Nobel-prize winner backs world currency, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 14 times


reply posted on 13-3-2009 @ 07:45 PM by burntheships
reply to post by cognoscente


May I suggest you read Joseph Stiglitz's
"Globalization and it's Discontents"


reply posted on 13-3-2009 @ 07:53 PM by cognoscente
reply to post by burntheships


I understand he's saying that globalization is some kind of social dilemma. So why not change the strategies and their outcomes? Globalization has the potential to make every individual on this planet wealthy. It's the way we go about it that matters. What Stiglitz is observing is the economic self interest of nation-states in their pursuit to contain wealth within their own borders at the expense of others. Global capitalism just doesn't go hand in hand with ideals of national sovereignty. There are people all across the world that arguably produce better quality ideas and products than those of us in the U.S., but apparently they are not rewarded in kind. Everything we earn is inextricably linked to where we were born and in whose best interest we serve as allies. If the U.S. government was not legitimated by the votes of its own citizens, it would have no interest in securing resources for us. Why do people even think that deficit spending and "Buy American"-style stimulus packages are valid, or even competent? Because they vote for them and they demand their state acquire wealth for them at the expense of others. What's with all this talk of "shoring up" jobs? It's just disgusting. Ultimately, free trade should be directed in the best interests of the people, and not under any circumstance the corporations and the state's best interest. How that will be accomplished I can not imagine. Maybe the firm is an outdated idea?

Oh, and I'd like to equally suggest to you his follow up: Making Globalization Work

[edit on 13-3-2009 by cognoscente]



reply posted on 17-3-2009 @ 05:59 PM by mmiichael
Originally posted by cognoscente


Global currency does not equal global statehood. An international world government is the ideal, and that is what we should be pursuing. Regional law should be decentralized. There is no need for a uniform constitution. That would not accurately reflect the political locality of the world's numerous different cultures and societies. All international standards would act as ideal baselines, one which each nation aspires to achieve, drafted by concession by each nation. Goals would include economic integration, political stability, minimization of arms, universal human rights and freedoms, and whatever else everything sees as necessary. Public office in these positions would not be allowed to be held by private citizens. They would give up their rights and become a different level of citizen, one which is accountable to stricter laws and restrictions of personal freedoms.

Each nation on the planet would hold an obligation to printing a quota of the share of money, based on their share in a proportion of the global population. It would be totally decentralized. Money would more accurately reflect the economic value of any region, all else equal.




This is an admirable goal, but I doubt much consideration will be given to implementing it any time soon. Those with the advantages of the current unbalanced state of affairs, and they're the most powerful players, would have little motivation to create a more level playing field.

As there already is an enormous black market in goods such as drugs, virtual slave labour, unregulated oil, counterfeit currency, weapons, one can only guess at how much it would proliferate as controls were tightened.

We've seen how well the UN enforces peacekeeping, and I expect an international force would be about as effective.


Mike F
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 68 replies