Discussion Title: Should we create and adopt a universal currency?

1. We should create and adopt a universal currency.
1.1. Con: The prices of currencies reflect the country's economic throughput and is a helpful statistic in determining the health of an economy.
1.1.1. Con: If a universal currency were adopted, the relative success of a local economy could be judged by adoption of new metrics that are better \(like '[well-being](http://www.gnhcentrebhutan.org/what-is-gnh/)'\) instead, which would be more meaningful to citizens of that region than a currency value would be.
1.1.2. Pro: Seeing as the value of a currency [fluctuates depending on a number of factors](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/080613/effects-currency-fluctuations-economy.asp) such as a country's economic activity, growth prospects, and geo-political risks, the stronger the value of a currency, the stronger the country.
1.1.3. Pro: Currencies that [fluctuate wildly](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/080613/effects-currency-fluctuations-economy.asp) suggest economic uncertainty and instability in the country's economy.
1.1.4. Con: These metrics are largely designed for financiers and cloud the vision of political leaders. They should be replaced with measures of well being anyway. [New Zealand](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/07/11/new-zealand-ditches-gdp-for-happiness-and-wellbeing/#203737211942) is looking at this.
1.2. Pro: Setting up a universal currency would be easy to accomplish.
1.2.1. Pro: The [American dollar](https://www.thebalance.com/world-currency-3305931) is already a de facto universal currency. Since we already have this pre-universal currency in place, we would just need to make it official.
1.2.2. Pro: Countries [seem willing and head towards that direction](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) eventually. Adopting a universal currency would just speed up that process.
1.2.2.1. Con: Some countries have hesitations about creating universal currencies, due to the trouble they cause. That should be a warning sign that this is not something the world wants to participate in.
1.2.2.1.1. Pro: This includes [South America](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm), which never followed through on its plans for a universal currency in the region, due to concerns over the problems that had plagued the EU and the Euro.
1.2.2.1.2. Pro: One cause for concern would be the central body that would determine monetary policy for the universal currency and whether smaller, less developed countries would have political sway in the decisions it makes.
1.2.2.1.2.1. Con: Smaller nations can enjoy plenty of benefits when their currency is backed by stronger and bigger economies, even when they have little political power.
1.2.2.1.2.1.1. Pro: In the Eurozone, the Euro allows weaker countries to [enjoy lower interest rates](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-euro-3305928), because investors see it as much safer than their previous currency.
1.2.2.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: These lower interest rates can lead to [more foreign investment](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-euro-3305928) in these countries, which ultimately boosts their economies.
1.2.2.1.2.1.2. Pro: If anything, it's better for the larger economies to make decisions, as they are likely more fiscally responsible/experienced and also able to represent smaller countries when making foreign negotiations.
1.2.2.1.2.2. Pro: A universal entity would have huge power that could 'make or break' the economies of countries or even continents. It would be reckless to create such an entity.
1.2.2.1.2.2.1. Pro: So much centralised power could potentially [open the door to corruption and abuse](https://blog.bluepay.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-universal-currency) by officials
1.2.2.1.2.3. Pro: Existing international enforcement organisations, e.g. the UN or the ICC, have been [ineffective](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm). They have been unable to become truly apolitical, objective and able to exert the powers they \(theoretically\) hold.
1.2.2.1.2.3.1. Pro: If these established institutions struggle to wield the power that they theoretically have, then it’s unlikely that a new institution will be able to bear the responsibility of managing a global currency.
1.2.2.1.3. Con: The idea that some countries are concerned about a proposed change to a universal currency does not in itself mean that their concerns are based on evidence/precedence, or that this change would be bad for them.
1.2.2.2. Pro: In 2008, [Central American nations](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) agreed to create a single currency for the region then, even though they have not officially move forward with it yet.
1.2.2.2.1. Pro: Even if the Central American countries have not succeeded in implementing a common Central American currency yet, as of 2019 they are all [still committed to the idea.](https://www.tripsavvy.com/things-you-didnt-know-central-america-1490846)
1.2.2.3. Pro: In 2009, China [proposed](https://www.ft.com/content/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac) replacing the US dollar with a new global currency controlled by the International Monetary Fund.
1.2.2.4. Pro: Fourteen countries in Africa use the [CFA francs](https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/Africa-Monitor/2012/0119/Africa-s-single-currency-the-CFA-Franc-in-a-Post-euro-Future) \(the Western African franc and the Central African franc, which can be used [interchangeably](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc)\) as a common regional currency.
1.2.2.5. Con: There is a big difference between groups of similarly developed countries and aligned interests creating regional currencies, and a universal currency shared by every \(diverse\) country of the world. Interest in regional currencies does not mean a universal currency would be a good idea.
1.2.2.5.1. Pro: The regional African and South American groupings may be as much an attempt to remain independent against countries such as the USA and China, rather than a move toward universality.
1.2.2.6. Con: Some regional groupings may have been defensive in nature rather than part of a momentum towards universality.
1.2.2.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.5.1.
1.2.2.7. Pro: The Euro is used in [23 countries](https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/euro-area_en), and 19 within the Eurozone alone.
1.2.2.7.1. Pro: Another [14 African nations](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-euro-3305928) peg their currency to the Euro.
1.2.3. Con: It would be impossible to design a universal currency that accommodates the [different economic conditions and needs](https://www.extravelmoney.com/blog/why-we-dont-use-one-world-currency-the-pros-and-cons/) in every country.
1.2.3.1. Pro: This is because in order for a central bank to set a single interest rate for this universal currency, they would need to consider a number of different economic factors in every country across the world. Such a task would be impossible to carry out.
1.2.3.1.1. Pro: Tightening credit and reducing the money supply might [help with regions that have a booming economy](https://thecontrol.co/why-there-wont-be-one-global-currency-f86a5934eeff), but it would exacerbate any struggling regions' problems. This may force the central bank to preference one over the other when setting the interest rate.
1.2.3.1.1.1. Pro: Without controls on transferring funds from one country to another it would be impossible to apply controls on money supply to a region or country, it would be 'universal' in affect.
1.2.3.1.2. Pro: Interest rates are set by considering a number of different economic factors and so are often specific to each country. This makes it hard for one global central bank to decide interest rates across all countries.
1.2.3.1.2.1. Pro: If there is a [slump in consumer demand](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/who-determines-interest-rates/), interest rates may be decreased so as to make it more attractive to spend money.
1.2.3.1.2.2. Pro: If borrowing is too high and there's [too much money](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/who-determines-interest-rates/) circulating in an economy at the same time, interest rates may be lowered so as to make it more attractive for people to put their money in a bank.
1.2.3.1.2.3. Pro: If an economy is growing at a rate that may [lead to hyperinflation](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/031115/how-do-central-banks-impact-interest-rates-economy.asp), interest rates may be raises to slow this down.
1.2.3.1.3. Con: A universal currency may not require a central bank to function.
1.2.3.1.3.1. Pro: Cryptocurrencies don't rely on a single entity and therefore lack single points of failure \(it's [decentralized](https://blockgeeks.com/5-benefits-cryptocurrency/) by design\).
1.2.3.1.3.1.1. Pro: Historically they have been governed by [disparate online communities](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/central-bank-digital-currencies-reality-191106194530547.html), instead of a centralised body like a central bank.
1.2.3.1.3.1.1.1. Con: For there to be universal acceptance there has to be some universality, in the regulation or the agreements on the regulations.
1.2.3.1.3.1.1.2. Pro: There is immense political support amongst the [young](https://www.meetup.com/All-Who-Like-Cryptocurrency-and-Blockchain/members/) for decentralisation and '[one-world'](https://www.facebook.com/oneworldheartproject/)[thinking](https://www.sussexstudent.com/whats-on/periods/oww/) \(as opposed to Globalisation which has been a neoliberal policy\). They might voluntarily 'buy-in' to the idea of using them as alternatives to regulated currencies, or regulated cryptocurrencies.
1.2.3.1.3.1.2. Pro: With cryptocurrencies, there's "no government to issue it and no banks needed to manage accounts and verify transactions",\([1](https://youtu.be/bBC-nXj3Ng4?t=8)\), as everyone keeps their own ledger. If we were to build a universal currency to be a cryptocurrency, it'll allow us to not require those in the infrastructure for less known worries than we already have \(like trusting others with money\), making it a worthwhile risk.
1.2.3.1.3.1.2.1. Con: This is merely replacing trust in banks to trust in blockchain manipulators.
1.2.3.1.3.1.2.2. Con: Central Banks may now start issuing cryptocurrencies on behalf of the [government](https://positivemoney.org/publications/digital-cash/?fbclid=IwAR34bRlcZUGzAqkCPHspwA0uYGLBG0B_rZeyOMHfH-9SR15UU3NTEZMB0PQ).
1.2.3.1.3.1.3. Con: There are [counter views](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/05/16/people_blockchain_and_a_decentralised_web/) that decentralisation means difficulty in managing and updating privacy aspects and indeed in many of the added value aspects that analytics can provide \(in fraud for instance\).
1.2.3.1.3.1.4. Pro: Cryptocurrencies use [peer-to-peer networks](https://youtu.be/kubGCSj5y3k?t=64) to create the decentralization and [cryptography](http://ttps://youtu.be/kubGCSj5y3k?t=230) to make the decentralization safe and function \(to avoid the need for a central bank or government for this\). A universal currency could utilize these features for a decentralized setup \(if that's the path that's chosen\) for its infrastructure.
1.2.3.1.3.1.4.1. Pro: Key features of a functioning [cryptocurrency](https://blockgeeks.com/5-benefits-cryptocurrency/)'s peer-to-peer networks, such as issuance schedules and transaction logic, are able to be governed by math-guided computers rather than much more fallible human beings. This enables it to be decentralised while maintaining - even enhancing - security and reliability.
1.2.3.1.3.1.4.1.1. Pro: Cryptocurrency [protects against fraud](https://blockgeeks.com/5-benefits-cryptocurrency/), which is why it doesn't need oversight of a single entity \(as fiat would\).
1.2.3.1.3.1.4.1.1.1. Con: Many argue that they are exploited by [fraudsters](https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/alert/2m-lost-to-cryptocurrency-fraud) and [thieves](https://www.businessinsider.com/the-biggest-cryptocurrency-scams-and-arrests-of-2019-so-far-2019-8?r=US&IR=T).
1.2.3.1.3.1.4.1.2. Con: Professors at Stanford recommend \(see [4 and 5.3](http://randomwalker.info/publications/critical-look-at-decentralization-v1.pdf)\) having more regulation than 'just the technology' as the faith in it may be either misplaced \(the technology can be hacked\) or faith will not be granted \(users will not 'buy-in' to something without a public face\).
1.2.3.1.3.2. Pro: Historically, some countries and their currency have functioned without a central bank.
1.2.3.1.3.2.1. Pro: The Canadian banking system [weathered the Great Depression](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-do-we-have-central-bank) without a central bank.
1.2.3.1.3.2.1.1. Con: Canada [fixed its currency](https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/one-world-one-money/central-banks-who-needs-them/) to the US dollar, thus relying on another central bank.
1.2.3.1.3.2.1.2. Con: The article argues for a central banking policy without the need for central bank reserves. Nowadays we tend to use the term Central Bank for its regulatory and policy functions, not for its reserves.
1.2.3.1.3.2.1.2.1. Pro: [Mark Carney](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-boe-highlights/bank-of-englands-carney-speaks-after-stress-test-results-idUSKBN1YK1V0), the former Governor of the Central Bank of Canada and now the head of the Bank of England, insists on member banks having reserves and the [BoE](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2019/october/boe-stress-testing-results-to-be-published-on-10-december-2019) regularly conducts [stress tests](https://www.cityam.com/mark-carney-says-bank-of-england-to-stress-test-banks-with-catastrophic-climate-scenario/) on them
1.2.3.1.3.2.2. Con: A [central regulator](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23847) has been the[norm](http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/essays/general/a-brief-history-of-central-banking/introduction---what-is-central-banking.php) for [centuries](https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/newsroom-and-events/publications/economic-commentary/economic-commentary-archives/2007-economic-commentaries/ec-20071201-a-brief-history-of-central-banks.aspx).
1.2.3.1.3.3. Pro: A universal currency could instead be pegged to an alternative source, such as the gold standard.
1.2.3.1.3.3.1. Con: There is no alternative source which would not involve some regulation. The gold standard did have regulation by central banks working together. Countries used to 'sign up' to and agree the levels and mechanisms of the Gold Standard see link.['....but the authorities agree to sell gold bullion on demand at a fixed price in exchange for the circulating currency. ...'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)
1.2.3.1.3.3.2. Pro: In the past, countries used the [gold standard](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gold-standard-3306137) - which entailed countries pegging their currency to the amount of gold that they owned. This was regulated by the government itself.
1.2.3.1.3.3.2.1. Con: The central \(Gold\) standard badly affected economies and that risk would be present in any universal currency.
1.2.3.1.3.3.2.1.1. Pro: 'The gold standard makes countries obsessed with keeping their gold. They ignore the more important task of improving the business climate. ' From [link](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gold-standard-3306137)
1.2.3.1.3.3.2.1.2. Pro: ['During the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates. It wanted to make dollars more valuable and prevent people from demanding gold, but it should have been lowering rates to stimulate the economy. Government actions to protect their gold reserves caused significant fluctuations in the economy. In fact, between 1890 and 1905, the U.S. economy suffered five major recessions for this reason.'](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-gold-standard-3306137)
1.2.3.1.3.3.3. Con: That [voluntary agreement](https://www.gold.org/about-gold/history-gold), amounted to a committee of the finance controller of member countries of unequal power, fell apart. This was largely due to the stresses on different economies, particularly the US which was most instrumental in its downfall.The Bretton-Woods system replaced it without all currencies 'pegged' but with more flexibility to run their economies.
1.2.3.1.3.4. Con: Central banks play an essential role in protecting currencies and those that use them.
1.2.3.1.3.4.1. Pro: Without central banks, it is [much harder to control](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/050703.asp) the value of a currency, and so things like inflation are far more likely to occur.
1.2.3.1.3.4.2. Pro: Central banks [manipulate](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050715/can-bitcoin-kill-central-banks.asp) the value of currencies in order to boost the economy.
1.2.3.1.3.5. Con: An [unregulated](https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/world-survey.php) currency is [unlikely](https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-crypto-regulator/uk-watchdog-warns-of-perils-of-unregulated-cryptocurrencies-idUKKCN1UQ11E) to be accepted.
1.2.3.1.3.5.1. Pro: An unregulated currency is open to rapid increases in money supply \(inflation\) thereby devaluing the money held by others. e.g. if country A has inflation on the UnivCur then devaluation hits countries A to Z and investors a to z, except the manipulators who forced the original problem !
1.2.3.1.3.5.2. Pro: An unregulated currency is open to manipulation such that financiers could constrain money supply, put interest rates up and weaken world economies.
1.2.3.1.3.5.3. Con: Unregulated currencies have been used in [history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_currency), from Tulips to Green Shield Stamps.
1.2.3.1.3.5.3.1. Pro: Alternative currencies are still accepted in some closed communities like [Bristol](https://www.gocompare.com/money/alternative-currencies/)
1.2.3.1.3.5.4. Pro: An unregulated currency is a relatively [safe haven](https://www.fxempire.com/education/article/can-bitcoin-used-crime-weapon-can-solved-512046) for terrorists and [criminals](https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2019/12/26/bitcoin-cryptocurrency-criminals-law-enforcement/) for money laundering and funding [activities](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/150761/TAX3%20Study%20on%20cryptocurrencies%20and%20blockchain.pdf).
1.2.3.2. Con: It may be possible to design accommodations with a central bank.
1.2.3.2.1. Con: A universal currency is stable enough to not need accommodations, so [central banks](https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/whats-the-purpose-of-central-banks/) are unnecessary.
1.2.3.2.2. Con: Central banks are usually so badly interfered with by politicians that they cause more problems than they solve.
1.2.3.2.2.1. Con: Central Banks are the servants of politicians. They take their [direction](https://polgariszemle.hu/archivum/105-2016-augusztus-12-evfolyam-1-3-szam/toertenelem-nemzetkoezi-kitekintes/762-role-of-central-banks-in-the-economy) from Government \(politicians\) and have tools to deliver for the politicians. They are not 'interfered with'.
1.2.3.3. Pro: What one economy needs to prosper may be exactly the opposite of what another economy needs to prosper. When countries have their own currency, they can tailor [policies to suit](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/one-world-one-currency-could-it-work.aspx) their needs. A universal currency would make this impossible.
1.2.3.3.1. Pro: Having a single currency means that countries can't devalue their currency for their own economic benefit, as they are tied to other countries using that currency. So they have to consider other countries' needs too, instead of making decisions best for themselves.
1.2.3.3.1.1. Pro: Some experts [argue](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) that the inability of Spain and Greece to devalue their currency because being part of the Eurozone exacerbated their financial troubles.
1.2.3.3.1.2. Pro: Devaluing a nation's currency can be a [good economic decision from debt-ladden](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) countries as it makes goods more attractive to buyers from other countries.
1.2.3.3.1.3. Pro: Countries like China whose economic value of exports is greater than their imports [rely on devaluing their currencies](https://www.extravelmoney.com/blog/why-we-dont-use-one-world-currency-the-pros-and-cons/) in other to make their exports attractive abroad.
1.2.3.3.1.4. Con: Considering other countries' slows down the decision making enough to allow for other opinions and possibly reanalyze and reconsider their own before moving forward, allowing them to make better decisions for themselves.
1.2.3.3.1.5. Con: Economic integration via a universal currency can provide an [incentive for countries to resolve conflicts](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economic-integration.asp) and disputes peacefully, as they are all affected by shocks to one another's economies
1.2.3.3.1.6. Con: If countries were tied to one another via a universal currency and thus had to consider one another when making monetary policies, countries that are struggling economically might not be left without assistance or help if they need it, as all countries would have an incentive to help them.
1.2.3.3.1.6.1. Pro: This would ultimately help increase global growth, as the fact that struggling countries do not get left without economic assistance means that they are more likely to prosper and continue to trade with each other, which ultimately improves growth.
1.2.3.3.1.6.2. Pro: This was the case with the Eurozone in 2008. Because the [economic crisis](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/european-sovereign-debt-crisis.asp) in Portugal, Italy, Greece and Ireland had implications on all Eurozone countries and their economies, there was incentive towards co-operation across the Eurozone to tackle the crisis.
1.2.3.3.1.6.3. Con: The [Eurozone is an example of why that does not work](https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/050515/why-these-european-countries-dont-use-euro.asp). The response to the crash was a bailout to some countries \(which otherwise would have come from the IMF as happened to the UK previously\) but tied to economic measures that were not necessarily in the interests of the citizens or the [country as a whole.](https://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-why-would-ireland-stick-with-the-euro-300635-Dec2011/)
1.2.3.3.1.6.4. Pro: Some cryptocurrencies \(like [AKoin](https://www.akoin.io/)\) are purposefully decentralized to be more socially and economically sustainable by being safety net to fight corruption \(i.e. governments that control the money supply\) that makes economies fail by transferring the power to citizens instead. A universal currency would be able to allow any country to use this safety net tool to fight their own corruption to improve the quality-of-life worldwide.
1.2.3.3.1.6.4.1. Con: [Others](https://medium.com/\@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustless-crypto-paradise-is-actually-a-medieval-hellhole-c1ca122efdec) argue that decentralisation is not a benefit.
1.2.3.3.1.6.5. Pro: Citizens with cryptocurrencies \(like [AKoin](https://www.akoin.io/)\) become empowered and unified through support from financial services \(like partnerships\) and better accessible infrastructure. A universal currency could scale this social \(and thus economic\) momentum worldwide.
1.2.3.3.1.7. Con: A country's ability to regulate their currency allows them to optimally control slowdown-induced-deflation for the local economy, potentially aiding global growth.
1.2.3.3.1.8. Pro: In our interconnected world, an individual nation's growth is [linked to global growth](https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2019/03/next-crash-why-world-unprepared-economic-dangers-ahead), thanks to constant trading between one another. This means that if one country's economic growth is decreasing and they are unable to devalue their individual currencies, that is likely to affect other countries' growth and potentially even global growth if their economy is large enough.
1.2.3.3.1.9. Pro: If the weaker economies lose control of their own currency, and the financial markets do not devalue their legal tender, they, as part of a universal currency will be unable to adjust its value to compensate for their uncompetitive manufactured goods on the export market. These ensuing austerity measures could cause these economically weaker countries to fail \(i.e. go bankrupt\) from their new disadvantage \(unseen with their individual currency\), likely leading to civil unrest within them.
1.2.3.3.2. Pro: A Chancellor or Minister for Finance working in a single country with its own currency has three main levers. Firstly, they can change interest rates \(linked to exchange rates\), secondly, change money supply \(inflation\) or thirdly, change the levels of borrowing \(linked to taxation, expenditure, unemployment, or underemployment\). However, with a universal currency, they can only work with the third lever.
1.2.3.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.9.
1.2.3.5. Pro: Implementing a universal currency often requires all countries to achieve a [single digit level of inflation](https://theconversation.com/why-the-quest-for-a-single-currency-for-west-africa-wont-materialise-soon-81697), which is an extremely difficult task for many developing countries.
1.2.3.6. Con: Having a universal currency would empower the governing institution \(e.g. the IMF\) to [intervene](https://www.dailyfx.com/forex/education/trading_tips/daily_trading_lesson/2014/07/03/3-Things-I-Wish-I-Knew-When-I-Started-Trading-Forex.html) when problems arise in individual countries. Any problems caused by international policy could be offset/ fixed by economic intervention in affected countries.
1.2.3.6.1. Con: The IMF is a bad example to use as it has repeatedly failed countries in trouble.
1.2.3.6.1.1. Pro: The IMF has been accused of using [underhanded tactics](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/1933150/greece-demands-imf-answers-over-leaked-debt-transcript) with their economic policies to suit their own interests, [at the cost](https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/1933150/greece-demands-imf-answers-over-leaked-debt-transcript) of struggling states.
1.2.3.6.1.2. Pro: The IMF has backed and enforced austerity in a number of countries even though they [later had to admit](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/imf-austerity-doesnt-work-immigrants-working-class) that these policies not only don't work, but in fact they do more harm than good.
1.2.3.6.1.3. Pro: One such failure is when the [IMF](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35953028) colluded with the stronger economies and placed their [banks](https://jubileedebt.org.uk/countries-in-crisis/greek-debt-crisis-case-banks-people) in priority over citizens of Greece.
1.2.3.7. Con: Some countries have currencies that create greater issues than any universal currency would. For them, it would be worth it.
1.2.3.7.1. Pro: The Somali shilling is currently [not recognised](https://foreignpolicy.com/2007/06/11/the-list-the-worlds-worst-currencies/) by any country, which makes trading and economic growth difficult.
1.2.3.7.2. Pro: The Zimbabwean currency had inflation rates of [3,714%](https://foreignpolicy.com/2007/06/11/the-list-the-worlds-worst-currencies/) under President Mugabe, resulting in the economy shrinking yearly.
1.2.3.7.3. Pro: Due to a series of dramatic reforms under President Maduro, the Venezuelan bolivar has been devalued by roughly [95%](https://www.msn.com/en-in/money/news/venezuelan-bolivar-and-the-worlds-other-most-worthless-currencies/ss-BBMhoHb#image=2).
1.2.4. Con: Adopting a universal currency would require an enormous amount of social and economic integration worldwide, which is politically unpopular. Such unpopularity would make a universal currency unlikely to ever be successfully implemented.
1.2.4.1. Pro: If countries wanted to take part in a universal currency, they may need to be willing to submit to an [array of institutions](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro) that help with rules and regulation regarding it. Powerful countries will not want to submit to unless they have significant control over them.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: For a country to adopt a universal currency would mean the loss of status and control over its financial institutions, with [money supply](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/moneysupply.asp), interest rates and asset cover being of significant importance in the current ways of working.
1.2.4.2. Pro: Countries would have to work towards some sort of [labour and language flexibility](https://www.theguardian.com/world/1998/dec/31/euro.eu) that enables workers in one country to seek work in other countries with the universal currency when their countries is suffering. The prospect of a potential flow of workers would be unpopular to many countries, such as the US.
1.2.4.3. Con: Today's world is increasingly becoming [more and more integrated](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/12/a-global-currency-is-desirable-but-wildly-impractical), so this trend is likely to be inevitable anyway.
1.2.4.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.1.
1.2.4.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.5.
1.2.4.5. Con: -> See 1.2.2.
1.2.4.6. Pro: There would still be issues around visas, political [opposition](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/freedom-movement-euroep-foreign-posted-workers-eu) to free movement and other significant barriers which would likely outweigh the effect of a universal currency.
1.2.4.7. Con: Just because it would be difficult does not mean it should not be done.
1.2.4.8. Pro: Tying unequal economies into one currency eventually creates fractures, especially between: 1\) countries, 2\) countries and the largely unelected, central financial technocrats.
1.2.4.8.1. Pro: Italy has a problem of managing its internal divisions anyway. The industrialised North has had a different pace and direction compared to the economy of the South for many years. One tactic would be 'expansionist economics' for all Italy , enriching the South more than the North as a 'level-up' exercise. However it cannot do that legally.[Within the constraints of the EU and the Eurozone it is prevented from using a strategy akin to pressing the accelerator pedal.](https://www.businessinsider.com/italy-perma-recession-systemic-crisis-threatens-eurozone-2019-4?r=US&IR=T)
1.2.4.8.2. Pro: The problems of the [Eurozone](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/commentary/eurozone-reforms-risk-sharing-moral-hazard-bail-out-11041336) are good examples of the tensions when unequal economies are tied together. Fast moving economies, such as Germany, inflicted [austerity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity) on others which made their [debt crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_debt_crisis) harder to recover from and more painful during the 'recovery' . The [interconnected](https://www.euractiv.com/section/euro-finance/news/imf-says-sorry-for-greek-crisis-handling-eu-commission-in-denial/) nature of the economies meant that the other nations could not refrain from controlling actions.
1.2.4.8.3. Pro: Large, non-economic issues could cause a unified currency to become unstable. This decreases the economic prospects of countries, making them less likely to stay in it or join in one.
1.2.4.8.3.1. Pro: With Russia, war created hyperinflation and countries within its currency couldn't counter this effect through foreign exchange reserves.
1.2.4.9. Pro: Just trying to come up with a unanimous layout on the currency that's not disruptive, will require much political effort and may become unfavorable at that point.
1.2.5. Con: If there are isolated economies that are unknown to those creating the universal currency, they would be extremely difficult to incorporate in and vice versa. Thus, it's practically impossible to create a truly universal currency if those exist.
1.2.6. Con: Many [big players](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51200446) seem to need regulators' approval before they will fully adopt a universal currency themselves.
1.3. Pro: A universal currency will [stabilize](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) the global economy because it will fluctuate less than national currencies.
1.3.1. Pro: Under a universal currency, smaller nations can enjoy a [more stable economy](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) as their currency can not be subject to fluctuation.
1.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.6.
1.3.3. Pro: Adopting a unified currency solves [Dutch disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease). Removing currency value imbalances between countries reduces [economic misfortune](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QOcrBVCXE0) within them \(caused by this problem\).
1.3.3.1. Con: 'Dutch Disease' is an unavoidable consequence if one takes the economics of globalisation to an extreme without any strategic thinking. E.g. if a country [corners the market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market) on lithium and makes a fortune, then there will be little incentive for anybody to be farmers there. Then one day the lithium runs out and the [symptoms of Dutch Disease](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dutchdisease.asp) appear. The variant within a unified currency could be termed the Qatar/Dubai Disease
1.3.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.2.1.
1.3.5. Con: -> See 1.2.4.8.
1.3.6. Con: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.
1.3.7. Pro: A universal currency would be trusted on a universal scale, as it's a larger level than any current currency and be adapted out of feeling it's better, or at least equal to, its current currency. By this default, it'll work better and be less risky at that point compared to what we currently have.
1.3.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.1.3.1.2.
1.3.8. Con: [Currency substitutions](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/currency-substitution.asp) have excessive flexibility towards sovereignty of nations, which can collapse entire economies and lead to new, independent unified currencies forming \(as seen with [Europe](http://www.globalfinancialdata.com/a-history-of-universal-currencies/) and [Iraq](https://books.google.com/books?id=EZ_NrapzgjsC&pg=PA108-IA4&lpg=PA108-IA4&dq=%22hyperinflation%22+%22unified+currency%22&source=bl&ots=c4phLBmfaW&sig=ACfU3U3185S0vXUnK63NVJDE7q1yykt5xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiww9DS_bLmAhUYr54KHdTjApcQ6AEwEHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22hyperinflation%22%20%22unified%20currency%22&f=false)\). Thus, it's better to start with separate, unified currencies if it's going in that direction anyway than to resort to it after attempting a universal one.
1.3.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.8.
1.3.8.2. Con: Instability issues could be prevented by creating a universal currency that's brand new instead of creating one from an already established one.
1.4. Con: -> See 1.2.3.
1.5. Pro: A universal currency can provide many countries with certain economic benefits that they otherwise wouldn't have.
1.5.1. Pro: Even if larger nations \(with more developed economies\) risk having their economies tied to smaller, less stable ones, these larger countries still would significantly benefit from a change to a universal currency.
1.5.1.1. Pro: With a universal currency, companies in developed countries can produce [more products at a lower cost](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-euro-3305928) thanks to lower interest rates.
1.5.1.1.1. Pro: They can also [export these cheap products](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-euro-3305928) to other poorer nations due to the ease of trading under a universal currency.
1.5.1.2. Pro: With a universal currency, developed countries would benefit from the fact there there would no [longer be currency risk](https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0310/one-world-one-currency-could-it-work.aspx) in international trade.
1.5.1.3. Pro: Larger, more developed nations are more likely to have [powerful representation](https://www.daytranslations.com/blog/can-universal-currency/) in a universal central bank and in fiscal policy making.
1.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.2.1.
1.5.3. Con: A universal currency can also increase the [financial problems](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) of some countries or create new ones for all, which can outweigh the effects the generated economic benefits bring.
1.5.3.1. Pro: Individual currencies gives countries a chance to temporarily escape issues happening within their unified currency, which is likely their only option for preservation. Without this opportunity, a unified currency can 'drag down' a country's economic prospects that they had originally joined for.
1.5.3.1.1. Pro: War or hyperflation that leads to instability of a unified currency and a potential breaking up of it \(as seen in [Russia](https://books.google.com/books?id=GGYTcGAG3VoC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191&dq=%22hyperinflation%22+%22unified+currency%22&source=bl&ots=d25agSjNZz&sig=ACfU3U0R05L3qrikz6nTs3CwTruqA_6bww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_3tith7PmAhUUip4KHXdZDDA4ChDoATABegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=%22hyperinflation%22%20%22unified%20currency%22&f=false)\). With its dependability and anchoring capacity gone, trading decreases and without individual countries can't escape to foreign exchange reserves to protect themselves, they lose their ability to counter, recover, and continue their GDP growth.
1.5.4. Con: -> See 1.2.3.
1.5.5. Pro: International trade would become easier without having to convert currencies.
1.5.5.1. Pro: With a universal currency within a region, large countries can [export goods](https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-euro-3305928) to less-developed countries for cheaper.
1.5.5.1.1. Pro: Being able to export goods cheaply is going to help less-developed countries grow by being able to afford them more. This is going to help increase the quality-of-life to the poorest of the world, which is going to be a positive for humanity.
1.5.5.2. Con: People won't be able to profit from currency exchange trades anymore if there are no local currencies.
1.5.5.2.1. Pro: Some people even [earn](https://www.mytradingskills.com/forex-for-beginners/making-a-living-trading) their [living](https://www.dailyfx.com/forex/education/trading_tips/daily_trading_lesson/2014/07/03/3-Things-I-Wish-I-Knew-When-I-Started-Trading-Forex.html) through currency exchange. They would lose their livelihood under universal currency.
1.5.5.2.2. Con: Compared to the benefit of a more efficient global economy, the number of Forex traders losing their source of income seems very acceptable.
1.5.5.3. Pro: Businesses could not be required to [pay conversion fees](https://blog.bluepay.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-a-universal-currency) for foreign currencies anymore, allowing them to keep more of their profits.
1.5.5.4. Pro: When the EU adopted the Euro as the common currency in 1992, trade between EU member states [increased](https://www.extravelmoney.com/blog/why-we-dont-use-one-world-currency-the-pros-and-cons/) by 8 to 16%.
1.5.5.5. Pro: Economists studying the Euro's impact on trade [found](https://voxeu.org/article/how-did-euro-boost-trade-microeconomic-evidence) that when sharing a currency, companies were able to accurately predict export costs, reducing the risk associated with exporting goods and services which allows more exporting to take place.
1.5.5.5.1. Pro: Studies [suggest](https://voxeu.org/article/how-did-euro-boost-trade-microeconomic-evidence) that risk-reduction and profitability of exports under a common currency are particularly important for smaller businesses, which may suggest that smaller businesses reap more benefits from a common currency than multinational/ larger companies.
1.5.5.5.1.1. Pro: Larger companies are more likely to operate in more than one country anyway and therefore are more resilient to currency effects.
1.5.5.6. Pro: Global firms waste [time and resources](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/nov/12/a-global-currency-is-desirable-but-wildly-impractical) on largely futile efforts to hedge currency risk when there are multiple currencies.
1.5.5.7. Pro: For the stock market, no extra calculation is required for trading between currencies.
1.5.5.8. Pro: International trade \(import and export\) makes up a huge portion of countries' [economic activity](https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization): A quarter of all production gets exported internationally, Almost a third of all products/ services have foreign input \(or imports\) in their 'production chain'. Any policy eases trade can make a large economic impact.
1.5.5.8.1. Pro: Economies outside of unified ones \(euro, etc.\) are still economically significant for business. However, currency fluctuations \(of different monetary policies/prices\) can shrink import profit margins. A universal currency would reduce such uncertainties/risks by simplifying international trade.
1.5.5.8.1.1. Pro: This would allow smaller businesses to access international trade \(i.e imports and exports\) in the same way as multinational businesses do already, since the currency exchange costs that 'eat up' their profits would be eliminated.
1.5.5.8.1.1.1. Pro: This creates a level ground for all businesses to have an virtually equal starting point from the start, so more types of businesses \(especially smaller ones\) could flourish, which makes for a healthy economy.
1.5.6. Con: These benefits depend on the universal currency being successfully implemented, which may not happen.
1.5.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.
1.5.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.
1.5.6.3. Con: An unsuccessful implementation may become positive. The dystopia that follows a world-wide economic failure due to a failure in implementing the universal currency, but only discovered after it was too late, may lead to a world 'reboot' or it might not happen.
1.5.6.3.1. Con: Hoping for a revolution to work out positively would be very risky and hard to justify \(even if successful\) if it costs people their lives or livelihoods.
1.5.7. Pro: The dominant countries who would lead the way will be able to manage the global economy to their favour.
1.5.7.1. Pro: Just as ''dollarisation'' is seen as a way forward by those who are happy for the US Government to exert economic power then the Chinese and Russia would also like to extend their reach. It will be easier for a small cartel to lead the rest when there is no currency 'market' to play against them.
1.5.7.2. Con: If we look at how the Eurozone treated the Greeks then we can see that the penalties for not following the rules are harsh.
1.6. Con: -> See 1.2.4.
1.7. Con: The world will need to keep the status quo constantly rotating between countries with a unified currency to prevent issues from turning rampant.
1.7.1. Con: Checks and balances could prevent the status quo from being taken over and overrun in an economy with a universal currency.
1.7.1.1. Pro: An [independent entity](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) could be developed to oversee the running of the new universal currency. This would prevent potential issues from arising.
1.7.1.1.1. Con: This idea requires too much effort to implement, which may make it not worthwhile.
1.7.1.1.1.1. Pro: Creating an independent entity strong enough to handle a single currency may prove an impossible task. Current international bodies already struggle with the task of overseeing global issues.
1.7.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The UN has [consistently proven itself](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) unable to handle the responsibility of managing global peace. If an established institution struggles, then it is unlikely that a new institution will be able to bear the responsibility of managing a global currency either.
1.7.1.1.1.1.1.1. Pro: The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is [widely accused](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm) of failing to hold nations responsible for contributing to climate change to account.
1.7.1.1.2. Con: -> See 1.2.2.1.2.2.
1.7.1.1.3. Con: Adding more bureaucracy into the world may not be a good idea, as it just adds onto what we already have to the point it becomes excessive.
1.7.1.1.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.1.2.3.
1.7.1.1.3.2. Pro: The further that notional 'power' is removed from the citizens the more we create tensions. The [EU](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/29/europe-eu-riven-tensions-faces-stormy-fractious-autumn) Commission is a good example
1.7.1.1.4. Pro: This may be beneficial, especially for countries that do not have an [independent central bank](https://theconversation.com/why-the-quest-for-a-single-currency-for-west-africa-wont-materialise-soon-81697).
1.7.1.1.4.1. Pro: A new independent entity would then offer a solution to corruption in these countries.
1.7.1.1.5. Pro: Two entities would be needed. One is the equivalent of a central bank \(technocrats\) and the other is the organisation directing the bank \(politicians\). The second need not be a World Government per se, nor a Federation, but a Commonwealth at least.
1.7.1.2. Pro: China has [suggested](https://www.ft.com/content/7851925a-17a2-11de-8c9d-0000779fd2ac) that the already established International Monetary Fund takes responsibility for overseeing a global currency.
1.7.1.3. Pro: A universal government could help maintain the status quo for a universal currency.
1.7.1.3.1. Pro: To illustrate this: the USA, China and India are larger than the Eurozone and each has its own common currency, but they each have one government managing their economy. By contrast the Eurozone has separately managed economies which may need to go in different directions and thus the Eurozone has problems.
1.7.1.3.2. Con: The issue is that this has [pros and cons](https://steemit.com/debate/\@sykochica/debate-one-world-government-advantages-and-disadvantages) within itself, that it might not be the best idea.
1.7.1.3.3. Con: A universal government's never been instated before, so there's many unknowns with it that it'd be difficult to implement.
1.7.1.3.3.1. Con: From what we do from experience, it might not be a good idea.
1.7.1.3.3.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.7.1.1.1.1.1.
1.7.1.3.3.2. Pro: Assuming there was a leader, say somebody from the future, then we would still have to get there in small steps. Voluntary bodies , like the UN, could be such steps.
1.7.2. Pro: Too much power over the universal currency could lead to the rise of plutocracies.
1.7.2.1. Pro: It'd just be better having different currencies for each country. Otherwise, the economy may open up to having only a [few capital owners will rule the world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy), provided if they gain access to the currencies.
1.7.2.1.1. Con: If an economic system that prevents a [plutocracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy) from forming is implemented before the universal currency is, then it's likely not to be a worry.
1.7.2.2. Pro: Countries shouldn't have financial power over others, as that's unethical, but would happen with adapting a universal currency.
1.7.3. Pro: Transitioning to a universal currency would have an enormous impact on the wealth distribution of the world, which would prove too contentious.
1.8. Pro: A universal currency would allow the world to finally work towards growth of humanity as a whole.
1.8.1. Pro: A universal currency help us out with space ventures \(i.e. exploration, colonization, etc.\).
1.8.1.1. Pro: It would be difficult to know how to set up a extraterrestrial currencies, so it'd be easier to have a universal one so there's one less issue to worry about when going to space.
1.8.1.2. Pro: A universal currency gives us an option for setting up a space currency system.
1.8.1.3. Pro: A universal currency creates enough geographic flexibility to allow us to go wherever we plan to travel to in the universe.
1.8.2. Con: We don't need a universal currency for focusing on humanity instead of GDP, as that's already possible now \(as seen with the [GNH of Bhutan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness) and [ESG investing](https://www.fool.com/investing/what-is-esg-investing.aspx)\).
1.8.3. Con: Globalization increases urbanization, which has downsides \(like [substandard living conditions](http://www.globalization101.org/urbanization/) \(i.e. faster spread of disease, more shantytowns, etc.\)\). A universal economy could increase globalization and thus increase these negative side-effects.
1.8.4. Pro: In the post-WWII boom and post-globalized era, the world economy is starting to [slow down](https://blogs.imf.org/2019/10/15/the-world-economy-synchronized-slowdown-precarious-outlook/) \(due to developing countries [transitioning](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO9xHrdWRVQ) into slower-growing developed ones: [Solow model](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVAS-t83Tx0)\) and will continue into the future. So countries can't rely on GDP anymore for the main driver for growth. [Focusing on humanity](https://blogs.imf.org/2019/10/15/the-world-economy-synchronized-slowdown-precarious-outlook/) will be able to fill in where the GDP growth falls behind \(by removing the need for countries to focus on it through a universal currency\).
1.8.5. Pro: A universal currency, if \(but not required to be\) digitized \(like a cryptocurrency\), would save resources and thus improve the environment.
1.8.6. Con: This may not necessitate a universal currency, as post-scarcity \(which is what we're [already](https://hackernoon.com/what-post-scarcity-means-7c4d653418f4) headed in\) doesn't even have money and thus [no currency at all](https://study.com/academy/answer/would-currency-be-obsolete-in-a-post-scarcity-society.html). Thus, it would be a waste to start something that could never really exist.
1.8.7. Pro: If countries wished to help another, whether by 'fellowship' or to encourage positive development in other countries, some forms of assistance may be more subtly achieved through a universal currency by providing remote assistance to another country while still allowing them maintain sovereignty and independence.
1.8.7.1. Pro: This worked for the Eurozone during the Great Recession, where when some countries were in trouble, they were bailed out and are now [doing much better](https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/news/economy/europe-bailout-countries-spain/index.html).
1.8.7.1.1. Con: Some might have regained their growth [more quickly](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/harsh-austerity-imposed-on-ireland-by-berlin-says-ex-official-1.4094603?fbclid=IwAR2PUwzgC3VHFVCYSiLCPKV0qk3QUXK-d00i2MV_-o9vCQ9o6lDRMY8vzNI) without the imposed [austerity](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/01/austerity-eurozone-disaster-joseph-stiglitz).
1.8.7.1.2. Con: There was nothing 'remote' or 'light touch' or 'hands-off' about the Eurozone bailouts. The 'benefactor' countries did nothing to change their economy. This was economic control [imposed](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/harsh-austerity-imposed-on-ireland-by-berlin-says-ex-official-1.4094603?fbclid=IwAR2PUwzgC3VHFVCYSiLCPKV0qk3QUXK-d00i2MV_-o9vCQ9o6lDRMY8vzNI) on the recipients.
1.8.7.2. Con: It could go both ways, where this method could be also maliciously against other countries. Particularly if large countries continued to maintain their own currency, they could hurt countries that are dependent on the value of the global currency by divesting from it. This would just be a diplomatic lever to strong arm smaller nations.
1.8.8. Pro: Universal currency would decrease the need for countries to maintain their international competitiveness through GDP growth by simplifying economics for them enough to free up their focus to be able to help out humanity instead.
1.8.9. Pro: Quite possibly, a universal currency may foster and lead to a post-scarcity economy, which would create higher wealth \(and thus privilege\) and capabilities to decrease one's need for survival and instead personally focus towards humanitarian goals.
1.8.10. Pro: -> See 1.5.5.1.1.
1.8.11. Pro: It will be a positive signal towards unity of humans that are drastically separated from each other on many levels.
1.8.11.1. Pro: Universal currency would facilitate movement of people across borders.
1.8.11.1.1. Pro: This would allow workers to move to places where labor is in demand.
1.8.11.1.1.1. Pro: Charges for changing currency, and currency differences between one national currency and another, can be a barrier that disincentives or prevents workers from crossing borders in order to gain employment in another jurisdiction.
1.8.11.1.1.2. Con: -> See 1.2.4.2.
1.8.11.1.2. Pro: Those who recently become citizens from another country do not have to worry about currency exchanges or trades to convert their money over to another currency.
1.8.11.1.3. Pro: A universal currency would be extremely convenient for people who constantly travel. Exchanging money for different countries can be extremely bothersome.
1.8.11.1.3.1. Pro: Exchange rates fluctuate weekly. A universal currency would stay the same so one would not have to figure out conversions all the time.
1.8.11.1.3.1.1. Pro: Figuring out conversions constantly is cumbersome and likely without a calculator \(thus increases the possibility of losing money\).
1.8.11.1.3.2. Pro: A traveler may shorted money due to not understanding the amount to pay. A universal currency would disallow this.
1.8.11.1.4. Con: -> See 1.2.4.2.
1.8.11.1.5. Con: Large groups of people are adamantly opposed to [opening borders](https://quillette.com/2018/02/03/open-borders-dangerous-idea/) \(especially in the [US](https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2017/02/26/why-i-dont-support-open-borders/#450797c27b61)\) due to [concerns](https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/why-borders-matter-and-borderless-world-fantasy-9117.html) about culture clashes, criminality, civil unrest and threats to/ strain on public services of richer nations due to migrant influx. A universal currency would enable open borders and these accompanying issues.
1.8.11.1.5.1. Pro: -> See discussion #13237: Land boundaries/borders should not exist.
1.8.11.1.6. Con: -> See 1.2.4.6.
1.8.11.1.7. Pro: A universal currency would be easier understood across the world, regardless of language barriers.
1.8.11.1.7.1. Pro: Just like hi is a universal word, understood by everyone, a universal currency would be like that - understood by everyone.
1.8.11.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.5.
1.8.11.3. Con: Even with a unified currency, nations can still stay themselves through the transition to it.
1.8.11.3.1. Pro: Governments and their citizens could still be able to buy and sell shares of their countries to generate or measure their nation's individual economic wealth and growth.
1.8.11.4. Con: -> See 1.2.4.
1.8.11.5. Con: -> See 1.2.4.8.
1.8.11.6. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.6.4.
1.8.11.7. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.6.5.
1.8.11.8. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.6.
1.9. Con: With risks in partaking in the unknown \(as we've never had a global currency before\), it may not be worth it.
1.9.1. Con: We must partake in the unknown in many areas if we want to strive in the 21st century. There is just no precedent to our hyperconnected world and society.
1.9.1.1. Pro: Since most established currencies were created long ago, they may make society less resilient to new technologies \(as they can't keep with them\), which may involve greater uncertainties. Starting a new currency would be built with new technologies in mind, so it's easier for them to adapt and keep up with the rapidly changing technological pace.
1.9.1.2. Con: Risky actions should not be taken before a consensus is built and a direction adopted. Without one, the risk may outweigh the benefits.
1.9.1.2.1. Pro: We probably need new politics \(methods and ideologies\) before we can be 'universal'. Our political methods are rooted in nation states of massively varying sizes. The ideological path to 'Globalisation' was never about togetherness. The vision that [Gene Rodenberry](https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/3866-gene-roddenberry) had was, alas, based on a post-apocalyptic set of world-level wars and is a 'Universal' society worth that cost or should we just improve the status quo?
1.9.2. Pro: Any \(unforeseeable\) problems could impact global economics in ways that are very damaging to some or all countries. These problems could be very hard, or even impossible, to fix.
1.9.2.1. Pro: If the issue that arises is unforeseen, it could be very difficult or time-consuming to resolve. In the case of a global currency, the impact could be significant for some or all countries, and globally unprecedented.
1.9.2.2. Pro: If a universal currency arose out of a universal consensus \(if not an actual universal government then at least a coming together of governments\) then it would be safer than being adopted independently.
1.9.2.2.1. Pro: The [West Africa](https://www.thesierraleonetelegraph.com/west-africa-gets-a-new-currency-its-called-the-eco/) currency has emerged from discussion, not imposition.
1.9.2.2.2. Con: [Communities](https://hackernoon.com/how-distributed-technology-can-help-regional-currencies-2b8341c23b59) within nation states have created their own currencies.
1.9.2.2.2.1. Pro: The city of Bristol created a [Bristol Pound](https://bristolpound.org/) to encourage people to keep money within the community.
1.9.2.2.2.2. Pro: Local exchange schemes, generically know as [LETS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system), have been around for some time. [One site](http://www.lets-linkup.com/) claims that there are over 1,500 worldwide. There is generally a community or [morality](http://www.appropriate-economics.org/materials/dtearth.html) aspect to their existence.
1.9.2.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.2.
1.9.3. Con: -> See 1.7.1.1.
1.9.4. Con: There are instances where partaking in the unknown is worth it, like using it as a backup option when we have no other choice available: as something is better than nothing.
1.9.5. Pro: Other ideas for setting up a universal system \(like universal languages like [Esperanto](http://www.joerg-rhiemeier.de/Conlang/ranto.html)\) have failed in the past to be adopted. The same could happen with a universal currency, leading to waste and a bad reputation of what it could've been.
1.9.6. Con: -> See 1.3.7.
1.9.7. Pro: It would be too much work to fix something that isn’t broken and works fine.
1.9.7.1. Con: Today's economy isn't perfect and people shouldn't have to settle for/be content with that, but instead look for better. That's what the universal currency idea is for - to seek to find options that compensate for today's economic shortcomings.
1.9.7.2. Pro: The current system offers countries the flexibility to adjust their currencies to suit their own economies preferences.
1.9.7.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.3.
1.9.7.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.2.
1.9.7.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.1.
1.9.7.3. Pro: The current system already allows countries to join with other countries and share a currency.
1.9.7.3.1. Pro: If countries are worried about their currency fluctuating, they can just peg their currency to stronger countries.
1.9.7.3.1.1. Pro: Belize's central bank decided to [peg its currency](https://world101.cfr.org/global-era-issues/monetary-policy-and-currencies/understanding-currencies-and-exchange-rates) to the U.S. dollar.
1.9.7.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.2.7.
1.9.7.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.
1.9.8. Con: If we confront the universal currency's unknowns, then we can tackle them, so they become known and solutions are found. With enough background research to provide enough knowledge to know how to make a universal currency work full-scale, it'll be worthwhile at that point to attempt the ideas full-scale.
1.9.8.1. Pro: Starting on something new could allow us to create, build an infrastructure for, and adapt new technologies faster than ever. Then we could build on each other's work to make venturing into the unknown less risky.
1.9.8.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.3.1.6.4.
1.9.8.1.2. Con: The methods of identifying currency have varied from trading stamps to cigarettes, coinage to Gold etc. Cryptocurrencies are yet another, but when adopted by the [mainstream](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/central-bank-digital-currencies-reality-191106194530547.html) they will be regulated and part of the tensions of 'nation statehood'.
1.9.8.1.3. Pro: Universal currencies are going to be built in a technological age. So it'll implement and adapt to new technology better and faster than most established currencies \(due to being created long ago\). This feature will allow us to be more resilient to technological advances than now.
1.9.8.1.4. Pro: Building an infrastructure could lay the framework for when a universal economy's adapted at the full scale, so more effort can focus on an unknowns that arise to prevent them from derailing creating a universal currency.
1.9.9. Con: The fact that a universal currency's are unknown makes it a great opportunity for the field of research to explore and grow.
1.9.9.1. Pro: Research into futuristic ideas \(like a universal currency\) by seeing how they work in reality would help develop our collective knowledge as a whole \(without much harm\). The reason is, in general, more information that one knows, the better for making decisions.
1.9.9.1.1. Pro: Trying out a universal economy could give us enough information to compare it to other currencies to be able to adequately determine which direction is best, which is useful to know.
1.9.9.1.2. Pro: Being able to know how a universal currency works through testing it out thoroughly in a controlled setting could provide us enough knowledge and ability to handle issues than situations where we may immediately need it \(like emergencies\). So it's better \(i.e. less risky\) to handle the unknowns now than when we don't have a choice.
1.9.10. Con: We know some of the pros and cons of unified currencies \(like the [Euro and CFA franc](https://money.howstuffworks.com/how-much-money-is-in-the-world2.htm)\), so we can learn from them.
1.9.10.1. Pro: Many argue that is not the Euro itself that was the problem but the [lack of sufficient economic institutions](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/the-failure-of-the-euro) to monitor the Euro that was the issue. That is easily fixed with future attempts.
1.9.10.1.1. Con: The economic inequality within the Eurozone was always going to tear it apart unless there was a common government, such as the USA, China etc.
1.9.10.2. Pro: A unified currency could arise in steps. Get stable regional \(or power bloc\) currencies for a decade or two and then consider merging them.