The president-elect wrote that the coalition of non-Western countries “should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful U.S. Economy” if it backs a currency other than the U.S. dollar.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the world needs a neutral reserve currency, not one issued and controlled by whatever country happens to be the dominant superpower.
I think this is the only way the capitalists can make their global, free market work. If the capitalists were smart, they’d want a neutral, global reserve currency. But, since most capitalists aren’t smart, it will probably never happen.
Who would issue it? What would it be backed by? Gold is globally valued due to its material value, but good luck getting your local coffee place to take it.
Congratulations, you’ve stumbled upon the one place where cryptobros would have a point if they weren’t mostly trying to make their “currencies” be investments rather than actual currencies.
It would have to be issued by some world central bank.
Money doesn’t need to be backed by anything, necessarily. Or, I guess you could say money is “backed” by all the goods and services available to purchase.
Not trying to be a prick; here for discussion. Wherrrree do we actually put central bank? I guess that maybe matters less than staffing the thing?? Obviously not an easy thing to do overnight but man we’d need to have like, serious cooperation and transparency to do that proper. Maybe not impossible though!
We’d want it to be in a neutral place, if at all possible. Perhaps a country would be willing to donate a small portion of their territory so an independent jurisdiction could be formed, not unlike Washington D.C.
For anything more than basic bartering, i.e. credit, it needs to be backed by an assurance that the fiat currency will be managed properly. Your basic loan is predicated on the trust that when you borrow $1000, the US won’t go and print another $1000 for shits and giggles and halve the value of what you get repaid. (I’m ignoring interest for simplicity here.)
For example, let’s say a car costs $30,000. I borrow that on a three year loan. But after one year, a maniac takes charge of the federal reserve and starts printing money. Now, since the value of the dollar has dropped, the same car costs $90k, but I’m still buying it at the original price. (Remember, the bank owns the car until I pay off the loan.)
For a real-world example, look at any hyperinflation scenario. When the unit value of a currency drops that fast, nobody wants to trade in that currency, because they would lose buying power.
This is why a currency has to be backed by a trustworthy body. Cryptocurrency is great, but if the operators have no consequences for manipulating it, then it’ll never replace traditional government-backed currency.
…it needs to be backed by an assurance that the fiat currency will be managed properly.
That’s the point of having a global central bank. They would manage it, and we would want to ensure that all appropriate mechanisms for oversight and accountability were in place. Transparency would also be of high importance.
Edit: I should point out that this is already somewhat in place. The US dollar, a fiat currency, is currently the world reserve currency, and it’s managed by the US federal reserve central bank. The problem is, the US federal reserve is the US central bank and it is not neutral, nor is it accountable to the rest of the world.
Israelis are from all over the place. Aside from all of the Arab people (including people who would have once been considered Jewish Arabs), there are a significant number of Africans in Israel.
A hypothetical neutral reserve currency would be a fiat-style monetary system. It would also require some kind of central bank and governance over it. It’s not impossible to achieve, but the politics around such a thing would be impressive to behold.
Also, I doubt the US would embrace either before seeing the dollar crash. It would take too much power away from the Federal Reserve, and by extension, global leverage.
The reason for fiat was to take the power of setting global monetary policy from people who had gold mines and give it to people who had big economies. At that time, it was the US because they didn’t fight WWII on their own soil, which was unique at the time.
Realistically, if the dollar crashes, it is in nobody’s interest to go to anything than the next biggest currency, likely the Euro. Except for the US of course, but what are they going to do about it? Start wars?
Switching to a “currency” that has never been stable and has a huge volatility problem? Sorry, I want that gallon of milk I bought in the supermarket to be roughly the same price when I need more next week than when I got it this week.
It’s very telling that most advocates of Bitcoin are very happy to volunteer how much money they’ve made investing in it. That’s not how currency is supposed to work.
To be fair, it is only volatile because you view it from the perspective of something you feel is stable (perhaps USD). If you instead viewed other currencies from the view of, let’s say, bitcoin then the other currencies would be fluctuating wildly. It’s a bit like Alabama and time: it’s all relative.
I’m viewing it from the perspective of a regular consumer. That’s really all that matters to most people. That if milk costs about $3 last week, it will cost around the same amount this week. Changes will come, but come slowly.
I’ve seen USD go up and down 30% compared to other “stable currencies”. Stability of BTC would come from adoption from a larger number of people, after the initial price spike caused by increasing demand.
I bought some in 2023 for 30k and sold it for 60k over a year later. Right now it’s worth 100k. I don’t think people should by at this high a price range, it’ll probably be much more affordable in a year and spike again later before and after the halvening.
At some point it’ll be too big to pump or dump, and doing so is already highly illegal in many countries. There’s basically no risk of a person buying in and having it decline to never recover.
Yes, the dollar is, as all currencies are incredibly volatile in times of crisis. No shit.
Bitcoin has, as I said, never been stable. It’s not even designed to be stable. Week over week, in general economic times, the dollar has the same value. You simply cannot say the same about Bitcoin. Again, this is why most advocates of Bitcoin are happy to volunteer how much money they’ve made investing in it.
Unless you are a high-end currencies trader, people generally don’t talk about how much richer they are in Euros this week than they were last week. Because that’s not how currencies are supposed to work.
Cool meme and all, but the fact that you yourself are talking about when someone should or shouldn’t invest in bitcoin just proves my point. That’s the opposite of stability. People don’t regularly move their savings from dollars to euros and back depending on which is worth more.
Good for you for getting rich on your investment opportunity though. I’m sure that’s very nice for you.
You couldn’t find the point if it was layed out cleanly before you, as I clearly explained it is not currently what it very easily could become, and also that it is virtually no long term risk even in its current state.
Yes, I know, you expect a pyramid scheme where somehow magically enough people invest in bitcoin that it no longer is an investment opportunity and it becomes a currency.
At which point, all the people who used it as an investment opportunity and don’t care about the whole ideology behind it dump it and switch to a different investment opportunity.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the world needs a neutral reserve currency, not one issued and controlled by whatever country happens to be the dominant superpower.
I feel like this doesn’t solve much of the things you think it would.
Also, capitalists will never agree to this. They like having their own currencies cause they can manipulate them.
I think this is the only way the capitalists can make their global, free market work. If the capitalists were smart, they’d want a neutral, global reserve currency. But, since most capitalists aren’t smart, it will probably never happen.
Who would issue it? What would it be backed by? Gold is globally valued due to its material value, but good luck getting your local coffee place to take it.
Congratulations, you’ve stumbled upon the one place where cryptobros would have a point if they weren’t mostly trying to make their “currencies” be investments rather than actual currencies.
deleted by creator
No.
It would have to be issued by some world central bank.
Money doesn’t need to be backed by anything, necessarily. Or, I guess you could say money is “backed” by all the goods and services available to purchase.
Not trying to be a prick; here for discussion. Wherrrree do we actually put central bank? I guess that maybe matters less than staffing the thing?? Obviously not an easy thing to do overnight but man we’d need to have like, serious cooperation and transparency to do that proper. Maybe not impossible though!
We’d want it to be in a neutral place, if at all possible. Perhaps a country would be willing to donate a small portion of their territory so an independent jurisdiction could be formed, not unlike Washington D.C.
For anything more than basic bartering, i.e. credit, it needs to be backed by an assurance that the fiat currency will be managed properly. Your basic loan is predicated on the trust that when you borrow $1000, the US won’t go and print another $1000 for shits and giggles and halve the value of what you get repaid. (I’m ignoring interest for simplicity here.)
For example, let’s say a car costs $30,000. I borrow that on a three year loan. But after one year, a maniac takes charge of the federal reserve and starts printing money. Now, since the value of the dollar has dropped, the same car costs $90k, but I’m still buying it at the original price. (Remember, the bank owns the car until I pay off the loan.)
For a real-world example, look at any hyperinflation scenario. When the unit value of a currency drops that fast, nobody wants to trade in that currency, because they would lose buying power.
This is why a currency has to be backed by a trustworthy body. Cryptocurrency is great, but if the operators have no consequences for manipulating it, then it’ll never replace traditional government-backed currency.
That’s the point of having a global central bank. They would manage it, and we would want to ensure that all appropriate mechanisms for oversight and accountability were in place. Transparency would also be of high importance.
Edit: I should point out that this is already somewhat in place. The US dollar, a fiat currency, is currently the world reserve currency, and it’s managed by the US federal reserve central bank. The problem is, the US federal reserve is the US central bank and it is not neutral, nor is it accountable to the rest of the world.
Gold. It used to be gold.
Just using the Euro would be a great improvement since it’s not based on a single country’s economy.
Indeed, I’d like to see my country, Australia, join the EU and trade the pacific peso in for the Euro. What a grand experiment!
You lads are already competing in the Eurovision Song Contest. So why not go all in and join the EU as well.
I wouldn’t base it on those rules considering Israel is also in Eurovision.
Doubt they want to join. Because then they have to recognize the ICC
Like it tracks, because they are European. But I’m not happy about it.
Israel is literally in Asia.
Israel is in Asia, Israelis are european
Israelis are from all over the place. Aside from all of the Arab people (including people who would have once been considered Jewish Arabs), there are a significant number of Africans in Israel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel
Now it’s true that the government is dominated by people of European ancestry, but that’s not the same thing.
It would be best if there were a global union of nations, maybe one with the authority to oversee and manage global trade, as well.
We can barely get the EU to point in the same direction, good luck with that. Would be great though.
Yeah, it doesn’t seem likely.
Sounds like you want the gold standard back.
No, I don’t want that.
What is the difference between the gold standard and a neutral reserve currency?
A hypothetical neutral reserve currency would be a fiat-style monetary system. It would also require some kind of central bank and governance over it. It’s not impossible to achieve, but the politics around such a thing would be impressive to behold.
Also, I doubt the US would embrace either before seeing the dollar crash. It would take too much power away from the Federal Reserve, and by extension, global leverage.
The reason for fiat was to take the power of setting global monetary policy from people who had gold mines and give it to people who had big economies. At that time, it was the US because they didn’t fight WWII on their own soil, which was unique at the time.
Realistically, if the dollar crashes, it is in nobody’s interest to go to anything than the next biggest currency, likely the Euro. Except for the US of course, but what are they going to do about it? Start wars?
They will definitely do that.
*cough* BTC *cough*
OP said currency, not the post post-modern equivalent of an unregulated stock market.
It can be regulated if your country wants to do so.
Get with the times. Blackrock owns most of it.
Crypto can be controlled by the whales that own the majority.
Blackrock owns 2.366% which is actually less than what they own of USD wealth.
Switching to a “currency” that has never been stable and has a huge volatility problem? Sorry, I want that gallon of milk I bought in the supermarket to be roughly the same price when I need more next week than when I got it this week.
It’s very telling that most advocates of Bitcoin are very happy to volunteer how much money they’ve made investing in it. That’s not how currency is supposed to work.
To be fair, it is only volatile because you view it from the perspective of something you feel is stable (perhaps USD). If you instead viewed other currencies from the view of, let’s say, bitcoin then the other currencies would be fluctuating wildly. It’s a bit like Alabama and time: it’s all relative.
I’m viewing it from the perspective of a regular consumer. That’s really all that matters to most people. That if milk costs about $3 last week, it will cost around the same amount this week. Changes will come, but come slowly.
I’ve seen USD go up and down 30% compared to other “stable currencies”. Stability of BTC would come from adoption from a larger number of people, after the initial price spike caused by increasing demand.
I bought some in 2023 for 30k and sold it for 60k over a year later. Right now it’s worth 100k. I don’t think people should by at this high a price range, it’ll probably be much more affordable in a year and spike again later before and after the halvening.
At some point it’ll be too big to pump or dump, and doing so is already highly illegal in many countries. There’s basically no risk of a person buying in and having it decline to never recover.
Yes, the dollar is, as all currencies are incredibly volatile in times of crisis. No shit.
Bitcoin has, as I said, never been stable. It’s not even designed to be stable. Week over week, in general economic times, the dollar has the same value. You simply cannot say the same about Bitcoin. Again, this is why most advocates of Bitcoin are happy to volunteer how much money they’ve made investing in it.
Unless you are a high-end currencies trader, people generally don’t talk about how much richer they are in Euros this week than they were last week. Because that’s not how currencies are supposed to work.
Cool meme and all, but the fact that you yourself are talking about when someone should or shouldn’t invest in bitcoin just proves my point. That’s the opposite of stability. People don’t regularly move their savings from dollars to euros and back depending on which is worth more.
Good for you for getting rich on your investment opportunity though. I’m sure that’s very nice for you.
You couldn’t find the point if it was layed out cleanly before you, as I clearly explained it is not currently what it very easily could become, and also that it is virtually no long term risk even in its current state.
Yes, I know, you expect a pyramid scheme where somehow magically enough people invest in bitcoin that it no longer is an investment opportunity and it becomes a currency.
At which point, all the people who used it as an investment opportunity and don’t care about the whole ideology behind it dump it and switch to a different investment opportunity.