Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
06-29-2010, 12:28 PM,
Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy? PDF

By Patrick Wood, Editor
January 26, 2010

Critics who think that the U.S. dollar will be replaced by some new global currency are perhaps thinking too small.

On the world horizon looms a new global currency that could replace all paper currencies and the economic system upon which they are based.

The new currency, simply called Carbon Currency, is designed to support a revolutionary new economic system based on energy (production, and consumption), instead of price. Our current price-based economic system and its related currencies that have supported capitalism, socialism, fascism and communism, is being herded to the slaughterhouse in order to make way for a new carbon-based world.

It is plainly evident that the world is laboring under a dying system of price-based economics as evidenced by the rapid decline of paper currencies. The era of fiat (irredeemable paper currency) was introduced in 1971 when President Richard Nixon decoupled the U.S. dollar from gold. Because the dollar-turned-fiat was the world’s primary reserve asset, all other currencies eventually followed suit, leaving us today with a global sea of paper that is increasingly undesired, unstable, unusable.

The deathly economic state of today’s world is a direct reflection of the sum of its sick and dying currencies, but this could soon change.

Forces are already at work to position a new Carbon Currency as the ultimate solution to global calls for poverty reduction, population control, environmental control, global warming, energy allocation and blanket distribution of economic wealth.

Unfortunately for individual people living in this new system, it will also require authoritarian and centralized control over all aspects of life, from cradle to grave.

What is Carbon Currency and how does it work? In a nutshell, Carbon Currency will be based on the regular allocation of available energy to the people of the world. If not used within a period of time, the Currency will expire (like monthly minutes on your cell phone plan) so that the same people can receive a new allocation based on new energy production quotas for the next period.

Because the energy supply chain is already dominated by the global elite, setting energy production quotas will limit the amount of Carbon Currency in circulation at any one time. It will also naturally limit manufacturing, food production and people movement.

Local currencies could remain in play for a time, but they would eventually wither and be fully replaced by the Carbon Currency, much the same way that the Euro displaced individual European currencies over a period of time.

Sounds very modern in concept, doesn’t it? In fact, these ideas date back to the 1930’s when hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens were embracing a new political ideology called Technocracy and the promise it held for a better life. Even now-classic literature was heavily influenced by Technocracy: George Orwell’s 1984, H.G. Well’s The Shape of Things to Come and Huxley’s “scientific dictatorship” in Brave New World.

This paper investigates the rebirth of Technocracy and its potential to recast the New World Order into something truly “new” and also totally unexpected by the vast majority of modern critics.

Philosophically, Technocracy found it roots in the scientific autocracy of Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and in the positivism of Auguste Comte (1798- 1857), the father of the social sciences. Positivism elevated science and the scientific method above metaphysical revelation. Technocrats embraced positivism because they believed that social progress was possible only through science and technology. [Schunk, Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective, 5th, 315]

The social movement of Technocracy, with its energy-based accounting system, can be traced back to the 1930’s when an obscure group of engineers and scientists offered it as a solution to the Great Depression.

altThe principal scientist behind Technocracy was M. King Hubbert, a young geoscientist who would later (in 1948-1956) invent the now-famous Peak Oil Theory, also known as the Hubbert Peak Theory. Hubbert stated that the discovery of new energy reserves and their production would be outstripped by usage, thereby eventually causing economic and social havoc. Many modern followers of Peak Oil Theory believe that the 2007-2009 global recession was exacerbated in part by record oil prices that reflected validity of the theory.

Hubbert received all of his higher education at the University of Chicago, graduating with a PhD in 1937, and later taught geophysics at Columbia University. He was highly acclaimed throughout his career, receiving many honors such as the Rockefeller Public Service Award in 1977.

In 1933, Hubbert and Howard Scott formed an organization called Technocracy, Inc. Technocracy is derived from the Greek words “techne” meaning skill and “kratos”, meaning rule. Thus, it is government by skilled engineers, scientists and technicians as opposed to elected officials. It was opposed to all other forms of government, including communism, socialism and fascism, all of which function with a price-based economy.

As founders of the organization and political movement called Technocracy, Inc., Hubbert and Scott also co-authored Technocracy Study Course in 1934. This book serves as the “bible” of Technocracy and is the root document to which most all modern technocratic thinking can be traced.

Technocracy postulated that only scientists and engineers were capable of running a complex, technology-based society. Because technology, they reasoned, changed the social nature of societies, previous methods of government and economy were made obsolete. They disdained politicians and bureaucrats, who they viewed as incompetent. By utilizing the scientific method and scientific management techniques, Technocrats hoped to squeeze the massive inefficiencies out of running a society, thereby providing more benefits for all members of society while consuming less resources.

The other integral part of Technocracy was to implement an economic system based on energy allocation rather than price. They proposed to replace traditional money with Energy Credits.

Their keen focus on the efficient use of energy is likely the first hint of a sustained ecological/environmental movement in the United States. Technocracy Study Course stated, for instance,

Although it (the earth) is not an isolated system the changes in the configuration of matter on the earth, such as the erosion of soil, the making of mountains, the burning of coal and oil, and the mining of metals are all typical and characteristic examples of irreversible processes, involving in each case an increase of entropy. (Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott, p. 49)

Modern emphasis on curtailing carbon fuel consumption that causes global warming and CO2 emissions is essentially a product of early Technocratic thinking.

As scientists, Hubbert and Scott tried to explain (or justify) their arguments in terms of physics and the law of thermodynamics, which is the study of energy conversion between heat and mechanical work.

Entropy is a concept within thermodynamics that represents the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work. Entropy thus increases as matter and energy in the system degrade toward the ultimate state of inert uniformity.

In layman’s terms, entropy means once you use it, you lose it for good. Furthermore, the end state of entropy is “inert uniformity” where nothing takes place. Thus, if man uses up all the available energy and/or destroys the ecology, it cannot be repeated or restored ever again.

The Technocrat’s avoidance of social entropy is to increase the efficiency of society by the careful allocation of available energy and measuring subsequent output in order to find a state of “equilibrium,” or balance. Hubbert’s focus on entropy is evidenced by Technocracy, Inc.’s logo, the well-known Yin Yang symbol that depicts balance.

To facilitate this equilibrium between man and nature, Technocracy proposed that citizens would receive Energy Certificates in order to operate the economy:

“Energy Certificates are issued individually to every adult of the entire population… The record of one’s income and its rate of expenditure is kept by the Distribution Sequence, so that it is a simple matter at any time for the Distribution Sequence to ascertain the state of a given customer’s balance... When making purchases of either goods or services an individual surrenders the Energy Certificates properly identified and signed.

“The significance of this, from the point of view of knowledge of what is going on in the social system, and of social control, can best be appreciated when one surveys the whole system in perspective. First, one single organization is manning and operating the whole social mechanism. The same organization not only produces but also distributes all goods and services.

“With this information clearing continuously to a central headquarters we have a case exactly analogous to the control panel of a power plant, or the bridge of an ocean liner…” [Technocracy Study Course, Hubbert & Scott,p. 238-239]

Two key differences between price-based money and Energy Certificates are that a) money is generic to the holder while Certificates are individually registered to each citizen and b) money persists while Certificates expire. The latter facet would greatly hinder, if not altogether prevent, the accumulation of wealth and property.

At the start of WWII, Technocracy’s popularity dwindled as economic prosperity returned, however both the organization and its philosophy survived.

Today, there are two principal websites representing Technocracy in North America: Technocracy, Inc., located in Ferndale, Washington, is represented at A sister organization in Vancouver, British Columbia is Technocracy Vancouver, can be found at

While Technocracy’s original focus was exclusively on the North American continent, it is now growing rapidly in Europe and other industrialized nations.

For instance, the Network of European Technocrats was formed in 2005 as “an autonomous research and social movement that aims to explore and develop both the theory and design of technocracy.” The NET website claims to have members around the world.

Of course, a few minor league organizations and their websites cannot hope to create or implement a global energy policy, but it’s not because the ideas aren’t still alive and well.

A more likely influence on modern thinking is due to Hubbert’s Peak Oil Theory introduced in 1954. It has figured prominently in the ecological/environmental movement. In fact, the entire global warming movement indirectly sits on top of the Hubbert Peak Theory.

As the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome recently stated, “The issue of peak oil impinges directly on the climate change question.” (see John H. Walsh, “The Impending Twin Crisis – One Set of Solutions?, p.5.)
The Modern Proposal

Because of the connection between the environmental movement, global warming and the Technocratic concept of Energy Certificates, one would expect that a Carbon Currency would be suggested from that particular community, and in fact, this is the case.

In 1995, Judith Hanna wrote in New Scientist, “Toward a single carbon currency”, “My proposal is to set a global quota for fossil fuel combustion every year, and to share it equally between all the adults in the world.”

In 2004, the prestigious Harvard International Review published “A New Currency” and stated,

“For those keen to slow global warming, the most effective actions are in the creation of strong national carbon currencies… For scholars and policymakers, the key task is to mine history for guides that are more useful. Global warming is considered an environmental issue, but its best solutions are not to be found in the canon of environmental law. Carbon’s ubiquity in the world economy demands that cost be a consideration in any regime to limit emissions. Indeed, emissions trading has been anointed king because it is the most responsive to cost. And since trading emissions for carbon is more akin to trading currency than eliminating a pollutant, policymakers should be looking at trade and finance with an eye to how carbon markets should be governed. We must anticipate the policy challenges that will arise as this bottom-up system emerges, including the governance of seams between each of the nascent trading systems, liability rules for bogus permits, and judicial cooperation. [Emphasis added]

HIR concludes that “after seven years of spinning wheels and wrong analogies, the international regime to control carbon is headed, albeit tentatively, down a productive path.”

In 2006, UK Environment Secretary David Miliband spoke to the Audit Commission Annual Lecture and flatly stated,

"Imagine a country where carbon becomes a new currency. We carry bankcards that store both pounds and carbon points. When we buy electricity, gas and fuel, we use our carbon points, as well as pounds. To help reduce carbon emissions, the Government would set limits on the amount of carbon that could be used." [Emphasis added]

In 2007, New York Times published “When Carbon Is Currency” by Hannah Fairfield. She pointedly stated “To build a carbon market, its originators must create a currency of carbon credits that participants can trade.”

PointCarbon, a leading global consultancy, is partnered with Bank of New York Mellon to assess rapidly growing carbon markets. In 2008 they published “Towards a Common Carbon Currency: Exploring the prospects for integrated global carbon markets.” This report discusses both environmental and economic efficiency in a similar context as originally seen with Hubbert in 1933.

Finally, on November 9 2009, the Telegraph (UK) presented an article “Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance.’”

“… implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits”. [Emphasis added]

As you can see, these references are hardly minor league in terms of either authorship or content. The undercurrent of early Technocratic thought has finally reached the shore where the waves are lapping at the beach.
Technocracy’s Energy Card Prototype

In July 1937 an article by Howard Scott in Technocracy Magazine described an Energy Distribution Card in great detail. It declared that using such an instrument as a “means of accounting is a part of Technocracy’s proposed change in the course of how our socioeconomic system can be organized.”

altScott further wrote,

“The certificate will be issued directly to the individual. It is nontransferable and nonnegotiable; therefore, it cannot be stolen, lost, loaned, borrowed, or given away. It is noncumulative; therefore, it cannot be saved, and it does not accrue or bear interest. It need not be spent but loses its validity after a designated time period.”

This may have seemed like science fiction in 1937, but today it is wholly achievable. In 2010 Technocracy, Inc. offers an updated idea of what such an Energy Distribution Card might look like. Their website states,

“It is now possible to use a plastic card similar to today’s credit card embedded with a microchip. This chip could contain all the information needed to create an energy distribution card as described in this booklet. Since the same information would be provided in whatever forms best suits the latest technology, however, the concept of an ‘Energy Distribution Card’ is what is explained here.”

If you study the card above, you will also note that is serves as a universal identity card and contains a microchip. This reflects Technocracy’s philosophy that each person in society must be meticulously monitored and accounted for in order to track what they consume in terms of energy, and also what they contribute to the manufacturing process.
Carbon Market Players

The modern system of carbon credits was an invention of the Kyoto Protocol and started to gain momentum in 2002 with the establishment of the first domestic economy-wide trading scheme in the U.K. After becoming international law in 2005, the trading market is now predicted to reach $3 trillion by 2020 or earlier.

Graciela Chichilnisky, director of the Columbia Consortium for Risk Management and a designer of the carbon credit text of the Kyoto Protocol, states that the carbon market “is therefore all about cash and trading – but it is also a way to a profitable and greener future.” (See Who Needs a Carbon Market?)

Who are the “traders” that provide the open door to all this profit? Currently leading the pack are JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

Bloomberg noted in Carbon Capitalists on December 4, 2009 that

“The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors.”

At JP Morgan, the woman who originally invented Credit Default Swaps, Blythe Masters, is now head of the department that will trade carbon credits for the bank.

Considering the sheer force of global banking giants behind carbon trading, it’s no wonder analysts are already predicting that the carbon market will soon dwarf all other commodities trading.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is talk, there is action.

If M. King Hubbert and other early architects of Technocracy were alive today, they would be very pleased to see the seeds of their ideas on energy allocation grow to bear fruit on such a large scale. In 1933, the technology didn’t exist to implement a system of Energy Certificates. However, with today’s ever-advancing computer technology, the entire world could easily be managed on a single computer.

This article intended to show that

* Carbon Currency is not a new idea, but has deep roots in Technocracy
* Carbon Currency has grown from a continental proposal to a global proposal
* It has been consistently discussed over a long period of time
* The participants include many prominent global leaders, banks and think-tanks
* The context of these discussions have been very consistent
* Today’s goals for implementing Carbon Currency are virtually identical to Technocracy’s original Energy Certificates goals.

Of course, a currency is merely a means to an end. Whoever controls the currency also controls the economy and the political structure that goes with it. Inquiry into what such a system might look like will be a future topic.

Technocracy and energy-based accounting are not idle or theoretical issues. If the global elite intends for Carbon Currency to supplant national currencies, then the world economic and political systems will also be fundamentally changed forever.

What Technocracy could not achieve during the Great Depression appears to have finally found traction in the Great Recession.

[Editor's note: Read an international review of this article on The Daily Bell of Appenzell, Switzerland.]
Bibliography & Resources

Scott & Hubbert, Technocracy Study Course, Technocracy, Inc., 1934

Hanna, Toward a single carbon currency, New Scientist, 1995

Victor & House, A New Currency, Harvard International Review, Summer 2004

Hannah Fairfield, When Carbon Is Currency, New York Times, May 6, 2007

M. King Hubbert & The Technocracy Technate Design – Historical blog

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’, Telegraph (UK)

Network of European Technocrats – website for Europe

Technocracy, Inc. – website for U.S.

Technocracy Vancouver – website for Canada

Association for the study of Peak Oil & Gas – website for Peak Oil
06-29-2010, 06:43 PM,
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
lil bump
06-29-2010, 07:28 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-29-2010, 08:07 PM by h3rm35.)
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
Technocracy Study Course, Unabridged

.pdf on tracker
so, do you figure banksters are for or against this? Seems as though they'd be fighting this tooth and nail, as this goes against everything they know...

I can't see the elite jumping on board as the banskers make up a sugnifigant portion of their game plan up to this moment.

Also, I can see how this might become a B2B currency, but I cant see how its implementation would happen on an individual basis without the masses resorting to barter - This would undermine it somewhat as a control mechanism. Certain facets of society could be completely ruled by energy credits, but in the transition phase people would rely heavily on barter, and I can't see that ending without outlawing it, which is completely unenforceable.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
06-29-2010, 08:31 PM,
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
i dont believe the banksters are at the top of the pyramid tbh

nb: i think they are just dying for that gerontological tech.
06-29-2010, 08:44 PM,
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
(06-29-2010, 08:31 PM)nik Wrote: i dont believe the banksters are at the top of the pyramid tbh
I didn't say that they were, that doesn't make the questions moot, right? They certainly could make it difficult to transition.
nb: i think they are just dying for that gerontological tech.
What's "nb"? How does gerontology fit into this discussion?
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
06-29-2010, 08:50 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-29-2010, 09:05 PM by ---.)
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
how doesn't it fit into this discussion?
do you mean what would be the presumably illegal (for the enslaved) electronic bartering of energy credits or do you mean exchange of physical goods?
surely surplus value would still exist it would just be linked to a regulated allocation of credits with a use by date. That would be better for the banksters no? paying the slaves in credits of a general diminishing value that must be spent? ...all linked to a green agenda..? would they not support it? why?

nb. as in "notably" - eg. nb. we already have, at least in Germany, the sale of "mobile phone" credits in what is tantamount to the exact same principle in terms of the credit having a use by date when purchased as "pay as you go"; this potentially could be considered as analogous to the implementation of the very concept - i am just throwing it out there, it may not be - but i think it more likely is, in terms of JMO
06-29-2010, 09:37 PM,
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
the branch of science that deals with aging and the problems of aged persons.

what does that have to do with energy currency?
I meant exchange of physical goods.

to me it seems as though the companies that generate the energy would then become de facto "central" banks, right?

I haven't researched this concept - and I haven't read the source document I posted either, so this is my introduction to the idea. I'm not trying to be contrarian, just trying to suss out how this fits into a power-mongering manifesto similar to the one we see now.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
06-29-2010, 10:01 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-29-2010, 10:12 PM by ---.)
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
Hypothetically speaking, if this system collapses - and it does seem more and more that it has no redundancy built into it - or any that ostensibly did exist has been corroded anyhow - then, I feel this ideas described in this article, which more or less match point perfect with Riegler's "eco-social market economy" model, as validated by the UN, not to mention Agenda 21, would be the basic framework that would be implemented in any reconstruction. i'mnot an economist, it just reads like that is the overriding motif being bounded around for consumption.

Gerontology is relevant as it is important in this field to value generalism and not only specificism - such tech is worth more than money - even to those who make the money.

07-05-2010, 03:03 AM,
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
I think this carbon currency is a way to form a new monetary exchange. Basically government issues you so many credits per month to be used how you see fit based on how much you produce and consume. Carbon credits can be used for this credit based system.
04-23-2013, 05:52 PM,
RE: Carbon Currency: A New Beginning for Technocracy?
Looks like China, once again, is leading the charge on this front into Carbon Trading and investment schemes with the geopolitical region employing the technology as well as manufacturing it for lots of credits. Reminds me of a game exploit - well, because that's exactly what it is.

Quote:China Took the Clean Energy Lead in 2012, and Will Likely Stay There
By Derek Mead 21 hours ago

China's environmental woes—whether it be smog, toxic metal dumps, reef collapse, tiger farms, and so on—are fairly well known. But China, in its race to develop the infrastructure it needs, is also a powerhouse when it comes to clean energy. And according to a new study from Pew Charitable Trusts, China was the world leader in clean energy investment in 2012. The US, meanwhile, saw its grip loosen on many of the clean energy technologies it developed.

According to the research, total clean energy investment totaled $269 billion worldwide last year, a decline from 2011's record high of $302 billion. However, clean energy investment in the Asia and Oceania markets grew by 16 percent to $101 billion. In terms of investment—which is an indicator that a country or region has offered compelling projects, struck a good regulatory balance, and has a strong economy—that makes Asia the epicenter of the global clean energy market.

Total worldwide capacity as of 2012, via the Pew report

Of that, China won $65.1 billion in clean energy investment last year, which Pew said amounted to about 30 percent of the total investment in G-20 economies, which received the vast majority of clean energy investment. In that, China set a record with $31.2 billion in solar investment, and matched that with $27.2 billion in wind.

Despite a decline in investment, the falling prices in clean energy tech led to 88 GW of new clean energy capacity to be installed worldwide, which Pew says is a new record, to boost total clean energy capacity to 648 GW worldwide. (For comparison, the US had just over 1,000 GW of net capacity in 2011.) Of that new capacity, China installed 16 GW of wind (a third of total new wind capacity) and 3.2 GW of solar. All of that led the Pew report authors to state unequivocally that the world's clean energy epicenter had shifted from the US and Europe to China, and that "the data suggest that China is the world’s leader and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future."

So what about the US? It remained in second place in investment last year, with $35.6 billion total invested in clean energy tech, which is down a whopping 37 percent from 2011. To its credit, a record 13.6 GW of wind capacity was installed last year in the US, but the Pew analysts wrote that the boom was largely due to uncertainty about whether the wind production tax credit would expire. (The tax credit has since been renewed, which will hopefully help sustain the boom.) The US also installed a record 3.2 GW of solar capacity last year.

Solar is attracting the most investment in total dollars, partially because wind now costs less to roll out. Via the Pew clean energy report

The Pew researchers thus labeled the US clean energy sector as "underperforming," largely for a trio of reasons. First, it's due to China's boom and manufacturing prowess. Second, the US regulatory environment for clean energy is horrifically unstable (as is the regulatory environment as a whole) as politicians battle over budget rhetoric. Finally, the US has failed to capitalize on its innovation prowess and develop a big manufacturing economy. The Pew researchers wrote about it in rather brusque terms:

With the United States leading the world in various measures of energy innovation but lagging far behind in such categories as deployment and manufacturing, it’s evident that the nation is underperforming—inventing but failing to realize the economic, security, or environmental benefits of clean energy innovations through production and utilization. Installation of 3.2 GW of solar was a record, but it is still less than half the amount that has been installed annually in leading European markets in recent years.

Of course, China's dominance in clean energy doesn't mean it's the world's environmental leader—not by a long shot, actually. It's also important to remember that China has four times as many people as the US does, so the fact that it received twice as much clean energy investment in 2012 is still half the United States' per capita growth.

Still, cash doesn't lie: China is the world's clean energy hotspot right now, and it's already approved another 27.9 GW of wind capacity. Because of Beijing's push for more clean energy, and because China has the demand, a friendly regulatory environment (which, considering China's environmental and labor track record, isn't necessarily a great thing), and manufacturing capacity, it's likely to stay on top.
PDF Report:


Cap and Trade 101

Credit Default Swap Inventor is Key Carbon Derivatives Architect
There are no others, there is only us.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Information The Future of Money: Smartcards, Encryption, Digital Currency and Thin Branch Banking FastTadpole 12 4,616 12-22-2012, 08:58 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Facebook moves closer to a virtual currency system that pays workers <$1/day h3rm35 11 3,308 11-29-2012, 11:31 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Currency/Warfare:¨A new world order will emerge from the ashes.¨ h3rm35 32 8,178 10-04-2012, 09:24 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  The Great Betrayal of 2012: Have you bought your Chinese currency yet? Solve et Coagula 1 745 04-26-2012, 05:32 AM
Last Post: nwo2012
  Keiser Report: Anti-Bank Currency icosaface 1 531 04-08-2012, 11:37 AM
Last Post: Zammo
  Will 'Power Currency' replace fiat paper money? axlinc 1 514 06-15-2011, 09:32 AM
Last Post: yeti
  Bills being paid by county comptroller of currency? MasterChiefa 2 1,398 04-30-2011, 01:21 PM
Last Post: Krise
  IMF boss calls for global currency TriWooOx 1 560 02-11-2011, 02:27 AM
Last Post: Dunamis
  Is Gold - Or Fiat Currency - In a Bubble? h3rm35 1 557 01-11-2011, 11:23 PM
Last Post: Valentine
  Multiple Currency Collapses? junebug0000 5 925 12-22-2010, 04:38 AM
Last Post: Dunamis

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)