THE US Dollar Thread (merged)

[MonteQuest]

Starting from historically low federal funds rate (you have to ask yourself: 1%.....that's free money and then some!...with "inflation" as selectively measuerd at about 3%.) And THIS is all the economy could muster?

The dollar against the Euro goes from about $0.80 to $1.23 in three years, and no one sees a trend? Look for the dollar to fall even more by the begiinnig of next year..

Oh, and I love the analyst who thinks that there is no "fundamental reason" why the dollar will fall below $1.24....Ummm....let me see....

How about the largest current accounts deficit and trade deficit in history that just keeps getting bigger? How about the fact that about 50% of all US debt is now foreign-owned....how about the fact that there is likely a significant shift to the petro-euro? How about the fact that the yearly deficit AND the total debt (HOWEVER measured!...with the unfunded SS/Medicate liabilties, pensions, etc.) is at a record high...personal savings down to a record low....personal debt at a record high...true net job loss for the past three years...spending fueled by a soon to be deflated housing bubble - (home equity loans)...historic highs on per capita taxes...and so much more...(see Granfather Economic Report on the web for more cool information and graphs).

Ah yes, I see you get it too. If you read my posts, you will see that this is what I have been saying as well. I don't think the FED can stimulate the economy any more. If all this deficit spending, tax cuts, and unheard of interst rates won't jump it, nothing will. I'm looking for a transfer of this debt to the third world.

[Guest]

If all this deficit spending, tax cuts, and unheard of interst rates won't jump it, nothing will. I'm looking for a transfer of this debt to the third world.

So true. Not clear on this, though: How could debt be transferred to the third world? If the holders of US debt, Japan, China, Western Europe, Saudi, etc. see a drastic fall in the dollar, seek the relative safety of other currencies, etc., and all that we mentioned, how does the IMF and other global institutions come into play with this debt? Third-worlders get screwed as oil prices rise of course, but how do they take on the debt you are speaking of?

We are already "exporting demand" (in oil) to developing countries, we know. This means that the large manufacturing base that requires lots of oil/oil products goes to China, India, etc., hence "exporting" demand for oil since, they then export and we import these goods to consume. Hence, we get the goods, and we reduce oil demand, by making others do it for us.

[MonteQuest]

If all this deficit spending, tax cuts, and unheard of interst rates won't jump it, nothing will. I'm looking for a transfer of this debt to the third world.

So true. Not clear on this, though: How could debt be transferred to the third world? If the holders of US debt, Japan, China, Western Europe, Saudi, etc. see a drastic fall in the dollar, seek the relative safety of other currencies, etc., and all that we mentioned, how does the IMF and other global institutions come into play with this debt? Third-worlders get screwed as oil prices rise of course, but how do they take on the debt you are speaking of? We are already "exporting demand" (in oil) to developing countries, we know. This means that the large manufacturing base that requires lots of oil/oil products goes to China, India, etc., hence "exporting" demand for oil since, they then export and we import these goods to consume. Hence, we get the goods, and we reduce oil demand, by making others do it for us.

Here's what I have been watching and studying. I don't have a total handle on it yet. Sitting atop the global debt-based pyramid, America must constantly fractionalize increasing larger sums into currency in order to maintain timely payments of interest and must additionally offload unpayable debt. To do so, the U.S. may package unpayable debt into SDR’s (Special Drawing Rights) that the U.S.-owned IMF makes available via various criteria. In exchange for assuming unpayable U.S. debt, recipient nations receive, via various trade agreements, guaranteed access to the U.S. market.

Warren Buffet is suggesting that we issue Import Certificates (ICs) to all U.S. exporters in an amount equal to the dollar value of their exports. Each exporter would, in turn, sell the ICs to parties -- either exporters abroad or importers here -- wanting to get goods into the U.S. To import $1 million of goods, for example, an importer would need ICs that were the byproduct of $1 million of exports. The inevitable result: trade balance. link Something is in the works.

[MonteQuest]

PS....In the case of the latter, I can see those IC's being traded on the market. More investment in the US!

[Guest]

I am familiar with Buffet's IC idea...just isn't going to happen unless he runs for president and gets elected!

[MonteQuest]

I did a liitle checking on bonds. It would seem that the Asian central banks aren't buying U.S. government bonds for investment purposes; they're buying for mercantilist purposes. By buying dollars and dollar-denominated assets like Treasury bonds, they help keep their currencies relatively weaker and the dollar relatively stronger. And by providing a ready market for our government's chief product, they've helped keep U.S. interest rates low. That keeps politicians happy and enables American companies and consumers to do what they do best: borrow tons of money at favorable rates and spend it.

In 2002, non-Americans accounted for about half of net purchases of Treasury securities. But in the first quarter of 2004 they accounted for 150 percent! That is—the rest of the world bought a net $679.8 billion in Treasury securities while U.S. brokers and dealers sold a net $202.7 billion. As interest rates rise, smart investors tend to flee bonds. But the foreigners are still buying despite rising rates. In theory, there's something dangerous about this increased reliance on foreign creditors. They have a call on our national savings. And if the Japanese and Chinese central banks suddenly decide to stop buying—for political or economic reasons—we could be in for a nasty shock.

[Ferretlover]

I've always been most wary of the collapse of the Petrodollar system as most dangerous to our current lifestyle. I think one of the reasons we went to Iraq was to prop up this increasingly tenuous currency system.

Foreigners do not like having to denominate their oil purchases in dollars. If they were to rebel and start buying oil in euros or, say, a basket of currencies instead of the dollar, the dollar would collapse and the US would instantly revert to third world economic status. A scenario like that could lead to WWIII. That is why, we have spent so much on our military; because we can no longer control the rest of the world economically.

Today, I found this thread at RumourMill News. I don't believe everything I read but this is the sort of thing that makes my ears perk up. link

[chris-h]

Thisv is the original article

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0410/04102002LW.asp

[some_guy282]

I remember FTW posting an article about this sometime back in early September or late August...that Iran might be attacked before the election. Let's hope it doesn't happen.

[chris-h]

If it does happen oil will go to $200.And a draft will happen after the elections.

[zed]

I've seen Wayne Madsen's articles on various sites and consider him a credible source. This really scares the hell out of me because I can honestly believe Bush/Cheyney would go for it...

[Grimnir]

I don't believe an attack on Iran would help Bush's popularity: a) it would be viewed as a blatant political maneuver, b) people already believe or suspect that the Iraq war was a sham, they're not going to buy another "they have weapons of mass destruction!" (even though it's probably true this time), c) It would rekindle draft fears.

If anything, he has plans to attack immediately after the election.

Plus, I have to ask, if Bush is so dishonest and so sinister that he would do something like this, why didn't he plant WMD's in Iraq? I wouldn't vote for the man in a million years, but I have trouble believing he's as evil as this article makes him out to be.

[leal]

The dollar rate seams to slide:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pi ... news_index

Foreigners added to their holdings of U.S. securities at the slowest pace in 10 months in August, eroding demand for the dollar.

[tdrive]

The dollar rate seams to slide:

Dollar is sliding against everything as we speak. The largest drop is against the Swiss franc and Evro. Freaky halloween.

Cheers,

[zed]

Grimnir: Michael Ruppert's recently released book "Crossing the Rubicon" presents very convincing evidence that the Bush administration engineered 9-11 to facilitate the conquest of the Middle East's oil reserves.

Given how much the country supported Dubya after 9-11 it would really help his poll numbers if a similar attack (appearing to come from Iran?) was launched before the election. Considering most foreign intelligence agencies (Russia, Israel, Germany, etc) knew something was up before 9-11, it doesn't surprise me that they would smell another such operation ahead of time. However this time instead of standing by they may be actively interfering in world capital markets. Very scary to think about..

[Grimnir]

Grimnir: Michael Ruppert's recently released book "Crossing the Rubicon" presents very convincing evidence that the Bush administration engineered 9-11 to facilitate the conquest of the Middle East's oil reserves.

But again, if they're really so evil and so clever that they could pull something like that off and cover it up, why did they screw the invasion up so badly? Why is the oil situation worse than before? Why haven't they imposed martial law? Why are they honestly frightened of losing the election--couldn't they just rig it? And why didn't they plant WMD's to justify the invasion? Surely that would have been pocket change compared to all the work that went into planning the attack. I'd like to ask Ruppert the same questions. It seem to me that, at worst, they knew something was up and chose not to act because they thought it would further their agenda, then were suprised when they found out how bad it turned out to be.

[MrBean]

But again, if they're really so evil and so clever that they could pull something like that off and cover it up, why did they screw the invasion up so badly?

Hitler was smart enough to pull of the burning of Reichstag scam to get absolute power, stupid enough to invade Russia and screw it up.

[zed]

But again, if they're really so evil and so clever that they could pull something like that off and cover it up, why did they screw the invasion up so badly? Why is the oil situation worse than before? Why haven't they imposed martial law? Why are they honestly frightened of losing the election--couldn't they just rig it? And why didn't they plant WMD's to justify the invasion? Surely that would have been pocket change compared to all the work that went into planning the attack. I'd like to ask Ruppert the same questions. It seem to me that, at worst, they knew something was up and chose not to act because they thought it would further their agenda, then were suprised when they found out how bad it turned out to be.

They are evil - clever is debatable. The fraud of 9-11 becomes more evident by merely examining what happened. Of course questioning the government is unacceptable in 'post 9-11 America' (in the corporate mass media anyway). Worshipping the government is all that is allowed. I'm sure the founding fathers would love how things have turned out.

My best guess that the goal of the invasion was to install a puppet government that would be pro-American (done). The extent of the resistance was obviously not factored into their plans - maybe they did not anticipate it? Of course the story is not over with Iraq - one day we will need the oil more critically than today and part 2 of the plan may come into place. This possibly including a partition of Iraq and more single-minded focus on the oil resources.

The threat to the petro-dollar may have been another factor in Saddam's removal 'ASAP' even with poorly laid plans. The petro-dollar is the US' last economic weapon and Saddam was undermining it by pricing oil exports in Euros. Interestingly Iran has proposed an alternate oil exchange using euros which is another economic challenge to the petro-dollar. Its not clear what will happen but there is already war bluster from the Bush administration toward Iran. Clearly, undermining US hegemony in oil markets is a good way to get put of the US hit list.

One thing that seems possible is that the Iraq invasion was architected by Bush political appointees and not veteran intelligence operatives like those in the CIA. The failures of Iraq may be attributable to this - certainly I would think the CIA and their 'friends' (Mossad etc) could plant some WMD or provide better intelligence about the country. It's possible the Iraq invasion was rushed due to the 2004 election and not all pieces were in place. It's also possible they are Machivellian and feel that once Saddam is gone, people will forget about spurious motives for the invasion. There are many who believe that and don't care if their government lies to them to justify wars. Tax cuts and lies - Republicanism at its finest!

As for the election, we will see. I put nothing past the Bush administration and my cynical side tells me the fix is already in (electronic voting machines being the most likely conduit). I hope for the sake of the republic that nothing funny goes on, but the level of partisanship today tells me that interference and politically motivated vote manipulation are extremely likely.

I havent't finished Ruppert's book but to my knowledge it does not cover Iraq, which is really an enormous topic all by itself. To my knowledge, he hasn't researched Iraq very much at all.

[Grimnir]

Back on the original topic, the NY Times has just broke a story reporting the disappearance of a huge stockpile of explosives from Iraq:

Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site In Iraq

Free registration is required, but that's what http://www.bugmenot.com is for.

[some_guy282]

But again, if they're really so evil and so clever that they could pull something like that off and cover it up, why did they screw the invasion up so badly?

Who says the invasion went badly? For all we know it could be going exactly according to their plan. After all, oil in the ground is oil in the bank. The longer Iraqi oil stays under the ground, the more valuable it becomes to them. It makes more sense to start pumping it out as fast as they can after the decline is well under way. Faking an incompentent post war strategy to keep things chaotic so oil pipelines are destroyed is the perfect excuse to keep it underground, if that's where they want it.

Why is the oil situation worse than before?

Because of geological factors that they have absolutely no control over.

Why haven't they imposed martial law?

Because the American people wouldn't go for it - yet. One more attack and they very well may.

Why are they honestly frightened of losing the election--couldn't they just rig it?

You're assuming their fear of losing the election is genuine. As far as I'm concerned, all the election coverage currently under way in the mainstream news is nothing but theater. For all we know Bush and Kerry are both playing for the same team and nothing will change under a Kerry presidency. Even the terrible mainstream media points out that Kerry's foreign policy is remarkably similar to Bush.

And why didn't they plant WMD's to justify the invasion?

I've often wondered this myself, but maybe they don't need to? Before the invasion even happened, I was amazed to see polls that indicated a majority of Americans felt the war would be justified even if WMDs were never found, even though they were the alleged reason for the invasion in the first place. Besides, in the public's eye Bush is still perceived as being the stronger candidate in terms of handling Iraq, despite all the problems they're having.

I'd like to ask Ruppert the same questions. It seem to me that, at worst, they knew something was up and chose not to act because they thought it would further their agenda, then were suprised when they found out how bad it turned out to be.

Very often I see arguments like yours raised against the case for government involvement in 9/11. "But it just doesn't make any sense" is what it all boils down to. And you know what? You're right. There are a lot of facts that just don't mesh and don't seem to make sense.

So what? We don't live in a rational world. Using your logic there is no way Martha Stewert is guilty of those stock crimes. After all, why would she commit such a crime to save a measly couple million dollars when she stood to lose (and did) so much more? Nevertheless, she was convicted by a jury of her peers because the evidence proved her guilt. Can you imagine if such a defense were successful in a court of law? I could just imagine this scene being played out in pre trial hearings.

LAWYER: Your honor, I move for dismissal. My client is innocent. My client has been an upstanding law abiding citizen all his life. He would never kill his mother, it just doesn't make any sense that my client did this. He loved his mother!

PROSECUTER: You know what? You're right. I never thought of it that way. I never should have indicted him in the first place. It doesn't make any sense that he'd kill his mother. I mean... she was his mother!

JUDGE: Well, I'm still curious as to why he was found holding that smoking gun that did kill her. But you're probably right. It doesn't make any sense to me either. This poor man has suffered enough to be charged with killing his own mother. He'll probably need lots of therapy to recover from the trauma. The $10 million in insurance money ought to cover the therapy bills though. Case dismissed.


Arguements like yours completely ignore the weight of the vast amount of information that points to government involvement in the attacks. There is tons of information that completely flies in the face of the official story of 9/11 and has yet to be explained. David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor has said there are literally dozens of smoking guns that prove government involvement in the attacks. The 9/11 Commission conveniently ignored the important questions, and so has the mainstream media. I wont bother to list the facts, they've been mentioned in this forum before. But I encourage you to seek them out on your own. Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon would be an excellent start. If you don't want to buy the book, you can read the archives of his excellent site www.fromthewilderness.com , or look for other 9/11 Truth sites.

When I first heard the allegation that the US government was behind 9/11, it didn't make sense to me either. I literally laughed out loud and dismissed it completely. Later I just became aware of the individual facts presented by themselves, without making any accusations. The facts alone were enough to sway me. I came to the conclusion myself because it's the only conclusion you can come to once you are aware of all the facts. Facts about pre 9/11 intelligence, huge anamolies the day of and inconsistencies in the timeline, physical evidence, evidence of the coverup... I didn't even understand WHY they would do such a thing, I just knew that they did. I only came to fully understand the motivations (such as peak oil), and that there is historical precedent for such an event (Hitler and the German parliment) later.

Arm yourself with information. Make yourself aware of the facts and unanswered questions about 9/11 that the mainstream media is completely ignoring. Read books like Crossing the Rubicon and The New Pearl Harbor. Once you've done that, then you can make an informed decision on what you think really happened.