China calling for new global currency

[bibleguy]

It'll never happen? China may be on the fringe right now, but if the economic situation globally doesn't improve, and currencies continue to lose value, the idea will get more support.

Here's the article: China not fooling in call for review of dollar's status

[Mole_J]

Russia and oil producing countries want to move away from the dollar also.

I also see why Obama has been speaking for Geithner in the press. Geithner says he is open to China's demand of a one world currency. Contradicting what Obama said last night.

article

[bibleguy]

Geithner says he is open to China's demand of a one world currency.

Wow, I hadn't heard that! Obama probably is, too, but public sentiment would not support it yet.

I'm still waiting to see what the administration is going to do/face that will meet Biden's prediction requiring us to stand by him.

(Speaking of Biden, Cheney's absence from the limelight was always news, but Biden's absence is ignored? It's just the role of the Vice-president -- stay out of sight, unless you're needed.)

[Mole_J]

A UN Panel now touts a new world currency:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

[RamboPreacher]

what's wrong with a one-world currency, again?

[Billy n NC]

what's wrong with a one-world currency, again?

When the time comes.

It will make absolute sense.

[free]

An exciting time to be alive in my opinion...Looks like the Lord's coming is getting even closer!

[Paully_44]

what's wrong with a one-world currency, again?

good question

[RamboPreacher]

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).

[bibleguy]

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.

[Mike Vande]

IF the UN becomes the world's governing body, some of the people in the US can look forward to a major drop in their level of life style.
The idea will be a more equitable distribution of wealth. That, or course, means that those who have will give, willingly or unwillingly, and those who don't have will recieve.

I was told by somebody the US uses 25% of the energy, goods and services produced world wide. I don't know if that's right, but I do know we use a disproportionate amount, and we do it because a lot of US citizens can afford to buy them. If the UN has it's way, many of those who are now consuming some of that disproportionate amount are going to stop being able to afford it. In short, the US is going to be on the giving end of the redistribution of wealth that will follow the UN becoming the world's governing body. Who else can afford to fund it? The Arabs? They'll refuse, go back to their countries, and tell jokes about how the UN tried to get them to pony up. If they are sanctioned, they'll just turn off the oil until the UN gets the point.

Ther are a number of scenarios that can be reasonably expected to occur if the UN takes over governing the world. None of the ones I can think of bode well for me and those in my country. Maybe it's fair, maye we do use too much and deprive others in doing so. Maybe the Christian thing to do is to voluntarily give up the luxuries and comforts we n the US enjoy, and join the Third World and Middle east in grinding poverty and ignorance, just so it can be said no body in the world has more than anybody else.

So then, who among us is gonna be the first to sell their car and walk or ride a bicycle so little Achmed from Iknatzistan can have UN funded medical and dental care, which will enable him to grow up and become a suicide bomber?

[JohnDB]

America does consume about one fourth of the world's oil supply...

however America feeds about 60% of the world...and has the largest single economy in the World. California's economy is larger than the second closest economy which is Japan.

So...in consideration of the facts...using only 25% of the world's oil supply speaks to our efficiency...not our gluttony...that can be shown in a different fashion.

And most of your OPEC nations have switched from using a standard of American dollars to Euros as a medium of exchange. (because we asked them to)
This policy has and continues to make the dollar weaker against other currencies but it allows us to export more goods which in turn means jobs.

A single money supply won't happen...too many other countries have too much to lose by accepting one. (Germany, Japan, and England) China's request isn't going to go anywhere...no matter who does what where and why...they are in a position of having too weak of a currency (official stated amount of exchange and not free market) and don't want to take the blame for artificially keeping it low. (Predatory pricing is against all laws internationally too)

[Tim Elston]

A single money supply won't happen...China's request isn't going to go anywhere...no matter who does what where and why.

That's just too level-headed, John.