There can be only one?

Now that no nation backs its currency with gold or anything tangible, globalists are asking why we have so many competing worthless currencies:

Why has the problem of serial currency crises become so severe in recent decades? It is only since 1971, when President Richard Nixon formally untethered the dollar from gold, that monies flowing around the globe have ceased to be claims on anything real. All the world's currencies are now pure manifestations of sovereignty conjured by governments. And the vast majority of such monies are unwanted: people are unwilling to hold them as wealth, something that will buy in the future at least what it did in the past. Governments can force their citizens to hold national money by requiring its use in transactions with the state, but foreigners, who are not thus compelled, will choose not to do so. And in a world in which people will only willingly hold dollars (and a handful of other currencies) in lieu of gold money, the mythology tying money to sovereignty is a costly and sometimes dangerous one. Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world's governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.

Of course, ANY kind of nationalism is "incompatible with globalization." The Euro may have been the first, but it will not be the last regional currency. And as our economic fates become ever more intertwined, our ability to stand for distinct viewpoints and values will continue to erode.

The race to a global common denominator continues. I suspect we won't like it when it arrives.