Every now and then, there are calls for an international currency to diversify the current global currency system that is dominated by the US dollar. The current economic crisis has got Russia and China pushing for the concept, which was discussed at the G8 summit in Italy:
The Russian leader proudly displayed the coin, which bears the English words "United Future World Currency", to journalists after the summit wrapped up in the quake-hit Italian town of L'Aquila.
Medvedev said that although the coin, which resembled a euro and featured the image of five leaves, was just a gift given to leaders it showed that people were beginning to think seriously about a new global currency.
"In all likelihood something similar could appear and it could be held in your hand and used as a means of payment," he told reporters. "This is the international currency."
http://www.canada.com/news/Medvedev%2Bsees%2Bsingle%2Bcurrency%2Bdream%2Bcoin%2Bgift/1778961/story.html (Photo: Alexander Nemenov, AFP/Getty Images)
Do you think it's a good idea to have a global currency? Why or why not?
Comments (47)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Trusting the Federal Reserve not to inflate is not exactly rational.
Also, if we returned to a gold standard, it would allow gold hoarders to manipulate the money supply. That's not just in the US, but around the world. Do you want the Chinese to hoard gold and disrupt our economy?
It is better that we put the trust in central bankers and expect them to responsibly discharge their EXPLICIT duty of maintaining the stability of a fiat money supply.
For example, when Italy went from the Lira to the Euro, it caused massive inflation. The Euro was worth a lot more than the Lira and when the switch was made, the price of a good that cost 3 Lira, now cost 3 Euros. The cost of living went extremely high in a country that was already expensive to live in.
Also, it would increase the buying power of China drastically. If the Yuan was replaced with this new global currency, their wealth would increase at least 3 fold. Of course, it would be cost-prohibitive to import Chinese goods, but it would still be a massive gain for China, and a massive loss for the US.
This is not an issue of left or right! People from both sides of the spectrum are warning of the detriments of this type of system to the freedoms and liberties of the people.
Anyone who supports this type of system essentially believes that a small group of people should dominate over the rest. That is in essence fascism.
Of course, for rifle bullets, feet and feet of fat would be necessary. However, for small arms (pistols and revolvers), the experiment is invalid, because:
- most pistol bullets aren't as heavy as the ball bearing they used. Ball bearings are usually made of steel. Bullets are lead, antimony and, sometimes copper. A steel ball bearing of the same size of a bullet is usually heavier than the bullet.
- The 9mm Luger is a fast cartridge, but doesn't come close to 500 m/s (usually, 350 m/s for a 124 gr bullet)
- Most people are shot by small arms, not rifles, so, an appropriate experiment would be to use a common gun, like a 9mm or even a .38 Spl, which I know for fact than can be stopped by fat. Even a heavy leather jacket will slow a .38 Spl down enough to lower its damage to a minimum.
- A hollow point bullet, which expands on hitting soft targets, will deaccelerate considerably when traveling through the medium.
- Even when a bullet can be stopped by fat, what is most damaging is not the perfuration made, it's also the effect of the thermostatic shock that damages internal organs.
- AFAIK, only muzzle loading guns use round (as in "round ball") bullets, but then, their speed is very limited, they are made of lead, and their surface is not near as finished as a ball bearing.
Pretty safe to say that being shot is bad. Being fat is bad too. Avoid both to live a long life.