Imagine a primitive (agrarian) island without any special resources. They can sustain themselves, but their means are too primitive to produce anything the world market wants. So they can't export anything. They can't get euro, dollars, gold, silver, or bitcoins. Should they starve because of that? No, they can barter among themselves. Someone produces food, someone else clothes. Such a barter system is effectively a local currency.
Greece is comparable to this situation, just to a lesser extent.
Another option the island has is to sell their workforce to multinational corporations in sweatshops, but they should have a choice, right?
Great example and they really should stay away from selling their souls to multinationals and keep their economy local. But what about those others that have the potential to travel/migrate, internet access, modes of transportation, and such?
Hypothetically what would the benefit be for a small town in the US or Europe?
Just to clarify I want to know if typical small town in the US or Europe has any reason not to switch to bitcoins but create XYZcoins instead. They could create their own local version of a consumer price index, peg their BTC prices to that and have the strength of the entire bitcoin network behind them. In this scenario they can't avoid volatility as they could with XYZcoins but they have the added benefit of a global currency that they can exchange anywhere, anytime, zero development costs, and the security of the entire bitcoin network behind them.
So bitcoins or their own XYZcoins for small towns?