Would a One World Monetary System work better?

you have some good points, but you are under the assumption that I feel the world government would be a legislature. thats where you are wrong. when i say centralized power, i mean centralized power. in one man (or woman). ive already been through this on another thread, so im not going to repeat it all here.

The one major flaw in a OWG is tha all tribes, religions and nations are different. therefore if one tribe, religion or nation opposes it they are in a prone postion to be isolated and persecuted… furthermore the major support for a OWG is going to be out of everone’s pocket, which obviously would be a substantial amount of money, and a “Stalin” could once again do the same thing that the Communist ideal opposed, but brought.

The tobin tax is not a tax on import or export.
It is a tax directed against free movement of finances, as in earning money in one place, and moving it to one of the “tax-heavens”, and then best trying to get subsidies or valuable benefits from the gov’t of the country where you earned it.
Can anyone imagine that Daimler Chrysler pays nearly no tax in Germany?

And for the debts of other countries to the the US, first, what has that to do with a world-wide tax? Second, what about the US debts to other countries?

@F_alk:

The tobin tax is not a tax on import or export.
It is a tax directed against free movement of finances, as in earning money in one place, and moving it to one of the “tax-heavens”, and then best trying to get subsidies or valuable benefits from the gov’t of the country where you earned it.
Can anyone imagine that Daimler Chrysler pays nearly no tax in Germany?

Big deal. That’s Germany’s problem, and good for the tax-haven’s/companies that take advantage of them. I would.
Besides, its not like Germany is getting completely screwed by D-C. Afterall, i’m guessing that it’s workers are very well organized (i.e. mofo-unionized) and are paying appropriate taxes on their paychecks, so D-C is making some kind of contribution to the companies economy.

And for the debts of other countries to the the US, first, what has that to do with a world-wide tax? Second, what about the US debts to other countries?

First - one has little to do with the other. At the same time, if i’m an American, i’d think it was silly to pay a “tax” to countries that have already been loaned/gifted a s**tload of cash.
Second - The US is prolly one of the best countries to be lending money to. (well, at least in the top 10-15) Nobody “loans” money to the US without the expectation that it will be paid back (except the UN which already collects a type of “tax” - except from the US who hasn’t been that quick to pay . . .)

@cystic:

Big deal. That’s Germany’s problem, and good for the tax-haven’s/companies that take advantage of them. I would.

Well, it is not a national problem, it is a problem each nation has. … except for the havens of course, but there it’s not a problem because there the coorps aren’t taxed.

Why is stealing from a society worse than stealing from a single person?

Besides, its not like Germany is getting completely screwed by D-C. Afterall, i’m guessing that it’s workers are very well organized (i.e. mofo-unionized) and are paying appropriate taxes on their paychecks,

Well, it is not completely, but it still is getting screwed. Why should the workers keep paying taxes? Haven’t they produced something, and by that made a contribution to society? If you do your job, then you contribute alreadz, why pay taxes then? The same goes for companies: They do their job, but still they have to pay taxes.

What goes for a single person … that is a human being!.. must also be the case for the judical body of a coorporation!

so D-C is making some kind of contribution to the companies economy.

A great Freudian :)

At the same time, if i’m an American, i’d think it was silly to pay a “tax” to countries that have already been loaned/gifted a s**tload of cash.

I see your point. Then someone has to explain that USies that the tobin tax would not go to countries.

…except the UN which already collects a type of “tax” - except from the US who hasn’t been that quick to pay . . .)

and could replace that “tax”

i am in full favour of one world currency and world government… but too lazy explain my point of view… which of course also protects me from the (maybe) constructive criticism of other people… haha :lol:

I like Hanso’s approach. because i am no great speaker (or in this case writer) that i can fully articulate my ideas 100% accurately, there is always a misunderstanding which leads to others. if you could see the ideas in my head, you still wouldnt necessarily agree with them, but often youd see my point better.

I think SUD over went over “what’s wrong with a one world gov” already. But as for currency, we should allow that (not that we already do with the US dollar :wink: )

thanks Janus…

maybe in a few years we can leave audio messages on the forums, much better approach for lazy people like me

on the other hand i guess some joker would just burp on it and find the knowledge that other people unwillingly listen to it quite amusing… more work for the regulators then… nice idea though

I see your point. Then someone has to explain that USies that the tobin tax would not go to countries.

Then who does it go to? Also, is it considered a tax if it’s not levied by a country?

The “problem” with the tobin tax is that it is inter-national, that implies outside each single nation, though each single nation (or at least the majority and the important) has/have to agree to implement it. Where the money goes, has to be decided …. maybe to the UN, getting them an independant income. Maybe it’s split between the countries that are involved in the money transfer.
All that is open, as the tobin tax probably will not be implemented anyway due to the resistance of the followers of the “money must have more freedom than people have”-doctrine.

what the UN needs is not the tobin tax, but rather its own military yes, they need money to do this but nations could contribute temporarily while armed services are built up by the UN. the problem is that they really have no real authority. as the US has shown, nations can simply defy them, and if they are strong enough, like the US, there aint a damn thing the UN can do about it, and it becomes obsolete. give it its own military. an added bonus being that the UN “peacekeepers” will no longer be American troops for instance, commanded by say, a french commander

the difference being it will give the UN some authority. like i said, the US has shown that it really has no power. if the US for instance doesnt want to do what they say, they wont. end of discussion. if the UN had a military of its own, it would at least have something to back up its words. further, you wouldnt have troops from one nations military working under a commander from another nation.

fair enough. i dont respect the un, so i dont pay much attention to how it works. if thats the case, than you change it. simple as that (actually not that simple, but the idea is).

as for one country vetoing it, i dont know of the actual rules regarding such a thing, but i would take it that if one country were the target of such UN action, they would not be able to exercise their veto, as it would be a conflict of interest.

Soon u Die:

Four Stars!

Well met, My Lord!

S28

I think its not. That thing you quoted is an US law proposal, and the only difference from the situation today is that a UN controlled lightly armed force would subsitute the US controlled heavily armed forces…. maybe that difference between “N” and “S” is the thing you dislike that much.