World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

From the FT:

Leading countries should consider adopting a modified gold standard to guide currency movements, argues the president of the World Bank.

Writing in the Financial Times, Robert Zoellick, the bank’s president since 2007, says a successor is needed to what he calls the “Bretton Woods II” system of floating currencies that has held since the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime broke down in 1971.

Mr Zoellick, a former US Treasury official, calls for a system that “is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound and a renminbi that moves towards internationalisation and then an open capital account”. He adds: “The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values.

“The scope of the changes since 1971 certainly matches those between 1945 and 1971 that prompted the shift from Bretton Woods I to II,” Mr Zoellick writes. “Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eda8f512-eaae-11df-b28d-00144feab49a.html#axzz14hDAuhaO

Zoellick, a former US Trade Representative, is a somewhat unexpected source for a proposal of this nature.

But maybe, just maybe, a few people in authority are recognizing that with the announcement of QE2, the US is unilaterally wrecking the shaky Bretton Woods II floating-fiat regime, the same way it wrecked Bretton Woods I (1945-1971) by spewing dollars worldwide, and then pulling the plug on the gold transfers which were supposed to serve as a restraint on dollar issuance.

Both the US and the world paid a heavy price for trashing Bretton Woods I, including two oil shocks in the succeeding decade which crippled global economic progress in the 1970s.

This time round, Bensane Bernanke's loony-tunes QE2 folly could easily provoke a whole smorgasbord of disasters: dollar collapse, oil shock, and asset bubble collapse, to name three. In the case of a dollar collapse, the world will need a new, liquid exchange asset to facilitate trade. Some combination of major fiat currencies along with a gold-based reference standard could be viewed as a modified Bretton Woods I plan, without the fixed exchange rates and the central role of the U.S. dollar.

Through gross mismanagement, the US dollar is forfeiting its dominant reserve currency role. Better to plan ahead for the dollar's dignified euthanasia, rather than letting it succumb to a sudden flash of sharp knives in a grisly overnight bloodbath.

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

In an accompanying blog, Martin Wolf of the FT offers a thoughtful discussion of alternatives for reintroducing gold as an official component of monetary reserves:

The obvious form of a contemporary gold standard would be a direct link between base money and gold. Base money — the note issue, plus reserves of commercial banks at the central bank (if any such institution survives) — would be 100 per cent gold-backed. The central bank would then become a currency board in gold, with the unit of account (the dollar, say) defined in terms of a given weight of gold.

The biggest transition problem is the mismatch between the value of official gold holdings and the size of the monetary system. The value of gold held by central banks is apparently about $1,300bn, while global deposits of the banking system were about $61,000bn in 2008, according to the McKinsey Global Institute. To survive the slightest financial panic, the ratio of gold to bank money would need to be perhaps an order of magnitude higher.

One obvious objection is that this would generate huge windfall gains to holders of gold. More important, if policymakers set this initial price wrong, as they certainly would, they could unleash either deflation or inflation: the latter is far more likely, in fact, because private holders would start selling their gold to the central banks at such a high price. Apparently, about 90 per cent of gold is now privately held. So the expansion in the monetary base could be enormous.

Depending on the supply conditions for gold, the price level might move up or down. In the long-run, however, the price level would probably tend to fall (because the supply of gold fails to keep pace with global activity). Such a world of trend deflation is liable to depressions if or when the equilibrium real rate of interest is less than the rate of deflation.

The forces that now demand inflation from time-to-time would demand a change in the gold weight of the currency as happened in the 1930s.

Faith [in a government-fixed gold price] has perished. Moreover, everybody knows it has perished. So whenever the economy was in difficulty, the only question would be how soon the gold price would be changed or the link abandoned. In short, we cannot and will not go back to the gold standard.

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2010/11/01/could-the-world-go-back-to-the-gold-standard/

Setting aside his practical objections, Wolf's bottom line is that government commitments to a gold standard can't be trusted. This is hard to argue with. Governments frequently suspended the classical gold standard during wars. The U.S. Constitution contains a gold clause, which is simply ignored today. Under Frank Roosevelt, the U.S. Treasury defaulted on bonds payable in gold. 

If governments can't be trusted, then the only alternative I see is an international private consortium, subject to contract law, and with the strongest possible protections against force majeure by any one government.

Although governments are considered to be 'risk free' borrowers because of their taxing power, their sovereign discretion to break contracts renders them unreliable in other respects. Since governments have demonstrated bad faith in administering the gold standard, this vital mission needs to be entrusted to safer, nonpolitical hands owing a stronger fiduciary responsibility to their stakeholders.

jumblies's picture
jumblies
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 13 2010
Posts: 244
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

If governments can't be trusted, then the only alternative I see is an international private consortium, subject to contract law, and with the strongest possible protections against force majeure by any one government.

At the risk of sounding terribly naive or ill-informed, would it not be the case that they who control this consortium control the global money-supply and therefore control...well, everything? And who could be trusted with such responsibility? The world's central bankers have been unable to keep their own currency/economy stable so what's the chances of them managing something larger and more complicated? And who would be crazy enough to risk this? And if this did fail, who would be the ones paying the price?

Which then begs the question, who would actually get to make the choice? I suspect it will be those who are already responsible for our current predicament. I can't see a global referendum happening, as chad-tastic as that might be. And in that case it would be driven by those wanting to maintain the status quo, rather than what is best for the world and its global population.

After all, we humans have proven ourselves to be inherently selfish. In that respect perhaps it doesn't matter what is foisted upon us. In my opinion.

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
jumblies wrote:

If governments can't be trusted, then the only alternative I see is an international private consortium, subject to contract law, and with the strongest possible protections against force majeure by any one government.

At the risk of sounding terribly naive or ill-informed, would it not be the case that they who control this consortium control the global money-supply and therefore control...well, everything? And who could be trusted with such responsibility? The world's central bankers have been unable to keep their own currency/economy stable so what's the chances of them managing something larger and more complicated? And who would be crazy enough to risk this? And if this did fail, who would be the ones paying the price?

Which then begs the question, who would actually get to make the choice? I suspect it will be those who are already responsible for our current predicament. I can't see a global referendum happening, as chad-tastic as that might be. And in that case it would be driven by those wanting to maintain the status quo, rather than what is best for the world and its global population.

After all, we humans have proven ourselves to be inherently selfish. In that respect perhaps it doesn't matter what is foisted upon us. In my opinion.

 

Multinational corporations,  though still perceived to be nation bound, are actually a semi-united cartel of rogue elephants, running roughshod around the globe in a quest for yield and natural resources.  They have no allegience to anyone but themselves-- and use a combination of carrots and sticks to lean on nations, that are much weaker than they are. They use American and Nato forces, to pry open some markets, and bribe open other markets; effectively turning the heads of nations against their own people. If nations banded together, economically,  there would be more economic transparency between the heads of those nations and attempted wars of aggression, theft, bullying would be more clearly viewed as such, through an economic prism.

The vast military industrial complex,  tasked by these corporations to hammer nations into compliance, may have to cease and desist or at least pare way back to their original defense mode. Nations would have an easier time of it. They could launch multilateral efforts, using collective economic clout to neuter the bad boys. A new gold backed currency would expose the American dollar for what it actually is...a gun backed currency.

 Human nature is the overriding paradigm that all economic and political systems are subject to. But...a more balanced system that allows nations to work in a united fashion, would at least provide a more balanced framework , through which human potential of all kinds could fashion itself into.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
machinehead wrote:

From the FT:

Leading countries should consider adopting a modified gold standard to guide currency movements, argues the president of the World Bank.

Writing in the Financial Times, Robert Zoellick, the bank’s president since 2007, says a successor is needed to what he calls the “Bretton Woods II” system of floating currencies that has held since the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate regime broke down in 1971.

Mr Zoellick, a former US Treasury official, calls for a system that “is likely to need to involve the dollar, the euro, the yen, the pound and a renminbi that moves towards internationalisation and then an open capital account”. He adds: “The system should also consider employing gold as an international reference point of market expectations about inflation, deflation and future currency values.

“The scope of the changes since 1971 certainly matches those between 1945 and 1971 that prompted the shift from Bretton Woods I to II,” Mr Zoellick writes. “Although textbooks may view gold as the old money, markets are using gold as an alternative monetary asset today.”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/eda8f512-eaae-11df-b28d-00144feab49a.html#axzz14hDAuhaO

Zoellick, a former US Trade Representative, is a somewhat unexpected source for a proposal of this nature.

But maybe, just maybe, a few people in authority are recognizing that with the announcement of QE2, the US is unilaterally wrecking the shaky Bretton Woods II floating-fiat regime, the same way it wrecked Bretton Woods I (1945-1971) by spewing dollars worldwide, and then pulling the plug on the gold transfers which were supposed to serve as a restraint on dollar issuance.

Both the US and the world paid a heavy price for trashing Bretton Woods I, including two oil shocks in the succeeding decade which crippled global economic progress in the 1970s.

This time round, Bensane Bernanke's loony-tunes QE2 folly could easily provoke a whole smorgasbord of disasters: dollar collapse, oil shock, and asset bubble collapse, to name three.  1.) In the case of a dollar collapse, the world will need a new, liquid exchange asset to facilitate trade. Some combination of major fiat currencies along with a gold-based reference standard could be viewed as a modified Bretton Woods I plan, without the fixed exchange rates and the central role of the U.S. dollar.

Through gross mismanagement, the US dollar is forfeiting its dominant reserve currency role.

2.)Better to plan ahead for the dollar's dignified euthanasia, rather than letting it succumb to a sudden flash of sharp knives in a grisly overnight bloodbath.

1.)  One World Currency.  This is what I've been talking about for a LONG time!  But of course, it's not CT when someone else brings it up.  

2.)  It's been planned for a long time!  How many times do people like me have to say the same damn thing over and over again?

And #3, and the most important aspect of this future world with a one world currency?:  A one world police force and rule of law.  You cannot have a one world currency without a rule of law!  And in the US, what is supposed to be the ultimate rule of law..?...The Constitution.

Bye Bye Founding Fathers!

Everything that I've been spewing on this site in regards to the one world currency is now coming out in the open.  I hate to say it but..........

I told you so.Yell

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

John Maynard Keynes also had a world currency called BANCOR that was proposed a few decades back, by coincidence.

My own little chaos theory -----

Once the Dollar collapses and loses its reserve status,  all bets are off because no one would just accept money someone declared as "world currency".    Even with a police state, the government cannot jail all who chooses not to accept bank credit or central bank paper money, worldwide,  specially the military.

Immediately after a collapse, the vaccum would be filled by  competing currencies which  would quickly drive commerce back to using a medium that will be widely accepted by world trade:   gold backed currency.        Never mind what they're saying ,  the worlds central banks,  treasury departments and the IMF all have a stash of "they're on to us" gold.  

 

 

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

Carl,

I think you're being naive on this one.  Why wouldn't the people go for a one world currency if tptb said it was the best thing for them?  They haven't done anything to stop the madness at this time so......the track record of the citizen is pathetic.  

And, if tptb MADE it legal tender, who's going to stop them?  Are we stopping them from making our fiat FRN legal tender, even though it's the poison that's causing this problem?  The citizen is doing nothing.  

When it happens, the propaganda machine will be on overdrive and the only thing the citizen will hear is exactly what tptb want them to hear.  Shoot, they could tell the citizen anything and the vast majority would go for it.  I think you're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

 

 I truely believe  most people  will accept the One World Currency and then next step will be those that do not accept will not be able to buy or sell .  I am  not sure if  most  will be decieved or if they will take it willingly .  But those that figure it out too late .... oh boy... maybe no turning back  .   The faster  TPTB  Collapse the Dollar to  the level of the other currencies  the sooner it will be .

 

 FM

  

pinecarr's picture
pinecarr
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2008
Posts: 2259
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

Some time ago, when reading articles speculating about what would take the US dollar's place as the global reserve currency, I read the idea that gold would be included with a basket of currencies as a "carrot" to get countries to buy into the transition.  Then, once the transition was made, the gold carrot could be withdrawn.  So when I see talk in articles about creating a new currency, based on a basket of currencies that include gold, I can't help wondering whether we are just being suckered...

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

I do not believe the one world currency thing works.  For one thing, America will never accept it.  I am not so sure Europe would either.  LogansRun is right in that to have one currency you need one government and I can tell you there is no way America would accept that.  For instance, Shariah Law will never accepted in America.  We are not going to take away driving privileges for females or make them wear hoods over their heads.  It just is not going to happen.  Trying to impose a foreign government on America would result in a civil war for sure.  People will get their guns out and start killing each other.  It simply will not happen.  That is unacceptable and will not happen.  We all may go broke but we will do it together.  There will be no civil war.  Been there, done that, and it did not work out good for anyone.  I think we learned our lesson on civil war.

The politicians would not dare approve such a thing.  The people of America simply will not stand for that.  The politicians would be hauled out of their houses by huge mobs and shot.  This is not going to happen either.  The dem party is imploding and there is no way on earth the repub party would even consider such a thing.

No, there will have to be other answers.  I do not know what the result of QE2 will be.  I work at a wall street firm and I have asked several of our smart business types about it over the last week and none of them seemed very concerned.  One pointed out that it was a good thing and listed his reasons - which could be debated.  I am surprised that the Fed is doing QE2.  It is not clear to me how it really helps anything.  It certainly will not put any money in my pocket.  Who will get all that money ?  I really do not think my neighbors are going to get any of it either.  The Fed will use invented money to buy all kinds of assets in a number of different markets.  That may create jobs at banks but it is not clear that it will create many jobs elsewhere.  If the banking system lets untold billions of dollars loose in the economy there will be inflation.  Uncle Ben says he wants inflation.  It looks like the decision is to inflate our way out of debt.  Except for the top few percent of folks, it looks like salaries are pretty much capped these days.  Energy prices keep trending up and we keep getting effectively poorer.  Uncle Ben does not need to trigger inflation - energy will do it for him - energy inflation is already well on the way.  It is convenient that energy and food are subtracted from the CPI.  I feel sorry for retired people.  Looks like we are in for a rocky road to the poor house but I do not believe we will turn over our government to some world government.  And, we will hug the dollar all the way down and out the other side, where ever that may lead us.

We need to take decisive action to get our spending under control.  We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.  Governments at all levels are going to have to cut spending.  If we do that and cut government spending back to reasonable levels across the board - military, social, and all the rest of the crazy spending - we can actually live within our means as a nation.  People have to do the same thing at home.  We have to learn to live within our personal means.  We do that, we will be in much better shape.  The dollar will not suffer a tragic collapse, just the opposite.  The wild card is the Fed.  We may be forced to nationalize the Fed to get them under control.

If anyone here can explain to me how QE2 is going help me out then by all means please do so.

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
LogansRun wrote:

Why wouldn't the people go for a one world currency if tptb said it was the best thing for them?  They haven't done anything to stop the madness at this time so......the track record of the citizen is pathetic.  

And, if tptb MADE it legal tender, who's going to stop them?  Are we stopping them from making our fiat FRN legal tender, even though it's the poison that's causing this problem?  The citizen is doing nothing.  

Hello Tod -

Hope this finds you well.  I understand your stance, but I think you are being a bit pessimistic.  The people are starting to figure out that the so called "powers that be" (be what? I ask) are full of crap and created this self-licking ice cream cone of a debt based money system and all of the dripping leprous sores that resulted.  The central banking system and all of the nonsense that went on within it was able to be hidden while we (not 'we' we, but 'they' we) enjoyed a surplus of energy and resources.  As long as the beast was fed, the system worked, the train chugged down the track and the people didn't care.  Especially if it didn't affect their Direct TV subscriptions or the latest update on what kind of underwear (insert celebrity bimbo of choice) wasn't wearing.

The wheels are now wobbling, people are still being fed a load of shit from DC, but they aren't buying it lock, stock and barrel anymore.  While most may not be as well versed as many of us here are on the funadmental flaws in the system, they are starting to figure out that something is not right.  There's your spark.

The"system" is too big and it is going to collapse under it's own weight.  If the boogiemen try to roll out and force some one world currency nonsense on the American people - good luck with that - there are more of us than them.

And we all know what happened the last time enough of "us" got pissed off at "them".  Too bad King George III isn't around to recount his experiences as a "power that be not"

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
dshields wrote:

I do not believe the one world currency thing works.

There have always been two basic kinds of currency. There are several domestic currencies and then there is the currency that is used to settle balance of payments between nations.

I remember when we were on the gold standard, prior to 1971, and world trade was somewhat balanced by the fact that large current account surpluses built up reserves of gold and deficits led to drawdowns on gold. The running joke was that gold was dug out of the ground and put into a hole in the NY Fed vaults that were labelled with countries while a couple of guys spent their entire working week moving gold from one vault to another.

Since 1971, with the US $ as the world reserve currency under Bretton Woods II, China has accumulated about $2.4 trillion of foreign exchange reserves. Using today's price this corresponds to about 1.7 billion ounces of gold or about 48,000 tons of gold, Not only does this exceed the 8,000 tons held by the US but it exceeds the total held by all world central banks. This simply illustrates how unbalanced world trade has become over the last 40 years.

The current currency crisis primarily relates to exchange rates and balance of payments settlements. In this climate a one world currency could be introduced for balance of payments (not for any domestic use). This currency could be a basket of currencies, including gold as proposed by Robert Zoellick.

Geithner has backed away from his 4% of GDP current account surplus/deficit.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A71HD20101108

Thus the G20 meeting in Seoul could lay the groundwork for this new one world balance of payments currency. I am 100% certain it will be discussed but we probably won't hear about it until its a fait accompli. Call me a CT.

LogansRun's picture
LogansRun
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2009
Posts: 1444
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

Steve has it right here.  

When I say "one world currency", I'm talking about the reserve currency.  

Dogs,

Everywhere I've been this year within the US, no one has shown me they're angry at the proper persons.  It always comes down to Dem. vs. Rep., never the Fed or the banking system.  Banks yes, system no.

And if the crisis is large enough, in which people have lost much and pain is large, if the gov't says "this is how it shall be and it will work", I think from my experience, most will go for it.  And for those that don't, there's a force in place to stop them.  And I think you're being a bit optimistic in thinking that even 20% of Americans will stand up and say "enough is enough" and fight for their rights.  30 years ago?  Sure.  Now?  No.

Glad to see you back Dogs!

ao's picture
ao
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 4 2009
Posts: 2220
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
LogansRun wrote:

Dogs,

Everywhere I've been this year within the US, no one has shown me they're angry at the proper persons.  It always comes down to Dem. vs. Rep., never the Fed or the banking system.  Banks yes, system no.

And if the crisis is large enough, in which people have lost much and pain is large, if the gov't says "this is how it shall be and it will work", I think from my experience, most will go for it.  And for those that don't, there's a force in place to stop them.  And I think you're being a bit optimistic in thinking that even 20% of Americans will stand up and say "enough is enough" and fight for their rights.  30 years ago?  Sure.  Now?  No.

Glad to see you back Dogs!

DIAP,

I echo what LR says.  It's always good to see you post and I always value your opinion.  But based on my personal experience, LR is right.  Almost everyone knows something is wrong and most everyone is angry about it and a lot are talking about it but almost no one that I come across will be willing to stand up and actually do something about it comparable to what occurred under King George's rule.  They will mumble and grumble but step-by-step, bit-by-bit, the so-called "honest citizen" will go along just the same.  Whatever nail or nails stand up will get hammered down through means of legislation, regulation, litigation, and, if need be, force.  The only element that will "resist" will be the criminal element which is already working outside the law.

As long as the people are fed and entertained (i.e. have their bread and circuses ala ancient Rome), they will go along.  And if a point is reached when these basic "necessities" are no longer available, the social unrest that arises will lack the organization, coordination, cohesion, and immediacy of effort to implement widespread effective and sustainable change.  Probably the only group that would be capable of carrying out a change is the military but (1) it's unlikely they would all shift loyalties together and (2) as history tells us, that possibility entails a whole new set of problems that result in circumstances which very rarely end well.

As one author so clearly states, "Little by little, more and more will be controlled by fewer and fewer."  There is too much polarization and/or fractionation of the citizenry to stop it.       

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
SteveW wrote:
dshields wrote:

I do not believe the one world currency thing works.

There have always been two basic kinds of currency. There are several domestic currencies and then there is the currency that is used to settle balance of payments between nations.

Under Bretton Woods I, the US dollar was designated as the global reserve asset for trade settlement. Other countries had to swallow their pride -- the pound sterling had once shared this reserve-currency role with gold itself.

But the US economy emerged from World War II with no war damage and about half of global GDP. It was the sole superpower which could credibly shoulder the role of issuing a global reserve currency. Economist Robert Triffin pointed out in the 1950s the conflicts between domestic and foreign priorities which eventually led to Nixon shutting the gold exchange window in 1971.

Around this time, the IMF tried to create a global currency called the SDR. It had the same problem as the global language Esperanto -- since it wasn't actually used domestically anywhere, the SDR lacked a deep, liquid exchange market.

CMers are right to be skeptical about the emerging new arrangements -- after all, the plutocracy rarely has our best interests in mind. But the dollar is clearly doomed as a reserve currency. Given the failure of the SDR, monetary authorities seem to be thinking along the lines of a currency basket.

Given a choice between a basket of fiat currencies, and a basket with a gold component or reference, I'd choose the latter. Since the authorities desire to retain discretion -- which they almost never yield voluntarily -- I doubt they will make the gold component binding upon their own domestic monetary expansion.

But gold will at least serve to call out the irresponsible players. For instance, the USD gold price has soared to a record over $1,400, but the euro gold price remains below its level of May 2010. This accurately reflects that the ECB is running a more restrictive policy than the Federal Reserve.

One way or another, world trade will continue. Countries such as Brazil, China and Russia are making their own bilateral arrangements, but this is not a very satisfactory solution for the world as a whole. Most of the innovative thinking on the subject is coming from overseas. Bobby Zoellick is the first American official that I've seen weigh in on the subject. Otherwise, with the most to lose, the US has withdrawn like a turtle inside its shell, hoping forlornly that the issue will just go away. Fat chance, with Bernanke's Dollar Destruction Program the center of global attention this week!

Although a new global currency poses possible threats to independence and liberty, I can think of one advantage. Right now, the US uses the dollar's global role to strongarm other countries into accepting the extraterritorial application of US law. With a more diversified global monetary system, in which the dollar plays a more minor role, the rest of world will be able to tell the control-freak US, 'Take a hike, creep!'

 

rhare's picture
rhare
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 30 2009
Posts: 1329
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
ao wrote:

As one author so clearly states, "Little by little, more and more will be controlled by fewer and fewer."  There is too much polarization and/or fractionation of the citizenry to stop it.

I'm not so sure this is a given.  In order for a  few people to control a large population you have to have lot's of energy to procure the weapons and the manpower to exercise that control.  As we all at CM know, that is the root of the problem, reduced energy flows.   While I fully expect there will be attempts at this control, I suspect they will ultimately fail as it's realized those trying to do the controlling have little ability to do so.  After all, isn't that what we are seeing unfold today?  The US unable to continue growth at a rapid pace is loosing control primarily via the USD.

I'm also not so sure we will have a new reserve currency arise.  It's a false choice to say "what will be the reserve currency" and not include the question "will their be a reserve currency"?  After all, it's not necessary just as it's not necessary to have a national currency.  If left alone, individuals will figure out a medium of exchange.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
LogansRun wrote:

Steve has it right here.  

When I say "one world currency", I'm talking about the reserve currency.  

Dogs,

Everywhere I've been this year within the US, no one has shown me they're angry at the proper persons.  It always comes down to Dem. vs. Rep., never the Fed or the banking system.  Banks yes, system no.

And if the crisis is large enough, in which people have lost much and pain is large, if the gov't says "this is how it shall be and it will work", I think from my experience, most will go for it.  And for those that don't, there's a force in place to stop them.  And I think you're being a bit optimistic in thinking that even 20% of Americans will stand up and say "enough is enough" and fight for their rights.  30 years ago?  Sure.  Now?  No.

Glad to see you back Dogs!

I'm only looking for 5-10%.  For now I'll settle that people are angry at something, now it is up to the informed to show them what to be angry at.  There will certainly be a battle for their attention spans, but I think you underestimate the resilience and resourcefulness of people when they start to get backed into a corner.  I have to laugh at your claim there is a force in place to stop us - despite what your friends in the Breakfast Club tell you not to tell us.Cool

There is a much, much bigger and more capable force on the other side of "them".  They just don't know which side they're on, because they aren't pissed off enough....yet.  Don't forget that that the single most dangerous thing in the world is the person who truly has nothing left to lose.  If "they" get too many of "us" in that situation it will not bode well.

One man gather what another man spills.....

Wendy S. Delmater's picture
Wendy S. Delmater
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2009
Posts: 1988
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

As one of those people who's been accused of only seeing Republicans vs. Dems (not true, I vote for the best candidate) and who really does see that the banking SYSTEM is the main problem, I ask you: What the heck can we little people actually do? I do not normally enven get involved in such discussion, mainly because I donlt see how I can make a difference. I'm working toward local, state and federal fiscal responisbilty--and personal fiscal responsibilty (and sustainability) since they are the only things I feel are even slighly in my power to accomplish.  And as far as preps are concerned I feel like a provebial ant surrounded by grasshoppers. My neighbors and co-workers don't get it about government debt, about peak oil, about the possibilities of hyperinflation or deflation (or both)...or about how the banking system affects their daily lives.

Here at CM I hear a lot of "End the Fed" and "The Banking System is Evil", but I hear absolutely no coherent plan for dealing with it. Lots of ranting--with tons of footnotes!-- but no action plan. All we seem to be able to hope for is to build communties and personal resiliency so that we can locally live through and rebuild after the inevitable crash. Not that those aren't worthy goals.

Dogs,

I agree that we should show those who get angry what to be angry at. But what then? Feel free to PM me if you folks think the answer might be too controversial for the thread.

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
safewrite wrote:

I agree that we should show those who get angry what to be angry at. But what then? Feel free to PM me if you folks think the answer might be too controversial for the thread.

SW -

Easy...it's as simple as getting them to understand that a debt based money system is unsustainable and will eventually grow to a point where it will collapse upon itself.  We saw such a system grow and function for years while there was a surplus of energy and resources to continue to feed it.  We were all caught up in a lifestyle and standard of living that far outstripped needs (I'm sure there are a couple of hermits out there who lived in trees and ate rocks and were so principled as to refuse participation in such a system and therefore didn't feed it).  More and more people are starting to feel the adverse impact of living within such a system and they are just now starting to get the inkling that something is squirrelly.

So, do we let the system implode - that's my vote, because then there will be no choice but to respond to such a systemic shock by enacting meaningful changes.  Or do we attempt to educate people, and focus their (likely) resultant anger at the solution set and whittle away at the problem and enact changes for the better albeit more slowly?  The problem with most American's (and most people in general)  is they are too often seeking instant gratification.  However, there isn't a drive through window, super-size me solution.  We will, as you did, vote for the best candidate, one who we hope is cognizant of the real problems and has the courage to fight against it - within the confines and boundaries established by the Constitution.  If we are successful with that effort, things get better.  I personally don't think that approach will happen fast enough and it will take the larger system shock to snap people into an awareness that they will then act on. 

The good ole boy way of doing business in DC is still the majority.  But as we just saw in the recent election, the business as usual approach isn't resonating with the American people as much as it used to in the past.  When the debt based monetary system collapses on itself, we are going to look around, mutter something along the lines of "Well, that really sucked, let's make sure that doesn't happen again." and then we will get around to fixing it.

And the cycle starts all over again.

SailAway's picture
SailAway
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 11 2010
Posts: 404
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
safewrite wrote:

I do not normally enven get involved in such discussion, mainly because I donlt see how I can make a difference.

"If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito."

-- Dalai Lama

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
safewrite wrote:

As one of those people who's been accused of only seeing Republicans vs. Dems (not true, I vote for the best candidate) and who really does see that the banking SYSTEM is the main problem, I ask you: What the heck can we little people actually do? I do not normally enven get involved in such discussion, mainly because I donlt see how I can make a difference.

You can prepare, as you are doing now and keep educating yourself. It takes a number of years, but should be part of a basic preparedness plan. The best way to do this is to follow the money. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
Full Moon wrote:

 I truely believe  most people  will accept the One World Currency and then next step will be those that do not accept will not be able to buy or sell .  I am  not sure if  most  will be decieved or if they will take it willingly .  But those that figure it out too late .... oh boy... maybe no turning back  .   The faster  TPTB  Collapse the Dollar to  the level of the other currencies  the sooner it will be .

 FM

As long as we're talking the bible here, how do you know that the one currency system described in the bible isn't the current American dollar which not only imposes banking embargos on non compliant nations, but bombs others into compliance, like Iraq? The Iraqi cobbler who has seen his shop blown to pieces during the Shock and Awe bomb run, his sons tortured, his wife driven insane from stress, would be quite happy to opt for the more hygienic "will not be able to buy or sell".  You think?

 

 

 

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:

 

I'm only looking for 5-10%.  For now I'll settle that people are angry at something, now it is up to the informed to show them what to be angry at.  There will certainly be a battle for their attention spans, but I think you underestimate the resilience and resourcefulness of people when they start to get backed into a corner.  I have to laugh at your claim there is a force in place to stop us - despite what your friends in the Breakfast Club tell you not to tell us.Cool

There is a much, much bigger and more capable force on the other side of "them".  They just don't know which side they're on, because they aren't pissed off enough....yet.  Don't forget that that the single most dangerous thing in the world is the person who truly has nothing left to lose.  If "they" get too many of "us" in that situation it will not bode well.

One man gather what another man spills.....

I've been thinking a lot about what I'd do if I were a politician,  interested in protecting myself from the angry hordes, while making as much money as humanly possible.Politicians are constrained by location. They can't off shore themselves.  If there's been downward manipulation of gold, in the past, it HAS to stop.

If it doesn't stop, if it isn't allowed to seek it's natural market level, all the jittery money floods into commodities and agricultural land; the only remaining tangible assets...and people go hungry. Out come the pitchforks!  Gold should act as a kind of sponge for all the money being injected into the system. If not it gets soaked up by mountains of flour,  lakes of oil. 

The argument that gold's major limiting factor is it's lack of real intrinsic value (you can't eat it), is actually the best argument for why it's value as money and a store of value is limitLESS. This has to be one of the reason Zoellick and others are considering a currency backed at least partially by gold. Wonder how much bullion these guys are sitting on themselves? Suppression schemes have a way of flying out the window when there's money to be made and civil unrest to be avoided!

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3201
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

safewrite

Quote:

I ask you: What the heck can we little people actually do?

Aside from continuing to prep or taking part in political actions of some sort, I've come 'round to the notion that the one way to kill the debt beast is pay off debt and don't borrow anymore.  It is becoming clearer all the time that Ben's attempts to get us out borrowing and spending are not working.  I can't think of one good reason to go along with his wishes to continue playing kick the can.

Doug

Carl Veritas's picture
Carl Veritas
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 23 2008
Posts: 294
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

    A little piece of paper called withdrawal slip can speed up the collapse, if you can coordinate a global bank run.

Full Moon's picture
Full Moon
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 14 2008
Posts: 1258
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

   AP ,    Maybe you  or someone else can tell me .  I have read and read , I do not see USA as any kind of world power  what so ever .  I have not figured out if we are absorbed into the China/ Russian  red Alliance  from the east or the European one . 

   Please  if  one of you who are smarter than  I have figured this out I am open to read it .   You will need to PM me as we are not supposed to write about it here .

  FM

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime

Edmund Conway, former economics editor of Britain's Telegraph, has posted a thoughtful essay about monetary reform. Although he comes out against the gold standard (as 99% of economists concur), he at least explains his reasons for doing so. This is one of them:

The amount of gold in the ground is finite, whereas the capacity of humans to increase their economic output and productivity is still increasing exponentially, and should continue to do so, barring the possibility of falling back into the dark ages.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100008531/return-to-the-gold-standard-would-be-madness/

Anyone who's taken the crash course will recognize the fallacy here. Conway thinks gold would act as a constraint on an otherwise 'exponentially expanding' economy. In reality, plenty of other constraints will bite on an exponential expansion before gold will.

His concern arises out of historical experience under the gold standard. Governments suspended the gold standard during wars, such as the US Civil War, the European war of 1871, and World War I. After a bout of wartime inflation, they insisted on restoring the gold link at the prewar parity, instead of simply absorbing the wartime devaluation and repegging at the new, devalued exchange rate. This of course imposed painful, unpopular deflation.

Nothing prevents a 'crawling peg' gold standard, in which the authorities commit to increase gold holdings by 2 or 3% per year. Deflation is extremely politically unpopular. Gold standard opponents habitually point to its rigid application in the 19th century as a cautionary tale. 

It never occurs to them that, should human population reach a peak and begin to decline, a gold standard could actually deliver mild inflation. The critical need is for a stable reference of value, whether the economy is growing or shrinking.

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: World Bank Proposes New Global Monetary Regime
machinehead wrote:

Edmund Conway, former economics editor of Britain's Telegraph, has posted a thoughtful essay about monetary reform. Although he comes out against the gold standard (as 99% of economists concur), he at least explains his reasons for doing so. This is one of them:

The amount of gold in the ground is finite, whereas the capacity of humans to increase their economic output and productivity is still increasing exponentially, and should continue to do so, barring the possibility of falling back into the dark ages.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/edmundconway/100008531/return-to-the-gold-standard-would-be-madness/

Anyone who's taken the crash course will recognize the fallacy here. Conway thinks gold would act as a constraint on an otherwise 'exponentially expanding' economy. In reality, plenty of other constraints will bite on an exponential expansion before gold will.

Interesting, that I accepted the validity of Conway's statement. But when you pointed out the constraints of finite resources (which I accept) I realised that I almost unconciously accepted the validity provided that exponential economic output and productivity involves assets such as art, music and literature (especially when distributed over the net) that have almost zero resource input. 

When looked at in this light depleting resources need not necessarily lead to a poorer future but to a different one, that may be much richer in some aspects.

EDIT: However considering the totality of economic output I agree that resource constraints will bite first.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments