|
| I suppose the question is why the need for a global currency. This is creating the idea that the currency is the thing of value, but it isn't - its the goods exchanging hands are the things of value and the currency is just a means to facilitate that exchange.
If Britain and France are in a buy/sell arrangement, why do they care what the $us is doing. If Brazil and Spain are exchanging goods, they also don't care what the $us is doing. When US is buying from Japan then the $us is used, now Japan has $us but since it is simply a currency, and not a store of value, they will look to use the $us in another transaction and not hold on to it.
I suppose the argument is that oil was supposed to transact in $us everywhere in the world. And so a massive amount of $us was needed. Who dreamed up that arrangement? Probably the people responsible for printing an endless amount of $us to begin with. If $us are not needed for oil then the need for a massive amount of $us also goes away.
I guess what I am saying is the idea of the $us being a reserve currency and world currency is a manufactured idea. And not necessarily the correct idea. The world was quite prosperous prior to 1970. And then debt became the tool of operation versus capital and savings. This debt has ultimately destroyed savings. Debt makes the people issuing the debt insanely wealthy, selling something you don't have and is in infinite supply with zero cost of production will do that. Meanwhile those with savings have their wealth destroyed unless they find alternatives, however governments then have things like capital gains taxes for those who escaped the currency destruction, but then attempted to exchange their asset for something else - but that is a whole different subject.
One could make an argument a reserve currency is needed, we have no idea if that is true. But the reserve currency has certainly been destroyed so that would indicate that the idea has failings (therefore likely wrong) since the reserve currency is in fact mismanaged. | |
|