Our Three Monetary Futures — Haven’t Changed Much Since 1944

The two main alternatives at Bretton Woods were the bancor proposal of John Maynard Keynes and the British delegation, and a gold-centric proposal from the Harry Dexter White and the U.S. delegation. The bancor idea amounted to a world central bank operating a unified floating fiat currency, controlled by bureaucrats. The U.S. alternative was a system largely based on the U.S. dollar, which itself had been linked to gold at $35/oz. since 1934.

At Bretton Woods, the world’s governments discarded both the pre-1940 floating fiat model, and also the bancor idea. They went with Option Three, a system based on gold. Two excellent decades followed – the best decades for world prosperity from 1914 to the present, until the Bretton Woods gold-based arrangement was accidentally blown up in 1971, giving way to Option One, floating fiat chaos.

Today, we have a number of ideas floating around, which amount to Option Two systems. One is a world currency system based on the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights. Although these SDRs might not take the physical form of banknotes and coins, the world’s currencies would be linked to it. It would basically be a global version of the euro currency bloc. It would probably get pushed hard by the globalist elites in the event of a currency crisis.

But the euro is looking rather unhealthy today. Far from being an example of a better monetary future for us all, it looks like it might not last another decade. Negative interest rates, quantitative easing, overt manipulation of government bond markets to stave off sovereign default, and no clear “exit strategy” beyond eventual failure and disappearance, hardly inspire confidence. Even the central bankers themselves – see former Bank of England governor Mervyn King’s book The End of Alchemy: Money, Banking and the Future of the Global Economy (2016), or ten-year Federal Reserve staffer Danielle DiMartino Booth’s Fed Up: An Insider’s Take On Why The Federal Reserve Is Bad For America (2017) — can see that the “PhD standard” is coughing up blood.

Worse than all of that, however, is the bureaucratic superstate that has accompanied the euro currency — the European Union. The currency has served as a tool to concentrate political power – eventually, taxation and military power – at a single point, weakening existing sovereign governments and their democratic processes, and eventually rendering them obsolete historical vestiges if this process is allowed to continue much longer. This has become obvious to all, which is why anti-EU “populist” movements across Europe are gaining majorities and winning elections, even despite all the influences brought to bear to make the voting results “come out right.”

Thus, Option Two, a world floating currency and a world central bank, is thus, by all appearances, also a model of unified world government – a unified world government apparently free of democratic inconveniences (even if it retains, as the Soviet Union did, the empty ceremony of parliamentary bodies), which is to say that it is a structure for absolute tyranny. That tyranny would presumably not appear before the project is complete – it is hard to herd the masses to their eventual servitude if you spook them too early.

This leaves Option Three, a world system based on gold. Historically, this has been the money of freedom and sovereignty, liberty and independence. The Classical Gold Standard era before 1914 did not require any coercion or centralized control, but was a voluntary agreement for mutual prosperity. It also worked a lot better than any floating fiat system ever has, including the eurozone.

Would you want to join the eurozone today? That Titanic has already hit the iceberg; those already on the ship are trying to escape. Option Two is dead in the water for all to see.