|
| Thread: Debaters' Guild I - World Currency |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
posted February 06, 2009 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's like language: "dialects" will come up (Romanian Euro, Chinese Euro, American Euro, Japanese Euro, Arabic Euro, etc... supposing "euro" is the international currency  )
I don't see Romanian Euro, German Euro, Italian Euro, French Euro, etc, now 
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 07:48 PM |
|
|
Europe is like... the size of Australia?
Plus Romanian already has it's own currency... (not sure about the others)
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 10:52 PM |
|
|
Bak:
Inflation would work the same way as it does now. Only instead of 300 different competing currencies, some with moderate inflation rates and others with rates that are off the charts, you'd have one currency.
And while it might have a bit more risk in a sense, it would also alleviate other kinds of risk - such as hyperinflation in Zimbabwe.
TheDeath:
Every country has inflation anyway. 
del_diablo:
A world currency wouldn't lead to prices being the same everywhere. Just look at the US or the Eurozone.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 11:08 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Every country has inflation anyway.
But it's local.
With a global currency, it would either be 'dialected' (lol), or affect the global economy -- which may turn impractical.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
A world currency wouldn't lead to prices being the same everywhere. Just look at the US or the Eurozone.
I never claimed that it would all reach the same level, i only claimed it was possible if the world had the same amount on the minimum wage(if it was reasonable).
Quote:
Inflation would work the same way as it does now. Only instead of 300 different competing currencies, some with moderate inflation rates and others with rates that are off the charts, you'd have one currency.
Question: How can inflation happen if we got 1 currency? A piece of break can change its price not the currency cannot in this case.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2009 11:58 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
How is one global rate of inflation any more or less practical than 300 different national rates of inflation?
del_diablo:
No, having the same minimum wage everywhere wouldn't be a good idea, as people aren't equally productive everywhere. A developed country's minimum wage creates relatively low employment, whereas if that wage law would be enacted in a developing country, it would create mass unemployment. And we could still have different minimum wages in different areas - we're debating whether we need a world currency, not a world country. (Although I'd prefer not to have a minimum wage at all.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And while it might have a bit more risk in a sense, it would also alleviate other kinds of risk - such as hyperinflation in Zimbabwe.
Or, theoretically, it could turn the entire planet into Zimbabwe?
For example, if something like the Great Depression comes around again.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 12:21 AM |
|
|
Theoretically, yes. In practice, it wouldn't, because the hyperinflation in Zimbabwe is politically motivated. A world currency would not be so responsive to the whims of third-world dictators.
And I've just thought of another reason to support a world currency. Often, countries increase inflation just to pay off their debts more easily. This hurts the country's creditworthiness, and make it more difficult for it to get any more loans in the future. With a world currency, this wouldn't happen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 01:33 AM |
|
|
You're not going to have to say what side you're on in the main topic, but you're going to have to make it clear what your viewpoint is if you post in the debate topic.
And we're not going to force people to debate on a side they don't agree with.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 01:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
How is one global rate of inflation any more or less practical than 300 different national rates of inflation?
Practice vs Theory 
They are never all the same at the same time though.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 03:00 AM |
|
|
No, indeed they're not. However, it is unlikely that irresponsible politicians such as those in Zimbabwe would have control of the World Central Bank, so such crises would not occur.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 10:39 AM |
|
|
What about that Wall Street crash from 1929? Or the Black Monday of 1987?
The USA isn't a third world country, yet crashes simply occur. Just look at the depth of shyte the world is in right now. Wouldn't it all be far worse if everything depended on a single type of currency?
If it's possible even theoretically that the planet turns into Zimbabwe, then I'd rather not play with that. The idea does have its bright sides, but then again, so did Karl Marx's...
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 10:57 AM |
|
|
Quote:
del_diablo:
No, having the same minimum wage everywhere wouldn't be a good idea, as people aren't equally productive everywhere. A developed country's minimum wage creates relatively low employment, whereas if that wage law would be enacted in a developing country, it would create mass unemployment. And we could still have different minimum wages in different areas - we're debating whether we need a world currency, not a world country. (Although I'd prefer not to have a minimum wage at all.)
You ignored my question, my main question: How can there be inflation IF we got 1 currency?
Inflation such as in making more money than we got stuff to back it up with, would be someting that cannot happen. If it happens the world would be alot worse off.
Simply to put my stance:
*If we print the money based on what we use to back it up and do NOT be stupid enogh to print more unless we dig up more of the stuff we back it up with, i can agree with 1 currency. If we print more than that however, world currency completely loses its purpose. Simply because with 1 currency we will be at a permanent loss until somebody cleans up the mess, and since we got 1 there is no currency to esquape the mess with.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 04:18 PM |
|
|
Bak:
The Wall Street crash affected the whole world anyway, so one currency wouldn't make any difference. As for Black Monday - that's actually a counterargument, since nothing bad happened, because Alan Greenspan skillfully countered the downturn. If the whole world currency were to be managed like that, then we'd avoid other downturns as well.
A single currency wouldn't make the current crisis any worse. Actually, it'd probably make it a little bit better, because there wouldn't be losses in currency exchange, and because a good world central bank policy would help the world economy better than just individual central banks can.
del_diablo:
Oh, you're talking about a global commodity currency - something like the gold standard. I oppose commodity currency because a static money supply is completely incapable of being manipulated to deal with recessions. What under fiat money might be a regular recession could under commodity money result in a deflationary spiral and a depression. That's what happened during the Great Depression.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 04:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, you're talking about a global commodity currency
What's the difference between that and a "global currency"? Instead of having "Backed by gold" we would have "backed by Universal" (a global currency)
Isn't it what it's already? For example, we already use euros/dollars here in Romania as "international" currencies, even though the exchange rates FLUCTUATE. If there was only 1 global currency, this fluctuation might end up affecting the entire economy, not just Romania.
But let me get this straight before going further: are you advocating having a GLOBAL currency, but still having local currencies in each country?
Or is it that you mean having a GLOBAL currency which is used by all countries and NO local currencies? (i.e everyone uses the same)
Because it is with the latter that I see a problem.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 04:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What's the difference between that and a "global currency"?
Global commodity currency = everyone uses gold/silver/etc.
Global fiat currency = everyone uses money printed by the same central bank.
It is the second that I am advocating.
Quote:
Or is it that you mean having a GLOBAL currency which is used by all countries and NO local currencies?
Yes, this is what I mean. What's your objection to it?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 04:54 PM |
|
|
You are aware that gold exchange rates FLUCTUATE based on inflation/whatever, right? People don't use gold outright, because a single currency cannot INFLATE or DEFLATE locally. If it does, it does so globally -- this is my objection to it.
Let's call this currency "gold" which is, let's say, printed (just for kicks). When we have currencies "backed by gold" (backed by another currency in this case), the exchange rates fluctuate. If we used gold directly, it would do so at a global level. That's failure and practice for you.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 05:17 PM |
|
|
TheDeath, I think you're going to need to clarify what you're saying, because I really don't understand what you're getting at.
Gold exchange rates don't fluctuate (at least, not in full-reserve banking). A bank note from Bank A would be backed by, say, 10 grams of gold. Bank A, then, would not be able to print any more money unless it got more gold. But the currency would be worth the same. Now let's say that a note from Bank B would be backed by 5 grams of gold. Though Bank A notes and Bank B notes are worth different amounts, their exchange rate does not fluctuate. Under a gold standard, exchange rates don't fluctuate.
And I don't see why you're saying that a currency can't inflate or deflate locally.
I think you're confusing money backed by other money (as was the case in Argentina) and money actually backed by a commodity.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 05:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Bank A, then, would not be able to print any more money unless it got more gold.
Ever heard of inflation?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2009 06:32 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
No, you don't understand. Under a gold standard, the money supply can't just expand. The only way there could be inflation is if productivity would drop. Banks would not be able to expand the money supply - so there wouldn't be inflation.
Father:
Summary coming soon.
Everyone:
In your closing statements, please make it clear if you are for or against.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
