It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Again, you post no facts to support this opinion. Why should a common currency lead to a global welfare state? Can you show us how it would?
Originally posted by dolphinfan
Nobody can predict with certainty if the move to a global currency would lead to world gov, socialism and a declining standard of living.
A common currency is... clearly the final step to global socialism and world government.
A global currency would lead directly to a reduction of the independance a nation states.
Reduction in liberty is perhaps the most central tenet of socialism.
The global elite who would manage the currency would undoubtably place guidlines on economic activity of nations, much as the EU does. Setting standards such as debt/gdp, % of GDP to national security, %/GDP to environmental causes, % GDP to global sustainability funds are likely candidates. Set levels of support for the UN, IMF and World bank would be enforced economically. All three have publically stated their desire for enforcement ability. Other global efforts, such as the Law of the Sea treaty, Kyoto Accord and the World Court and others would also require adoption else penalities would accrue. Forced compliance with these regimes is socialism.
the migration to a global currency will drive us to global socialism and decrease OUR standard of living. It will by definition reduce our freedom.
Originally posted by Edrick
Face facts... Currencies ARE commodities. Their relative value is subject to the laws of supply and demand, no matter HOW many there are.
The PROBLEM with a One World Currency, is threefold:
1. We pay taxes to different Governments, and thus, the competition for different regions would strain the relative value of goods and services.
2. Different nations have different labor standards. (First world wages vs third world wages) and thus, with a one world currency you would effectively be removing one of the wage protections between rich and poor nations. (Wage wise)
3. The issuer of the currency would have the power to contract and expand the monetary supply at a whim, timing these changes with their own personal investment strategies.
Originally posted by deepwoods
Thanks folks, these replies are along the lines of my thought process as well. I agree it does sound like a good idea. But its just a matter of who is in control of that money. the way I understand it the "fed" isn't actually the federal government or is sort of a quasi government agency. So don't we have something similar now, where the bankers are in control of the currency? -- Isn't the IMF already in control?
(If there are other threads regarding this please feel free to post the links to help us understand)