(06-10-2013, 09:45 PM)Taem Wrote: Of course. And it won't be for a very long time. I was pointing out that if you follow the train of thought far enough in regards to worldwide economic poverty level improvement, you'll see the trend, that since smartphones and our connected world, the poverty gap is shrinking - as pointed out by Kath - and if it keeps happening at it's current pace, it's inevitable we will reach a level of equality sooner or later.
Some have suggested that as between-country inequality shrinks, within-country inequality increases. (I've actually been contemplating doing some work on this at some point, but it's still pretty hypothetical.) It's not so clear that we'll ever live in an equal world, but we'll probably live in one less unequal than the one we were born into.
Quote: My understanding of commerce is that a countries monetary value is based mostly on it's net worth in terms of what it exports, rather that be goods or services. In the above hypothesis (this is more of a world such as FIT's utopia, however with Capitalism), everyone is on equal standing so all monetary values are equal thus negating the need for multiple currencies, hence a one-world currency. I don't even know if this would ever happen, but it seemed logical to me when I wrote it.
Money is valued at whatever clears the market, or whatever you can get for it. Sometimes that's as you describe, basically related to net exports, but sometimes not. Banks, governments, and even investors intervene all the time to change the value of currency.
If it is the case that all peoples' income and wealth are, now and forever, perfectly equal, then you're right, there would be no currency appreciation or depreciation, because there could be no such thing as a trade surplus/deficit. (Edit: Nope, nevermind: differential population growth could still create trade imbalances...) But that would only be true in a very extreme, static world. In reality, even if countries converge more or less, the odds that all flows are going to balance out exactly are pretty low.
But having all currencies at the same value is not the same thing as having one currency. That's the difference between, say, the pre-WW1 gold standard, and the Euro. It's identical, so long as nobody wants to leave the currency union. But you can leave and re-enter a gold standard (where everyone's currencies are *worth* the same), but you can't leave and re-enter a currency union (where everyone's currency *is* the same).
-Jester