(A slightly amended version of a message which bounced back from FW server.)
Hi Ed Goertzen,
You and I obviously differ in the reading of the history of money. You seem
to be saying that money is only valid when it's issued by governments,
whereas I say that currencies have always arisen privately for the purpose
of trade. It is only if and when they are shown to be useful and
sufficiently extensive in scope (and thus valuable) that governments take
them over.
Previously, I suggested that governments are now gradually losing control
over their own official currencies. They are no longer able to manipulate
exchange rates (at least to any precise effect) or prevent large scale
movements of their currencies. Because of the increasing vulnerability of
any of the main official currencies, a privately sponsored universal
currency might well develop in the coming years. Initially, this might
known as a dollar or a yen or whatever -- its colloquial name doesn't
matter -- even though it will be created in quite a different way.
I see the validity of the new universal currency as being dependent on a
consortium of some of the largest corporations (or even competitive
consortia) using their assets to guarantee a strictly enumerated register
of the currency. There would still be a need for different sorts and sizes
of pensions, savings and venture capital institutions but not banks.
Historically, the latter only came to life by virtue of temporary surpluses
of gold from new discoveries and thus able to support new speculative
ventures. In the new currency world I'm suggesting here, there would be no
"official" mechanism for supplying new electronic money so that extra
productivity (or profits -- call it what you will) would be measured not so
much in new increments of currency, as now, but in a gradually appreciating
value of the electronic 'dollar' within a constant pool.
There would be no need for banks pure and simple as we have known them
since the Middle Ages. They are still useful at present for being a source
of cash for ordinary people but they are fast losing their historical role
as primary sources of venture capital and are becoming merely
intermediaries for small savers (and, even so, losing out to many other
sorts of intermediaries). As far as liquidity for ordinary folk is
concerned, then the smartcard or its equivalent will be much more
convenient, being available to the individual at any place and at anytime.
As far as venture capital is concerned, then the present trend towards the
issuing of bonds and equity capital (rights issues, public offerings) will
no doubt continue, increasingly elbowing banks out of the way.
I see a register of universal money as being a natural consequence of the
welter of those new types of financial institutions and mechanisms that
have been springing up in recent decades as a consequence of the decline of
banks as primary sources of money.
Keith H
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
