Hi Ed W:
I agree with you regarding the pervasiveness of the US $.
The one thing about a dominant currency (dominant money) is that nobody is
permitted to audit the collateral value that supposedly substantiates it.
Regarding absolute value, we have to keep in mind that money is not a value
in itself but an abstract value. As ther market value of what it is
abstracted from changes, so does the value of the money.
It does boil down to trust. The choice is between trusting our elected
representatives or those private corporations (profit driven) who create
the money. Yes, the private profit driven corporations (I do favour profit
by the way) , without government oversite, can arbitrarily ascribe any
value they wish to anything and get away with it so long as no one audits
their appraised value of the underlying collateral.
If I were a banker, I could facillitate the exchange of two $100,000 cats
for a $200,000 dog.
Thats why the bank act changes (1968) were so important. It allowed the
private banks, for the first time since the depression, to own property.
That allows them to bypass the market if there are any non performing
loans. They just hold the goods 'til they can inject enough mioney into the
market (inflation) to move the goods.
It also allows them to use money they created to cloak the ownership of
immense quantities of property, turning most of us into renters, if not of
property, then renters of money.
Regards
Ed G
At 05:35 PM 26/05/2001 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Keith:
>
>> But little bit by little bit I am becoming increasingly convinced that we
>> will see the emergence of a single universal currency. Whether this will
>> come about via some new grouping of large companies starting an
>> asset-backed bank (probably e-money via the Internet), or the sole
>survivor
>> of the continuing contest between the official currencies I don't know.
>> Either way, there will be immense benefits to all countries, businesses
>and
>> organisations.
>
>I believe we're pretty close to a single currency now. It's the Almighty US
>$$. The US would never accept a currency which it does not control. The
>reason that countries like Canada keep their own currency is because it
>permits them some control over domestic monetary affairs, even if the
>international value of their currency is determined by what happens to the
>Greenback.
>
>>
>> As some FWers will know I have been a critic of official currencies
>because
>> they are not backed by value and can thus be be manipulated by governments
>> and currency speculators. However, the criticism largely falls if there is
>> a single official currency because its value would be self-correcting via
>> the interest rate. I say "largely" because printed banknotes can still be
>> forged (as the US$ is in vast quantities) and then laundered.
>
>I'm not with you here Keith because I don't believe there is anything that
>has absolute value. Or if there is, it's something that lies outside of the
>economic sphere and perhaps in the moral one, like human life or the things
>that are in the UN Charter of Human Rights (which no one pays much attention
>to). National currencies have a given value as long as governments and
>central banks can maintain it. When I was in Russia a few years ago the
>value of the rouble had fallen from an artificially maintained approximate
>parity with the US$ to virtual worthlessness. The government and the
>Russian banking system had simply not done their job. Everybody wanted US$s
>because their value held. What I'm saying is that it's all relative; there
>are no absolutes.
>
>Ed Weick
>
>
>
>
