[getsoutalive]

When the world employed a bimetallic standard (gold & silver) between 1815 and 1914, the exchange rate between nations was unbelievably stable, which dramatically promoted the development of world trade

Well we certainly can't have that now can we. Besides, what would all those currency traders do for a living?

Since World War I, and particularly since the collapse of Bretton Woods, businesses involved in international trade have been forced to consider currency fluctuations in determining the "bottom line" success or failure of their exchanges of product or services for currency.

I can almost see a light go on every time I point this one out. The increased efficiencies would plug a huge drain from the system.

[Deuce]

The increased efficiencies would plug a huge drain from the system.

Exactly.

The trillions of dollars in currency derivatives required to protect the productive sector from the adverse effects is a measure of the tribute that the fiat purveying parasites extract from the host organism. It's somewhat reminiscent of the tribute that shop keepeers paid in Capone's Chicago for "protection."

[Nick Danger]

I agree that fixed exchange rates between currencies would eliminate a lot of transaction costs and hedging expenses, but why should we believe that the various world economies are all going to do equally well? And all expand or contract at the same times? History tells us they don't. And if they don't, the exchange rate between their currencies should change to reflect the higher or lower amount of stuff there is to buy with each currency.

A fixed exchange rate between the U.S. Dollar and the Russian Ruble would have been a joke. The U.S. economy was performing much more strongly throughout the entire 20th century. The underlying economic truth was that the Ruble should have been falling against the Dollar almost continuously from 1917 on. Where markets were allowed to operate, that in fact happened. Who is so smart that they know better than the market?