One world currency

[bobbylien]

I've been thinking for some time now that it would be wise to adopt one currency throughout the world. What do you think?

[Buck Laser]

I've been thinking for some time now that it would be wise to adopt one currency throughout the world. What do you think?


Well, I can imagine all the libertarians' heads exploding at the thought, so it ought to be at least worth considering!:D

But seriously, people here get so worked up about the UN that proposing a single world currency would be problematic at best. On the other hand, I like the way you look for fresh approaches to world problems. I'd like to see a worldwide approach to regulating trade. (And if this hijacks your thread, I apologize.)

[BoogyMan]

What would a world-wide currency garner the U.S. Bobby. I am struggling to see the need or the reason.

[potter]

I think a one world currency would lead to a one world government. Do we really want to go there?

[Stoner]

I've been thinking for some time now that it would be wise to adopt one currency throughout the world. What do you think?


Very well. I nominate poon as the new standard in currency.

[bobbylien]

I think a one world currency would lead to a one world government. Do we really want to go there?

I don't think the currency should be controlled by the UN or any other major organization but a private company. It would promote international trade. I have outsourced a few jobs and dealing with different forms of currency is a pain, its one of the reasons I don't find more cheap Indian labor. I want governments out of the picture and I want currency to actually be backed up by something. I'm not a big fan of inflation. :D A single world currency might be reaching a bit too far for right now, but we are already seeing many regions heading towards a unified currency.

[speedracer]

A single world currency might be reaching a bit too far for right now, but we are already seeing many regions heading towards a unified currency.

But we're also seeing the negative effects of a large region based on a single currency. Since the ability to react to localized financial situations (be them good or bad) has been literally taken away, areas are suffering as a result. And in reality a localized economic crash isn't good for a currency, even if fiscal policy intended to prevent it in the first place.

I'm thing the Euro and Italy situation. Italy has even talked about jumping ship and going back to the lira.

Also, you have the fiscal policy violators that now directly affect the fiscal health and viability of its neighbors through poor policy. Germany, France, hell, all of em are screwing each other over because they don't have to shoulder all the burden of their own bad decisions.

No thanks. I'll keep my localized currency.

[firefox]

Back in the day, there was a world currency of sorts- gold. However, to maximize the product's utility, we need free and open competition. No more of this centralized, fractional reserve fraud. To prevent abuse, we need to achieve monetary independence from the state. After all, we disapprove of monopolies in other areas of the economy, so why here? Money is just a commodity like so many other things...

This is why I support private alternative currencies, like the Liberty Dollar. If a form of money is good, people will voluntarily want to use it over the alternatives. If it sucks, people will choose something else that suits their needs. Freedom to choose is key.

[Alonzo]

And when my 500,000 in balooga dollars tanks, and turns into essentially 50, while the new major curreny is billy goat bucks, I'm going to kill the person who decided to open the currency market to competing producers. And it won't just be a normal bullet to the head, I'm going to tie them up and encircle them with my worthless money and burn them alive.

Seriously, if you want to kill internatioanl, or even interstate, trade, that's what you need to do. It would be worse than it was when states printed their own currency.

[firefox]

How do you figure? All national governments are continually inflating. It's just a matter of how much buying power per year they steal from their citizens.

[speedracer]

How do you figure? All national governments are continually inflating. It's just a matter of how much buying power per year they steal from their citizens.

Just for context, you believe that private, market based currencies would not suffer the same fate?

As it is, it seems quite easy to me to sidestep a currency you believe is poorly managed.

[potter]

I think a one world currency would lead to a one world government. Do we really want to go there?

I don't think the currency should be controlled by the UN or any other major organization but a private company. It would promote international trade. I have outsourced a few jobs and dealing with different forms of currency is a pain, its one of the reasons I don't find more cheap Indian labor. I want governments out of the picture and I want currency to actually be backed up by something. I'm not a big fan of inflation. :D A single world currency might be reaching a bit too far for right now, but we are already seeing many regions heading towards a unified currency.




Your point is taken, however what corporation would be able to back the currency of the entire world....without owning the entire world?

[firefox]

They wouldn't. We would have many competing currencies. That's the whole point here ;). If you don't like one, you can reasonably switch to an alternative. In a free market, those providers who screw over their clients through inflation or other forms of fraud will be forced to change their ways or go bankrupt.

[speedracer]

They wouldn't. We would have many competing currencies. That's the whole point here ;). If you don't like one, you can reasonably switch to an alternative.

We can't do that now? Right now I have about $3k in Japanese Yen and South Korean Won and hell, I'm a poor college student.

In a free market, those providers who screw over their clients through inflation or other forms of fraud will be forced to change their ways or go bankrupt.

I don't follow how that's not possible now. A simple currency exchange can take care of that.

[J316]

What would a world-wide currency garner the U.S. Bobby. I am struggling to see the need or the reason.


I agree. there is no point in having a one world currency, because it will be just like the UN in my view. BIG waste of Americas money.

[potter]

They wouldn't. We would have many competing currencies. That's the whole point here ;). If you don't like one, you can reasonably switch to an alternative. In a free market, those providers who screw over their clients through inflation or other forms of fraud will be forced to change their ways or go bankrupt.


It would seem that that scenario would be a nightmare. That would be like every business in the US having to accept every currency in the world. You would have some currencies worth more than others, some less, so you would have to price everything you sell at many different levels...and tracking all those currencies would be a nightmare.

[firefox]

speedracer, your points are correct, with some important qualifications. It is possible to exchange currencies, and hold various financial assets in them. However, the game is severely rigged:

1. Exchange rates are influenced by treaty and manipulated by the activities of state affiliated central banks.
2. You cannot trade on the prime market unless you are with a central bank, foreign government, or huge financial institution like Goldman Sachs.
3. By international convention and practical reality, ALL government currencies are loosing value over time- it's only a question of how fast one falls in relation to the rest.

The moral of the story is that you should have a well balanced portfolio (http://libertarianactivism.com/writings/free-market-investing-tips.shtml) that contains multiple forms of wealth, not just cash, stocks, and bonds. Doing so minimizes risk while providing a good return. Remember: Buy Low/Sell High! ;)

[Professor]

I don't think it's necessary. It's the worth of the money that matters. How does a pound to a euro to a dollar to a yen compare? Even if we unified currency the new world $1 would still be worth different amount in all the countries of the world. The reality wouldn't change, just the bills.

I am opposed to it because I like the different bills. I have an old coin collection and I also get forgein coins. They are cool to look at. It would be sad if we all got one coin/bill, so much individualism would be lost.

[firefox]

The #1 issue with currency is not its particular value at any given time. Rather, it is large CHANGES in the monetary unit's value (nearly always inflation in today's world) that cause huge problems in the economy.

[speedracer]

The #1 issue with currency is not its particular value at any given time. Rather, it is large CHANGES in the monetary unit's value (nearly always inflation in today's world) that cause huge problems in the economy.


And what about factors outside the central bank's power, like closer trade integration? How would privatized money handle "non-monetary phenomena" and its effects on inflation?

Specifically, I'm looking for how private money would answer the questions brought forth in this article (sorry to blow up the thread, but it's a subscription only read so I have to cut-paste it):

Anatomy of a hump

Mar 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition
What caused the Great Inflation? And what might bring it back?

IF YOU were to draw the path of inflation in the typical big, rich economy over the past half century, your picture would look much like a dromedary's back: a low flat line in the 1960s; a knobbly hump of high and volatile price rises in the 1970s; dramatic disinflation in the 1980s; and low, stable inflation rates since. Japan and Germany, which were quicker to quell inflation, are well-known exceptions. But for the rest, the shape and timing of the Great Inflation bulge look remarkably similar.

This is a bulge that today's central bankers are anxious not to repeat. So it is no surprise that several governors from America's Federal Reserve are attending a conference on March 9th to discuss a new report* on the Great Inflation, written by a weighty group of macroeconomists from academia and Wall Street.

Most scholars agree on a basic explanation of the hump, placing both blame and credit squarely on central bankers. Consumer prices accelerated in the late 1960s because monetary policy was too loose. German and Japanese central bankers realised this earlier than others and tightened policy accordingly. Eventually others followed suit, and general disinflation began in the early 1980s. Since then inflation has stayed under control because central bankers are credibly committed to price stability and far better at their job.

Beyond that broad tale lie several debates about important details. Economists differ on how much non-monetary phenomena, such as closer trade integration, affect the inflation process. They also offer competing explanations for why central bankers botched things so badly a generation ago. One possibility is that they simply got the numbers wrong, consistently overestimating their economies' speed limits. Others blame theoretical misjudgments, particularly the belief that higher inflation could buy a lasting drop in unemployment. A third approach emphasises political pressure. Inflation got out of hand because central banks were under the thumb of politicians who preferred rising prices to higher joblessness.

In this latest report the authors subject such controversies to painstaking cross-country forensics. They show that price stability across the G7 countries has been far more closely correlated than economic stability. Almost everywhere, inflation took off between 1969 and 1970. And every country, except Germany and Japan, failed to tame it until the mid-1980s. Output, however, was less tightly synchronised. Although recessions in many countries have become less wrenching in recent decades, output volatility began to ease in the mid-1980s in America, but not until the early 1990s in Britain, Canada and France.

What to make of these differences? The Great Inflation, because it was felt simultaneously across countries, must have had a common cause. This cannot have been the 1970s oil shocks, because consumer prices started accelerating long before the price of crude did. Easy money is the only remaining suspect. And although the Great Disinflation was also simultaneous across many countries, GDP growth settled down at very different times. This implies that better monetary policy cannot take full credit for today's less painful recessions.

The statistical magnifying glass also casts doubt on some favourite alibis for monetary misrule. Bad data, for example, do not get central bankers off the hook: revisions to statistics on trend growth and unemployment were not big enough to excuse the scale of inflation. Instead, monetary policy was simply too loose. The authors show that the central bankers of the 1970s failed to adhere to the modern “Taylor rule”, a formula that links the appropriate level of short-term interest rates to the deviation of output from its trend and inflation from its target. Of course John Taylor, a Stanford economist, did not formalise his rule until 1993. But even without this guide, central banks should not have flunked the basic tenets of sound money.
Hawks v camels

Neither the Taylor rule, inflation targets nor any other bits of the modern central bankers' toolkit were necessary to end high inflation. But the scholars think these tools have helped to keep inflation down, which, in turn, has spawned a virtuous circle. When inflation is low and stable, a temporary uptick in consumer prices has far less impact on long-term price trends. The economists' model implies that less than 1% of a temporary price surge is translated into a permanent rise in inflation today, compared with 60% three decades ago.

That may give today's policymakers more leeway than their predecessors enjoyed. But since this wiggle-room is the legacy of low inflation volatility, it cannot be taken for granted. Were central bankers to lose their guard, inflation could soon resurge.

More worrying, the economists pour cold water on many a policymaker's favourite gauge of his own performance, namely the public's expectations of future inflation. Central bankers often cite low inflation expectations as evidence that monetary policy is appropriate. That may be a mistake. This paper argues that expectations were a good guide to future price pressure only when inflation was high. But now, if anything, inflation expectations are a backward-looking indicator, lagging measures of actual inflation.

All told, this statistical sleuthing suggests today's central bankers have little room for complacency. Inflation remains low and stable because policymakers are vigilant, not because any deep, structural changes insulate the modern economy from price pressure. If central bankers relax, higher, more volatile inflation could easily return. Rudyard Kipling's camel, remember, got its hump for being “most 'scrutiatingly idle”.

[firefox]

Very good article there, speedracer. Based on this, it would seem that the bloated and top-heavy the money supply gets, the more volatile and unstable it becomes. I searched the Mises Institute web site for "inflation", and came up with the following piece, amongst others (this seemed to be the least boring and most informative):

URL: http://www.mises.org/efandi/ch18.asp


Ludwig von Mises

Reprinted from Mercury, July 1942.

18
Inflation and You

There has been so much learned talk about the threats and dire consequences of inflation that plain folks begin to be suspicious. Did not the economists of the 1920s, except for a few outsiders whom the others scorned as orthodox doctrinarians, forecast everlasting prosperity? What if their present fears are no better founded than their optimism fifteen years ago? The layman, therefore, has the right to ask the specialist to explain the matter and to do so in simple terms. We economists should not be exempt indefinitely from the obligation, which is accepted by doctors, engineers, and other scientists, of making ourselves understood by the layman. The obligation is clear-cut in the matter of inflation, an economic problem which is as close to every American as his own skin.

Everybody knows that inflation consists of a large increase in the available quantity of money and money substitutes such as bank credits. In a country like the United States, which transacts so much of its business by checks and through bank credits, the main vehicle of inflation is not so much the printing of additional paper money as the increase of deposit currency. Everybody also knows that a general rise of prices and wages is the unavoidable and inescapable result of inflation. And finally, most people realize that when inflation is going on price control is a quite ineffective method of controlling prices and wages; at best, it is a temporary expedient to break or postpone the force of inflationary effects.

There is widespread ignorance, however, concerning the social implications of inflation. How will it affect you personally, if you are a professional man, a worker, a farmer? What will it do to your possessions, your debts, your insurance policies?

Social and Economic Effects of Inflation

The first fact that needs to be noted in answering such questions is that inflation is detrimental to all creditors. The higher prices rise, the lower will fall the purchasing power of the principal and interest payments due. The dollar which was loaned out had a higher purchasing ability, could provide more goods, than the dollar which is paid back.

And who is a creditor? Does inflation touch only businessmen and financiers? Nothing of the sort. You who read these lines are certainly a creditor. Every person who has a legal claim to deferred payments of any kind is a creditor. If you have a savings account with a bank, if you own bonds, if you are entitled to a pension, if you have paid for an insurance policy, you are a creditor, and are, hence, directly hit by inflation.

Professional men, civil servants, commissioned officers of the armed forces, teachers, most white-collar workers, salaried employees, skilled specialists, mechanics, and engineers normally provide for their own old age and for their dependents in ways that make them creditors, that is through savings, insurance, pensions, and annuities. Moreover, Social Security has brought the great masses of ordinary workers into the ranks of creditors. For all these millions of people, every further step towards inflation means a further decline in the real value of the claims or credits they have saved up by years of toil and sacrifice. They will collect the number of dollars to which they are entitled—but each of those dollars will be thinner than it used to be, capable of providing less food, clothing, and shelter.

The loss of the creditor, of course, is the profit of the debtor. The man who borrowed a thousand or a million full-sized dollars repays his lender with a thousand or a million depreciated dollars. The mortgages on farms and on real estate, the debts owed by industrial enterprises, all shrink as inflation proceeds. Thus, a comparatively small group of debtors is favored at the expense of the teeming groups of creditors.

The most fateful results of inflation derive from the fact that the rise of prices and wages which it causes occurs at different times and in a different measure for various kinds of commodities and labor. Some classes of prices and wages rise more quickly and rise higher than others. Not merely inflation itself, but its unevenness, works havoc.

While inflation is under way, some people enjoy the benefit of higher prices for the goods or services they sell, while the prices for goods and services they buy have not yet risen or have not risen to the same extent. These people profit from their fortunate position. Inflation seems to them "good business," a "boom." But their gains are always derived from the losses of other sections of the population. The losers are those in the unhappy situation of selling services or commodities whose prices have not yet risen to the same degree as have prices of the things they buy for daily consumption.

These victims, by and large, are the same kind of people—roughly, the middle classes—who are injured as creditors through the depreciation of their bank savings, insurance policies, pensions, etc. The salaries of teachers and ministers, the fees of doctors, go up only slowly as compared to the tempo with which prices of food, rent, clothing, and so on, go up. There is always a considerable time lag between the increase in the money income of the white-collar workers and professional people and the increase in costs of food, clothing, and other necessities.

Hedging Against Inflation

Has the average man any means of evading the detrimental effects of inflation?

Those insured, or entitled to pensions or social security benefits, cannot avoid being victimized. And the picture is not much brighter for other groups of creditors. Of course, the bondholder may sell his bonds and the bank depositor may withdraw his balance. But if they keep the money, they are no less subject to the harmful effects of the fall in the money's purchasing power. In other words, the dollar continues to evaporate whether it is resting in a bank, a bond, or a strongbox at home.

For the Europeans, struck by the great inflations of World War I and its aftermath, there was a simple means of escape. They needed only to change their local currencies for the money of a country with a sound currency. They bought dollars or they bought gold. It might have been illegal, but it worked. For Americans, no such remedy is available. If the dollar goes bad, no foreign currency can conceivably prove better. At the same time, the U.S. government has closed the avenue of escape by forbidding its citizens to own gold coins or ingots.[1]

You may buy a farm. But that is a remedy only if you become a farmer and till the soil with your own hands. Otherwise, it is a remedy not for yourself but for the tenant who works the farm. It may reasonably be expected that, in the course of inflation, new laws will safeguard tenants—whether on farms or in residences—against rises in rent.[2] In European inflations, rents were always restricted by legislation.

You may buy a home for yourself and your family. But in a period of inflation, economic conditions change swiftly and in unexpected ways. You cannot foresee whether it will be necessary suddenly to change your place of residence and employment. Then you will have to sell the house—renting it is almost useless—and experience proves that such forced sales rarely bring the amounts laid out for acquiring the property.

You may buy common stock. But the experts are convinced that taxation will confiscate not only the profits but a good deal of the capital invested, too. While the prices of all commodities are rising, stock market quotations may still cling more or less to pre-inflation levels. This means that in owning common stock you are not much better protected than in owning bonds.

You may buy jewelry and other valuables. But you cannot always expect to sell these at a later date for what you paid for them. Nobody knows in advance how the market conditions for any given valuable will develop. Diamonds and rubies, for instance, may hold much of their value. But what if the owners of the largest hoards of precious stones should unload them because of changing political or social conditions?

Neither is it possible to escape the detrimental effects of the time lag between the rise of different prices and wages. Trade union policies are futile in this connection. As long as the war (World War II) is going on, labor may succeed in obtaining, at least for some groups, wages which correspond to the rise of commodity prices. But sooner or later if industry does not keep pace, they will face the choice between a sharp decline in wages and the maintenance of high wage levels with long-lasting unemployment for millions. In the long run, inflation hurts the interests of all groups of labor, as well as those of the middle classes.

There is only one class which, as a whole, derives profit from inflation: the indebted farmers. Their mortgages are wiped out and the products of their own toil bring higher returns corresponding to the higher prices they must pay for things they purchase.

The owners of really large fortunes, too, may succeed in preserving a greater or smaller portion of their wealth, but inflation results in the consumption of a good deal of a nation's capital stock.

Even if some special groups profit, the whole country is poorer.

Moral and Political Effects of Inflation

Worse than the immediate economic consequences of inflation are its attendant moral and political dangers.

It has been asserted that Nazism is the fruit of the vast German inflation of 1923. That is not quite correct. It would be more correct to say that the great inflation and the Nazi scourge both derived from the mentalities and the doctrines that long dominated German public opinion. The State, which the German socialist Ferdinand Lassalle had already proclaimed as god, was supposed to be able to achieve anything. The omnipotent State was credited with the magic power of unlimited spending without any burden on the citizenry. Money, said the German "monetary cranks," is a creature of the State; there is no harm in issuing infinite quantities of paper currency.

Fortunately, such superstitions are strange to the healthy common sense of America. Inflation, therefore, will never go as far in this country as it did in Germany. Even a much more moderate inflation, however, shakes the foundations of a country's social structure. The millions who see themselves deprived of security and well-being become desperate. The realization that they have lost all or most all of what they had set aside for a rainy day radicalizes their entire outlook. They tend to fall easy prey to adventurers aiming at dictatorship, and to charlatans offering patent-medicine solutions. The sight of some people profiteering while the rest suffer infuriates them. The effect of such an experience is especially strong among the youth. They learn to live in the present and scorn those who try to teach them "old-fashioned" morality and thrift.

Inflation and Government Borrowing

The writer, having witnessed the course of inflations in one European nation after another, believes that it is not too late to stop further inflation in the United States by bold and painful measures. Inflation is not an act of God. It is a result of the methods used to provide a part of the means for the conduct of the war. One set of methods can still be replaced by another, less harmful set. It is still possible to keep down the amount of money and money substitutes by financing the total amount necessary through taxation and loans.

People sometimes call inflation a special way of "taxing" a country's citizens. This is a dangerous opinion. And it is wholly untrue. Inflation is not a method of taxation, but an alternative for taxation. When a government imposes taxes, it has full control. It can tax and distribute the burden any way it considers fair and desirable, allotting a larger share of the tax burden to those who are better able to carry it, reducing the burden on the less fortunate. But in the case of inflation, it sets in motion a mechanism that is beyond its control. It is not the government, but the operation of the price system, that decides how much this or that group will suffer.

And there is another important difference. All taxes collected flow into the vaults of the public treasury. But with inflation, the public treasury's gain is less than what it costs the individual citizen, since a considerable part of that cost is drained off by the profiteers, the minority that benefits from the inflation.

It is no less fallacious to consider inflation as a method of raising loans for public use. Technically, inflation does increase the total of the government's indebtedness to the banks. But the banks' intervention is only instrumental. If the government borrows from the banks, the banks do not grant loans out of their own funds, or out of money deposited with them by the public; the banks are not real lenders; they grant the loans out of their "excess reserves." They merely expand credit for the benefit of the government. In other words, they increase the quantity of money substitutes.

When you as an individual buy a government bond, you make a loan to the government; you put part of your cash holdings into the hands of the treasury. There is then no increase in the total quantity of currency or credits available and hence no inflation.

However, it is different when government borrows from the banks' "excess reserves." Their so-called "excess reserves" are not a tangible thing. The term is merely a phrase indicating the limits within which the law is prepared to tolerate credit expansion, that is to say further inflation. The effects of loans from available "excess reserves" are just as inflationary as the effects of issuing more paper money. It is a mistake, therefore, to confuse this government "borrowing" from the "excess reserves" of the banks with genuine loans.

Popular education is absolutely essential. It is clear that the efforts of the U.S. government to collect the means necessary for the conduct of the war by taxation and by sale of government bonds represent sound measures for heading off inflation. Everybody should be made to understand that the burden of high taxes and of making personal loans to the government are minor evils compared to the disastrous and inexorable consequences of inflation. Not only for the sake of the national welfare, but for the sake of your own interests—whether you are rich or poor, employer or wage earner—you should do your best to arrest the further progress of inflation.

--------------

[1] From 1933 to 1975, U.S. citizens were prohibited by law from owning monetary gold.

[2] In October of 1942, Congress "authorized and directed" President Roosevelt to control prices, wages, salaries, and rents. Nationwide price, wage, and rent controls continued throughout the war, but were ended shortly thereafter. However, some cities chose to continue rent controls thus distorting the market and prices, and producing persistent shortages of rental housing in those localities.

Basically, in a free market that has little or no bank fraud going on, the money supply (specifically prices) will adjust to the scale of the economy. Basically, consider the value of the monetary unit (One Dollar, One Pound, Whatever) to be more or less constant, as it would be with zero inflation. In this case, prices change only based on the supply/demand for the goods and services *proper*- there are no longer tweaks from 'monetary policy' to worry about. In this situation, prices tend to go down over time with production improvements/increased supply, not UP as they tend to do when there is significant inflation. Does this make sense?

[speedracer]

Basically, in a free market that has little or no bank fraud going on

That's a whopper of a caveat.

Basically, consider the value of the monetary unit (One Dollar, One Pound, Whatever) to be more or less constant, as it would be with zero inflation. In this case, prices change only based on the supply/demand for the goods and services *proper*- there are no longer tweaks from 'monetary policy' to worry about. In this situation, prices tend to go down over time with production improvements/increased supply, not UP as they tend to do when there is significant inflation. Does this make sense?


It makes theoretical sense, but I'm not sure that translates into reality. It seems counterintuitive to believe that everything but currency will be constantly revalued.

[Jaaaman]

I've been thinking for some time now that it would be wise to adopt one currency throughout the world. What do you think?


Absolutely the worst idea imaginable. :rolleyes:

[firefox]

Basically, in a free market that has little or no bank fraud going on

That's a whopper of a caveat.

No one said capitalism/the free market was perfect all the time! The reality is that problems do happen periodically. The reason the free market is preferred, however, is because it does a better job of minimizing and preventing such problems vs. a mixed or command economy.


It makes theoretical sense, but I'm not sure that translates into reality. It seems counterintuitive to believe that everything but currency will be constantly revalued.


Damn, speedracer, you are GOOD! Have you considered becoming an economist? I'm not being sarcastic here. You are correct that prices will change over time. However, without an increase in the money supply, the value of the monetary unit in real terms will stay about the same, more or less, over the long term. Demand for money will fluxuate periodically, but without a change in the supply itself, you won't see the drastic changes that we see today. On the product side, prices for goods and services will tend to go down as economies of scale and improved technology make production more efficient.

[Pookie]

Where do we vote at?

[firefox]

What do you mean, Pookie?

[jafar00]

One world currency would really suck for me since my job is trading all the different ones between each other. That would kill the Forex market. You would need at least 2 currencies to keep us happy. And even then there wouldn't be enough volatility for use to make any money.
I vote NO :p

[firefox]

Jafar, how do you do it? All the "popular wisdom" I've ever read is that the risks are so high that it's basically financial suicide. Do you work on behalf of some large institution?