I meant the following to go to Futurework as well as Natalia.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Weick <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Darryl or Natalia <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] More on money, money, money!
Good morning, Natalia
I believe one has to think of currency as something that facilitates
the flow of goods and services in an economy, nothing more. Life is
ever so much easier with it than without it. But to have it and use
it means that you have to have some very firm rules around it, such as
rules that maintain its value relative to goods and services and that
ensure that its value does not change too rapidly. To have such rules
you need a stable and authoritative institutional infrastructure, like
a strong, well-staffed central bank and a set of laws about what you
can and can't do with money. You also need ways of avoiding and
handling whammo events like the sub-prime meltdown in the US. There
could, I suppose, be a single global currency system, but whether it
worked or not would depend greatly on whether there was global
acceptance and agreement about its rules and institutions. If Robert
Magabwe didn't want to play by the rules, I suppose it really wouldn't
matter, but if China or the US decided not to, it would matter greatly.
I'd have to think about it some more, but one law I might set if I
were chief global law-giver is that you cannot speculate on currency.
Of course, if there were a single currency you couldn't bet on its
value against other currencies. All you could bet on is whether is
whether it's going to maintain its value from day to day.
The euro is a good example of single currency used by a number of
countries over a wide geographic area, but bringing the euro into
existence required a lot of work and a lot of agreement by EU
countries. It was not an easy job, but it seems to have worked.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Darryl or Natalia <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ed Weick <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Futurework] More on money, money, money!
Hi Ed,
I wasn't sure whether you thought single currency was a good
thing, or yet another reason to acquire gold for fear it will come
to pass.
McKenna's idealistic views would be worth thinking about if there
were such a thing as true global value or meaning to said standard
currency. This particular perspective reflects someone's ideal
Western version of value, which has no basis of fairness to it
whatsoever, here or in Mauritius, but as history has shown, a
single currency ensures that those who have most of it benefit
from its sole distribution. Iraq tried the more beneficial Euro
for oil currency until Bush 43 declared the end of major combat in
his takeover war, and switched the oil currency back to the dollar
because, thereby, imperial US could indirectly continue to tax
Iraq, just as Rome did all other nations in its single currency
conquered world.
Countless examples of fictional wealth tabulated by computers as
money have flooded the collective of recognized assets, but still
maintain very questionable value. The most outstanding example is,
once again, that of currency markets profits. Money made off of
global gambling on various nations' currency values have far
exceeded in one day the sum total of the US annual GDP. A loss of
$3.3 trillion Defense budget to US taxpayers is not even
investigated. The money was either honestly made or not, and which
designation determines the value or loss? If it is ever recovered,
would they ever determine or admit to its origin, restore it to
the budget, the taxed people or to the covert group within the
DOD? Corporate fraud of billions and trillions today simply
vanishes into the ether. Someone still has the money, and it is
laundered back into the faulty system. What extra effects,
indirect taxation and otherwise, would this kind of activity have
on poor nations' economies, where subsistence wage is deemed to be
two bucks a day, and economies are most often local for reasons of
survival? If the US dollar collapses, or even drops much further,
where does that leave poor nations, let alone Canada? How will we
deal with the illegal wealth of poor nations when we can't
reconcile with its existence in our own wealthier nations? Yet,
these illegal funds account for a huge part of the system.
Single currency fever is being spread at a time when there is a
push for the rest of N. America to shore up the US dollar, 'cause
it's goin' down. The Security and Prosperity agreement is at work
here, being peddled by the floundering US government, looking for
a way to keep up the illusion of prosperity while taking over. It
would be a disaster for Canada to join the sinking ship that wants
control. Helping them is dangerous enough, but adopting their
fears and unsustainable practices, and giving them the reins for
the sake of the illusion of security and prosperity is another.
The Federal Reserve is a "reluctant central bank"??? If they
didn't wish to have control, it never would have been formed in
the first place! A burden indeed.
Acquiring gold in this era, in my opinion, is still good advise,
but potable water and clean green land would be the better bet.
A single currency will work once we're all eating GM foods, have
no unique resources left in the world, and have resigned
completely to a New World Order. That, or the world simultaneously
achieves peace, prosperity and well-being throughout.
Cheers,
Natalia
Ed Weick wrote:
Worth thinking about.
Ed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globalization creating a 'deadly brew' for national currencies
BARRIE MCKENNA
Globe and Mail
July 17, 2007 at 8:46 AM EDT
WASHINGTON -- Hardly a day goes by that someone, somewhere isn't
griping about currencies.
In Ontario, embattled Ontario manufacturers rail about the
suddenly airborne loonie. Members of the U.S. Congress want to
bash China for fiddling with the yuan. And ordinary Argentines
would rather hold just about any currency than their own.
So maybe it's time to rethink the whole idea of national
currencies. That, at least, is the provocative thesis of Benn
Steil, director of international economics at the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York.
In an article in Foreign Affairs magazine, Mr. Steil suggests
that scores of countries - from the Americas and Asia to Europe
and the Middle East - should simply give up on their own
currencies and embrace one of the world's global currencies, such
as the euro or the U.S. dollar.
With the gold standard gone, marginal currencies simply can't
survive against the sheer weight of globalization. Inflation and
high interest rates are a constant threat.
"National currencies and global markets simply do not mix," Mr.
Steil argued. "Together they make a deadly brew of currency
crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for
damaging protectionism."
Get rid of monetary nationalism, along with unloved currencies,
and you'll rid the system of a major source of instability, he
concluded.
Mr. Steil points to Europe in the developed world and Ecuador
(which uses the U.S. dollar) in the developing world as shining
examples of why fewer currencies are a good thing.
"Europeans used to say that being a country required having a
national airline, a stock exchange, and a currency," he wrote.
"Today, no European country is any worse off without them. Even
grumpy Italy has benefited enormously from the lower interest
rates and permanent end to lira speculation."
China, he suggested, would do well to give up the yuan in favour
of a "pan-Asian" currency that would rival the euro and the
dollar, while allowing the country to liberalize its financial
and capital markets.
Just about every other country would be better off with the
dollar or the euro as they gradually integrate into global
financial markets.
Even better, he suggested, would be a new gold-based
international monetary system, backed by private gold banks,
rather than governments.
Where does that leave a country such as Canada? Its economy is
puny compared with the United States or Europe, and the bulk of
its trade is with its southern neighbour.
That can be a problem when the currency swings. The loonie's
recent surge (past 95 cents U.S.) is nice if you're vacationing
in Maine this summer. But it's pretty devastating if you're
making auto parts and other manufactured goods for the U.S. market.
The rest of the Canadian economy - oil, most other commodities
and the service sector - are humming along fine. The net result
is an economy that appears much stronger than the United States'
(3.5-per-cent annualized first-quarter growth vs. 0.7 per cent in
the U.S.). But pockets of the manufacturing heartland in Ontario
and Quebec are hurting badly.
Wouldn't it be nice to have it both ways - stability for
exporters and an end to currency swings.
Mr. Steil seems to think so. In an interview, he said Canada
isn't like Brazil or Turkey, where the threat of a currency
crisis is ever present.
"Canada can certainly sustain a national currency, because
Canadians, as well as foreigners, treat the currency as a
reliable store of wealth," he said. "Canada is at no significant
risk of a currency crisis."
But that doesn't mean Canada couldn't do better. Mr. Steil argued
that the "economic arguments" for Canada-U.S. monetary
integration are compelling.
The main impediments, he suggested, are political, not economic.
And that's part of the problem. The United States, and more
specifically, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, has become a
reluctant central bank for the world. Its interest rate decisions
affect borrowing costs and investment yields everywhere.
As long as the United States acts responsibly, keeping inflation
low and steady, the rest of the world will be okay.
But if you suspect Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is drinking and
driving at the wheel of the global economy, you might want to
stock up on some gold.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca
http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 000770-0, 08/30/2007
Tested on: 8/31/2007 8:14:03 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2007 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com
