Proposal: single global currency

intention:
To create a single global currency and to end regional currencies.

reasoning: with economic crisis' everywhere today, the Russian rueple being the most recent we believe it is unfair on the citizens of a country to lose money due to bad decisions made in the government of banking industry. Therefor we call off a single world currency with standardised design and controlled by the IMF or world bank. We also believe this would help the poorest in the world such as coco farmers who would be able to be paid more as large TNC's would not have to pay currency conversion costs.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Iggy Azalea

Mexico does not support this notion, but is willing to be persuaded. Mexico would rather see more wider regional currencies (like the Euro), rather than a global one. Exchange rates are very beneficial for agriculture and industry, Mexico would be concerned to see them go.

Canada also disagrees with the proposal and wonders if a universal currency will simply encourage more nations to act recklessly with their economy, very much like Russia has. The rest of the world would have to carry the weight for the irresponsible minority. It would also make it harder to impose economic sanctions as they will cause significant collateral damage due to the wide extent of the currency. Canada remains skeptical until further evidence can be put forward.

Reply 2

Aph

Original post by Iggy Azalea

It is my understanding that currency's are judged against eachother so I don't see how any "collateral damage" would be done by recklessness.
Also the Netherlands would be interested in learning how exchange rates help farmers.

Reply 3

Iggy Azalea

Original post by Aph

If we take the example of the Euro, if we try to sanction one European nation that uses the Euro, the rest suffer consequently. A universal currency would make traditional sanctioning particularly hazardous.

Canada recommends the Netherlands looks into the recent milk crisis and how the use of exchange rates has helped western farmers reduce their waste, which is significantly high.

However, Canada's biggest concern with universal currency is the likelihood that it will make economic recovery significantly slower in the event of a negative shock.

For example:

Iceland suffered a negative shock, and thanks to complete power over its currency, has altered the value of goods and the wages of its people. It is now making a moderately successful recovery.

Spain also suffered a negative shock, and due to its tie to the Euro, cannot directly alter its economy and people's wages like Iceland did. It is making a sluggishly slow recovery, with other European nations having to bear the financial burden in trying to rescue Spain's currency (which they happen to share).

While we think it is a good idea in theory, a universal currency has too many unknown downsides particularly if a new economic crisis comes about.

Reply 4

Saracen's Fez

Australia doesn't want to have to get rid of the AUD, which is a relatively strong currency, and drop down to a currency of average strength or worse still lowest-common-denominator strength.

Reply 5

Aph

Original post by O133

Australia doesn't want to have to get rid of the AUD, which is a relatively strong currency, and drop down to a currency of average strength or worse still lowest-common-denominator strength.

This would be of benifit to Australia. Due to it's strong currency it would gain a greater share of this new currency.
The Netherlands also feels that this would get rid of the threat of the bit coin as a way to fund illegal activity.

Reply 6

Aph

http://www.singleglobalcurrency.org/why_an_sgc.html

iggy I haven't ignored you it's just Christmas so I haven't got round to doing hard research :biggrin:

Reply 7

McRite

Botswana: (I'm not well versed in economics) we feel a single currency will benefit us poorer countries in terms of attaining better loan interest rates and importing goods at their true value.

Reply 8

Iggy Azalea

Canada still does not believe a single currency is worth losing our economic freedom, something we have worked hard to establish.

We fear that in the case of an economic crisis, or even a war, the scale will be unevenly balanced and those that prepared themselves for this would suffer while those who manage their economy poorly will benefit from foreign bailouts. It could increase corruption in this case due to the economic butterfly effect it creates.

Then of course, we have to consider the practicality of this, erasing all the currency in the world for a new one, which would take time and money to do. We imagine the developed countries will also have to bear this burden as well.

Mexico has recently warmed to the idea, but we are only willing to share a currency at this stage with the Americas or potentially Europe.

Reply 9

username1524603

After deliberation in the Parliament New Zealand believes the idea needs a structure behind it detailing its implementation and management. At the moment the proposal is a purely a dream. Until more details have been given New Zealand will remain quiet on the issue, but will resist all attempts to implement the currency. We will refuse to implement the currency until we are satisfied with the detail.

Russia believes a single world currency would open up the world to manipulation with the countries with most business being able to exploit all parts of the world. Russia will refuse to implement and recognise the currency.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 10

Aph

Original post by Nigel Farage MEP

The Netherlands welcomes any suggestions from New Zealand and all nations as to implementation.

also we would suggest that this is already the case that countries with more money have greater influence.

Reply 11

username1524603

Original post by Aph

New Zealand would like to point out the USA has significantly more control over countries using the US dollar than it does over countries with their own stable currency.

Reply 12

Aph

Original post by Nigel Farage MEP

New Zealand would like to point out the USA has significantly more control over countries using the US dollar than it does over countries with their own stable currency.

Aye but that is because the US controls the US dollar.
with a single currency controled by a world bank there would be no such issue.

Reply 13

username1524603

Original post by Aph

Aye but that is because the US controls the US dollar.
with a single currency controled by a world bank there would be no such issue.

We believe this is a slightly naive view to take. Banks are not run by elected officials. The bank officers are going to be biased wanting to favour their own countries. Banks would also have to be based in the richer cities in the world. The bank's monetary policy would have to either favour the wealthy or favour the poor. At the moment the difference between wealthy and poor is negligible in terms of directing a bank's policy, but when you are making a decision which potentially makes an entire country a no-go zone for investment, banks will need to prioritise. It is unclear who will be setting the bank's agenda on which a bank's priorities will be set. Currently, the central bank's priority in the UK is to have inflation between 2-3%.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 14

Fernand126

[THIS POST WAS ONCE ABOUT NORWAY'S OPINION. DUE TO A SERIOUS OF CONTROVERSIAL EVENTS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH COUNTRY BEING REPRESENTED SINGULARLY RATHER THAN AS PART OF THE NORDIC STATE, I SHALL NOW REPRESENT AUSTRIA.]

Austria does not support the concept of a global currency. Not only would it promote reckless financial management as previously pointed out, it would also serve as a challenge for undeveloped countries to implement such system, as the masses would suffer during the period of instability resultant of poor execution of monetary changes, which can and should be expected from countries with rather inefficient governments. Our country is also happy to continue to work in cooperation with Germany to strengthen the Euro and its regional influence.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 15

Spandy

SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM firmly opposes thisproposal, which it believes to be quite immature. Vietnam is of the opinionthat this sort of proposal would-
1. Result in the steady shift of resources from thedeveloping to the developed countries with only minor temporary gains for thelocal population.
2. Make the world a riskier place, consider thepossibility of a strike at the prime mint by anarchist and other terror groups/rogue states, with the world as hostage.
3. No clear global currency exists, the dollar isglobal, but China is the largest economy by PPP measure
4. Makes it easier for capitalists to exploit thelocal population of developing third-world countries
5. Given the nationalist sentiments of thepopulation, fuels discontent against the ‘global currency’ and decreased growthrates.

Reply 16

Sandtrooper

Volunteer Team

Vietnam believes that this is a good idea in theory but will take time and reasoning. Perhaps continental currencies first, as it could have a serious economic impact if we suddenly created a single, global currency.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 17

username402722

Belgium thinks that the economic impacts would be too great to even consider it.

Reply 18

Fernand126

Original post by barnetlad

Belgium thinks that the economic impacts would be too great to even consider it.

[OOC]

This.
Finally someone considering economics rather than just random utopian dreams.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 19

Spandy

[OOC] I believe the idea is quite unwise, given that poorer countries will have lost the option of artificially devaluating their economies. No more tiger economies?