Can China’s CBDC Replace The Dollar?

As the United States and China continue to develop a more hostile relationship since both countries are trying to out-compete against one another on the global stage. The United States is the current superpower, and China is the upcoming (emergent) superpower. Both countries can spend a lot of money to improve their military strength in terms of troops, hardware, and technology. Both countries are worrying that the opponent would do so well in terms of global trade, influence, and everything else that it would outstrip the home country’s advantage on the global scale! Imagine that one day China could be so influential that it would prevent most countries around the world speak up and side with the United States to prevent China from invading Taiwan out of fear that China would stop trading and even worse will start a military campaign against the outspoken country in a near future. In reverse, China wouldn’t want the United States to continue to dominate the globe since China is now stronger and would become a huge boulder that could block the United States’ global domination.

We all know that the United States Dollar is the dominant reserve currency in which even China itself is holding a large number of dollars just to allow home companies and home local governments to transact with countries that are only wanting to trade in dollars on a global scale. As the United States is getting more hostile toward China for obvious reasons such as wanting to prevent China from dominating the world with its technical standards and influence and whatever else, China knows that it could not rely on the United States’ goodwill in the long run. As the United States sanctions Iran and North Korea and few other countries from conducting dollars on the global scale, China knows that it could be sanctioned by the United States if both countries are going to get even more hostile toward each other shortly. This is why China has been creating a different global transactional path known as CIPS which allows China to conduct trades on a global stage without relying on the SWIFT system in which the Dollar is dominated.

Instead of just being satisfied with what CIPS has to offer for China in terms of conducting trades with countries that are friendly to China on the global stage such as Iran, China is taking one step further by pushing for CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency). As we speak, it’s estimated that roughly 83% of the world’s central banks are looking at creating their own CBDC version. China’s CBDC is the only digital currency in which has already being pushed to use by its citizens, and this means China’s CBDC has progressed the most out of all CBDC projects out there in the world. As we speak, Canada, Sweden, and few other countries are further along but behind China in terms of making progress in creating a CBDC system. The United States is unfortunately way behind many other countries in creating its CBDC system.

As China makes progress in creating and promoting and updating its CBDC system, the unintentional or intentional, depending on who you’re asking the question, advantages that come with the creation of this CBDC system is that many countries who are signed up to be a member of BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) may adopt China’s CBDC sooner than we could have imagined for trades on the global stage. How come? Perhaps, using China’s CBDC for conducting trades could cut down the costs of transactional fees, and the digitalization of the logistic application such as clearing customs and so on could be done on the blockchain (which underpins China’s CBDC) smoothly. For example, country A bought huge containers of China’s export for its own import need could just open up an app and with a few clicks here and there — the logistical digitalization through the usage of CBDC — and can order many huge containers of products to be imported without needing to file paper works online or offline for clearing customs and paying huge currency conversion fee and whatnot — meanwhile, the app would show when and where the products have been moved and when will the product arrive on the doorstep of country A.

After watching the video right after the break, you might as well be as educated on the topic of digital currency as I am since the information I’ve shared in the post was learned from the video itself. I have no affiliation with the people in the video right after the break, and I’m sharing the video since it got so much important information about our future. For example, the speakers in the video mention that through Alipay and Wechat, Chinese people become cashless society but China’s CBDC won’t replace Alipay and Wechat but rely on these two platforms to get popular. Another example is that the speakers mention how the digitalization of currency could do away with overdraft protection fees in which the poor are most likely being affected — as we speak 30 billion dollars of overdraft protection fees could have been conducted annually if my understanding of what the speakers have conveyed is correct.

In summary, I think China’s CBDC may displace the dollars on the global stage but won’t replace the dollars on the global stage. To the best of my understanding from watching the video, I could understand that China’s CBDC will allow countries to use CBDC to cut costs and time in conducting trades with China on the global stage. Since China has been pushing for closer ties with BRI members, I could see BRI members will rather use China’s CBDC over the dollars in the longer term. This means China’s CBDC will displace the dollars on global trade but the Dollar will still be a reserve currency for some countries that want to do trade in dollars on the global stage. The dollar won’t go away but the Dollar may lose influence to China’s CBDC over a longer period. This is why the United States too may have to push hard on creating its CBDC system to compete against China’s more progressive and developed CBDC system as we speak. If the United States doesn’t do so, I fear the United States will be way behind in competing against China in terms of trades and currency influence on the global stage.

Could Blockchain Be Used More Appropriately To Facilitate Cashless Society?

Thinking out loud is often done in a haste hints the nature of it.  Thus my thinking out loud in this post isn’t solid, but I like to dabble on here.  One thing people fear about a cashless society is that once the digital numbers are being erased somehow, their worth would be gone without any trace for recovering.  Thus, people are definitely still preferring cash as a mean for emergency backup.  After all, if their digital world is being shut down, they got cash to help them survive daily such as buying foods and whatnot.

Bitcoin is probably going to be an enemy of the banks since banks want to be the middlemen of the transactions.  Bitcoin takes out the middlemen role and allows people to have a direct transaction between the two parties.  In order for the bank to receive commission and gain liquid fund, the bank needs to be able to insert itself into the deal.  Simply put, Bitcoin is against a traditional bank which isn’t accepting Bitcoins!

Banks can accept Bitcoins, but people won’t use banks as of how they would use a traditional bank.  Bitcoin users may want a bank to behave as a trustful Bitcoin exchange to facilitate the Bitcoin transactions in safety manners.  This way any Bitcoin bank can still insert a banking role in a non-traditional way into the deal.  Since Bitcoin will be more transparent — plus demoting a traditional banking role somewhat, I don’t think the banks will be able to create more creative derivative means for creative investments.  I could be wrong since this is thinking out loud session.

Bitcoin is also very similar to a cashless society because it isn’t cash and it’s digital medium.  Taking away Bitcoin, underneath it all is the technology itself which is the blockchain.  The blockchain technology is more important than the clothes it is wearing such as a crypto coin (i.e., Bitcoin).  Why?  I think blockchain technology is good at keeping transactions honest.  This honesty is rather important for cashless society don’t you think?  Nonetheless, current Bitcoin way isn’t helpful for blockchain technology since the implementation is rather crude, allowing people to hack and steal each other Bitcoin without a clear way to trace back to the original owner of the lost Bitcoins.

If I’m not wrong, a will be successful cashless society could use the blockchain technology to keep cashless money honest so the original owner of the money won’t fear the tyranny of a cashless society shutdown event.  By that I mean the only way for a person in such a society to lose wealth is being incriminated with evidence and wealth get confiscated by a court of law.  In such an orderly way the blockchain technology could be used to keep track what money belongs to whom before the exchange takes place and long afterward so a cashless society shutdown event which occurs by any other mean besides the legal ones such as the one I stated just a moment earlier would be a futile effort.

I think people would be able to accept a cashless society when their wealth won’t be suddenly disappeared overnight in a mysterious event.  Of course, people are still going to fear that if they’re innocent and being convicted wrongly; their wealth got confiscated in such a rude event — they could be helpless as they would not be able to survive daily when their digital wealth got shut down in a cashless society.  I think once one accepts a cashless society, one has to accept such possibility as there won’t be any legal cash laying around to act as a legal tender for acquiring daily things.

By writing this blog post, it doesn’t mean I support a cashless society!  I just merely thinking about the possibilities and effects of it all when such a society occurs.  Although China isn’t a purely cashless society, because paper money is still going to be a legal tender within China.  Nonetheless, China is one of those countries that is leading the race in facilitating the use of money through digital devices such as the smartphone.  I think once the money becomes digital numbers, money is indeed facilitating a cashless society.  A cashless society is definitely taking some shapes or forms around the world, and so I’m writing this to amuse myself with both negative and positive possibilities of such a phenomenon.

Weaker Dollar, Stronger Yuan May Hurt The United States And Help China In The Long Run!

I’m no expert in economic matters, but I just want to use my own personal logic to make sense of a few things that are currently happening.  People are seeing that the Dollar is weakening as we speak, and the Yuan is growing stronger as we speak.  Some people say weaker Dollar is a good thing because export will become more profitable.  Furthermore, when export becomes profitable, it also drives up the manufacturing sector at home.  That’s the theory for some people, but I feel that it’s way more complicated than this.

Since the United States isn’t a world manufacture hub — China is holding this title — the United States’ exports won’t matter as much unless the United States becomes the world manufacture hub.  Sure, with weaker Dollar, the United States’ exports will become more competitive than before.  The question is, will a little gain in competitiveness in exports spur the manufacturing sector at home?  Meanwhile, weaker Dollar will make the United States’ imports a lot more expensive.

I think the United States currently imports a lot more than exports.  The United States’ import is at $2.25 trillion and the export is at $1.45 trillion for the year of 2016, according to Wikipedia.  If the United States’ exports continue to slack even with the weak Dollar and the imports continue to grow, the United States could face an even stronger trade deficit.  For an example, manufacturer companies in the United States may have to import more expensive materials from the outside to manufacture products at home for selling across the world and at home.  This may not make the products at home cheaper for homegrown consumers.  Furthermore, this will increase the trade deficit in manufacturing sector if not enough products within the United States get to export to balance out the import costs.

Weak Dollar will increase less buying power for the Americans who go abroad for vacation, business, and so forth.  Weak Dollar can make purchases of products from foreign companies through online websites or offline imports more expensive for the American consumers.  For an example, I could be buying a music plugin from an online website which belongs to a French company, and with a weak Dollar, I could be paying more for this software.

I guess good things and bad things do exist even when the Dollar is weak or strong.  Nonetheless, the most interesting question is can the United States fare better when the Dollar is weaker or stronger.  In my opinion, weaker Dollar can help spur export a bit, but if the United States’ exports don’t carry the whole United States’ overall, long-term economy, then the weaker Dollar will be a very bad thing!

What about China?  If the United States enters a trade war against China, China can increase import tariff costs for the products from the United States.  This could hurt the United States’ export market because weaker Dollar would be neutralized by this move from China.  Furthermore, China can also buy up weak Dollar on the cheap to make Yuan stronger if this would serve China’s agenda.  Of course, stronger Yuan for China could make China’s exports look expensive.  Still, from what I’ve heard, China is trying to spur demands at home to create a bigger home consumer market so China won’t be relying on too much from the export market.  If this is the case, then cheap Dollar would be beneficial for China in a big way!

Stronger Yuan would allow Chinese who are going abroad to get more bang for the buck.  Meanwhile, Chinese imports would become cheaper, and so China won’t have to spend so much money to import stuff.  As China’s export market isn’t doing so bad and the imports get cheaper, stronger Yuan allows China to continue to reform her consumption market.  Foreign companies would love to enter China’s bigger homegrown consumption market because China has 1.4 billion headcounts and growing.  As China becomes an ever more important factor for foreign companies due to the size of Chinese population and market, China can begin to dictate tastes, styles, fashions, and so forth worldwide.  Chinese culture will become ever more influential if Chinese market becomes the most important market in the world.

With a weaker Dollar and stronger Yuan, entering a trade war against China might be very bad for the United States!  China can sanction the United States’ companies, entities, and so much more to crash the United States economy.  Of course, a trade war would be bad for China too, because the United States’ imports from China do matter to China a lot.  Nonetheless, as China doesn’t rely on the export market so much, a trade war between the United States and China won’t deter Chinese economic reform plan.  After all, China wants to grow the homegrown consumption market!  While growing a homegrown consumption market to rely less on the export market, China relies on the cheaper import market to balance out the reduction of Chinese exports.  Weaker Dollar and stronger Yuan will allow China to transit from the export market to a service market, also to move to a higher value-added export market — all in all – making this transition in a smoother fashion.

In conclusion, I think China can make the best out of either weaker or stronger Dollar, and the United States — as long as the country stays less competitive — won’t be able to have the upper hand if a trade war occurs between China and the United States.  Meanwhile, China can use stronger Yuan to buy cheap debts from United States’ weak Dollar to prop up China Yuan’s strength.  This, in turn, will actually help China transits from a manufacturing to a service economy.  As the low value-added market goes away in China, China has to accelerate the reform of the manufacturing sector at home so Chinese future export market will be more about high value-added products.  Anyhow, if the United States isn’t going to be able to use the opportunity of a weaker Dollar to reform her economy somehow to make the United States’ economy more competitive against rivals such as China, in the long run other rivals will use the weaker Dollar as the opportunity to make their own economies a lot stronger.

Why I Think Bitcoin Is Not Ready For Prime Time

So Bitcoin becomes the rage again for unknown reasons.  Today Bitcoin price is going through the roof.  As of this writing a single Bitcoin is equating to $2251 (US Dollar).  I can see the allures of Bitcoin, but I can also see so many drawbacks.  Let’s talk about the drawbacks shall we?

First, one of the biggest drawbacks of Bitcoin for me is not be able to sell Bitcoin anonymously through an exchange.  Instead, the exchange requires you to send your info includes your social security number before you get verified and be able to do any trading of Bitcoin.  This means if an exchange gets hack, all of  your info is going to be shared or be sold to any unknown parties.  Of course you can argue that lot of your information is already in places that are being stored online and can still be hacked easily.  I argue that at least the government agencies and banking institutions are perhaps more willing to protect your information than some Bitcoin exchanges.  Thus, hacking into these institutions may not be easily done, and once it is being done the government would definitely go after such hackers in a big way.  So, at least you know you got huge resources to look after your information in a more serious manner.

Second, another biggest drawback is that many Bitcoin exchanges cannot be trusted, because not only they’d gotten hacked way too many times before but some of them also run away with your bitcoins.  This means if an exchange decides to stop doing business and just run away with your bitcoins, you’re basically losing all of your bitcoins on a specific Bitcoin exchange.  This is why I don’t think it’s wise to store any of your bitcoins on a Bitcoin exchange besides just enough bitcoins for selling purpose.  Once buying a bitcoin on an exchange it’s wise to transfer the bitcoin out of the exchange immediately and into your more secure Bitcoin wallet that stores on your local machine/computer.

Third, another biggest drawback is that you can lose all of your bitcoins easily if a computer that you’re using to store all of your bitcoins got corrupted hard drives.  This means if you cannot rescue a specific corrupted hard drive that stores all of your bitcoins, you basically lose all of your bitcoins forever.  Thus, I think some people may adopt storing their bitcoins on multiple machines in multiple wallets, so they don’t have to worry about having all of their eggs in one basket.  Some people also do backups for their Bitcoin wallets’ data to ensure that Bitcoin wallets’ data won’t get corrupted easily.  It is also wise to encrypt the partition or partitions that you store your Bitcoin wallets’ data, and only this way you can protect your bitcoins from being stolen easily.  Basically, encrypting a partition on top of already encrypted Bitcoin wallet’s data is like having one more security layer.

Fourth, another biggest drawback is that Bitcoin is still not being accepted widely.  Sure, there are many places that may accept Bitcoin, but there are also so many many places that do not accept Bitcoin.

Fifth, another biggest drawback is that Bitcoin can be confusing for people who have no experiences with computer.  Some people in older generations will not be able to understand how to use Bitcoin, and so it’s going to be exotic and hard to use for them.  To use Bitcoin, one must know how to securely protect your bitcoins in a Bitcoin wallet and on a secure machine, but these measures are probably just gibberish for people who do not have the ability to use computers correctly.  Especially, if they do not know how to use computer in a secure manner, they are going to get hack easily and lose all of their bitcoins.

Sixth, another biggest drawback is that many governments are not recognizing Bitcoin as currency, and so Bitcoin is in a grey area in which so many different laws are being applied to Bitcoin.  This means you have to use Bitcoin differently in each country, and so laws that regulate Bitcoin in one country doesn’t behave similarly to laws in another country.  Of course you can argue that cash are not the same in all countries, but cash are legal tender — thus there are specified laws that may apply on the usage of cash even though such cash are not printed in the specific country or countries.  Some governments are outright hostile toward Bitcoin, thus they’re banning Bitcoin outright.

Seventh, another biggest drawback is that some governments are making you as a target of investigation for using Bitcoin, because they think Bitcoin is a way to facilitate dirty money.

These are the drawbacks and other drawbacks that I may not have stated that prevent me from seeing Bitcoin as a sure way that can replace the traditional money.  Furthermore, I like to have the option of Bitcoin and digital currencies and traditional currencies in digital forms, but I also like even more to see that traditional currencies in the form of cash that do not go away.  Why?  Anything that is tangible is definitely harder to be erased and made disappear.  This means your wealth can be protected better even it means securing them under your mattresses.  If your wealth can just go poof in an instant, it means your wealth is not being secured in a correct form or forms.  Because Bitcoin has so many weaknesses, I think it’s not wise to convert a huge portion of your wealth into bitcoins at all.

Cashless Society Encourages Monopoly Money

I’m not an economist, because I’m a nobody.  Thus, my experience in trained economics is a zero.  As a human being, I do have opinions.  By staying informed with everyday experiences, I do form opinions on facts that, I think, are real.  From these opinions and ideas, I can draw some non-expert conclusions.  In fact, right now I like to talk about one or two conclusions I have on cashless society.

I think cashless society is wonderful for governments, bankers, and whatever associations that have control over a society, because electronic traces are available 24/7.  What is scarier is that anybody in the position of power or any hacker who has enough knowledge can just shut you out of a cashless society by changing your electronic numbers.  This is very real, because without any cash on hand, your only option is to rely on the credit system and other electronic monetary forms.  When such a system cuts you out, you are basically helpless and powerless and cashless.  In such a situation, surviving becomes impossible!

Cashless society can also be wonderful for you, but as long the illusion of real efforts and real transactions are actually taking place.  I think bankers can just enter any number of money into a bank account for just about anybody, and the money will form instantly by the electronic means.  You could say money seem to be appearing out of thin air!  Growing on tree, or however you want to phrase this illusion.  I think cashless society will enhance this ability by an infinite time more.  What do I meant by an infinite time more?  Cashless society won’t use cash, because cash cannot be legal.  Thus, cashless society is all about the electronic, monetary numbers, and anybody who has the authorization to form these numbers can just make them out of nothing.  Or they can just delete these numbers whenever!

What makes cashless society humming brilliantly is the illusion of convincing people that real efforts and transactions are actually taking place.  Let’s say, if a doctor who got paid very well by treating his patients in exemplary manner would probably quit his job if the bank could instantly form any amount of money, into the infinity, without any effort.  Why even bother to go to work when you can just go to the bank for an easy loan, and the bank won’t care if you can pay the money back or not since the bank can form infinite amount of credits.  In the cashless society, if the bank isn’t going to lend you any credit, you have to acquire these credits by working for a job or doing whatever to acquire more credits.  But will you be working with a happy smile on your face knowing the bank can form any amount of credits out of thin air?  Demand and supply formula won’t be a good gauge anymore in cashless society, because unlimited amount of credits can flood the system forever.

Even better, why don’t you just form a bank where you, yourself, can electronically form infinite amount of credits?  Wouldn’t this make you an infinite-air?  Why would you bother with taking out someone else’s trashes and problems for a wage/fee when you can just hallucinating yourself with infinite credits of your own bank?  If everyone is into this, then the system got a problem.  The problem is not lacking of credits or money, but the problem is about — nothing will ever get done.  Because nobody will give any real effort in any exchange since credit is created out of thin air without any real effort.  This means the producers see no reason to produce products, because the infinite bank is giving out easy credits freely.  Basically, why produce when you can obtain free credits, right?  Without producers in the equation, the consumers won’t have anything real to consume.  The whole economic system would become meaningless, and so the system collapses.

I guess, the only real demand for cashless society is the demand for more credits, and the easy credits are plentiful available so the demand for more credits could be fulfilled.  Of course, the government and the powerful bankers can just create laws that make the illusion works for awhile.  An example would be you have to pay back the loan you want to borrow, or else you may suffer a consequence of being shutout of the cashless society system.   Knowing being shut out, it means you are not going to be able to buy the most necessities such as foods, and so you know you’re doom for good.

Nonetheless, in a cashless society — a shutout mandate or whatever rules a cashless society wants to impose on the people — the atmosphere can become very toxic for the powerful people.  How come?  If a society can only get poorer while the banks have unlimited amount of credits, the poor people will see this as the greatest injustice of all time.  This means if there is large amount of poor people who are thinking this way will have a king’s head rolls.  Thus, a cashless society needs to uphold not only the illusion of real efforts and transactions, but it also needs to uphold the income equality for the whole society.  As long the majority (e.g., 65%, or 75%, or 80% of the general population) is wealthier than a small percentage of the whole population, then nobody would be able to form a big enough movement to have a king’s head rolls.

If you’ve read thus far, I think you would probably have a notion that cashless society is the same thing as a credit society we’re living in today.  I would agree, but cashless society is more draconian since it outlaws the tangible cash.  With cash in the equation, people can still feel that transactions are real, because something gets sold something gets paid with hard, cold cash (i.e., it’s real).  Even with cash in the system, it’s all about maintaining the illusion that credits are properly distributed.  Taking the cash out of the current credit system to make a complete cashless society, the illusion of proper distribution and exchange will be harder to uphold when the going gets really tough.  Few good examples would be unemployment goes skyrocket, income inequality goes skyrocket, debts go skyrocket and so forth.

Of course, you can argue, when the going gets really tough, with cash in the economic system or not, the whole bubble is going to pop and a king’s head rolls anyway.  Nonetheless, with cash in the system, at least new problems of cashless society won’t be introduced to the general population.  Once cashless society is in place, some traditional problems plus new problems are going to continuously rain down on the whole society, especially when people can be cut off from the system altogether since only credit-like means are acceptable and real.

Cashless society would definitely help the controllers to see the nuts and bolts of the whole system more clearly, because electronic transactions are going to leave electronic traces behind.  Nonetheless, in bad time, this would aggravate people rather easily, because they feel their privacy are being invaded all the time.  When it comes to money, privacy matters!

I think people won’t mind sharing who they’re having sex with, but when it comes down to money people are not that willing to share.  Thus, money is rather private!  So, cashless society is going to have a problem of allowing people to have some privacy with their money.  For an example, if everything is so connected in the cashless society, everyone would know how much credits you have available.  This would mean your local pizza parlor would refuse you a slice of pizza for they know your whole worth is zero or negative credit.  In a cash society, you can just hand over the cash, the local pizza parlor would careless if you have any credit, and off you go with a delicious slice of pizza.  In a cashless society, your shame would be revealed instantly.  Even worse, you will not be able to fill up your stomach when nobody is going to accept cash.  After all, it’s a cashless society!

In summary, I think cashless society can make bad economics worse, because new problems would be introduced to the general population.  These problems may become apparent rather quickly when the economy goes bad.  An example would be people may become less cooperative in making a living, because there are less incentives to encourage people to earn money the hardy way.  People may try to scheme the infinite credit/cashless society to make money the easy way, and economic bubbles would form into gigantic ones till they burst and collapse the economic system altogether.  Instead of really solving the problems of society such as poverty and whatnot, cashless society can only enhance the paranoia of lacking privacy.  Money is a very private matter to many people, and so these people are not going to be very happy about having to live in a cashless society when every known businesses and services out there know how much you are worth 24/7.  At least with cash, people can hide their shame of having less worth.  Basically, any society with a lot of insecurity can collapse, and so the same goes with cashless society.

 

What Will Happen If The World Uses One World Currency?

What will happen if the whole world is going to use the same currency?  Imagine if the whole world only has one currency, the economy would behave rather differently than how it is now.  Currency war would be history.  Trade war through currency manipulation might not be easily executed as now.  Is it really that positive to have one world currency?  If you’re reading on, you might see that I’m not so sure about this idea.  Nonetheless, the idea is interesting and provocative.

Saying is easy, but having one currency for the whole world would be difficult.  Our world is made of countries with histories and sovereignties.  Thus, each country has its own financial and currency systems.  Except the Eurozone member states, most countries are able in printing their own currency for whatever purposes.  Since each country is being ruled by a specific umbrella system that supports the financial and currency systems, and so it’s rather difficult to have any country in such situation to give up their right to print their own currency.

Nonetheless, let’s say the whole world gets together and decides to have one currency for all countries in the world, the question is how one world currency system would behave?  Perhaps, it’s like a democracy, because each country should have the right amount of currency printing privilege in percentage quota.  The world could use the population size of a country to determine how much percentage quota for the right to printing the one world currency a country should have.

The idea of one world currency is just too radical, because nothing like this has ever happened in the human recorded history.  Since this is too radical and has never happened before, I don’t think anyone is clever enough to see the consequences if one world currency is actually taking place.

My suggestion — if this scenario takes place, the country’s population size should determine the percentage quota of right to printing the one world currency — is having many flaws.  On the top of my head, a flaw of this suggestion is noticeable in regarding to how a country should prioritize their policies, because the larger the population size the bigger the percentage quota would be for printing the one world currency.  In a competitive world with one currency, poverty might be increasing instead of decreasing.  If a country decides to make policies that encourage population growth but without policies to help keep the population stays competitive in the world market, it’s a disaster in the making since bigger population means more mouths to feed.  In one world currency system, wrong prioritization of policies can encourage a disaster on a very large scale.

I think there are positives and negatives in regarding to have one world currency.  The positives are cohesive world monetary system, less aggressive trade and currency manipulations, and so forth.  The negatives are poverty might be increasing in uncompetitive countries/regions, losing sovereignty, democratization of currency printing is still going to be dictated under one central umbrella govern body which oversights the regulatory bodies of how one world currency should work, and so forth.

Since I’m just a puny human, I don’t really know all of the negative consequences might bear fruit if one world currency system is actually taking place.  One thing I do know is that most things are possible, and so you would never know that one day the whole world might band together to come up with one world currency.  Who could have thought Eurozone would be possible, right?  Nonetheless, the jury is still out in regarding to how effective and prosperous the Euro has been for the Eurozone member states.  After all, Eurozone as a whole is facing greater uncertainty in regarding to the increase of financial instability within several Eurozone member states.  Greece comes to mind in this regard.

I don’t particularly side with the idea of one world currency, because seeing how Eurozone member states are facing the problem of not having to be able to print their own currency to support their uncompetitive trade markets.  Still, seeing how one country can manipulate her own currency to boost trade competitiveness at the cost of other countries’ trade welfares, perhaps one world currency might be able to stem this problem.  To sum things up, I’m not sure having one world currency can solve the world’s financial uncertainties, because Eurozone member states have shown that even they are not immune to the financial uncertainties even though they are using one currency (i.e., the Euro) to trade with each other.