It's easy set up. It much harder to Make a currency that anyone who isn't trapped in those countries wants to use. Stop the individual member counties from cheating, or just creating ridiculous amounts of debt. A common currency is essentially a common credit card account. What is the enforcement body? What are their powers? You think Russia is going to allow China to have the same power that the EU/ECB have over Greece? "Give me control over a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.” – Baron Mayor Amscher Rothschild.
As a perhaps interesting aside, I shall mention that we did use fractional reserve banking while we were on a gold standard. This is permissible because the money created by fractional reserve is not permanent. It is created out of temporary, non-simultaneous, additional use of the same pile of money by more than one entity, giving the illusion of more money having been created, when in reality all that has been done is to create more use of the same money... This temporary money is what is referred to as "inside money"* meaning it is created within the economy by fractional reserve banking to accommodate private sector demand for loans. Inside money disappears when a loan is paid off!, so there is really no net creation of permanent, new money in the economy; hence fractional reserve banking and the inside money it creates does not violate any tenets of a gold standard. It is what we call "outside money", i.e., the money created indirectly by Congress when the Fed prints to cover net Treasury overdrafts that must be backed by gold if a gold standard has been adopted.** It is creation of "inside money", or what we could call illusionary, temporary extra money, that has led to miraculous development and growth of modern Western and Asian Economies. ___________ *I think some economists may have referred to "inside money" as "bank money". Maybe Minsky??? It has never been clear to me who was the first to use the terms inside and outside money. Likely it was Keynes, or Minsky? I know Minsky uses these terms in his wonderful critique of Keynes "General Theory...", see page 48. (Minsky's little book of less than 200 pages can furnish material enough for a lifetime of study. I love this work of Minsky.) See Hyman P. Minsky, ""John Maynard Keynes", Columbia University Press, 1975. **I don't think it is possible to over emphasize that the Federal reserve has absolutely no say over how much of this "outside money" shall be created (printed). This is under the exclusive control of Congress. We must stop referring to the Fed as printing. They do this only in the most trivial sense. It is Congress that "prints". The Fed simply does what it must do to obey Congress's setting of the level of taxation and spending.
What you are trying to say, modern economies work like video games. Actually there is a ton of economic videos on YouTube on subject of Modern Money Theory, if anybody wants to brush up. INMHO, while MMT is largly true, it can be stretched only so far, because on the end of the day we need to consume physical goods, and if they are not produced at good price, living standards will go into a hole.
Yes, MMT is everywhere now. There can be hardly any excuse for not being familiar with its basic tenets. It is impossible to disagree rationally with something we don't understand. Nevertheless, I find some folks attempting to do so anyway. The basic tenets of MMT are not a product of imagination. Rather they come from observation of Treasury and Central Bank balance sheets and a thorough and deep knowledge of money. It is extremely difficult to argue with MMT's basic tenets. Rather, it is the proposals that come out of MMT that require close scrutiny and detailed discussion. You mention consumption, production and price. At the end of the day, this is what economics is about. I have made the point that the amount of transactional money in the economy must be kept in line with productivity, but in doing so I have over simplified and jumped ahead. You've made the important point that, at the end of the day, it's the availability of essential goods and services at affordable prices that matters. I fully agree. Of course availability and price is not unconnected with productivity.
This is a graph that I like using to club baby seals on a head. In the world famous kingdom of England they kept tax books since 1270 and these books clearly show that all economic growth come out of just one human activity, the science. 1800 was approximately time of English Civil war and time when Isac Newton and Wilhelm Leibnic invented calculus, and 90% of science came out of calculus. Out of science then grew technologies and industries and wast amount of population moved from vilages into cities, spelling the end of agrarian economy and start of industrial age. If it wasn't for science there would be no 4,000% economic growth I proudly marked in blue. Economists are economics nerds mentaly circumscribed to their profession without broader world view. What MMT is broadly saying is that if one does nothing one can just cook books ( or play economic video games ) and keep growing welth. As above chart clearly shows that can only be partially true, only serving to keep things in balance. In reality, not just that nation has to keep producing "stuff", nation has to keep producing it faster ( more productively ) than other nations. In essence, if productivity doesn't grow, lving standards will not grow, now matte how you cook books or play up the video game economy for that matter. Just recently it was in a news that Walkswagen is going under. Well, well car industry figures show that it takes 30 hours for Walkswagen to make a car, while Tesla makes a car in just a 10 hours. Now you can go and guess why Walkswagen is going bankrupt while acres and acres of German land are used as prarking lots for unsold and overpriced Walkswagen cars.
much of GDP growth just comes from population growth nothing else. Bringing more people from the third world in millions is not science that's stupidity
Your thinking is whole one step behind. Here is a questin for you: And how do you feed that population of yours? That chart of yours is simply a consiquence of jobs created by science. Did jobs in merchant navy, railways and mass manufacturing industry exist at a time of Saxon invasion or God forbid Henry VIII? You are obviously taking science for granted, although nothing can be further from truth, because scientific knowledge only reached critical mass in the last 300 years. All these industries were putting food on table for somebody's family. Every economy has a saturation level that limits number of people that it can feed, no matter how one cooks the books, and that saturation level is directly determined by the science and technology available. Why for 14,000 years that civilisation exists population stayed stagnant, and then suddenly it started growning practically exponentially? Answer is back to what I said science created new post-agrarian economy and that post-agrarian economy fed population and thus enabled population growth. No science means no jobs, no jobs means no food for babies, no food for babies means no population growth. That's why in the medieval Europe you had on average a war every 30 years, because you had to kill off all the excess population.