Question about a one world currency

Most NWO sites talk about a one world currency as if it's a bad thing. I'm not a master of economics but I do understand how bankers and trade work. Can anyone explain to me how a one world currency is a bad thing? Because what I see is mainly beneficial effects from nations being unable to use their currency as weapons against each other, and global control (or decentralized as is the case with crypto currencies) putting an end to ridiculous inflation.

reply to post by Aazadan


entirely depends on who is in control of it. FRB was the prototype so Israel and the money cartels could assume total global control, however too many "smart" peoples turned them down and flunked their plans at world domination, so the elite have to back up like Soros and snake out the funding to collapse the dollar so the NWO can offer a new clean way, plus they have to dissolve the credit system into something centralized. Rothschild has nearly zero control over credit companies without the fraudulent control of companies like JPMorganChase. If its not Illuminati controlled, it comes under fire by the CFR until they buy into them buying debt while selling assets to keep the credit and bank companies affloat aka government bailouts. But the Capitol is being setup to collapse the dollar so the assets wont get frozen and lose profits. The problem they are worried about isnt just global economy failure, its the fact that the "Amero"(codename) was said to be DNA encoded much like the hand microchip system.

reply to post by Aazadan


Imagine if the one currency was a once source of world oil. Do you think any one single small group should control the worlds fundamental energy resource and how its distributed?

The benefit of a one world currency is simple;

The unfair advantage that certain nations have in the cost of their labour would be over. It would no longer be cheaper to manufacture in China because everything would cost the same to buy and ship. No unfair currency advantages meaning that a day's labour in some countries is actually worth less than in others. Countries would end up making most of their own products with food, energy and raw materials being the main things traded globally.

Think I'm making it up? Look at America, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and what they were like 50 years ago - full employment and factories making 90% of what we bought in the shops on home soil. Imports were premium prestige international brands and components we could not manufacture ourselves to make a larger item i.e a TV set. Back then we had tariffs to protect local industry, if we had a one world currency no tariffs would be needed.

A one world government on the other hand would be an absolute travisty.

reply to post by Aazadan

It's not so much a question of it being a good or a bad thing, as it being an impossible thing. A single currency could only work if all countries had economies that had similar (identical?) inflation, money supply growth, levels of debt etc. Even the relatively similar economies of the Eurozone, which had been corralled in the same direction prior to the introduction of the Euro, were sufficiently different to one another as to risk blowing the whole "experiment" apart.

Moving to a single world currency means more than giving up your existing currency - it means giving up almost any idea of setting your own economic policies. Keeping your own currency means keeping economic independence. The only trade-off is that your currency depreciates or appreciates against other currencies, and in particular against the very small number of currencies that are used in international trade.

Your NWO websites will fill your head with Israel / zionists / oil / Rothschilds / Illuminati stuff, and you can believe all of that if you want. Personally, I think the reason we don't have a world currency is much less conspiratorial than that.

Incidentally, even if there was a world currency, there would be "cheap labour" countries. This wouldn't change overnight. Within the single-currency Eurozone, for example, there are significant differences in wage rates.

reply to post by Aazadan


it does centralize economy and monetary creation, giving enormous power to our selected few zionist banksters (like they don't have enough already)

they'll have control on everyone lives, any other government becoming even more a useless (for us) puppet than they already are

it's the ultimate achievement of corporate globalisation

but thanks to Equador, Bolivia and maybe Uruguay (i'm not sure Venezuela can still be put on the list), and maybe some Indian states and hopefully others, it's not going to happen totally globally right now.

lacrimoniousfinale
reply to post by Aazadan

 

A single currency could only work if all countries had economies that had similar (identical?) inflation, money supply growth, levels of debt etc.

single currency doesn't mean all the prices of all commodities have to be the same everywhere, so i wouldn't say it's technically impossible (see Europe or india and wide disparities from one state to another) because of that

(i share the same line of thought concerning your second point though - in which you contradict the end of your post though)

on another note, let's add that some smart independent people/broker make money from the central banks on the forex market. As little as it is for them, i don't think the banskters are happy with that, so that'd be another perk for them from pushing for a single currency. every details count for always more control

How could a one world currency be a bad thing?

Mayer Rothschild is widely credited with this quote:

"Give me control of a nation's currency and I care not who makes its laws."

If this is true, one can only imagine how he would have felt about acquiring
control of an entire world's money supply.

So the "bad" isn't necessarily in the currency...It is in the men who would
be in control. And I guarantee that the Rothschild family would not be left out.
...I'd bet the house

reply to post by rival


You have just clearly stated the problem lol Rothschild
One world currency could be anything if used by the globe instead of controlled by meglomaniacs.

reply to post by Aazadan


Do you trust the issuers of the currency, which in this case would be banks?

reply to post by Aazadan


i remember seeing something in the bible about all this.. it's way in the back

Dr. Stuart Crane, "wheat receipts" (and his 5 part conspiracy series)
download mp3's
(uses a grain silo as a metaphor for the IMF/et al)

this might be useful also; the creature from jekyll island

happy hunting

Ok, so reading peoples responses here there's not anything wrong with a one world currency. The threat lies solely within who has control over it.

There's essentially two ways to do that. Centralized or decentralized.

In a centralized system you end up with a currency that is backed by every nation. This isn't much different from currencies now. Thanks to the buying of debt on the national level everyone uses this debt to back the value of their currency. More debt means more faith in that currency. This is a currency that is very sensitive to national level actions. If for example everyone suddenly lost faith in the euro, all euro debt would become worth less which would make the euro worth less, as well as all currencies using euro debt to prop themselves up.

The advantage to this system is that it is easy to implement. Each nation creates a certain amount of debt, puts it into a pool, and a currency representing a piece of that pool is created. The disadvantage is that it is vulnerable to currency manipulations. There is also the potential for a world bank to take control of the currency and effectively rule the world.

The other method is a decentralized system. Here you create a currency that is beyond the control of any national government. This has been done with bitcoin. The advantage here is that no nation has the power to set monetary policy which creates or destroys the currency. The disadvantage is that because it doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of any one, any nation is free to use it how they want, it's essentially gold or silver. The most likely way this will be used is that the banks will create a pool of the currency and offer loans against it. When one bank trades with another bank they simply swap the credits, no physical currency changes hands. Provided they keep enough of the currency on hand to meet withdrawls they can essentially create as much virtual currency as they want. In a world of debit and credit transactions almost every transaction is virtual. This happens now with banks and national currencies but regulations keep the process somewhat in check (more so in some countries than others). Because a decentralized currency doesn't fall under any nations laws, no nation has incentive to protect it as it's a competitor to their own currency.

Have I covered the pro's and cons of each?

th3dudeabidesDo you trust the issuers of the currency, which in this case would be banks?

In any sane country it's the government that creates and issues the currency. Not a private central bank.

UNIT76
this might be useful also; the creature from jekyll island

I've read the book, it makes a fair point against a central bank but a one world currency doesn't necessarily have to have a central bank.

reply to post by Aazadan


/drools
/eyes glaze over
....i dunno?
sounds like you trust people?


either way we end up dealing with a clique
'real' things are always traded with some kind of 'tokens'
and we all know the failings of human nature..

..not a good combination, really

there was a time when you could at least exchange your piece of paper marked '100' for 100 marks of a tangible 'something' (gold) --now you can't even do that.. (well, haven't been able to do that for a while now)

making all this intangible (digital & 'worldwide') is completely the wrong way to go..

^that system only benefits the clique (again)

have a listen to the wheat receipts recording, see if you feel the same way?


The Mark of the Beast (Rev 13:16)
16And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name.…

UNIT76
there was a time when you could at least exchange your piece of paper marked '100' for 100 marks of a tangible 'something' (gold) --now you can't even do that.. (well, haven't been able to do that for a while now)

making all this intangible (digital & 'worldwide') is completely the wrong way to go..

You can't? I hear people offering to exchange gold for currency all the time. It's not through a government exchange, but the exchange is still there. That's more of a gold standard than we had from the gold confiscation until the end of the gold standard.

Making currency intangible happened a long time ago. You're about 465 years late to that argument. 95% of all currency was already intangible. Don't believe me? What happens when you get a house loan? Does the bank give you a wheelbarrow full of currency to hand to the seller? Nope. They take 10% from you in order to maintain reserves, create the other 90% out of thin air, and then credit the entire thing to the seller. No additional physical currency enters the system, they merely add and subtract from account balances. Computers make this easier but this has been in place since the 1650's.

a reply to: Aazadan

if you said all that from the outset
we would've never had this conversation
(..but you already knew that)

a reply to: Aazadan

Look at the Euro.

See how it has affected Greece, Portugal.

Austerity measures had to be put in place.

Not a good idea, in my humble opinion.

Awesome, I can no longer multiquote. That makes things so much better.

originally posted by: UNIT76
a reply to: Aazadan

if you said all that from the outset
we would've never had this conversation
(..but you already knew that)

Of course, but what I know is irrelevant. I want to be convinced I'm wrong about what I think is true.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Aazadan

Look at the Euro.

See how it has affected Greece, Portugal.

Austerity measures had to be put in place.

Not a good idea, in my humble opinion.

I don't know anything about Portugal so I won't comment there. In the case of Greece it all goes back to the 2008 crisis. Once the banking system went to hell (which was entirely our fault), Greece could no longer afford the levels of government spending it was sustaining, which were already too high to comfortably afford. In short they had a runaway budget which was leading to larger and larger deficits. After 2008 they experienced a severe drop in revenues and the whole thing came crashing down.

Ultimately what happened in Greece was a systemic failure of the EU. Greece had adopted the Euro however they didn't play by the economic rules in place and no one forced them to do so. Had 2008 not happened, Greece still would have collapsed but it would have taken longer. An earlier collapse is actually a good thing in the long run, so the Euro was beneficial here.

a reply to: Aazadan

..you seem alright

I want to be convinced I'm wrong about what I think is true.

that's the horrible truth of human nature
what you suspect is true
but noone from on high will come out and confirm that for us all
i think we should just trust our own judgement here
the evidence is all around us
..let me know if you come across anything to the contrary?

a reply to: lacrimoniousfinale

The world countries are far too heterogeneous a group for a single currency to be fair.