The current conception of money as an asset will not disappear in our lifetimes. It is presumably an intermediate step between barter and the next best thing. The limitations of the barter system were obvious: you had to find somebody who not only had what you wanted but also wanted what you had in order to make a trade. The idea of money was a result of that. People needed a standard for trade, and marked coins (at first) and paper (later) are it.
Where will the idea go from here? Well, we have to ask ourselves what the problem with the money system is for that. We have gotten off of the gold standard (or other standards, for other currencies), so there is nothing but consumer confidence holding up any currency's value now. The only steps to be taken from here are to further consolidate world currencies into a single, accepted currency.
But will it be the dollar or the euro, and will wars be fought over it? I have a feeling that many stubborn states with long-established monetary systems will never be friendly to the idea of a universal monetary unit, especially one that emphasizes the weakness of their economy.
Gah... I could ramble on and on. I'll stop here though.:-)
Why do you assume that the consolidation of currencies is the next logical step from moving currencies off of commodity standards like gold? I see no relation here. Just because some European countries decided to merge their currencies does not make it the next big thing, or necessarily a good thing. As others have pointed out in this discussion, each modern currency is controlled by the actions and policies of a central bank with the power to control the supply of money, intrest rates, etc. With multiple currencies, an individual has the choice of keeping their 'money' in whichever currency that they believe to have the best chance of holding its value, and that will be most advantageous or convenient for them when exchanging their money for goods and services. a universal currency would tie individuals to the policies of one decision-making body which would have total control over their currency, without any choice (other than to move their money into other types of assets, such as stocks, commodities, real estate, etc.) Why would this be a good thing? Why would you want to give any one group of people that much power?
It's not about giving any group power. It's about improving free trade. Before the euro, dozens of European states were required to exchange goods in various currencies at risk of one currency rising in relative value to another. Constant fluctuations in currency value put an unfair risk on everyone involved. A steady, accepted currency would prevent everyone from having these problems, and it would also single out where the true problems in the global economy lay. As with anything in economics, this can only be theory until (dis)proven.
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Money: The Abstraction, The Asset (Score:2)
Where will the idea go from here? Well, we have to ask ourselves what the problem with the money system is for that. We have gotten off of the gold standard (or other standards, for other currencies), so there is nothing but consumer confidence holding up any currency's value now. The only steps to be taken from here are to further consolidate world currencies into a single, accepted currency.
But will it be the dollar or the euro, and will wars be fought over it? I have a feeling that many stubborn states with long-established monetary systems will never be friendly to the idea of a universal monetary unit, especially one that emphasizes the weakness of their economy.
Gah... I could ramble on and on. I'll stop here though. :-)
Re:Money: The Abstraction, The Asset (Score:1)
Re:Money: The Abstraction, The Asset (Score:2)