FW: Re: Re: sinking Argentina

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

(By mistake, I didn't send the following to the list.)

It's useful to get beyond what a world money _should_ be like and talk about
what it is.

I agree with the implication of Marx's theory of money that unlike with the
use of a money such as gold that's naturally scarce (i.e., involves labor to
produce), the circulation of fiat money within a country must be "forced."
That is, governmental power is needed to preserve the value of paper money
(relative to its cost of production), so that its supply is limited and it
is acceptable in exchange. (States that fall apart due to civil wars, etc.,
typically suffer from hyperinflation, as the fiat money's value goes to
zero.)

That implies that a "world money" requires a world _state_. This in turn
implies that the hegemony of the dollar since World War II is based on the
US military, economic, and financial hegemony -- and that any future world
money will have to be based on some similar hegemony, perhaps of another
country.

-- Jim Devine

-----Original Message-----
From: Romain Kroes
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 1/8/02 2:55 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:21220] Re: Re: sinking Argentina

The way of establishing a world money should start with the following
principle:
Every country may pay its debt in any convertible currency, but its own.
This principle ensures that no balance of trade be permanently negative,
so
that rates of change may steadily fluctuate within a narrow bracket.
After
what a world currency, through a single symbol or through a basket,
becomes
a formality.
This principle not only aims at the dollar, but at the euro, too, as
this
currency gets the same position, in relation to the rest of the world,
as
the USA in relation to the EU. Like the USA with the dollar, every time
the
EU makes a settlement in euros, it pays a debt with its debt.
I'm afraid that in these conditions the problem is first the one of
imperialism. Not of two conflicting imperialisms, but of a single one,
hierarchically structured: the so-called "International Community". In
other
words, it is not merely a technical matter. The countries willing escape
the
spiral of crisis must resist "globalization", between bombing and IMF,
and
for the moment without the help of first-world opinion.
RK


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Burford" <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 1:04 AM
>Subject: [PEN-L:21210] Re: sinking Argentina


> At 07/01/02 13:13 +0100, Romain Kroes wrote:
>
>
> >It is now becoming understandable that the way to get out of the
spiral
is
> >the political decision to marginalize the dollar as
international-standard
> >currency, that is to move away from Washington's and IMF's
domination.
> >President Saa seemed to be ready to break the unstoppable chain. But
the
> >majority of Argentine politicians shrank from the difficulty.
>
>
> If the US dollar is likely to continue to rise while other currencies
will
> tend to fall, it would be slightly more rational for economies like
those
> of Argentina to be linked with the euro.
>
> Is there any possibility of a consensus emerging of a basket of
currencies
> including the euro, and perhaps the renminbi, that assumes the dollar
is
> likely to continue to rise for reasons of its unequal position in the
world.
>
> And could such a basket of currencies be an emergent form of  what
Marx
> called world money?
>
> Chris Burford
>
>
>
>