ous countries at various time have done it, so can governments today.
Answering the objection
‘We will lose central control’
It is true that if there were to be multiple currencies, no one agency would have complete control. If a government allows local currencies, to keep prices constant their central bank would have to be in constant negotiation with the agencies of local communities. In the same way with an Anzac dollar the central bank of Australasia would be in constant negotiation with the other players.
And we will need further convincing that central control works anyway. After the crash of 1929 during the Depression years 1929-33 the Federal Reserve shrank the money supply to one third of its former size, causing a tragic drop in prices and terrible hardship, hardly evidence that they were delivering stable prices and serving the people.
If there were a variety of currencies at all levels of organization – international, supranational, national and local – and it is perfectly possible given the advances of modern technology to have dual currency smart cards or other cards – the challenge to those who monitor the system at any level of complexity would be to have them all coexisting without inflation.
It is clear there are benefits from both an ANZAC currency and a New Zealand currency. So why not have both currencies, surely a win-win solution? The either/or mentality does not serve us well - we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In the last few decades we have seen enough radical change and political reversals of the policies of successive governments. It is far less disruptive to keep what works and change what doesn't.
Deirdre Kent February, 2002