Would a Global America With a Global Currency mean a better world?


True, but what true value does gold and silver really have. A house built on sand…


That would truly be great.


Well, that’s not going to happen, is it? Think of Puerto Rico. It has been under U.S. sovereignty for over a century now and – unlike Hawaii and Alaska – the people still haven’t shown any interest in moving toward statehood. Let’s wait and see how Puerto Rico turns out, and then maybe it’ll be time to start thinking about Syria, Uzbekistan, North Korea, Venezuela, and Libya.


What value do they have? Christmas gifts, if nothing else. Kids love coins. :slight_smile:


I don’t think it’s smart to have one worldwide center of political authority. If the ruling party is corrupt, miscarriages of justice and human rights violations would go unchecked. With many nations, countries can keep each other in check, although not perfect. Or if you end up with a dictator or a failed state, it only affects that particular country and not the whole world.


No. For the simple reason that money is a wordly convention, one coin or another are not related to good and evil. One global coin vs. many coins cannot produce a better or a worse world for the simple reason stated above.
It would be a different world. Probably more withdrawn in terms of financial markets. The market where coin compete with each other will no longer exist. The price of gold will also become irrelevant because it is only one coin that is, all governments issue that coin so the amount of it will probably measured in a different way.
One coin will definitely change the way economics are being made today.
Of course that one coin paves the way to that one leader who will not be Jesus but he will be as a messiah to most people (who only seek material comfort). This leader is depicted in the Apocalypse so his existance is neither good nor bad, it is part of God’s plan.
So I stand by my belief that good and evil cannot be measured by coins or one coin.


Are you saying that this would be a federal union of states across the globe all with seats in both the House and Senate and in which anyone over the age of 35 from anywhere in the globe can be elected president? And in which there are still state level governments?


A global government would easily lead to a global dictatorship like in the book 1984. When there are many countries, it is ensured that democracy survives. A global government would mean that if democracy would beoverthrown there, there wouldn’t be any freedom on the whole globe. Hence that world could easily become much worse than the world of today.
P.S. Saint Augustine wrote an excellent book called The City of God.


I think the world would be better off if all the nations had a general respect for the rule of law, a legal system that punished court judges, politicians, policemen, and other public servants, had room for citizens to work to change laws and run for office without fear for their personal safety, promoted religious freedom, encouraged the responsible use of private property, investment, and thrift and public education.

Is that the sort of thing you were after, OP?


The answer is no. All nations have a right to national sovereignty and a national identity. And their own currency.


I don’t like the American system of governance, nor do I want to see it spread anywhere else.


I’ve seen no evidence that global groups are better at solving local issues. Much better to practice subsidiarity and devolve power to local levels where possible.

A single currency would be harmful economically since exchange rates are needed to adjust to economic realities that develop between countries. When currencies and prices are centrally mandated it often leads to shortages and a prolific black market where items are traded at their real value.


In one word… no.


The Milton Friedman / Donohue interview answers this

Donahue: When you see around the globe the mal-distribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have-nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power, did you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?

Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me is there some society you know that doesnt run on greed? You think Russia doest run on greed? You think China doesnt run on greed? What is greed? Of course none of us are greedy; its only the other fellow whose greedy.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didnt construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didnt revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worst off, its exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system.

Donahue: But it seems to reward not virtue as much as ability to manipulate the system.

Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think “excuse me, if you will pardon me” do you think American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? You know I think you are taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? Well, I dont even trust you to do that.


Yes! I’m going all in.


Is this meant to be a justification for greed? This thread is not about that.


The rest of the world is not run by the US. It was Europe that was full tilt colonial, until one by one they kicked out the British, the Portuguese, and the other European powers that actually ruled them.


There are a number of countries which supposedly have embraced some democratic aspects, and most of them have not done well. If we need one example, Egypt in elections ended up voting in the Mulsim Brotherhood, which pretty much was a non-starter.

And there have been votes in other countries, and so much corruption that the votes either were manipulated, or ignored.


Absolutely not. The thought of someone like Mr Trump in power would terrify me, it would be America first and the rest of the world would have to fall in line.

We should be united in Christ.


Because we’re the best!

Seriously, I liked the idea when I was in middle school, but in actuality, one global government would spend its days oppressing people and stiffling revolutions. It’s already big enough as it is (make Puerto Rico #51 and I’m good).

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.