Monday, November 24, 2008

Single Global Currency Association

"A global economy requires a global currency."
Paul Volcker, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chair

"The net result will be to continue to exercise growing control over the real economy by a handful of private families and institutions designed to protect and grow intergenerational wealth."

"We will continue the move toward one world government and one world currency."
Catherine Austin Fitts

From the home page introduction:
A Single Global Currency would likely have a new name which denotes its global use, such as "mundo", "global", or "eartha", just as the "euro" is currently for Europe. (See Feedback on SGC Names.) It likely would not be the expanded form of any current currency, such as the dollar or euro or yen, unless those currencies opened up their central banks' governing boards to worldwide participation and agreed to change the name of the currency to one with more global meaning.

The Single Global Currency would be managed by a single global central bank, with representative governing boards for the people , governments and financial institutions of the world.

The Global Central Bank would be financed by whatever benefits will come from the printing of money and seigniorage. Any surplus monetary benefits coming to the bank would be allocated to politically agreed-upon goals, such as the reduction of foreign debt or the eradication of disease or the support of family planning. see more

Morrison Bonpasse, the president of SGCA, sent me a message promoting the Single Global Currency Association.

Dear Kenny,

The world needs to move to a Single Global Currency, managed by a Global Central Bank within a Global Monetary Union. As Paul Volcker has said, "A global economy requires a global currency. The success of the euro shows that monetary union is the best way to ensure monetary stability. The primary problem with the euro and currencies of other monetary unions is the multi-currency system itself where currencies fluctuate in value against each other. If 16 countries can use the same currency, why not 192?

In addition to eliminating currency risk, the use of a Single Global Currency would eliminate the current foreign exchange trading expense of $400 billion annually, eliminate current account imbalances, eliminate the need for foreign exchange reserves (now totaling more than $3 trillion); and bring other benefits worth trillions.

The Single Global Currency Assn. promotes the implementation of a Single Global Currency by 2024, the 80th anniversary of the 1944 Bretton Woods conference.

That's only 16 years away. The world is moving toward a Single Global Currency through the creation of monetary unions in Asia, North and South America, Africa and the Middle East (GCC) and the expansion of monetary unions in West Africa, the Caribbean and Europe.

The Assn's website is See the book, "The Single Global Currency - Common Cents for the World."

What do you think of a Single Global Currency?



My open response:

Dear Morrison,

I suppose in an ideal world, where honesty and truth prevailed, one could make a viable argument for a single global currency. Unfortunately we are not even close to that ideal.

How could we trust a single global central bank to act in the best interests of the people of the world? We cannot even trust our own central bank, The Federal Reserve, to act in the best interests of the American people. It certainly seems that they only act to protect the interests of the top 1% or less of our population and the willing participants who serve them.

The very idea of a global central bank and economic stability is the same one that ushered in the Federal Reserve in 1913. A thorough study of the unvarnished history of the Fed reveals that it came into being through fraud and the buying of the politicians that made it happen.
What would ensure the same thing from happening again in a global fraud for the central bank?

Who owns the Fed? We can't even get an official answer to this question. Who would be the owners of the global central bank and who would they answer to? Who actually would benefit?

I'm sorry Mr. Bonpasse but I don't see enough honesty and truth in the shadow world of global banking and politics to even consider creating a global currency.

Let's clean up our own house before we attempt to clean up the world.



From a link on the SGCA site, Catherine Austin Fitts gives her take on the recent G-20 summit.

Statement From G-20 Summit

G20 Summit

The Editor of Expresso in Portugal wanted my take on the recent G-20 communique. Here is my “translation” of the official statement:

1. Now that the growth of debt and derivatives bubbles has stalled, we are committed to using governmental-central bank mechanisms to cover the positions of any of the large private financial institutions whose profits are at risk due to their management of these bubbles and who can use this opportunity to squeeze and acquire smaller rivals at low cost.

2. Our commitment to use derivatives and market interventions to shift investment from the real economy and commodities into a paper economy is firm. We will continue to use centralized governmental mechanisms to subsidize and manage this process.

3. All of the organizations and players who reaped a fortune engineering the debt and derivatives bubbles will be allowed to keep their winnings.

4. We will use this period of consolidation to further centralize the global financial system by enforcing greater centralization of the standards, practices and control of enforcement and regulatory bureaucracies. This increased governmental centralization will be presented as the “fix” for our “problems.”

5. We will continue the move toward one world government and one world currency.

6. We are prepared to use coordinated inflation of global money supplies and fiscal stimulus to protect our control and positions.

7. We are committed to the Slow Burn (see my blog post on this subject).

8. This process will continue to be managed to protect large insurance and risk positions.

9. The net result will be to continue to exercise growing control over the real economy by a handful of private families and institutions designed to protect and grow intergenerational wealth.

G-20 are silent on the military and covert action that will be required to make this stick. They are also silent on how they are going to manage this much inflation. For example, the most recent figures from the St. Louis Fed indicate that the aggregate monetary base is growing at an annualized rate of almost 800%.

Watch for a new focus on “green investing” as the trick in all of this will be how to create new productivity when the absence of real prices mean there is no market to provide the necessary signals and financial incentives. source


  1. On the SGCA website, in the left-hand column, there is a poll:

    "Would you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose a single global currency, where all the people of the world would use the same money?"

    In the results, their idea is trashed:

    Strongly favor - 31% (1861 votes)
    Somewhat favor - 8% (495 votes)
    Somewhat oppose - 4% (225 votes)
    Strongly oppose - 53% (3224 votes)
    Not sure - 4% (258 votes)

    Total Votes: 6063


    Any time someone suggests less competition in a market, or more central control, run. Unless you prefer involuntary servitude for you and your posterity, that is. The SGCA philosophy basically equals global-central ownership of every individual's life, liberty, and property.

    Nice points on the Fed being the tyrannical and illicit monstrosity it is. What's unfortunate — and this describes my mindset just a few years ago — is how many of the same people who feverishly attack the issue of monopolies fail to grasp how the centrally-enforced decrease in competition, and increase in operational expenses in a given industry (or "sector") — both resulting from no-bids, "R&D," "regulations," ad nauseum — bring about monopolies. (Corporate media, like Time-Warner, News Corp., et al., didn't become clusterfucks because the market was so free of federal regulations and such. If that was the case, then why hasn't a major anti-state or truth-telling outlet come about under the same allegedly-unregulated conditions?) Market and currency (commodity-based) competition free of preferential, jack-booted, traitorous, federal intervention, if anything, prevents monopolies. On the flipside, naturally, we get stuff like SGCA.

  2. Dear Kenny,

    Thanks very much for posting my email to you and for your response.
    Regarding the "ownership" of a Global Central Bank, it would be an international organizations with various governing boards, like the European Central Bank and the Eastern Caribbean Central Bank.
    More important than their ownership is the issue of their transparency, the idea that they tell the people using the currencies for which they are responsible about their actions.
    The European Central Bank must be doing something right, as its territory is expanding, and this coming January, Slovakia will become the 16th country. Denmark may hold another referendum next year and a "join" vote is predicted. It's been noted recently that Iceland, Hungary and Poland would not be in their current currency binds if they were already in the Eurozone.
    In your response you commented about the Global Central Bank's ownership, but not about the claimed benefits, such as:
    1. annual savings of $400 billion in FX transaction costs,
    2. end of the need for foreign exchange reserves,
    3. end of currency fluctuations,
    4. end of currency crises and currency risk,
    5. end of the concern about "global imbalances".
    Do you agree that those are REAL benefits? Enough to make it worthwhile to study further? For example, I claim that the transaction costs are $400 billion, but that's just my calculation. We ask others to study the question and come up with better estimates. In any case, it's surely hundreds of billions of dollars/euros or whatever.
    Very sincerely,