What is your take on the "United Future World Currency" that Dimitri Medvedev displayed at the G8 summit?

That’s creepy…

Conspiracy theorists… ASSEMBLE!!!

sure, we’ll have a global unit of currency. right after we all start speaking esperanto.

Aw, you mean it might overtake the amero?~~~~~~

Honestly, the idea of a global currency doesn’t bother me. It seems (to my admittedly simplistic mind) like it might be a good idea. We all depend on one another’s economies anyway, wouldn’t this just make global transactions (and even traveling) easier? I’m sure I’m missing something, as the idea seems to upset many people.

One world. One currency. One government. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

A single global currency? Bring it on!
It would greatly improve economic parity, would do away with currency speculation,and be a unifying influence. It’s name would be important and need to to reflect it’s intention of ‘unification’. I don’t know what has been mooted as a name, The ’ Unit ’ might be good.

@lloydbird
i vote for “Gil”

What the hell is new about Russia, China and france challenging the dollar as the world’s reserve currency?

There’s nothing historic about medvedev’s latest stunt either: of course this is a phony move, he’s just sending a message to Obama that Russia will keep the pressure every step of the way until they get the concessions they want (for now, the missile shield plans to be officially canceled).

@Jack_Haas
Russia’s opposition to the missile shield is understandable. IF the russians wanted to build such a system on Cuba, the outcry in the US would be massive.

Although I agree that this is a long way from happening, I think finding ways to bring countries together through a unified currency is a good idea.

Having a single currency as the dominant power will only increase animosity among other nations seeking to take power away from the country that controls the dominant currency. Finding ways to protect against economic turbulence seems like a responsible move in this day and age.

To be honest I wouldn’t have a problem with it at all, it is most likely a long ways away, but if it happened tomorrow I’d be all for it. That said I’m not too crazy about the pope giving economic advice, stay in your field, padre

I have to agree with @ragingloli . Gil is the only way to go!

My first reaction is that I have always believed that currency is one of the great uniters. When the US developed a US currency rather than each state it was significant. The Euro I think is significant along with being able to cross boarders easily, I think it decreases an “us and them” mentality, which we could use in the world. Each country would still have its own economy. One positive is banks would not be making money for changing currency, and you would not be losing money by not spending all of the foreign currency you bought. In a world that is smaller and smaller, and more international, maybe it makes sense to not have this obstacle.

Shouldn’t be a problem as long as it doesn’t attempt to eliminate local forms of cash.

When the US developed a single currency, each of the individual states had to yield some degree of what can totally be called “sovereignty” to a centralized government. Same thing happened in Europe when member nation agreed to join the EU and adopt the Euro, member states yielded some degree of sovereignty to the EU commission, including regulatory powers, judicial powers, etc.. Who cares about Medvedev’s stunt – when he can actually get control of his own country, maybe he’ll gain some credibility, but the idea is not something that will and should not come to fruition anytime soon. i for one am not willing to let foreigners decide who should effectively rule the US – imagine a United Nations that HAD sovereign power over your country.

@avalmez I am interested in your comment. What were some of the specific regulatory and judicial powers that changed when the Euro was agreed upon? Have any of the countries in retrospect regreted adopting te Euro?

@JLeslie not examples but an elaboration from wikipedia:

The main legal acts of the EU come in three forms: regulations, directives and decisions. Regulations become law in all member states the moment they come into force, without the requirement for any implementing measures,[58] and automatically override conflicting domestic provisions.[55] Directives require member states to achieve a certain result while leaving them discretion as to how to achieve the result. The details of how they are to be implemented are left to member states.[59] When the time limit for implementing directives passes, they may, under certain conditions, have direct effect in national law against Member States. Decisions offer an alternative to the two above modes of legislation. They are legal acts which only apply to specified individuals, companies or a particular Member State. They are most often used in Competition Law, or on rulings on State Aid, but are also frequently used for procedural or administrative matters within the institutions. Regulations, directives and decisions are of equal legal value and apply without any formal hierarchy.

I cite the EU as an example in addition to the US of how adopting a common currency (establishing a economic union) requires adoptees to yield control to the union, not as an example of how doing so is wrong. In a sense, the EU is similar in scope to what happened in the US back in the continental US days.

The question asks if a global currency is a good idea. And i cite the UN as an example of how things go wrong attempting to establish a global union of sorts – you have to admit, the UN is by and large dominated by local politics – its a farce that gives legitimacy to the likes of Chavarria.

Establishing a global currency is simply not practical at this time, if ever. Note that the EU requires candidate member states to have economies capable of competing within the EU. This is a key requirement enabling the success of the EU we’ve witnessed so far – the EU is getting not dragged down by third world economies. On a global scale, there will always be countries incapable of completing globally.

It’s funny. A few months ago, a similar question was asked on fluther.
It’s interesting how, in only a few months, the attitude towards such a question has changed.

Here is the previous question: http://www.fluther.com/disc/37760/do-you-believe-the-us-already-has-or-plans-to-replace/

@avalmez Thanks. I think I need to ponder it more…I don’t really have any argument at this time. The laws being adopted from one country to the next in Europe is very interesting, I was not aware. I would assume if a country decides to not inforce a law that was passed by a EU country no one from teh otehr countries is really going to care?

What is different is there isn’t a central government or high court for these countries as a single unit, I mean there is not a constitution covering all of the EU, that they have to adhere to like our situation in the US, from what I understand? I’m going to read up on it. I’m making to many assumptions. Thanks again.

@chris6137 – it might be the tone or premise of the question. I personally don’t think it would be in the US’s best interests for the short term to agree to such a transition so I don’t see why they would have secret plans to do this. But I do think long term global stability is dependent on this happening.

@avalmez – you bring up some interesting considerations. I doubt that any movement forward would cede the right to govern within one’s own country unless it specifically referred to trade and tariffs, but I would need more info on what laws the EU passes that infringe upon the rights of the member nations.

@fireside here’s an example not related to trade and tariffs: member states can not allow capital punishment. maybe not a bad requirement, but one not related to trade and tariffs.

I would guess if we have one currency it would not have to be like the European agreement. Doesn’t their agreement also include a European passport? So, those citizens move from country to country almost like they are citizens, this might be why the adoption of laws was important within the agreement.

Seems to be pretty impractical. It would be incredibly difficult to control inflation on a global scale, and would have very wide-reaching implications for socioeconomic status across the world. Good and bad, most likely. To the Global Economic Simulator!

I just made up the bit about the simulator. I don’t really have one. But read Making Money by Terry Pratchett for more on that.

I think the internet is moving us toward that as it levels the palying field in many areas. I dont think the world will ever agree to one currency. There are too many countries that undervalue their currency, like CHina, to boost thier exports.