It was interesting to run across this recent article on Salon.com that attempts to mak the case for a single global currency.
It actually reminds me of this financial times article "And Now For World Government", which spelled out a case for having a single global government.
This thng of single world currency is a big deal. The US dollar has been the defacto world standard for many years, but the world is losing confidence in the US dollar and US economy as a whole, largely due to America's staggering and unsustainable debt levels. Talk of establishing a world currency has been batted about for years by economists and political leaders, and you can be sure such talk will get louder as time goes on.
The simple question is, if there is a global currency established, wouldn't there have to be a global authority to manage it? In essence, a global central bank to issue this currency, and to implement monetary policy concerning this world currency? Certainly.
Real simple, it comes down to this: global community... global economy... single global currency... global central bank... global government. All these concepts are inextricably linked. The push toward a single global currency is just one more step toward the One World Government that prophecy watchers have talked about for years. The world is being pushed in this direction for a reason, and the citizens of the world will end up accepting this, not really knowing who/what is behind it.
The Devil is building his One World kingdom, one brick at a time. The people of God had better pay close attention to whats going on.
===
Excerpt:
The Case For A Global Currency
This article was adapted from the upcoming book, "The End of Money," in bookstores Feb. 14 from Da Capo Press.
In the age of globalization, what does it mean, really, to be from one country and not another? We have some easy answers, along the lines of language, shared history, cultural references, and geography. I grew up cheering for the Red Sox, not the Hiroshima Carp, so that adds to my American-ness. I had to learn about the Federalist Papers in high school. I pay taxes and vote here. All of these things, some minor, some major, contribute to my sense of being part of this country.
Greenbacks do too, whether I like it or not. The coins and banknotes of a place are one of the few remaining touch-points of national identity left in our increasingly digital world. The monuments, symbols, and famous people splashed on them help reinforce this sense of nationhood. But as representations of the currency, they do more than that, because the currency is both the fabric of the economy and the stitching of the state. Even Marco Polo saw this in China, as the currency pulled a vast kingdom together under one umbrella of economic organization.
In recent times, though, having a national currency, at least for smaller countries, is looking more and more anachronistic. At the minimum it should be up for debate. Benn Steil, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations, told me that when he lived in Europe in the 1990s, the old saying was that to be a country you needed an airline, a stock exchange, and a currency. By the twenty-first century, that was hardly the case: airlines had merged or gone bankrupt, stock exchanges had consolidated, and the euro had become the dominant currency of the continent. In the years ahead, more and more small countries may decide to quit their currencies and adopt that of a more powerful neighbor (the Australian dollar in parts of Oceania, for instance), band together with nearby countries to form a currency block (e.g., the East African Monetary Union), or jump aboard an international powerhouse like the U.S. dollar or the euro.
All kinds of factors could sway this decision: runaway inflation, fear of currency crises, too little infrastructure to manage the cash supply, an unexpected rash of counterfeits, hope of greater competitiveness in global trade, and the wish to put an end to potentially dangerous speculation about the currency’s worth next week or next year.
Posts
