You are here
The Case for Regional Currencies
Regional Currencies are an integral part of comprehensive Monetary Reform. Areas like the United States and Euroland are far, far too big for one monopoly unit. Not only does it allow irresponsible and dangerous power centralization in the hands of those that control the currency, the Euro crisis shows another forgotten problem: regional imbalances.
For most in the United States the dollar seems an inevitability. But it was only in the aftermath of the Civil War that Lincoln’s Whig party got what they had been aiming for for decades: national currency. Up to then all sorts of currencies had circulated. First the various scrips of the colonies, later competing banking currencies. Then already the main aim of a ‘national’ currency was not wellbeing, but centralizing power in the hands of a few.
However, it relegated the more remote areas of the United States to eternal depression.
Regional imbalances - As we have seen with the euro crisis, in large currency areas regional imbalances are inevitable. Greece imports more from the North than it can export to its suppliers. As a result it has a negative balance of payments and loses euros to Germany, Holland and a few other countries. This means deflationary pressures (a dwindling money supply) that can only be solved either by going deeper and deeper into debt to maintain a healthy money supply, or structural redistribution from North to South through Brussels. The latter, of course, was the plan of the Eurocrats when they implemented the Euro. But while the Germans like importing Euros from Greece, it does not like giving them back. And who can blame them? They delivered goods and services for them.
This pattern is clearly recognizable in Europe through the Euro crisis and at the time it was predicted by a number of economists. But few realize this is always going on any national economy that is more than a city state.
For instance: the economy of the small nation of Holland is basically centered around the West, where Amsterdam is still at the heart of it all, complemented by a number of lesser cities. However, the North and South have forever known depressed economies, with difficulty getting full employment and structurally lower price levels. It is exactly the same issue: negative balance of payments with the core, in this case the West of Holland, net outflow of money (earlier Guilders, now Euros) and deflationary pressures as a result.
In every economy, even in a mature currency area like that of the United States, every region still generates most of its production through trade with regional partners. Yes, under the pressures of globalization and the ongoing onslaught of Transnationals against local economies, less and less is regional trade, but it still is quite substantial. There is basically no reason why this trade should not be financed with regional currencies. It basically is completely unnecessary and actually insane to allow these economies to wither away just because they cannot cope with (inter)national competition and as a result have too little money circulate locally to finance its regional economy.
The same is going on in the US where regions like Arkansas and rural States are under-developed and often actually quite poor.
Economists and bankers will explain ‘structural adjustments’ are necessary: people must give up natural rights to accomodate international corporations so that they can compete with core areas. Labor markets must become ‘flexible’, meaning lower wages, fewer worker rights. Of course, in the minds of these people, regions exists to provide optimal return on investment for capital.
But the simple truth is that economies only exist to provide the people with what they need for a decent life.
Centralization of Power - The Civil War delivered a death blow to State Rights and local independence and paved the way for the American Empire. National Currency, created and controlled by Washington, instead of by the States, was instrumental in this. As we know today, the Federal Government is corporation, owned by its shareholders in London and has very little to do with the American People.
The same thing is now going on in Europe. With typical banker logic the debtor nations, to be save, must first be destroyed. They must give up control over their budgets and all fade away in the grandiose idea of Europe. Otherwise they will marginalized by the USA and China. We must all compete, of course, or go down. It has nothing to do with what the people really need. Nobody is interested, except some Eurocrats and other megalomaniacs.
The trend is clear: the Euro was a major step forward to World Currency. Where the US could still be plausibly, though not factually, be presented as one Nation, in Europe this is impossible. Power is being centralized at ever higher levels, in ever fewer hands.
Regional Currencies - Regional currencies come in many guises, with many different monetary architectures, but by their very nature they only circulate in a regional area and are controlled by people actually living in the region.
So they both decentralize power and end regional imbalance. Local trade can always be financed, there is no dependence on (supra)national scarce currency.
If something goes wrong, through either mismanagement or abuse, the controllers will have to answer to their neighbors, instead of hide behind a police state.
This is not to say governments or even international bodies cannot create their own units. In fact, monetary stability is closely linked with the presence of different units: if one fails (usually because of corruption) than the others continue. Why should the economy be destroyed if the money men mess up? It just makes no sense.
Besides Regional Currencies there is also much scope for international cybercurrencies. Bitcoin is an example, although still rather primitive from a monetary perspective.
What would happen if Facebook created its own unit? I think everybody can answer this question for himself. The only reason it has not happened is because Facebook is part and parcel of the control grid.
Conclusion - The monopoly on currency must go. Why offer dozens of brands of crisps at a supermarket and call that ‘consumer choice’, while insisting on one size fits all currency controlled by those proven guilty?
The good news is that there is no legal monopoly. There are only legal tender laws. These give Fed Notes and the Euro its power, but it is not a monopoly. And well managed private party currencies of all sorts have managed to find a place under the sun.
We don’t have to wait for either the banks or the government to clean up their act. They never will.
Comprehensive monetary reform requires local and regional units, to combat imbalances associated with too big currency regions, while ending excessive power centralization.
Dedicated people can create fully viable currencies chipping away at the Money Power’s domination and interest slavery.
Related:
Take your Money out of the Bank NOW! (Video)
Bitcoin, Impressive, but Flawed
Regional Currencies in Germany: the Chiemgauer
The Swiss WIR, or: How to Defeat the Money Power
The Money Manipulators (.pdf)
The Money Myth Exploded (a parable)
Let's Play: a process of discovery where players can quickly see the key concepts and understand how they apply in today's economy. It's NOT a game about winning or losing, indeed it's not a competition at all - it's a walk-through the elementary ideas of cc and a rudimentary simulation of one version of an imminent reality
All you do is buy and sell items from a list provided and see what the money does.
As the money comes and goes, the game shows you:
- how conventional and community money are different
- what comes from that difference
- the value of using both forms of money
- how to use community money systems without risk.
- Fester's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Re: The Case for Regional Currencies
It’s all part of the plan by bankers, politicians, and the One Percent. Withdraw money from the economy, in order to sustain the depression, so that the One Percent may rule as gods.
Yes, but even that is not enough. Nor is publicly controlled banks. The masses must learn the simple fact that for monetarily sovereign nations like the USA, national finances are not the same as personal finances. Unlike individuals, or US states, or corporations, or eurozone nations, the US government has no debt or deficit (as I have explained in previous posts). It does not need or use income (i.e. federal tax revenue) since it can create any amount of money needed for any purpose. The money available for social programs is potentially infinite, being limited only by the possibility of inflation. The only reason that bankers, politicians, and the One Percent want to cut money for social programs is that the thieves want to increase their power.
This is important, because even with regional currencies, and even with publicly controlled banks, we will have the same lies and corruption, unless the masses finally understand the simplest things about money. For example, the US government has a printing press, while individuals, corporations, and all lower levels of government do not. This simple fact is easily understood by children, but is beyond the grasp of most adults.
The essence of monetary reform is to overcome the brainwashing. The banking power is the greatest power in the world, and simultaneously the most dependent upon lies, illusion, and brainwashing.
Re: The Case for Regional Currencies
Here is an example of the brainwashing.
Bernie Sanders, the Jewish senator from Vermont, claims that he wants to save Social Security from people like Romney and Ryan. However, Sanders’ method of “saving” it is precisely what kills it. It lets politicians get away with lying about Social Security, and cutting it.
Bernie Sanders says,
Sounds reasonable, yes? Except that a U.S budget surplus is a what leads to depressions, and the US deficit does not exist, and never has.
Remember that the US government creates money. Government spending (and bank lending) is what gets money and credit into the economy. Federal taxation is what takes money out of the economy. (Tax revenue is destroyed upon receipt. It vanishes on the government’s computerized balance sheet.)
With a government “surplus,” the government takes more money out of the economy than the government puts into it. This reduction of the money supply leads to a depression. A “a healthy $236 billion SURPLUS” means the government taxed $236 billion more out of the economy than the government put into the economy.
However the USA did not go into a depression right away, because Bush spent trillions on his wars, and because Wall Street created its housing bubble. The depression happened later when the bubble popped, at which point banks stopped lending.
As for the “national debt” and the “budget deficit,” these quite simply do not exist, and never have, for reasons I have explained several times in past posts. (I will do so again if anyone challenges me.)
Also, Sanders refers to W. Bush’s “deficit hawks,” even though Dick Cheney rightly told Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill that “deficits don’t matter.” After that, Paul O’Neill issued a “report” saying that Cheney and Bush were destroying the economy. Therefore O’Neill was fired.
Bernie Sanders is an Obama. He seems to support the masses, but he actually supports the elitists and their lies.
Sanders continues with his lies:
Excuse me, but how can a reduction in taxes “cost” the government? The government has a printing press. It can create as much money as it likes, and therefore does not run on tax revenue. Sanders supports the BIG LIE that U.S. government finances are the same as an individual person’s finances.
Moreover, tax breaks do not add to our national debt, since the USA has no national debt. The USA has national investment. Notice how Sanders says that tax breaks for the rich add to the debt and deficit. This is designed to make you angry, so that you overlook the BIG LIE. The truth is that there should be no federal taxes at all, for rich or poor. The federal government does not need or use tax revenue.
Some WUFYS readers may think that what I say sounds strange, but it also sounds strange to question the Jewish holo-hoax.
I cannot speak of these matters on “progressive” web sites, since they will ban me from commenting. “Liberals” and “progressives” want to self-righteously whine that tax cuts for the rich are killing us. If I point out the truth, then I throw water onto their whining. Hence they self-righteously ban me.