|
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'adoption of one currency'.
Found 1 result
-
GMT 10:42 2017 Friday, September 15 : Last Updated She said that everyone would move towards the adoption of one currency The Economist has envisioned a new world order 30 years ago Abdul Elah Majid Journal of the Economist on 9 January 1988 LONDON - Economists in the United States, Europe, Japan and other rich countries will pay the price of what they shop in a single currency, the Economist magazine predicted Jan. 9, 1988. The price of the goods will not be shown in yen, dollar or sterling but in one currency. This currency will be the favorite of shoppers and companies because it will be easier than different currencies today. The idea of a single currency seemed a strange idea in 1988. One of the biggest changes in the global economy since the 1970s was that the money circulating dominated commodity trade as the driving force of exchange rates. Because of the integration of financial markets around the world, it is the differences in national economic policies that change interest rates, as is known, and that large transfers of funds are made from one country to another. Communication technology continues to evolve so that deals will be cheaper and faster. Because of the lack of coordination in economic policies, the currencies will be even more volatile. Now the national economic borders are slowly dissolving, and this trend is expected to continue, and it will be difficult to resist the temptation of a monetary union from all but foreign currency speculators and some governments. With the adoption of a new single currency, economic adjustment will occur with changes in relative prices smoothly and automatically. In the absence of currency risk, trade, employment and investment will receive a strong boost. Economic integration The new single currency will be coupled with tightening restrictions on national governments. There will be no such thing as a national monetary policy, and the supply of the new currency will be determined by a central bank. There will be a global inflation rate that determines the inflation rate in each country. Countries will be able to use taxes with population spending to eliminate the impact of any temporary fall in demand, and will have to borrow instead of printing money to fund any budget deficit. This may mean a great loss of national sovereignty, but the trends that make the single currency attractive will dispense with sovereignty. Even if exchange rates are floating, individual governments will see the independence of their policies subject to the will of an outside world that is not friendly. With the emergence of a new century, as the Economist wrote at the time, natural forces will continue to push the world into economic integration that gives governments a broad choice. They can decide to set up barriers or follow the general trend. Private sectors will be strongly encouraged to use international money alongside the existing national currency. The single currency can start as a mix of national currencies, and over time its value against national currencies will not be important, because consumers will choose it because it is easier and there will be stability in purchasing power. Ten years later, in 1998, the Economist published another article calling for global agendas under the title of "One World, One Money". This was similar to what was published ten years ago and tried to explain why a more centralized and centralized system would be in favor of the global economy in general, while ignoring the fact that the adoption of a single central global currency would be a huge coup for international banking cartels. It is also the financial finale of the Al-Rothschild banking empire. Massive power The adoption of a single global currency would provide a great deal of geopolitical capital to the un-elected international bankers and could take power from the peoples of the States as well as government representatives. But the question is whether one wants international bankers to have a formidable political power over their considerable financial power and the degree of control they now exercise. Citizens today want to have a bigger say on their lives and do not want policies dictated by bureaucrats and bankers. The Rothschild family is keen to stay out of the limelight. But still have broad economic interests spread across a wide range of sectors. There is no single member of the Rothschild family named on Forbes magazine's list of the richest people in the world, but the family is said to have assets worth more than $ 1 trillion worldwide. That is why he still has an audible voice in the entire geopolitical arena, and many see it as a subtle hand that moves events quietly in the shadows under the guise of secrecy. The Rothschild family owns a majority of shares in the Economist magazine, and some believe the magazine is closer to the propaganda arm of their banking empire.
