Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Houses and Holes — Do we need one global currency?














Reviving the bancor as a global reserve currency for international trading purposes, proposed by Keynes but rejected by the US at Bretton Woods.

MacroBusiness — Global Macro: Houses and Holes
Do we need one global currency?
Houses and Holes

9 comments:

Nebris said...

Only when we have one Global State. Let Greece stand as a textbook example of the dangers of said Economic and Political disconnect.

Dan Kervick said...

Seems crazy that given the mess a single currency has caused in Europe, we would move at this time to a single global currency.

Matt Franko said...

Right to get in the nut-jobs would probably require that no member nation could have a deficit....

Greg said...

Which would mean no one could have a surplus either

Tom Hickey said...

With the bancor as Keynes proposed it, surpluses are penalized over time, preventing countries form running mercantilist policy. The US had a huge trade surplus after WWII, so it opposed the bancor proposal. Now the situation is reversed. I wonder if China would go for the bancor proposal.

googleheim said...

This post shows that Tea party repukekklans have it correct ... just say no to Euro ...but then they use METALISM to wedge their rascism and back-door MMT dressed in trickle supply side to spend and stimulus just as long the president is their own.

Ryan Harris said...

In the economic orthodoxy all trade is beneficial to everyone otherwise they wouldn't engage in the trade in the first place 1+1=2.

The people that receive the fruits of others labor walk around with halos.
And those offering their labor seek harmony and tranquility by meeting their inner needs for fiat balances.

It has nothing to do with strategic advantage, productive capacity, economic development or creating opportunities for citizens to have access to more resources and technology. We ignore those portions.

And we definitely ignore the end result of being on the losing end of strategic trade which removes productive capacity, which IS the looting of the social safety net transfer tax programs regardless of whether or not the government replaces aggregate demand, or not.

Matt Franko said...

Ryan good points but at least we have thrown the yoke of the metals as a step 1... googs point about vestiges of metal-love with the Tea Party people not withstanding but they are a small minority at this point and hopefully remain in decline ...

Then we can get to the REAL issues you bring up.... but getting rid of the metals certainly had to be our step one and that looks like it was accomplished...

rsp,

Ryan Harris said...

It's true.

We've stopped trading our land for shiny metal beads like our ancestors did.

Now we sell our land for?

Best not to sell the land. Best to offer fiat or nothing.