National common currency 2
National common currency 2
In AntiNWO's superb organizational and economic plan, common currency in not included in minimum requirements for a successful cooperation. This is optional and if some Groups want to adopt it, they could. AntiNWO does not support or oppose common currency but strongly recommends national common currency. In AntiNWO's plan for Groups 3 and 4, there is a provision for common currency.
AntiNWO's model has the minimum requirements for a successfull cooperation, mainly economic. If Groups want to do more they can. In AntiNWO's superb model there is not entirely free movement. The change from free movement to not entirely free movement will be unnoticed by the people. It will concern only the governments and some businesses.
In the case of Eurozone countries, common currency already exists. Going back to a national currency, for those countries that have adopted euro, would be a disruption to people's lives. It would be similar to the one that occurred when they switched to euro. Adopting a national common currency would not create any disruption at all to people's lives.
We mentioned that eastern (or eastern-southern if Italy participates) euro will improve competitiveness. This is because exchange rate is expected to fall relatively to euro. This will decrease the price level and make products and services of these countries more competitive. This should not be regarded as AntiNWO supporting common currency in Group 4 or Subgroup 4A.
What we claim is that eastern (or eastern-southern) euro will be much better than euro because it will improve competitiveness. Other disadvantages of not having a national currency will stil remain. A country will not be able to have monetary policy or print money. Although it will not have a national monetary policy, Eastern (or Eastern-Southern) Eurozones' monetary policy will be better adjusted to the needs of the countries that participate.
It is possible for Subgroups inside Groups to have separate common currency, if it seems beneficial. This is probably better because the smaller and the more homogeneous economically the group of countries that have common currency, the more suitable the monetary policy will be to the needs of these countries. This is common sense, not economic theory.
AntiNWO strongly advices countries to examine very carefully if participation in common currency (euro) is beneficial. Countries are in two categories. The first category are those that are already in euro. After the spin off, it will be in Eastern (or Eastern-Southern) and Western (or Western-Northern) Eurozone. The second category are countries that consider participating in common currency. For those that decide common currency is not beneficial, national common currency is a much better alternative than national currency.
Not only countries that have national currencies can switch to national common currency but also countries that have adopted euro can switch to national common currency. We have given an example on how a country can change from national to national common currency. Here we will give an example on how a country can change from common to national common currency.
For many decades, Hellas (Greece) has been governed by the world's biggest traitors, pro-EU regime. Greece has been tremendously harmed by the participation in EU and Eurozone. In 1981, the country became a member in damned EEC and the economy started going really bad. Many big industrial companies gradually closed. Some important industrial sectors were considerably diminished or vanished.
The world's biggest traitors, instead of taking the country out of damned EU and in this way saving the economy, entered damned Eurozone and made matters even worse. The tragic fate of Greek people, due to the governance of incompetent traitors is beyond the scope of this article. There will be another article about that. Here, we use Greece as an example on how a country can switch from common to national common currency.
In 2002, Greece joined euro. Drachmas were replaced by euros at an exchange rate of 340,75 (1 euro = 340,75 drachmas). This made the very bad situation in the economy even worse. It took only a few years for the country to go bankrupt. By 2009, the country could not make payments. So it took only seven years in Eurozone to make the country insolvent. A rescue package was required. It came with extreme austerity measures that led to impoverishment and humanitarian crisis.
Any country that has its own currency can never go bankrupt. It just prints money. Of course this creates other problems but payments can be made. Pro - EU traitors were at that time in power (and still are). Otherwise the country should have exited EU and Eurozone and in this way be able to fix the problems in the economy. If the country went back to drachma, less than ten years after damned euro was introduced, euro would have to be changed to drachma again.
Let's say that national common currency was used instead. Let's name that currency greek euro (greuro). It would start with 1:1 rate to euro. New money would have to be printed by the greek government. They would look like euros but would be a little different. There would be the same 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500 bills. Also there would be the same 0,01, 0,05, 0,10, 0,20, 0,50, 1, 2 euro coins. They would have to look a little different than euro-coins.
One cent could be called drachma and one euro would be a hundred drachmas (1 euro = 100 drachmas). The exchange rate of greuro to euro would not remain at 1:1 but would fluctuate. People would never notice the switch to national common currency. Obviously they would know it because there would be announcements but it would not have made any difference in their lives. They would only notice that bills and coins look a little different.
Greece was used as an example but any country can do the same. Why would any Eurozone country want to get out? Because euro or any common currency has many disadvantages as it will be explained in the next article. All EU's fundamentals are fundamentally wrong. All Eurozone countries should make a very careful examination. They should weigh the pros and cons of participating in Eurozone.
A national common currency is an option for countries with common currency (euro) and countries with national currencies. Countries that have national currency have two options; a) common currency b) national common currency. Countries with common currency have also two alternatives; a) national currency b) national common currency.
With the national common currency, countries can have their monetary policy and print their own bills. Still their currency would be similar to the common currency. AntiNWO encourages countries with national currency to switch to national common currency. It is much easier than getting into a common currency. Also if they decide to have common currency, it would be much easier, if they already have national common currency.