Global Currency?

[rlucas]

China calls for global currency

Extremely interesting read. Could the be the beginning of the end? In desperate need for liquidity China may be cashing out sooner than we thing... :smx4:

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Runum]

I agree that it's troubling. There have been discussions on this already. Thanks for sharing though.:cheers:

http://www.thefastlanetomillions.com/stocks-options-currency-trading/19689-very-very-concerning.html

 

[eTyler19]

Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner both said they support this idea today during the press conference.

 

[ptiz]

Sounds like the New World Order in action.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[fanocks2003]

China calls for global currency

Extremely interesting read. Could the be the beginning of the end? In desperate need for liquidity China may be cashing out sooner than we thing... :smx4:

I am pro global currency in fact. So if they can create a working scheme for it so go ahead I am on.

 

[TC2]

Guess it could be the time for China to lead the world, which makes me worry.

Remember! Chinese put face first, money second and people last.

 

[fanocks2003]

I don't think it will be chinese running the show in case of a global currency. Rather the opposite. I think it will be more countries working together in financial matters. Sharing the currency development. I actually think that we will function more like a shareholding company. With the US, China and Russia being the bigger shareholders in the world common well being.

So many things today are done in order to secure the own currency and the financial well being of a nations financials. With a global currency we will work toward a goal that benefits everyone financially.

Well, goverments will always be goverments so unjustice will still be there, but with a global currency I think everything will become more smooth. Imports, travel etc. I even think, because of this, that global companies will make much more money due to the extinction of currency conversion risks. The forex market as we know it will be erased from the map (the spot market for others than banks that is). The only real need for a forex market with a global currency would be for transactions of money between companies, individuals etc.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Bilgefisher]

I'm not overly religious, but a global currency scares the living crap out of me. Not much of an argument against it, but its also something that has been forewarned for over 1000 years.

 

[randallg99]

dead issue.... I won't ever say "never" but Chinese calling for financial overhaul is akin to a plumber performing a colonoscopy

 

[Sparlin]

I'm not overly religious, but a global currency scares the living crap out of me. Not much of an argument against it, but it’s also something that has been forewarned for over 1000 years.

I have to agree that the idea of a world currency is unsettling. I believe Bilgefisher may be referencing Biblical prophesies telling of a common currency and one world government. Apart from starting a religious discussion, I see a common currency as threat towards individual freedoms.

As of now, separate currency and markets are available which allow people protect themselves by exchanging one currency for another. If one economy is shaky, a person could transfer their funds to a more stable economy and use it as a haven.
With that transfer, the influence of the government of the first currency largely diminishes.

Conversely, if there is a system or government in place that oversees a World Currency, an individual would have little recourse if he finds himself in a financial crisis. I'm not really referring to investments and "business type" stuff. What I mean is that when more power is given to less people, the more restrictive it is to the subservients or governed. A policy set by the governing authority would be universally applied, whether or not an individual agreed to it.


What this means is that no matter where one is in the world, he would find a rather ominous over seer making sure he stayed within the prescribed boundaries. Does this sound like a true freedom?

Just for clarification, I do not advocate any illegal activity or signing up for some type of anarchist club. I am merely proposing that by giving in to the uniform standards of a global currency, one may actually be more restricted.


As an example, how many of you use credit cards or debit cards almost extensively for daily purchases? What then happens if your accounts are suddenly frozen due to suspicious activity (such as identity theft) or computer error? Isn’t it reasonable to think that such a person would find himself essentially stranded if he has no cash on hand? Such a scenario is even more unsettling when placed in the context of someone who is traveling abroad. Sure, there may be ways to work around it, but even so, the power given to others for the sake of convenience is alarming.

I realize I’ve shifted my argument from “Common Currency†to “Cashless Society†but, isn’t that the next logical step? At least in past generations patrons carried cash for their purchases. Although some would argue that paper money is “funny money†because it currently doesn’t use the gold standard as a security, it is still tangible and instantly accessed when needed. Current computerized systems allow others to shut you off when they deem it necessary.

So what then happens when cash is considered too risky by this Global Currency Authority? Advances in scanning and printing technologies have given rise to counterfeiting. What if a third world rouge government decides to use its presses for malicious purposes? Would it not then be possible that a cashless system be mandated? Such a system could monitor your transactions and control your access to your funds. Would you consider that to be an infringement on your freedoms?


I may come across as a bit of an alarmist and you may envision me as sitting bunker in Montana as I type all of this. I am not, although I do happen to be in a basement right now. I think my concerns lie in the fact that world seems to be changing drastically and at an accelerated pace.

All I know is that in past years we, especially Americans, have fought against systems such as Communism and Fascism; systems which envision domination of the masses. Yet here we are and in my life time I hear words such as globalism, pan regional, and new world order come from those who are in control. It seems to be a completely opposite agenda to that of our forefathers. Our founders valued individualism, freedoms bestowed by God rather than government, and the right to pursue a life free of oppressive laws.

If you think I carry this topic too far, just try to live for one week without money or provisions. Certainly it is possible, but you will find that not having access to your money will make you vulnerable and reliant on the charitable nature of others.

Does China’s rhetoric mean anything? I don’t know, probably not, maybe not. The concern lies in that China is not the first nation to suggest this. The Prime Minister of Great Britain and even some American politicians have called for it. Granted, the creation of such a system does not mean it will be an inherently evil institution. It would just entrust too much power in the hands of too few people. The question is, “Do you trust a global collaboration to make the right decisions regarding your finnces?â€

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MattThomas]

As of now, separate currency and markets are available which allow people protect themselves by exchanging one currency for another. If one economy is shaky, a person could transfer their funds to a more stable economy and use it as a haven.
With that transfer, the influence of the government of the first currency largely diminishes.

The entire global economy is shaky due to its reliance on the US, thus the saying "If the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold".

With the US Dollar being the international medium of exchange, as well as issuing huge amounts of debt, each country's economy has grown quite interdependent upon each other, so issuing a global currency would not be THAT different than what we are already encountering...as far as economic instability avoidance goes.

I think having a global currency would be a very good idea. It would most likely ease global trade, and exchange rate fluctuations would not be a problem any longer.

It is a bit scary as far as how the US would pay back all of its debts, but I don't see how this would lead to a "New World Order" or anything like that.

 

[Sparlin]

The entire global economy is shaky due to its reliance on the US, thus the saying "If the US sneezes, the rest of the world catches a cold".

With the US Dollar being the international medium of exchange, as well as issuing huge amounts of debt, each country's economy has grown quite interdependent upon each other, so issuing a global currency would not be THAT different than what we are already encountering...as far as economic instability avoidance goes.

I think having a global currency would be a very good idea. It would most likely ease global trade, and exchange rate fluctuations would not be a problem any longer.

It is a bit scary as far as how the US would pay back all of its debts, but I don't see how this would lead to a "New World Order" or anything like that.

I think you and I are debating different topics. You are explaining that a global currency would lead to a more stable and efficient world market. Indeed, the United States leads the world economy and our actions profoundly affect the rest of the world. I don’t disagree at all that the world would function more smoothly under a standardized system.

The point I’m trying to convey is that such a system would centralize governmental power and make it more difficult to challenge. If there is a world wide monetary system, then the regulating authorities would have unchecked power to freeze assets against anyone if they found reason to. They would control not only individuals, but profoundly influence the policies of independent nations with whom they have differences (i.e. sanctions). In effect, those nations would have to agree with their terms or be taken out of the system.

On a smaller scale, the system already works like this. Coalitions led by the United States have worked to strangle the funding of terrorist groups, and rightfully so. These groups now have to rely on “hawala†and “zakat†systems in order to remain funded.

Under our current system, flawed though it may be, the U.S. government is ultimately responsible for its currency. A global currency would allow third world nations to have much more leverage over our money (whatever that may be, a Globo?) and in turn undermine our sovereignty.

I’m not an economist, even in the remotest since, but it would seem to me that such a standardization of money would devalue our quality of life here while lifting up those in less developed countries. It would be a mass transfer of wealth and in turn more or less even the playing field. That transfer has already happened to a large extent with China.

Getting back to my original point, people want choices. With choices come flexibility and the chance to either succeed or fail in their monetary ventures. That is why some have chosen to place funds over seas. In doing so, they are trying to protect themselves from the dangers of the current economy. If those options are removed, and there is only ONE choice, then what happens if they fail under that system’s rules?

Regarding the dismissal of the New World Order concept, it is true that a global currency would not necessarily mean such a government would be formed. However, such a system would be an essential part of its foundation. Why purposely get one step closer to that reality?

 

[marktech101]

Very interesting discussion. I'm still forming personal opinions, but I've got a few ideas to share on this issue.

It's easy to see where China is coming from. They fear a collapse (or severe devaluation) of the USD, so they want to hedge by creating a new reserve currency, of which they would hold a sizable stake.

I think that if a worldwide government were established (preferably under a democracy), then we Americans would see our standard of living diminish very quickly. I am inclined to believe we live in our own 'bubble', of sorts, supported by the labor of people we never see. Perhaps a connection could be made between the slaves of long ago and the Chinese workers who labor 10-12 hours a day and earn only enough wages to keep body and soul together?

I think the current economic situation is something akin to the classic RoadRunner cartoons, where the roadrunner character runs for a while until he runs right over the edge of the cliff. He then keeps running until he looks down and realizes there is nothing supporting him. Our economy boomed and people kept buying mortgages they couldn't afford, only to 'look down' and realize we've been spending money, (running on ground) that we never had in the first place.

I hope this isn't true, but I think that metaphor can be extended to the USA's position in the world. We were worldwide leaders for most of the 20th century, but I think that we lost our position as 'top dog' long ago. We're essentially throwing around tons of money (power) that we don't have in two ways: Firstly, we threw tons into Iraq and Afganistan, which both failed, and now we're infusing our financial system with BORROWED money in the hopes of restarting an economic engine that I think lost viability long ago.

Soon, we're going to come to the harsh realization that the USA has, for whatever reason, lost the power we've gotten used to.

These are big things to say, and forgive me if I've become too political. I'm a sixteen year old; my beliefs are not by any means set in stone. I'm very interested in what you think of my ideas.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Sparlin]

Marktech101... first of all, let me say that you are well ahead of most kids your age. So good for you on that point alone. :welldone:

I believe your analogy of the U.S. being like Wyle E. Coyote is somewhat accurate. Few Americans saw the cliff and most of us went over it. I think several factors including a generational lowering of work ethic along with an increased sense of entitlement led us into this situation.

Where I think you miss part of your own analogy is the point that even though Wyle runs off the cliff time after time, he always picks himself up afterwards and tries again. In my mind, that is one of the defining qualities of American generations of the past. Whether facing Civil or World Wars, Depressions or National crisis, we have always risen to meet our challenges; even when getting knocked off our feet.

I agree that America has lost some of its prowess and influence that it once possessed. However, I think you may have been sold a bad bill of goods when it comes to our country.

You say “I think that we lost our position as 'top dog' long ago.”

I don’t think it’s accurate to say we lost our position as a world leader. It is still the U.S. that sets the tone on many issues that face the world and we are watched relentlessly to see what we’ll do next. I will say that we may be in the process of loosing that leadership role given recent events, but can’t conclude that we are that insignificant as of yet.


You also say essentially that we threw money away into two lost wars. This is not the forum for that debate, however I will challenge you to speak to people that have actually been there. Whether serving in military or there for other reasons, I’m sure you’ll get a perspective that differs from what you can see or read in the media.

Sure, there will be some that downplay the efforts there, but I have recently met 2 Iraqi citizens that fled from Iraq a few years ago. Their stories and scars are compelling, and they are extremely appreciative of what America has done. I’ll stop there before causing a bunch of rebuttals on an off topic debate.

As far as your comment saying, “ now we're infusing our financial system with BORROWED money in the hopes of restarting an economic engine that I think lost viability long ago” You’re right in that borrowing more to fix this problem is like Wyle E. Coyote lighting the match that blows up the TNT keg he is standing by.

Borrowing anything without a sound plan for repayment is a foolish endeavor. The end result is a despondent debtor that feels enslaved by his own impulsive choices.

I guess a way to look at it now is if past generations were represented by Wyle E. Coyote, it’s fair to say that your generation is Wyle E. Coyote, Jr. (Pup Extraordinaire). The TNT may be blowing up in your face… but it’s up to you whether or not you listen to all of the nay Sayers and give up, or if you instead dust yourself off and start the chase again.

 

[MattThomas]

I think you and I are debating different topics. You are explaining that a global currency would lead to a more stable and efficient world market. Indeed, the United States leads the world economy and our actions profoundly affect the rest of the world. I don’t disagree at all that the world would function more smoothly under a standardized system.

The point I’m trying to convey is that such a system would centralize governmental power and make it more difficult to challenge. If there is a world wide monetary system, then the regulating authorities would have unchecked power to freeze assets against anyone if they found reason to. They would control not only individuals, but profoundly influence the policies of independent nations with whom they have differences (i.e. sanctions). In effect, those nations would have to agree with their terms or be taken out of the system.

On a smaller scale, the system already works like this. Coalitions led by the United States have worked to strangle the funding of terrorist groups, and rightfully so. These groups now have to rely on “hawala†and “zakat†systems in order to remain funded.

Under our current system, flawed though it may be, the U.S. government is ultimately responsible for its currency. A global currency would allow third world nations to have much more leverage over our money (whatever that may be, a Globo?) and in turn undermine our sovereignty.

I’m not an economist, even in the remotest since, but it would seem to me that such a standardization of money would devalue our quality of life here while lifting up those in less developed countries. It would be a mass transfer of wealth and in turn more or less even the playing field. That transfer has already happened to a large extent with China.

Getting back to my original point, people want choices. With choices come flexibility and the chance to either succeed or fail in their monetary ventures. That is why some have chosen to place funds over seas. In doing so, they are trying to protect themselves from the dangers of the current economy. If those options are removed, and there is only ONE choice, then what happens if they fail under that system’s rules?

Regarding the dismissal of the New World Order concept, it is true that a global currency would not necessarily mean such a government would be formed. However, such a system would be an essential part of its foundation. Why purposely get one step closer to that reality?

Well said, I see your argument much more clearly and you do bring up some valid points.

The only reason I'm hesitant to agree with your point about centralized power and ability to freeze assets is due to some real life examples...

Yes, absolutely if we have a global currency there will HAVE to be certain centralized bodies. However, if you look at the EU, does each individual nation have the sovereignty in the EU to decide whose assets get froze, even though they all use the Euro? (That isn't entirely rhetorical since I'm honestly not positive). Also, there are other countries that use the dollar, and I'm pretty sure we can't freeze their bank accounts unless they are banked in a US bank, or if the harboring country complies (again, not positive on this either).

Regardless, I can definitely appreciate the fact that this potential centrality can seem overly powerful and scary.

 

[Sparlin]

Well said, I see your argument much more clearly and you do bring up some valid points.

The only reason I'm hesitant to agree with your point about centralized power and ability to freeze assets is due to some real life examples...

Yes, absolutely if we have a global currency there will HAVE to be certain centralized bodies. However, if you look at the EU, does each individual nation have the sovereignty in the EU to decide whose assets get froze, even though they all use the Euro? (That isn't entirely rhetorical since I'm honestly not positive). Also, there are other countries that use the dollar, and I'm pretty sure we can't freeze their bank accounts unless they are banked in a US bank, or if the harboring country complies (again, not positive on this either).

Regardless, I can definitely appreciate the fact that this potential centrality can seem overly powerful and scary.

I had thought about the EU and Euro when writing my second post. I'll tread lightly with this response. I also don't know with certainty to what extent the member "states" (countries) act autonomously. All I can offer is my perspective as viewed through media coverage over the years.

Since the end of World War II Europe had spent many years recovering and primarily focused it’s attention to keeping the Soviet Union in check. N.A.T.O. was a strong military deterrent to Soviet aggression. European nations banded together because they faced a common threat. Then there was the United Nations which was active (though not extremely efficient or productive) in pushing their agenda.

Although each European country agreed to band together when confronting common world threats or issues, they individually maintained their sovereignty and spoke with their own voices. France was France, Britain was Britain, and the rest of the Western European countries were essentially their own (Germany was bipolar perhaps).

In recent years, we’ve seen the emergence of the European Union. With it, border restrictions on travel and trade lessoned and there has begun a type of trans-cultural blending of Europe. On the exterior, it would seem to be a good thing. However the architects of this system have essentially done what others have failed at. They have largely centralized European politics which has been the goal of many over the years by means of conquest (Romans, Catholics, Napoleon, Hitler).

The way I see it, this unification has in effect taken much of the political leverage out of individual European nations. There is now an attitude of pandering and appeasement in order to comply with the E.U.’s agenda. I see each nation’s influence as being set in a region somewhere between that of the State and Federal levels of the United States.

As such, you no longer hear of European countries making individual policy changes. Instead, the important issues are mulled over by the E.U. and then addressed by a new resolution. From what I can tell, these resolutions are applied uniformly (i.e. environmentalist issues, ethnic tolerance policies). I do realize that each nation still retains some latitude on how to address issues, but believe their powers to be significantly diminished.
Now it’s time to get back to the monetary issue. It’s true that there are natural and legal restrictive barriers that make it difficult to completely freeze financial assets, at least for now. What I see is a dismantling of those barriers along with a push to empower a centralized system.

In your previous statement you say, “… there are other countries that use the dollar, and I'm pretty sure we can't freeze their bank accounts unless they are banked in a US bank, or if the harboring country complies (again, not positive on this either).”

You are correct. The U.S cannot freeze assets in a foreign system unless there is cooperation by that government. I think the oversight is that we are no longer talking about multiple systems utilizing the Dollar, Yen, or Euro. Instead the original topic was for the call of a consolidated global currency. This eclipses a few countries trying to negotiate easy trades. No single existing government would have definitive authority of a global currency. Instead a global system would eliminate individual governments as issuers of money and would effectively make the “Global Monetary Authority” the controller.

Even this fact alone does not insure that a massive world government will arise. I’m sure that some individual countries would try to resist outside pressure to comply in financial disputes. The Swiss did this recently when the U.S. requested lists of bank clients. In the end, the Swiss government relented and released the records. In life, whether talking on a global, governmental scale or just in individual terms, it is human nature to comply with the majority (especially if the majority holds influence over desired assets).

In conclusion, and as alluded to in previous posts, the implementation of such a system does not mean a world government would be established, but it is would be an enormous step towards its facilitation.


I’ll get off the soap box now. I’m not really trying to politicize this topic; I just wanted to voice my concerns on what’s happening. I’m sure there’re people that can tear my arguments to shreds. I’m just trying to get a fix on what could be coming.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CarrieW]

dead issue.... I won't ever say "never" but Chinese calling for financial overhaul is akin to a plumber performing a colonoscopy

:eusa_clap:

u almost owed me a new laptop! I almost spit soda all over this one lol.

 

[CarrieW]

Maybe I have no idea what I am talking about here(and I probably dont lol) but what you are talking about is not what I understood the article to mean.

It doesnt talk about abolishing everyones current money system. It discusses taking an overall value or average of everyones individual currency and coming up with one average to go by when buying or selling.

How does that give this new entity control over my still us dollar accounts? or over europes euro or the yen? when its an average of all of them across the board? It essential doesnt control anything but would be a barometer of sorts. a snapshot of the average of everyones currency values at any given point in time.

I still think there would be a place for the forein exchange market in a situation such as this. it would just be one xtra currency to trade the others against! lol

 

[Sparlin]

Carrie.... don't destroy my house of cards. lol

I did take a devil's advocate position and run with it. My whole rant began when I read previous post mentioning the phrase "new world order" and another stating, "I'm not overly religious, but a global currency scares the living crap out of me. Not much of an argument against it, but its also something that has been forewarned for over 1000 years." I was merely developing an argument against it. Speculating what could happen and the dangers of such a system.

In retrospect, I'm sure I must come across as promoting a James Bond, conquer the World plot. Ultimately, I don’t think a true one world government could grow into maturity. There are too many differences in ideologies across the world for that to work. However, I do think there are groups who push the agenda. I still contend that our nation’s sovereignty along with others is being undermined for the sake of global standardization.

Sorry, not trying to be an alarmist, just ran with a train of thought for a while.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[MattThomas]

In conclusion, and as alluded to in previous posts, the implementation of such a system does not mean a world government would be established, but it is would be an enormous step towards its facilitation.

Good point. While a global currency does by no means mean a one world government, it certainly would make it easier for one to form if that is the agenda of the world's leaders in the future.

 

[rlucas]

First I want to say that after all of this talk, I now am a supporter of a global currency. Bottom line is that it would make markets more efficient. In systems theory, systems are more efficient if you can eliminate steps within it (currency conversions, currency trading, etc)

This reminds me of trying to go to a global language like English. I find it so funny that so many people oppose this action (ironically often people who don't speak English and bilingual people who learned a second language in the class room). We spend so much time trying to facilitate a multilingual infrastructure by putting multiple languages on street signs and making our school multilingual when in reality we SHOULD be teaching these people English (and not teaching the English speaking students Spanish). I mean it's just insane.

The Internet did not get so big by having all sorts of different ways (languages /currencies) to transfer information across a wire. It has ONE unified way (TCP/IP) and that's why it's the WORLD wide web.

People oppose this sort of thought because it requires them to change their lifestyle and as we all know people do not like change...but people are inherently lazy.

 

[Sparlin]

First I want to say that after all of this talk, I now am a supporter of a global currency. Bottom line is that it would make markets more efficient. In systems theory, systems are more efficient if you can eliminate steps within it (currency conversions, currency trading, etc)

This reminds me of trying to go to a global language like English. I find it so funny that so many people oppose this action (ironically often people who don't speak English and bilingual people who learned a second language in the class room). We spend so much time trying to facilitate a multilingual infrastructure by putting multiple languages on street signs and making our school multilingual when in reality we SHOULD be teaching these people English (and not teaching the English speaking students Spanish). I mean it's just insane.

The Internet did not get so big by having all sorts of different ways (languages /currencies) to transfer information across a wire. It has ONE unified way (TCP/IP) and that's why it's the WORLD wide web.

People oppose this sort of thought because it requires them to change their lifestyle and as we all know people do not like change...but people are inherently lazy.

I understand your points. I would sum up my philosophy as this: If you give up your individualism (identity) for the sake of convenience, you prostitute your freedoms and subject yourself to the whims of others. What's wrong with being self reliant and distinctive from the rest? "Change" often sounds good in principle, but be prepared to live the results of its implementation. :fryingpan:

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Banthaman]

I haven't read all the responses, sorry...

There are obvious advantages and disadvantages to having a one world currency. I myself am adamantly opposed to it. Not for the sake of being overly religious though I see that also, but for simple common facts.

He who controls the rains controls the horse. if you think the UN is meddling in the affairs of the US right now just wait until they have the backing and support of the IMF (international Monetary Fund).

Regulation though streamlining through standardization is necessary for some things removes the freedoms of others. Microsoft became the defacto standard for computer systems by its world class marketing structure inside and attributed to the free market system. Though due to its required conformity and loss of "freedom" other systems still exist and some are thriving. The solution isn't to force people to use your product through regulation and essentially blackballing competition but to draw others to your product buy hearing their demands and meeting the needs of their customers. Fact is Freedom encourages competition regulation constricts freedom. In streamlining the world it would remove some of our own freedoms as a Sovereign nation.

Who do you really want to value your currency? Currently our currency is backed by the fed though funded essentially by the world banking system. if the IMF values the system it removes the purse power of the fed. I know giving purse power to the fed currently is like giving a drunken sailor a loaded cannon (no offense to sailors), but I would still rather be in control of that destiny.

What would it really fix and who would it really benefit? A market is a living fluctuating entity by definition if the whole system ends in the toilet currently what would change by having a global currency, worthless would still be worthless.

AS for China, as a major investor in the US bond system I would be worried about the value of the dollar as well as the ability for the Fed to pay current debt. It's only natural to offer another solution as apposed to flushing good money down the drain.

 

[Banthaman]

thought this was an interesting article ... setup? Just makes you wonder.

FOXNews.com - Freedom Tower Will Be Called One World Trade Center - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[Sparlin]

:roi: Get with the program.. we are all one world


Legal Disclaimer: The above text was written in an attempt to be humorous. Any similarity to real life events is strictly unintentional. No government entity currently rules the world, even if some politicians believe that to be the case. This attempt at humor must be rendered void to all those that take life too seriously.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[CarrieW]

Top 10 Most Spoken Languages In The World - Listverse: Ultimate Top 10 Lists

wow you really do learn something new everyday. jscotts post got me googling.

so mandarin is the most widely spoken in terms of strict number of people who speak it, but english is the offical language of more countries then any other language.

hmm I think that english wins lol.

 

[randallg99]

if the US$ loses its stature as the worlds reserve currency then quite frankly we'll have no other problems to worry about except how to feed, shelter and provide health care to the masses....

budget constraints will be the mother of all shit storms if the US$ becomes a secondary currency... the day that the US cannot continue to leverage its currency is the day that the US cannot sustain its operations.

I'll concur that the U$ is on thin ice and it's not unrealistic for the $ loses its staying power. but to lose its stature to another currency is really out of the question

WHAT IS REALLY RIDICULOUS AND UNREALSTIC IS CHINA PROPOSING AND IMPLEMENTING A NEW GLOBAL CURRENCY. CHINA HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CREDENCE IN THE FINANCIAL MARKETS WHATSOEVER AND THAT THE MEDIA IS GIVING IT THAT MUCH ATTENTION IS QUITE FRANKLY DOWNRIGHT ANNOYING.

and that this very bicker and banter has come up numerous times before. Most recently 9/11. and prior to that in the mid 1980s, 1970s, 1930s....even prior to the Iraq warII, Sadam and the Iranian nutjob were trying to get the oil markets to trade on the Euro... but the $ still prevails because no other currency has the sheer volume, size, infrastructure and legal strength to support it

end of rant.

 

[Russ H]

Rant enjoyed.

End of enjoy.

-Russ H.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.