I was looking at it from a cultural perspective: ie one day the world will be so globalized and everyone will be so connected, politically homogeneous, and open that a common world currency would foster and safeguard unity. Pie in the sky stuff, man.Originally Posted by RandBlade
You do realize that the trend of globalization is against homogeneity, right? Particularly in economics.
Hope is the denial of reality
Because perhaps by then the Chinese will have invented the perfect system of government. Christ man, I'm thinking hypothetically hundreds of years in the future. Who knows what the world will look like then? Shit, I know I'm not making a strong argument here, I'm just hypothesizing about a vision of the future.
Can you please elaborate on this?
Globalization rewards efficiency and punishes inefficiency. If a country has a comparative advantage in something the market values, it achieves rapid economic growth. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. The numerous countries that have attempted to resist globalization have also suffered miserable economic fortunes. Even within countries, some groups benefit from increased exposure to global markets, while others are harmed (think African agricultural producers or Western textile workers). While on average, prosperity has gone up, so has the disparity in income, both between and within societies. Forcing the same economic cycle to all these groups is simply a recipe for a disaster.
On a cultural level, for every group that embraces globalization, there are numerous groups that attempt to return to a "purer" time in order to battle it. This occurs everywhere from Africa and the Middle East to North America and Western Europe. Just because globalization meant that much of the world is exposed to some of the same events/technology/ideas, doesn't mean there's any trend toward adopting these new global norms at the local level.
Hope is the denial of reality
If they've done that, we can vote for it locally. Even hypothetically, I can't envisage any way it'd be a good thing. Everything ruled by one person/cabal with no outside pressure? Sounds like a nightmare.
When you said the trend of global economics is against homogeneity I thought you were talking about a split between economics systems, not between production and specialization. So yeah, what you've said makes sense. Thanks.
It seems that the groups which battle globalization ultimately fall behind. It could be that I'm thinking about this a bit too archaically or using poor examples (eg. dictatorships and undeveloped nations instead of industrialized, successful economies like Finland and Norway), but pooling resources and ideas and sharing responsibility for supernational consensus governing will lead us in the right direction. Slowly, perhaps, and with some "bumps" along the way, but at the same time peacefully and cooperatively (that is, if everyone buys in).On a cultural level, for every group that embraces globalization, there are numerous groups that attempt to return to a "purer" time in order to battle it. This occurs everywhere from Africa and the Middle East to North America and Western Europe. Just because globalization meant that much of the world is exposed to some of the same events/technology/ideas, doesn't mean there's any trend toward adopting these new global norms at the local level.
It may be too soon to tell but we can't say with certainty that local populations won't adopt global norms and ideas. Look what happened with the creation of nation-states, for instance. The paradigms and ideals that a people value come from the top. For example, at the time of the consolidation of France, only 25% of the population actually spoke "French." No one was from "France," they were from Burgundy or Brittany or Paris, and while these ethnic micro-identities still remain somewhat today, if you asked a Frenchman where they live they will answer "France." It's the similar story with Italy; 2% spoke everyday Italian at the time of unification, and we all know the region's history, but we can understand the more homogenized cultural/ethnic identity they share today, despite the North vs. South vs. Sicily rivalry (admittedly, Sicilians will probably say they're from Sicily if you bother to ask). The idea of a nation-state's shared cultural and linguistic heritage is as much bs justification by its proponents as it is truth, and yet we have bought into it. Many of us agree that English is becoming the global language, and if that does indeed happen it isn't very far-fetched to say that one day people will refer to themselves as "European" or "Asian" or even "Eurasian" rather than Belgian or Japanese.
There are a lot of ways I could go with this, but honestly I feel like debating my idealistic hypothetical is a waste of time.
Also, I would contend the profitability of switching currencies goes down as near 0 transaction costs lets in all players, in that sense it makes more than one currency less useful. Essentially becoming a waste of time (which everone has to spend) switching between them. The real pro of multiple currencies is ultimately you don't have to rely on one single institution to get it right on how to manage the currency. I think all the other pros of multiple currencies will get washed away once a single government and economy is formed.Lebby has it backwards. As transaction costs go towards zero then the advantages for a universal currency decrease not increase.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote