The case for a world currency
The flexible exchange rate experiment has been a failure. The best test of any monetary system is the degree to which it avoids unnecessary changes in real exchange rates. These changes drastically reduce the gains from trade and disqualify the arguments ordinarily made for free trade areas and the customs unions. By this criterion, the worst period in history has been the period since generalized floating that began in 1973. All of the arguments made for flexible exchange rates have proved to be incorrect. Destabilizing capital movements have rocked the exchange rates between areas that have a high and consistent degree of price stability. Exchange rates consistently overshoot equilibrium, causing harmful shifts between traded and non-traded goods industries and in the levels of indebtedness of rich and poor countries. The dollar–euro exchange rate, first dropping by a large percentage and then rising by an even larger percentage over the past 20 years, between areas that have price stability, is sufficient proof that the markets are not working in a direction and degree that is conducive to economic welfare. The solution lies in creating an international currency that can be used by all countries for international trade purposes. A two-step process is envisaged: First, a convergence of the three or four major currency areas on a common unit of account, called the “DEY” for dollar–euro–yen or dollar–euro–yuan, with a joint Monetary Policy Council to determine monetary policy of the area. Countries could start with large margins and gradually reduce them to complete convergence. Second, the Board of Governors of the IMF (or its replacement) designate the DEY as the platform on which, in conjunction possibly with gold, it will build the new world currency, to be called the INTOR. Both the Keynes and White Plans called for a world currency. Political conditions were not ripe for its inclusion in the Articles of Agreement and that is one of the reasons why the great po
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jpolmo:v:27:y:2005:i:4:p:465-475. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.