be a basket of commodities, or it could be a speculation currency bartered upon whereby the Bank would ensure that the currency would always be worth X amount of goods (i.e. a litre of milk.)
People will then buy this currency either directly or by loans (you can loan X of this currency and pay it back at a later date plus interest).
A word on fractional reserve banking. At present a bank has few rules on how many reserves it can carry: i.e. 10 people could have a total of 100,000 deposited in a bank but that bank may only have 50,000 in its reserves, which would cause a problem if 6 people wanted to withdraw 10,000 each. Now if you have 10,000 in the bank but the bank only keeps 9,000 of that, that is plainly fraudulent. Therefore full reserve banking would be ensure by fraud laws. And you can bet in my society nobody could escape violating fraud laws and then get off with a 700,000 pound pension.
So how would banks make profit? By setting agreements to loan out money. Let’s say you have 10,000 in the bank, the bank offers you a deal: they’ll loan out 6,000 of that, reducing your personal reserve to 4,000, and when they get the loan back at let’s say, a 5% profit - you keep 2.5% of the profits earned and they keep the other 2.5%. This means after a year (or however long the agreement is) your bank balance would be 10,150, because you get your money back plus the interest (the bank makes 150). That doesn’t sound like a very good deal for the bank, but that’s because we’re talking arbitrary figures. But probably everybody would sign to this as there is no loss for it and banks would make profits because mega earners and businesses would also sign on for considerable profit to themselves.
And anyway, who said that banks have to be as intrinsically profitable as they currently are?
But why is a system of private currency a good thing? Simply because in the present condition we can only conduct trade via one currency. The current crisis is a disruption in the ability of people to conduct trading - and by trading I mean buying and selling anything. In the world of free banking, the Government’s ability to mismanage the money supply would disappear. They could no longer destroy the economy with low interest rates that create artificial bubbles. Sure, you might blame the banks for the crisis, but look a bit deeper - what currency do the banks trade in? The Pound. Who controls the Pound Sterling? The Government. Remove their control and things will become more stable.
This doesn’t mean private currency is perfect - sure, there might be some screw ups with some currencies. But the overall economy is vastly less effected because people can easily switch to other currencies.
When the Government creates a shortage of food like in Red China, where thirty million die - that’s a failure of central planning. When the Government creates an overabundance of credit, like the buildup to the Credit Crunch - that’s a failure of central planning because the Government centrally plans money.
It doesn’t necessarily dilute Government power to spend. We can still have welfare programs. We can still have the NHS, or State Education (as I advocate) - because the Government can simply collect tax and pay for spending based on purchasing power and not an arbitrary amount of Pound Sterling.
What exactly does central banking do to the poor? Does it provide them with a basic service like healthcare or education? No. Does it provide them with basic sustenance from a welfare check? No. If you are a left-winger, you may think these things are good - but central banking doesn’t bring them about! The inflationary central banks decrease the value of the savings of people, which hits the poorest and especially pensioners the hardest, and furthermore colludes with big business. This is a threat to the common liberty and the common prosperity and can be treated with equal disdain from Socialists or Libertarians alike.
And why is this so absurd to so many people? It is simply a free market in one area, just like we have a free market in bread or a free market in radios. If you advocate a free market you are a total hypocrite to advocate the banning of private currency. Even a controlled competitive market is better than a command economy.
Liquidus Zeromus
Ok. Tell everyone how that's going to be fair on the average citizen, and how either a private currency monopoly or a multiple currency system in one country is going to make life easier.
How is using federal agents to confiscate privately circulating currency fair on the average citizen?
How is destroying the savings of your average citizen by expansionary monetary policy fair on your average citizen?
How is manipulating interest rates and giving confusing and generally wrong signals to investors and consumers fair on your average citizen?
How is arresting anyone who refuses to take the Pound Sterling as legal tender fair on your average citizen?
How is forcing citizens to use one government-owned currency in the trading and selling goods fair to the average citizen?
As far as I'm aware neither you nor bateman have made a post on why a single government-enforced currency is the best way of doing things. You've simply accepted that it is because it's all you've known. It's usually quite sad, except that nothing bateman does anymore is sad, just stupid.
Bagration
No. We need an end to Government created currencies and a return to the free circulation of private, competitive currency.
That's the silliest idea I've heard in a long time.
The whole system of 'choice' - as you call it - would result in the monopoly of one currency within a state anyway. Just look at it now, you are able to have a dollar account in the UK, a number of shops do accept dollads, you can most likely take a loan in dollars, too. But people don't. There's nothing to stop everyone getting their own little dollar/euro/whatever accounts right tomorrow morning.
HJV
That's the silliest idea I've heard in a long time.
The whole system of 'choice' - as you call it - would result in the monopoly of one currency within a state anyway. Just look at it now, you are able to have a dollar account in the UK, a number of shops do accept dollads, you can most likely take a loan in dollars, too. But people don't. There's nothing to stop everyone getting their own little dollar/euro/whatever accounts right tomorrow morning.
The whole system of 'choice' - as you call it - would result in the monopoly of one currency within a state anyway. Just look at it now, you are able to have a dollar account in the UK, a number of shops do accept dollads, you can most likely take a loan in dollars, too. But people don't. There's nothing to stop everyone getting their own little dollar/euro/whatever accounts right tomorrow morning.
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/faqs/index.htm
Sure, that's not the point - nobody wants to choose between two equally worthless fiat central bank currencies precisely because they're both equally worthless. And to print your own money, at least in this country, is illegal.
wazzup
dollar has been the reserve the currency and will be for the next 20 years or so.Russia doesnt even know what it is talking about.
20 years sounds optimistic!
NoHands
banks might as well start buying water as reserve currency then...
How about returning to the gold standard and having gold as reserve currency?
Related discussions
- Placed on reserve list PhD- advice
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- NINE DTP Applicants 24/25
- Gordon Brown calls for new poverty fund to halt slide into ‘hungry decade’
- History
- 25 Marker
- Kingston University International Black Scholars Programme
- How I got an MPhil in Development Studies at Cambridge
- Geography 12marker edexcel plzzz someone mark it and give advice
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- Work coach Merseyside EO 2023
- UCL global undergraduate scholarship
- Study proposal and video task - Postrgraduate LCF
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Guide: Which Language Should I Study?
- PhD DTP Funding
- Which 2024 election will be most significant for the world?
- History edexcel communism russia and china
- Uni of Exeter - BA Drama
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 5 minutes ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of Sheffield Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 9 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 12 minutes ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 13 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Trending
Last reply 12 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 12 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
