RamboPreacher wrote:Paully_44 wrote:RamboPreacher wrote:what's wrong with a one-world currency, again?
good question
:)
I am not an econ-major, but I have had a few years of university economics and accounting. in macro-economics; it just seems too logical to have a common reserve system.
it is interesting how many Christians will see something like this as being a negative, based on their particular eschotological views, whether Biblically based or not (not a negative, just an observation). but then gloss over a "millennial reign" in a TRULY God-directed/centered society, that would probably have a common monetary system of it's own. - just a thought and not for thread redirection.
my question was one of economics (though doctrine/religiosity is also a question, but perhaps for the doctrine forum).
Yes, of course a one-world government/religion/economy is expected and welcome during the Jesus Administration.
It's just that that kind of centralized power in the hands of corrupt, human governments is always potentially oppressive. Especially one that is "global," having no particular loyalty or accountability to any people of the nations over which it wields control.
At least in a national currency system is controlled by people over whom our constitution gives us some control, in the form of voting. Our control over the U.N. is ... ?? Well, we elect a president who appoints a U.N. delegation that is approved by Congress, I think. After that, a bunch of such "appointed" delegates make the rules for the whole world to follow?
As a body make international suggestions, maybe the U.N. is alright. But when the nations yield their sovereignty to such a body, you are fooling yourself if you think that it bodes well for you.
Besides, with the 1 nation-1 vote, we have 1 vote, Belize has 1 vote, U.A.E. has 1 vote. Israel has 1 vote. BUT the muslim nations in the U.N. together have almost 50 votes. The divisions of nations like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R. and others have given those countries extra votes when the newly formed countries cooperate.
I have heard that there is a desire to eliminate the permanent member veto power from the Security Council. That would make the United States' vote equal to that of Andorra, Monocco or Crete. If that happens, the Several States of the United States of America should exercise their sovereignty in our little federation, and get us our rightful 50 individual votes among the nations of the world.
The only way to make the U.N. even anywhere close to fair would to make it representative like our Congress: representation based on population, with representatives chosen by popular election of those who are represented. True, that would give China and India larger representaion in such a body, but at least the vote representing 306,088,000 U.S. citizens couldn't be offset by the vote representing the 20,000 people in Palau.
