Robert Mundell, a nobel-prize winning economist, often credited with paving the way to the European single currency, has called for a global currency. In an interview with French paper Lib�ration, Mr Mundell said, "with the emergence of the euro and its instability against the dollar, Europe, the US and the Asian powers should come together and create a new international monetary system". However, this would not mean the end of the euro and the dollar. Mr Mundell continues, "Of course, one would keep the dollar and the euro. This international currency would be used in the large international exchanges, for movements of capital and commercial transactions". http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?aid=13988
International countertrade is a global phenomenon involving interaction between parties linking sales with purchases so that each party is at some point both buyer and seller. In its simplest form countertrade manifests itself as a barter system; at the other end of the scale is build-operate-transfer, used to finance large projects such as road construction and utilities. Under this scenario a contractor or supplier operates a facility in another country for a specified number of years and takes the income. At the end of the period all assets are transferred to the government or an operating agency of the country. http://www.topnz.ac.nz/aboutus/corporateinformation/publications/research/au research4.html Noted economist Paul Samuelson (Economics, 1980) had a very dismal opinion about the viability of countertrade as a marketing tool. He stated "Unless a hungry tailor happens to find an undraped farmer, who has both food and a desire for a pair of pants, neither can make a trade" World wide experience reveals something else. Countertrade is being increasingly viewed by firms and nations as an excellent mechanism to gain entry into new markets. Countertrade transactions increased significantly during the late 1960s through the 1980s as a result of shortage of hard currencies available to industrialized nations. In 1972, countertrade was used by 15 countries. By 1979, the countries conducting countertrade transactions numbered 27, yet by the start of 1990s, this figure had risen to around 100. (Vertariu 1992). Research indicates that over 80 countries use or require countertrade exchanges, and that countertrade has been growing both absolutely and as a portion of international trade. (...) Lack of government statistics on such activity forces one to evaluate the trend by analyzing the fragmented data available. The belief of the US Department of Commerce is that countertrade will have reached 50 percent of world trade by the beginning of twenty first century. Thus, although exact growth figures are in doubt, it is difficult to discount the emergence of a powerful trend. Officials of the GATT organization, have stated that countertrade accounts for around 5% of the world trade. The British government through its (Department of Trade and Industry) countertrade for exporters documents suggests 15%, while numerous scholars believe it to be closer to 30 percent, with east-west trade as high as 50 percent in some trading sectors in Eastern European and Third World Countries. A consensus of expert opinions (Okaroafo, 1989) has put the percentage of world trade linked to countertrade transactions at between 20% to 25 percent. http://www.academic.marist.edu/~jzej/countertrade.html "The U.S. Government generally views countertrade, including barter as contrary to an open, free trading system and, in the long run, not in the interest of the U.S. business community. However, as a matter of policy the U.S. Government will not oppose U.S. companies' participation in countertrade arrangements unless such action could have a negative impact on national security." (Office of Management and Budget; "Impact of Offsets in Defense-related Exports," December, 1985) In 2000, India and Iraq agreed on an "oil for wheat and rice" barter deal, subject to UN approval under Article 50 of the U.N. Gulf War sanctions, that would facilitate 300,000 barrels of oil delivered daily to India at a price of $6.85 a barrel while Iraq oil sales into Asia were valued at about $22 a barrel. In 2001, India agreed to swap 1.5 million tonnes of Iraqi crude under the oil-for-food programme. The Security Council noted: "... although locally produced food items have become increasingly available throughout the country, most Iraqis do not have the necessary purchasing power to buy them. Unfortunately, the monthly food rations represent the largest proportion of their household income. They are obliged to either barter or sell items from the food basket in order to meet their other essential needs. This is one of the factors which partly explains why the nutritional situation has not improved in line with the enhanced food basket. Moreover, the absence of normal economic activity has given rise to the spread of deep-seated poverty. http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/s/4B4816DF31283724C12569AD0043AF4F What is a Debt-Equity Swap? A debt-equity swap, sometimes referred to as debt conversion, is a multi-step process. (...) The Seller holds sovereign debt of Country X which it wishes to sell for hard currency, typically at a discount because the country is in default on its obligations. The purchaser desires to purchase Country X debt at a discount, which it will "swap" with the Government of Country X. This transaction is attractive to the Seller because it receives "hard" currency for a debt instrument of questionable value. Country X purchases the debt at face value or at a small discount, giving the buyer its own "soft" currency in exchange. restrictions. http://www.eastwestdebt.co.uk/debt/news2.html Basic commercial countertrade definitions at: http://www.countertrade.org/acaoffset.htm Legal definitions of countertrade at: http://www.uncitral.org/english/texts/sales/countertrade.htm Brief discussion of countertrade measurement problems: http://www.countertrade.org/Fall98/Fall00Materials1/CountertradeWhitePaper.p df The exchange between capital and labour at first presents itself to the mind in the same guise as the buying and selling of all other commodities. The buyer gives a certain sum of money, the seller an article of a nature different from money. The jurist's consciousness recognizes in this, at most, a material difference, expressed in the juridically equivalent formula: "Do ut des, do ut facias, facio ut des, facio ut facias." Furthermore, exchange-value and use-value, being intrinsically incommensurable magnitudes, the expressions "value of labour," "price of labour," do not seem more irrational than the expressions "value of cotton," "price of cotton." Moreover, the labourer is paid after he has given his labour. In its function of means of payment, money realizes subsequently the value or price of the article supplied-i.e., in this particular case, the value or price of the labour supplied. Finally, the use-value supplied by the labourer to the capitalist is not, in fact, his labour-power, but its function, some definite useful labour, the work of tailoring, shoemaking, spinning, &tc. That this same labour is, on the other hand, the universal value-creating element, and thus possesses a property by which it differs from all other commodities, is beyond the cognizance of the ordinary mind. http://www.marxists.org.uk/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch19.htm Where money is exchanged directly for labour, and the latter does not produce any capital, hence is not productive labour, it is bought as a service; this is nothing more than an expression for the particular use value provided by labour, just like every other commodity; but it is a specific expression for the particular use value of labour, in so far as labour does not provide services as an object but as an activity, which however by no means distinguishes it e.g. from a machine, e.g. a clock. Do ut facias, facio ut facias, facio ut des, do ut des ("I give that you may make", "I make that you may make", "I make that you may give", "I give that you may give " - contractual formulas in Roman law) are here completely indifferent forms of the same relation, whereas in capitalist production the do ut facias expresses a very specific relation of the objective value, which is given, and the living activity, which is appropriated. Thus, because the specific relation of labour and capital is not contained at all in this purchase of services; because it has either been completely extinguished or was never present, it is naturally the favourite form used by Say, Bastiat and their associates to express the relation of capital and labour. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/economic/ch38.htm This locational moment -- the bringing of the product to market, which is a necessary condition of its circulation, except when the point of production is itself a market -- could more precisely be regarded as the transformation of the product into a commodity. Only on the market is it a commodity. (Whether or not this forms a particular moment is a matter of chance. If capital produces to order, then neither this moment nor the transformation into money exists as a particular moment for it. Work done to order, i.e. supply corresponding to a prior demand, as a general or predominant situation, is not characteristic of large industry and in no way arises from the nature of capital as a condition.) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch10.htm Jurriaan
