Olympus Mons said:

well you guys doomed this to the recesses of the conspiracy forum

---

DosileFlynn said:

my only question is what the hell does the vatican have to do with anything economics related. are they trying to grab at some popularity from new age people? who knows.

---

NanoAugmented said:

Oh that's right, the Vatican is evil incarnate so that won't happen. Google 'Vatican money laundering'

---

DosileFlynn said:

i think they are making the right call. its clear as day that an international financial framework needs to be created, for a number of reasons.

my only question is what the hell does the vatican have to do with anything economics related. are they trying to grab at some popularity from new age people? who knows.

its just that last time i checked, economics and religion were fairly distinct spheres of influence.

---

sunset_mission said:

NanoAugmented said:

Oh that's right, the Vatican is evil incarnate so that won't happen. Google 'Vatican money laundering'

---

One can also simply google "Vatican Svali" for a rather interesting correspondence regarding their alleged 'evil', but that's a whoooole 'nother story...

---

sunset_mission said:

DosileFlynn said:

i think they are making the right call. its clear as day that an international financial framework needs to be created, for a number of reasons.

my only question is what the hell does the vatican have to do with anything economics related. are they trying to grab at some popularity from new age people? who knows.

its just that last time i checked, economics and religion were fairly distinct spheres of influence.

---

How would this international financial framework be set up and function? Would every currency in the world need to be liquidated/destroyed and a completely new currency emerge? What would back its value?

---

well, the currency issue is again a seperate and distinct issue. i don't think they will bing together all world currencies and make a one world currency, although there would be benefits and drawbacks for doing so i think. if they were to establish a one world currency i'm guessing they would peg its currency to the value of antoher, similar to how the saudi dollar is pegged to the american dollar. but there would be practical issues involved in that and it may upset the balance of values if they aggregate all currencies to the same value. i.e. valuable currencies get devalued, useless currencies like zimbabwes get over valued.



essentially i think they would just set up an international tier of legislation. at current we have state, and federal law. but no international uniformity provided. which creates alot of logistical problems. so i think it would be beneficial to set up ontop of each countries state and federal laws, broad international rules and standards that are binding. at current we have plenty of international standards and covenants like the BASIL accord and many other similar organisations, but these are just guidelines.


and also the creation of a one world bank, similar to the IMF, or something. that can monitor and co-ordinate the world economy. because alot of these financial crises are severely deepened by the fact that a strong and timely response is not presented around the world. when crises like these occur, there needs to be FAST and DECISIVE action on a global scale. otherwise it turns into a global clusterfuck, and all the world economies are intertwined like a game of dominoes. so once one collapses, it puts alot of strain on the other countries that it has strong financial linkages to, then they collapse, so on so forth.


theres alot of practical issues involved with the implementation and functioning of such a system, but i think it has plenty of merit. being able to co-ordinate and present a unified response to these issues will make a tonne of difference. similar benefits in regulation of interest rates world wide - however that is a questionable one. and also just the benefit of having the same standards being applied around the world, more or less.


i don't mean that they completely take control of the world economy 100% , but rather they set the basic framework, standards and co-ordinate, then countries and states are free to fill in the gaps as they please. and ofcourse the international authority needs to be seeded by the countries that wish to participate.


we live in interesting times indeed. these are some big changes they are thinking of bringing through. great changes in my opinion

DosileFlynn said:

well, the currency issue is again a seperate and distinct issue. i don't think they will bing together all world currencies and make a one world currency, although there would be benefits and drawbacks for doing so i think. if they were to establish a one world currency i'm guessing they would peg its currency to the value of antoher, similar to how the saudi dollar is pegged to the american dollar. but there would be practical issues involved in that and it may upset the balance of values if they aggregate all currencies to the same value. i.e. valuable currencies get devalued, useless currencies like zimbabwes get over valued.

---

Quote:

essentially i think they would just set up an international tier of legislation. at current we have state, and federal law. but no international uniformity provided. which creates alot of logistical problems. so i think it would be beneficial to set up ontop of each countries state and federal laws, broad international rules and standards that are binding. at current we have plenty of international standards and covenants like the BASIL accord and many other similar organisations, but these are just guidelines.

---

Quote:

and also the creation of a one world bank, similar to the IMF, or something. that can monitor and co-ordinate the world economy. because alot of these financial crises are severely deepened by the fact that a strong and timely response is not presented around the world. when crises like these occur, there needs to be FAST and DECISIVE action on a global scale. otherwise it turns into a global clusterfuck, and all the world economies are intertwined like a game of dominoes. so once one collapses, it puts alot of strain on the other countries that it has strong financial linkages to, then they collapse, so on so forth.

---

Quote:

theres alot of practical issues involved with the implementation and functioning of such a system, but i think it has plenty of merit. being able to co-ordinate and present a unified response to these issues will make a tonne of difference. similar benefits in regulation of interest rates world wide - however that is a questionable one. and also just the benefit of having the same standards being applied around the world, more or less.


i don't mean that they completely take control of the world economy 100% , but rather they set the basic framework, standards and co-ordinate, then countries and states are free to fill in the gaps as they please. and ofcourse the international authority needs to be seeded by the countries that wish to participate.


we live in interesting times indeed. these are some big changes they are thinking of bringing through. great changes in my opinion

---

Quote:

I'm pretty sure the most basic laws/regulations that need to exist already do in most regions of the world, so adding another set of rules that would be international would either end up being redundant or it will just call for unnecessary regulations and tightening down

---

Quote:

What crises do you postulate would have been better solved with this increased reaction time brought on by a one world bank? Would't there also be a chance that we will be predisposed to even worse risks considering the extremity of it? There will be only one institution governing EVERYTHING. It would abolish financial issues between nations sure, but at the same time it would need to maintain itself very proficiently.

---

the initial 2008 GFC and its recent 2nd round backlash. when it comes to global crises, countries generally have two main levers they can manipulate to dampen the crises, these being monetary policy (interest rates) and fiscal policy (spending money). alot of these have large time lags assosciated with them. so that they don't have instant effect. this means that the timing with which they are implemented is crucial! in the 2008 GFC, countries like Australia and China, used a combination of decisive monetary and fiscal action to stifle the crisis as much as possible. the australian government literally gave out ~$1000 to the people, and said ' go and spend '.

the benefit i think is that, when a big crisis like this happen, world interest rates could be regulated instantly to an optimum level. the world market could be made aware instantly and present a uniform plan of attack to the crisis areas where it is most needed. further fiscal measures and spending could be also targeted to where they are most needed.

the world bank really would need to be set up and controlled adequately i agree, because there is alot of potential for abuse of process.