Something British?

[MonteZuma]

You throw around the sovereignty word much too often. Sharing your currency does not diminish your 'sovereignty' by 50%. In many ways, especially for smaller countries, it may in fact give a government more power over its affairs. The currency would be more stable.

 

EU countries don't have the same 'level of economy' (Spain and Germany for example).

 

Gold storage is not an issue (and in any case Switzerland isn't even in the EU).

 

The Euro wasn't introduced just for the very few people who cross borders daily (as many people do across the USA/Canada border). The Euro was introduced to compete against the US dollar and to facilitate the free movement of services, capital and goods (and people - as you say) across borders. Whether or not nations are adjacent to each other is irrelevant (eg Eire has the Euro). Whether a case of beer is imported by road, rail, sea or air is irrelevant. It is still easier to do business in one currency than it is do do business in more than one currency.

 

The US would benefit in much the same way it benefits from NAFTA. I'm not talking about a universal currency. I'm talking about a North American currency (USA and Canada). That currency might simply be the US dollar. There is no need to "tear the whole worldwide currency system apart and start anew".

 

Australians and New Zealanders regularly trade and travel across the Tasman Sea. The lack of a land border is meaningless. There is often talk (usually in NZ) about New Zealand switching to Australian dollars or sharing a common currency.

 

There would be resistance from some Canadians or New Zealanders (I'd probably be one of the opposition if I lived there - on purely subjective grounds), but looking at this objectively, I think their economies are already very closely intertwined. I don't think it would make any difference to anything. It would just make it easier for each nation to trade with the other.

 

If you've ever travelled or done business internationally you will see that the system isn't perfect. The system will be un-broke when we don't need to convert currency and when financial transactions are paperless.

[Aileron]

Okay, European nations border each other or have about 20 meters of sea travel between them.

 

The point is that European businesses and persons have to do international trade on a daily basis. That is not the case in most nations. Only a select few large persons and some large US-based international corporations would benefit.

 

 

As for sovreignty, you put the cart before the horse. Having a common currency doesn't affect a nation's sovreignty much, but that wasn't my point. My point was that a certain amount of non-sovereignty is required in the first place. Non-sovereignty is the cause, not the effect. Most nations are not in an organization like the EU. Sure, there's things like NAFTA, but they don't nearly have enough power to enact these kind of changes.

 

 

You still haven't pointed out though why we need it. What's the problem with the current system? Why should we turn our economy upside-down to accomodate a few travellers and a few large businesses?

[»Ducky]

It's an efficiency issue.

It isn't broke, it doesn't need fixed. But who wouldn't mind an upgrade?

 

Isn't that the theory over the past few decades? We need newer and better things?

[MonteZuma]

Okay, European nations border each other or have about 20 meters of sea travel between them.

A slight exaggeration?

 

Some of the busiest international border crossings in the world are along the 5,000 mile border between the US and Canada.

 

The point is that European businesses and persons have to do international trade on a daily basis.  That is not the case in most nations.  Only a select few large persons and some large US-based international corporations would benefit.

One quarter of all US exports and imports cross that border. The economy as a whole would benefit.

 

You still haven't pointed out though why we need it.  What's the problem with the current system?  Why should we turn our economy upside-down to accomodate a few travellers and a few large businesses?

Sharing your currency with Canada isn't turning your economy upside-down, and one quarter of all US exports and imports isn't just a few travellers and a few large businesses.

 

[edit : The Pros and Cons of North American Monetary Integration - for your reading pleasure. http://lowe.claremontmckenna.edu/pdf/WP02-02.pdf]

[Petrajs_Killer]

Money need not be backed by anything more than a promise. US currency is backed by nothing but a promise enshrined in law.

Wrong.

 

The US currency is backed by how well the economy is doing. Since there wasn't enough gold to back up the US dollar, it was switched over to how much the US economy can produce and such.

 

 

This is irrelevant. In fact there isn't enough gold in existance to back all of the currency in existance. The gold standard is outdated and irrelevant.

Somewhat wrong.

 

Gold is instead used to buy back your money from foreign countries, in a way.

[MonteZuma]

Money need not be backed by anything more than a promise. US currency is backed by nothing but a promise enshrined in law.

Wrong.

Alan Greenspan agrees with me. According to Alan Greenspan:

...at the base of the financial system, with the abandonment of gold convertibility in the 1930s, legal tender became backed--if that is the proper term--by the fiat of the state.

"Fiat" is Latin for "let it be done", and refers to an order, command, decision, or statute of an authoritative power. One of the most important laws is/was the Act of Congress Establishing the Treasury Department.

 

I think you are just being argumentative. We all know that currencies fluctuate based on economic performance and other incidental factors. That is because they don't have a solid backing by anything