Global Currency Fairness and US Policies

Until the mid-twentieth century, the gold standard was the dominant monetary system, based on a fixed quantity of gold reserves stocked in national banks, which limited lending. At that time, the United States managed to become the owner of 70% of world’s gold reserves (excluding the USSR), therefore it pushed its weakened competitor, the UK, aside resulting to the creation of the Bretton Woods financial system in 1944. That’s how the US dollar became the predominant currency for international payments.

But a quarter century later this system had proven ineffective due to its inability to contain the economic growth of Germany and Japan, along with the reluctance of the US to adjust its economic policies to maintain the dollar-gold balance. At that time, the dollar experienced a dramatic decline but it was saved by the support of rich oil exporters, especially once Saudi Arabia began to exchange its black gold for US weapons and support in talks with Richard Nixon.

President Richard Nixon in 1971 unilaterally ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, and instead he established the Jamaican currency system in which oil has become the foundation of the US dollar system. Therefore, it’s no coincidence that from that moment on the control over oil trade has become the number one priority of Washington’s foreign policy. In the aftermath of the so-called Nixon Shock the number of US military engagements in the Middle East and other oil producing regions saw a sharp increase. Once this system was supported by OPEC members, the global demand for US petrodollars hit an all time high. Petrodollars became the basis for America domination over the global financial system which resulted in countries being forced to buy dollars in order to get oil on the international market.

Analysts believe that the share of the United States in today’s world gross domestic product shouldn’t exceed 22%. However, 80% of international payments are made with US dollars. The value of the US dollar is exceedingly high in comparison with other currencies. That’s why consumers in the United States receive imported goods at extremely low prices. It provides the United States with significant financial profit, while high demand for dollars in the world allows the US government to refinance its debt at very low interest rates.

Under these circumstances, those hedging against the dollar are considered a direct threat, to US economic hegemony and the high living standards of its citizens. Therefore political and business circles in Washington attempt by all means to resist this process.

This resistance manifested itself in the overthrow and the brutal murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who decided to switch to Euros for oil payments, before introducing a gold dinar to replace the European currency.

Despite Washington’s desire to use whatever means to sustain its position within the international arena, US policies, are increasingly faced with opposition. A growing number of countries are trying to move from the US dollar along with its dependence on the United States, by pursuing a policy of de-dollarization. Three nations active in this domain are China, Russia and Iran. These countries are trying to achieve de-dollarization at a record pace, along with some European banks and energy companies that are operating within their borders.

Crimea-2

The Russian government held a meeting on de-dollarization in spring of 2014, where the Ministry of Finance, announced the plan to increase the share of ruble-denominated contracts and the consequent abandonment of dollar exchange.

Last May at the Shanghai summit, the Russian delegation manged to sign the so-called deal of the century which implies that over the next 30 years China will buy $ 400 billion worth of Russia’s natural gas while paying in Rubles and Yuan. In addition, in August 2014 a subsidiary company of Gazprom announced its readiness to accept payment for 80,000 tons of oil from Arctic deposits in Rubles that were to be shipped to Europe.

Payment for the supply of oil through the Eastern Siberia – Pacific Ocean pipeline can be transferred in the Yuan. Last August while visiting the Crimea, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced that the petrodollar system should become history while Russia is discussing the use of national currencies in mutual settlements with a number of countries.

These steps recently taken by Russia are the reason behind the West’s sanction policy. (Ukraine and Crimea are a cover story hiding the facts)

There is little to no hope, the United States will survive its own wave of chaos, as it continues to lash out across the world. (with allies such as Canada, headed by millionaire PM Justin Trudeau,  you will hear more about foreign affairs than domestic problems)

Read More at Source: The Global De-dollarization and the US Policies | New Eastern Outlook

Why has NATO chosen Russia as its enemy instead of ISIS?

According to statements made at last weekend’s summit in Warsaw, NATO regards Russia as a bigger threat than ISIS. Of course, that’s ludicrous but when you scratch beneath the surface, the use of these falsehoods makes perverted sense.

Gleb is a Russian student in Dublin. Recently, at the request of a mutual friend, I’ve been helping him with his university thesis which focuses on the reasons Ireland is one of the few Western European countries that has resisted NATO membership. A distinction that most Irish people are extremely proud of.

As an Irishman myself, I’ve always been baffled by why so many members of the British and continental European elite see NATO as a good thing. After all, where’s the glory in being dictated to by an external power whose interests are often at marked variance with your own?

Like right this moment, when it’s plainly obvious the biggest threat to Western Europe is Islamic fundamentalism and the fallout from a destabilized Middle East. But the US remains somewhat impervious to these issues, which it largely helped to ferment, and instead continues to be, bizarrely, focused on Russia.

Let’s be clear here. You don’t require submarines or nuclear weapons to engage ISIL, but you would in a putative conflict with Russia. The fact that such a collision would probably, due to the atomic arsenals involved, mean the end of human civilization, is irrelevant to NATO because it doesn’t actually want a war with Russia.

Instead it desires to use Moscow as a convenient bogeyman in order to maintain US defense spending, which grew 9 percent annually from 2000-2009 during the war on terror.

My Note: (How did it happen that our rights and liberties were so easy taken from us? Declare a war on a word that has no army, no headquarters, a scattered unseen organization and call it Terrorism. Our home and all our possessions can be taken away by a banking system backed by corrupt governments, IMF and WTO. Phone calls are monitored and emails read without our knowledge. Presidents can be awarded the highest office by a Court rather than the people. We are told to take the lowest paying degrading job while the Corporations pollute our air, water and land daily. – Dennis Cambly)

Gore Vidal explains the War on Terror

The simple fact is that six of the top eight defense contractors in the world are American. Together, they directly employ close to 750,000 people and that’s in addition to millions of other service and supply roles that depend on their patronage. Any reduction in munitions outlay would jeopardize a lot of those jobs, creating unemployment black spots in many US towns and cities. And those would be primarily in blue collar areas which have already been hollowed out by decades of outsourcing, many of which happen to be situated in electoral swing states.

Every politician who would advocate this would be self-immolating their career.

Read the entire article, written by Bryan MacDonald, an Irish journalist based in Russia.

Source: Why has NATO chosen Russia as its enemy instead of ISIS? — RT Op-Edge