NationStates Jolt Archive

Think about this, every time that there is an international trade, the money being traded has to be counted, coverted into another form of currency, and then is finally able to be used.

We could make this a whole lot easier if all had the same, standardized currency.

I have a proposal in the U.N. right now for this, and I hope it works.

And to make sure that the new currency would not take away from a country'e culture, 2 (or more) currencies should be allowed. One currency would be the Standard, while the other would be used only inside the country's own borders. International trade, be it regional or inter-regional would use the Standard form, so as to make trading easier.

Now go vote in the U.N. !!!!!

Please tell me your thinking behind why you voted, don't just vote, I want to know what needs to be changed!

The flaw in your arguement is this: You say that people won't have to worry about exchanging money because of this universal currency but to maintain soveriegnty they'll be able to use their own currency as well in their country. But then you just have to exchange ALL THE TIME. If you have two currencies being simultaneously used you'll have to exchange more, not less, often! So true, you won't have to change for international trade, but you'll be going crazy trading for intranational trade.

I think it would be a good idea, but not in the way you're going about it. In order for this to truly have any effect, we would need to eliminate all different currencies and have only the one. Otherwise, it will still be just as tedious and confusing as before. Even if a country had it's own currency as well as the international one, wouldn't they still need to be converted from one to another?

I think it would be a good idea, but not in the way you're going about it. In order for this to truly have any effect, we would need to eliminate all different currencies and have only the one. Otherwise, it will still be just as tedious and confusing as before. Even if a country had it's own currency as well as the international one, wouldn't they still need to be converted from one to another?


Yes. Thank you for the feedback. Making the Standard currency more common, and making the local currency more confusing, countries could make the Standard their only currency, because people would be fed up with having to switch back and forth. Maybe I'll make a
"Standard Currency II"

If that were the case, Orhiikalon would fully support a single, international currency.

I'm going to make Standard Currency II, but what should the name of the new currency be?

How would you plan to implement this?
_________________
http://www.cutandpastescripts.com/cgi-bin/randomimages/randomimages.pl?username=blacklakesig (http://blacklake.vze.com)

How do you establish the value of this currency and how do you decide what one country makes compared to another?

How would you plan to implement this

This could be done through the UN. How does International Credit sound?

International credit is a good idea. I'll put that down on the proposal.

The flaw in your arguement is this: You say that people won't have to worry about exchanging money because of this universal currency but to maintain soveriegnty they'll be able to use their own currency as well in their country. But then you just have to exchange ALL THE TIME. If you have two currencies being simultaneously used you'll have to exchange more, not less, often! So true, you won't have to change for international trade, but you'll be going crazy trading for intranational trade.

Quite correct. The worst problem with the proposal, however, is control of the money supply. Who gets to decide what (if anything) the currency is backed by, how much gets printed where, what the reserve requirements (if any) are for banks, how to prevent counterfeiting, etc. One immediate and obvious consequence of an unregulated international currency is that governments would finance themselves entirely by printing money.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :P :P :P :P :oops: :oops: :o :o :o :o :lol: :lol: :lol: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: I HATE THE EURO

This is a bad idea having a univesal currency,I mean ecomomy's are going up and down throughout all nations,and they might be producing more universal currency then they are bettering their economy,just like the EU.France is doing better then any other country in the EU and most countries which are poorer then other countries in the EU are producing more Euro's then France or any other richer nation.So I say again this is a bad idea.

The flaw in your arguement is this: You say that people won't have to worry about exchanging money because of this universal currency but to maintain soveriegnty they'll be able to use their own currency as well in their country. But then you just have to exchange ALL THE TIME. If you have two currencies being simultaneously used you'll have to exchange more, not less, often! So true, you won't have to change for international trade, but you'll be going crazy trading for intranational trade.

Quite correct. The worst problem with the proposal, however, is control of the money supply. Who gets to decide what (if anything) the currency is backed by, how much gets printed where, what the reserve requirements (if any) are for banks, how to prevent counterfeiting, etc. One immediate and obvious consequence of an unregulated international currency is that governments would finance themselves entirely by printing money.

The U.N. would be in control of the money production. The currency is backed by nothing more than trust in the system, just like the United States in real life. (No it's not backed by gold, one of the presidents either Nixon or Reagon, I don't remember, signed a bill making the Dollar not based on the gold reserve.)

Yes :D :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

Yes :D :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

The U.N. would be in control of the money production. The currency is backed by nothing more than trust in the system, just like the United States in real life. (No it's not backed by gold, one of the presidents either Nixon or Reagon, I don't remember, signed a bill making the Dollar not based on the gold reserve.)

What about "Your country is worth less than the other countries just because we don't like you"?

The U.N. would be in control of the money production. The currency is backed by nothing more than trust in the system, just like the United States in real life. (No it's not backed by gold, one of the presidents either Nixon or Reagon, I don't remember, signed a bill making the Dollar not based on the gold reserve.)

Without some details about how the currency will be regulated, the proposal is unacceptable. Monetary regulation is both crucial and controversial, and can't simply be shrugged off with "someone will worry about it later".

The value of a single currency for international trade is probably overrated. Converting currency isn't that big a problem (it certainly hasn't prevented China, Japan, et al. from doing a huge business with North America and Europe). Having currencies that fluctuate relative to other nations' can even be advantageous: when one nation has a balance of trade deficit, its currency flows overseas. The increased supply drives down its value on world markets, making its exports cheaper, thus helping to reduce the trade deficit. The reverse process also works: when a country has a trade surplus, the price of its exports will rise.

Fluctuating national currencies thus serve an important function in stabilizing economies, especially small ones with a high proportion of imports and exports in their gross consumption and production.

If a country really wants, for convenience, to have the same currency as its neighbors and trade partners, or a fixed exchange rate, it can simply declare some stable foreign currency to be legal tender, or fix the exchange rate by undertaking to buy and sell the foreign currency at a set price. <<I believe China has actually undertaken the latter course, tying its currency to the US dollar.>>

(It was Nixon that took the US officially off the gold standard; however, dollars had not actually been convertible into gold (and thus not genuinely backed by gold, or anything else) for several decades.

The U.N. would be in control of the money production. The currency is backed by nothing more than trust in the system, just like the United States in real life. (No it's not backed by gold, one of the presidents either Nixon or Reagon, I don't remember, signed a bill making the Dollar not based on the gold reserve.)

Without some details about how the currency will be regulated, the proposal is unacceptable. Monetary regulation is both crucial and controversial, and can't simply be shrugged off with "someone will worry about it later".

The value of a single currency for international trade is probably overrated. Converting currency isn't that big a problem (it certainly hasn't prevented China, Japan, et al. from doing a huge business with North America and Europe). Having currencies that fluctuate relative to other nations' can even be advantageous: when one nation has a balance of trade deficit, its currency flows overseas. The increased supply drives down its value on world markets, making its exports cheaper, thus helping to reduce the trade deficit. The reverse process also works: when a country has a trade surplus, the price of its exports will rise.

Fluctuating national currencies thus serve an important function in stabilizing economies, especially small ones with a high proportion of imports and exports in their gross consumption and production.

If a country really wants, for convenience, to have the same currency as its neighbors and trade partners, or a fixed exchange rate, it can simply declare some stable foreign currency to be legal tender, or fix the exchange rate by undertaking to buy and sell the foreign currency at a set price. <<I believe China has actually undertaken the latter course, tying its currency to the US dollar.>>

(It was Nixon that took the US officially off the gold standard; however, dollars had not actually been convertible into gold (and thus not genuinely backed by gold, or anything else) for several decades.

Thanks for clearing that up. I don't think I'll support this anymore. It seemed like a cool thing to try, see how many people go along with it, but now I realize it is more socialist than I had wanted it. I think I'll stick with capitalism.

The value of a single currency for international trade is probably overrated. Converting currency isn't that big a problem (it certainly hasn't prevented China, Japan, et al. from doing a huge business with North America and Europe). Having currencies that fluctuate relative to other nations' can even be advantageous: when one nation has a balance of trade deficit, its currency flows overseas. The increased supply drives down its value on world markets, making its exports cheaper, thus helping to reduce the trade deficit. The reverse process also works: when a country has a trade surplus, the price of its exports will rise.

Fluctuating national currencies thus serve an important function in stabilizing economies, especially small ones with a high proportion of imports and exports in their gross consumption and production.



No one answered my question. Even in those situations mentioned, the values can be arbitrarily stated and manipulated. Sometimes it fluctuates simply because the government wants it to do so.

How do you establish the value of this currency and how do you decide what one country makes compared to another?

That depends on exactly what you mean by the "value" of currency. If you mean its purchasing power, that depends on what is being purchased, and on where and when. Absent government intervention, these prices are determined by market forces (supply and demand) and by the willingness of sellers to accept money in exchange for goods (their confidence in its future value). Governments have often attempted to control prices (which are a measure of the value of money), but the results have generally not been salutary.

If, by the "value of currency", you mean its exchange value in terms of other currency, this is a similar kind of pricing. The values of monies relative to each other depend on supply, demand, and their anticipated exchangeability for goods (public confidence). Again, government attempts to fix these prices by various artificial measures tend to be problematic.

No one "decides what one country makes compared to another." The actual economic product of a country is the composite result of the actions of its inhabitants, who may be responding to market pressures or to orders from others. If you are talking about the nominal monetary value of a nation's product in terms of some currency, that's just a matter of market pricing of the product.

It still can be artificially controlled. One way is a form of boycotting. You just say someone's country isn't worth as much as anything else. It would be difficult to ensure proper equity.

It still can be artificially controlled. One way is a form of boycotting. You just say someone's country isn't worth as much as anything else. It would be difficult to ensure proper equity.
Can this question be translated into English?

This purposed International Credit has a fundemental flaw. It would only exist in UN nations and therefore one would still need to convert currencies when dealing with non-UN nations. The number of non-UN nations is enough to make an international standard currency pointless.

- Jian Patrasvo, Secritary of Finace.

Think about this, every time that there is an international trade, the money being traded has to be counted, coverted into another form of currency, and then is finally able to be used.

We could make this a whole lot easier if all had the same, standardized currency.

I have a proposal in the U.N. right now for this, and I hope it works.

And to make sure that the new currency would not take away from a country'e culture, 2 (or more) currencies should be allowed. One currency would be the Standard, while the other would be used only inside the country's own borders. International trade, be it regional or inter-regional would use the Standard form, so as to make trading easier.

Now go vote in the U.N. !!!!!

Are you Blonde?

That is an oxy-moron statement, you would still have to convert the nations own currency into the standard currency, and then the recieving nation would have to convert it to its own currecy.

Wonderful idea, add a step to the process to make it more complicated. Nations should keep their own currency because it represents something unique about that nation.

How could a powerful economic nation like ours be expected to use the same money as some backwater imploded nation? The Drent is powerful and mighty like our nation; it is a park of us! We would never give it up or substitute it!

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

i think there should be a standard currency because there wont be as much comotion and money spent over trading... it would save money in the long run.

While such a policy may be economically sound, it would function to help unify the nations of the world. While I support unification, I only believe in unification of a nation's people. A single currency would lead to unifying the world which would lead to the mixing of ideals. I do not wish my nation's founding ideas to be muddied by unknown variables. We are tightly controlled and we prosper because of our policies. Unchecked democracy, private industry, any of this could damage our infrastructure and my people and I believe that to be unacceptable.

Yours,
Maestro Proteus
Progenitor and Caretaker of the Commonwealth of the Pure Existence

if all monitary based econimies in a world were to have one and only one currency and it were common to all of them
instead of each soverign nation minting and backing thier own

well let's see
obviously that would be the end of currency speculation

that would likely be good or atleast mostly harmless

our own possition on this though is that the destiny of currency, symbolic tokens of value being what they are, whatever their form,
is obsolescence.

even as money replaced land and land replaced cattle and cattle replaced skill at the hunt, the real wealth even already today, is tecnology itself and the ability to use it creatively. in time this will replace money even as money replaced its predicesor measures of wealth.

carlemnaria's economic model is a post monitary one so in one sense this discussion is of only somewhat essoteric academic interest.

money as such, even as a symbol of symbols represented by numbers in computers that supposedly stand for counters of currency that supposedly represent real traidable value, (though arbitrage that does not add value, in reality dilutes it, and in turn is why there is such a thing as inflation) is a concept ultimately on its way out. if it is by some consensus homoginized before its natural and inevitable demise, this seems as mostly harmless as it does almost pointless.

there may be some small advantages gained by doing so, and at most a few decades stay of its self exicution, but really we fail to see any great signifigance either in favor or against doing so.

as long as we are allowed to go our own non-monitary way, as we fully intend to keep doing at any rate

=^^=
.../\...