A great idear that could save the USD

[moonman]

Bruce C. Greenwald is a professor at the Columbia School of Business. He is floating a trial baloon that has alot of merit. If managed right, Greenwald's plan would take pressure off the USD and also off the US consumer and US economy as the dumping ground for every developing country looking to export excess product.

The idear is to allow the IMF to print a new global currency and infuse the global economy with 200-300 billion dollars of new capital. The effect will be that instead of the USA, Japan & Europe financing the trade with developing nations, the IMF would do it. Of course such a programme would require more executive & administrative integrity than say our current effort in Iraq.

Gradually the new global IMF currency would become the world's reserve currency and place each country on a more competitive trading platform. No longer would the world require the USA to be a consuming nation of glutonous proportion. Gosh, we might actually become a saving nation again.

The only problem is getting the bankers to agree. Still it's reassuring to learn some our best minds are advocating real solutions to this credit mess we're in.

[stefan segal]

Moonman, anyone with the power to print buying power on paper will abuse it eventually. There has never been such a currency that hasn't been systematically robbed...meaning those who back it being robbed of their goods and services, as the currency is worthless in and of itself.

We are fighting wars to maintain our printed paper as the currency of oil and international trade. That Sadamn converted to euros to trade his oil, made his wealth appreciate by millions...not only that which was traded, but his olump of petro dollars that just sat in a bank and not in the market.

If all such petro dollars should suddenly hit the currency market, we (the US) economy would hit the skids.

Butch's design to create the AMO dollars, a mix of Mexico, US and Canada, is a scheme to connect US economy with a strong supplier of raw materials, oil, gold, wood, and many more, and having been honestly managed, also a strong currency in relation to it's debts, and cheap labor to our South...a really good mix for someone (US liars and thieves) to organize into a going concern, while hiding the fact of the worthlessness of the USdollar.

Unless your were joking about it being a ":good idea", it is really an idea to die for..literally.

Stefan

[Jennifer]

I don't know if a global currency is a good thing. And yes, even if it was only used for starting nations initially, you and I both KNOW it would turn into a global currency.

And, of course, the next step is to put an RFID chip in a person with all their credit information so that police can read it and they can use it to pay later. And you KNOW the Christians are going to be up in arms over THAT.

So, for now, I don't think this is a good idea. Perhaps once you start getting nations to sign over their sovereignty to the Useless Nations you can start getting global currency and global linguistics put into effect more readily. Until then, you'll never make it.

[moonman]

It's a great idea because for the first time in known history the world's reserve currency wouldn't be backed by a military super-power. In other words, the wars Segal posts about wouldn't happen, the repurcussions would be economic not military.

[Jennifer]

And where would they get the money? I guarantee no sitting president or congress that wants to be re-elected would vote for it. And since the UN won't be accepting US-Dollars anymore, it would be bankrupt in a matter of hours. Considering we fund, arm, and protect the UN to a much greater extent then the rest of the world combined.

[mwillman]

While I dont know if a world currency would be any better then what we have now. I do know that as usual jennifer is wrong. We are not the biggest provider to the UN.

[Linkster]

mwillman - I believe the US is the highest contributer financially - although we havent been paying our bills so we are in debt to them
This will change though if congress gets their way since they are floating a bill from 2005 that cuts the funding in half - which would Japan at the top and the UK in second

As far as arming the UN they do that themselves out of the total budget of $20 bill a year they get in from their member states as well as maintaining their own army

[mwillman]

We probably are the highest individual contributer to the UN when we pay but that doesn't mean that we contribute more then the rest of the world.

I dont think its even half of whats contributed but I havent seen the numbers in a long time.

We are the richest nation in the world we can afford to pay more then any other nation. I dont see a problem with that.

As for the global currency idea what I really fear is corporate globalism rather then global democracy. I think that if we implement a global currency before we have the appropriate democratic controls we will see more power put into the hands of international corporations which do not have anyones best interests at hand except there own bottom line.

[Linkster]

I guess I read the statement wrong - you are correct that the US does not supply "most" of their budget - actually it works out to about 10% with 195 other countries picking up the other 90%
There are also separate programs that the US has requested that are included in the 10 % that if we hadnt asked the UN to do for us we wouldnt be paying for

[moonman]

And where would they get the money? I guarantee no sitting president or congress that wants to be re-elected would vote for it. And since the UN won't be accepting US-Dollars anymore, it would be bankrupt in a matter of hours. Considering we fund, arm, and protect the UN to a much greater extent then the rest of the world combined.

I don't care if Jennifer is right or wrong I just want to see more of her avatar.

The IMF would function as a global central bank. It would issue currency by providing loans in its currency to developing countries and finance the building of their infrastructure.

While I share the oft posted concerns on money as medium of exchange I've yet to see a better idea. I don't think money is bad thing or the root of all evil. Money is a like a gun, abuse is done by a person not the thing.

[Jennifer]

Where does the UN get it's equipment? America.
Where does the UN get it's military personnel? America.
What currency does the UN use in it's business? US Dollars.

What nation provides the most economic, military, and equipment resources to the UN? The United States of America.


If the United States of America left the UN, the UN would cease to exist. Partially because it would not have a place to meet anymore. Partially because you know England and many other nations would leave too, especially if we had a REAL cowboy in office like JFK, FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, etc. You know, presidents that actually made total war on their enemies.

[Linkster]

Hmm - I always thought that the UN used the IMF (which trades in many currencies - not the dollar)
The 10 main troop-contributing countries to UN peacekeeping operations as of March 2007 were Pakistan (10,173), Bangladesh (9,675), India (9,471), Nepal (3,626), Jordan (3,564), Uruguay (2,583), Italy (2,539),Ghana, Nigeria and France.

The US does not contribute any soldiers to the UN - they do have 393 volunteer civilian peacekeepers on duty with the UN but those are not military positions - the UN has always refrained from using Russian and US troops or equipment to keep from looking like it favors anyone

The UN does not have any weapons or vehicles - they are all donated by member nations - and right now most are from the same countries that donate the soldiers listed above

[Jennifer]

Allegedly, yes. However, in actuality, they store the money in US Dollars. From there they can convert the currency into the one they need for the mission.

Also, most military equipment that the UN has, even the stuff from other nations, comes from the United States. Some nations even get equipment donated from us to give the UN so they can meet their obligations.

You'll also look at most UN units and see a funny commonality of its personnel make-up, most of them are Americans. Just like in WWII when we sent Americans to England and China to wear their uniforms, we do the same today as well. But as we know, the clothes do not make the man.

[mwillman]

Jennifer,

you are wrong. Im sorry to point it out but the make up of most UN units is not mostly American. That is only true in area's that America has the most interest. Places that if you bother to check all have access to either oil or land for pipelines. But the world is much larger then that and we do little to help when there is no profit in it for the corporations that control our government through its lackys.

[Linkster]

Jennifer - I would also disagree - the UN has specifically never allowed a US military person to be in the UN uniform and has always turned down the vehicles and arms that the US has offered - thats what has caused part of the rift that has developed between the US and the UN - the US was trying to get some "sayso" over the UN and they wouldnt allow it.
The IMF does not use exclusively - or even "mostly" dollars - as a matter of fact they use whatever pays the best return that specific day on the markets - and its usually Euros

[Jennifer]

There was a case of an American Colonel being dismissed from the service for refusing to follow the orders of a French General in the UN.

What are you smoking, no US Forces in the UN Peacekeepers?

[mwillman]

Do you ever finish a news story. I get this feeling that you have a small set of idea's that you need to fit everything you read into causing most things to be mispresented by a lack of depth.

[Jennifer]

Do you even know to what I am referring? A sitting US Colonel, commissioned by the Congress and the President was ordered into a UN Peacekeeper unit where he refused to accept orders from a French General. His stated reason was that he swore to defend the Constitution of the United States, not the French Government.

He was courts martialled under UCMJ and dismissed from service.


But it proves that there ARE US Soldiers in UN outfits. And they use US Equipment. (where do you think the M-16s, Bradleys, Abrahms, Apaches, Eagles, M203s, etc come from? Sarkozy's magic wand?)

[Linkster]

I think you might be referring to Capt Rockwood who was with the multinational force ordered by a UN and US joint resolution - not a peacekeeping force - back in 1994 that went to Haiti
He was disgusted by the conditions in the Haitian prisons and went back to his commanders - who were US military - not French - and reported on it - they told him to do nothing about it - he disobeyed that order and went back with a M-16 trying to free some political prisoners and was brought up on 5 counts of disobeying direct orders - BTW his superiors were from the US Arnt Mountain Division if you need more background

[Linkster]

OK - time for a little world politics lesson since there seems to be a little confusion about the role of the UN
There are two different ways (main ways) that the UN works as peacekeepers and a military
First they can be the primary military - which is used primarily in developing countries for civil war type actions where they are supplied their forces from the list of all nations except the US and the old USSR - this was specifically prohibited - however - they also allowed volunteer civilians to go along with that force as observers - and some US military would volunteer for that duty - there are about 300 of them currently (less than 1% of the total force of the UN military force right now)
Second - there are things called Joint Resolutions - where a specific country wants to go in and help in a crisis - and goes to the UN for a vote to send its own troops in under the flag of the UN - as peacekeepers - and example is the one mentioned above where we were invited into Haiti a few years back and the UN voted OK on that one - the US supplied all of the troops and equipment but went in with a resolution form the UN as support

There are more ways - but those are the two primary methods

[mwillman]

Thanks linkster I hate having to explain complex systems to simple minds.