Would a One World Monetary System work 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.