To avoid being a militant desperado threatening the world, Peter Klevius suggests US should devalue its domestic** dollar in accordance with a reversal of the 1944 Bretton Woods "agreement"* and due crime committed 1971!
Read Peter Klevius Origin of the Vikings from 2005 - now again available after Google deleted it 2014 and again in February 2024.
* The result would be something like the hyperinflation in the German Weimar republic. And unlike back then, wealthier people wouldn't have the time to exchange before the crash. Since 1971 (but starting to accumulate already in the 1950s) there's an extreme imbalance between US (negative) net international investment position (NIIP), and the accumulated US REAL current account deficit. Despite a deeply negative NIIP, the US income balance is extremely positive, i.e. despite having much more liabilities than assets, US income is way higher than interest etc. expenses. This goes beyond logic and is explained by US in fact counterfeiting its wealth, i.e. stealing, because when a counterfeiter uses false money, someone else has to pay.
10 Billion nominal for a stamp was what Germans had to pay during hyperinflation caused by the dirty game played by US/UK in the Versailles treaty which set the seed for WW2. But when the embezzled chickens are coming home to roost they are all made in US!
** In Bretton Woods 1944 US pushed through what became a bi-dollar world, with a "supreme" dollar for US, and a B-dollar for the rest. Instead of pegging all dollars to the same reference (in this case gold), US bullied, manipulated and forced through that the B-dollar should be pegged to the US dollar which then should be pegged to gold, while US (Feds) should have the sole right as the guardian of the global dollar system. And this came handy as the Feds organization is such an obscure and undemocratic creature from 1913 that completely blurs the line between itself and the rest of US - and the world. However, those with US interest don't care as long as this illegal monetary mafia spits out counterfeited but still usable dollars. And because $-freeloader US can print as much dollar it feels for, then US administration can also utilize this fact together with US total control over World Bank and IMF, by cherry picking whom to give dollars so that it fits US interest. E.g. Afghanistan pushed US out, then as retaliation US blocked the money flow to Afghanistan, which resulted in the more conservative Talibans taking over and reducing women's emancipation, which fact then, in turn, was used by US as a reason not to support the usual money transfers to Afghanistan - and BBC happily avoided to mention it while instead repeatedly ranting about how Afghan women suffered "because US was pushed out".
Peter Klevius on why $-freeloader US is the by far biggest* threat to peace and prosperity around the world. A little child could understand it - if given the facts, and not blinded with "red scare" demonizing against a China that stands in the way for rogue state US possibility to continue its dollar crime.
* US uses its stolen dollar hegemony to control and manipulate the world in its own favor. Do recognize that US has been heavily involved in initiating most major conflicts - incl. Ukraine. Without the threat of US nukes Russia would never have invaded. This also includes the annexation of Crimea where US had threatened to place its nukes against Russia. However, because of Russia's invasion in Ukraine 2022, criminal $-freeloader US (since 1971) got everything it wanted while Ukraine, Russia and EU suffer! And although China has tried to keep a low and neutral profile, it now realizes that the threat from US against China is real and unavoidable without an effective "deterrence".
Peter Klevius bomb for peace*: Because the undemocratic and secretive US Federal Reserve (aka Feds), not the people, is the real power in US, it should be the target for deactivating US continuing embezzlement fraud and due militarization. It's not a "strong dollar", it's a stolen dollar that US has eroded to the core!
* Nixon's dollar theft 1971 combined with US peculiar, undemocratic and secretive federal reserve system, obscures for most people the magnitude of US financial fraud and its now desperate situation because of the very existence of the modern mer9t0cratic and "guarded" capitalist China which unwittingly is eroding US false aureole and reveals the underlying desperate pirate gear of a desperado who now tries to demonize, bribe, corrupt and shoot itself out from the global court room and an inevitable bankruptcy when the trust in the unpegged stolen dollar expires.
US rotten "rules based world order", aka its "exorbitant privilege" to milk and rule the world with the extremely unfair Bretton Woods "agreement" 1944 and its further step into open criminality 1971 when US became an openly embezzling dollar dictator. With the Bretton Woods "agreement" US would not face a balance of payments crisis, because its imports are purchased in its own currency - which makes US the only country able to prosper on the behalf of others despite continuous trade deficit. However, the illogic in the skewed "agreement" of 1944 meant that the increase in dollars used globally would have needed a corresponding global devaluation of the dollar. However, US didn't allow it because it rather preferred to use its "exorbitant privilege" for wars and arms/space race. And when US eventually was forced to devaluate the dollar 1971 it did so only with the dollars outside US - which then constituted the biggest embezzlement fraud ever.
* UK's Maynard Keynes opposed it but UK was then bribed by getting the next favorable position after US - which explains why France was the first to start complaining about the "exorbitant privilege", and ultimately demanded its gold back, which triggered the "Nixon chock" 1971.
US Feds is the unelected world dictator that covers up the world's by far biggest financial fraud ever on planet Earth.
Like a growing cancer, dollar thieve US uses its stolen money to expand and militarize the world in a pattern which includes the absolute majority of all the world's wars and conflicts in one way or another. And the peculiar concept of "deterrence" is only applicable to defense, not attacks - and US is clearly an attacker and China is its main target. And as US couldn't let Germany/EU stick together with Russia - because that would also have altered US hegemony - US had to pick either Russia (Trump) or EU (Biden) against China. However, China is by far the main challenge to disturb US stolen hegemony. And when all sanctions, demonizing, meddling etc. isn't enough US prepares for war against China with all means possible. It's not mainland China that has caused tensions on Taiwan, it's from scratch US. So China needs "deterrence" - not US or its "allies". Moreover, whereas dollar embezzler US (since 1971-) has a clear motive to protect its criminal behavior, China has no such motives at all but on the contrary, has all to win with peace.
Why can the U.S. confidently “print money” for free, but other countries cannot do the same?
Ian Shepherd: The short answer is because the U.S. dollar is the global reserve currency. In other words, most countries and companies from other countries usually need to transact business in U.S. dollars, making them exposed to the value of their currency relative to U.S. dollars. The United States and the Fed in particular, doesn’t face this currency risk. Some contend that the United States is at risk to other countries, particularly China, not buying treasuries, or even aggressively selling the treasuries they already hold. At least in the short-medium term, the Fed could directly purchase all of the treasuries the Government issues. Under worse case scenarios, the banking industry would contract. Nevertheless, the United States should be in a position to fund itself for a very long time. All other things being equal, the U.S. dollar status as the global reserve currency could be expected to progressively decline. But the United States global position need not decline relative to most other countries. If, in particular, China were not a variable in this equation all this might be a reasonable bet for the United States to take; however, China is a variable in the equation.
John Maynard Keynes first proposed the ICU in 1941, as a way to regulate the balance of trade. His concern was that countries with a trade deficit would be unable to climb out of it, paying ever more interest to service their ever-greater debt, and therefore stifling global growth. The ICU would effectively be a bank with its own currency (the "bancor"), exchangeable with national currencies at a fixed rate. It would be the unit for accounting between nations, so their trade deficits or surpluses could be measured by it.
On top of that, each country would have an overdraft facility in its "bancor" account with the ICU. Keynes proposed having a maximum overdraft of half the average trade size over five years. If a country went over that, it would be charged interest, obliging a country to reduce its currency value and prevent capital exports. But countries with trade surpluses would also be charged interest at 10% if their surplus was more than half the size of their permitted overdraft, obliging them to increase their currency values and export more capital. If at the year's end, their credit exceeded the maximum (half the size of the overdraft in surplus), the surplus would be confiscated.
Harry Dexter White, representing the United States, which was the world's biggest creditor, said "We have been perfectly adamant on that point. We have taken the position of absolutely no."
Instead, White proposed an International Stabilization Fund, which would place the burden of maintaining the balance of trade on the deficit nations, and impose no limit on the surplus that rich countries could accumulate. White also proposed the creation of the IBRD (now part of the World Bank) which would provide capital for economic reconstruction after the war. The IMF as agreed to at Bretton Woods was much closer to White's proposal than to Keynes's.
Alan Greenspan: Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights.
Peter Klevius: And Bitcoin beats gold in every aspect! Moreover, although both ultimately rest on trust (like everything else), there's still among many a naive view that gold's biggest weakness (after the fact that we dom't know how much gold there's now or in the future)' i.e. its physicality, somehow is more trustworthy. Peter Klevius wouldn't be surprised if the initiators of Bitcoin plan to publicly redistribute most of their shares (in line with the long term and fair ideology Bitcoin rests on) when/if it takes off as a global reserve currency. After all, that would mean a value in line with 1M/BTC 21.000.000.000.000, 10M/BTC 210.000.000.000.000 etc.
Why was the Bretton Woods transcript hidden in an archive?
2012 it was briefly reported that a Treasury econost searching in the department’s library, stumbled on a transcript of the Bretton Woods conference in 1944, which revealed that US was the biggest beneficiary followed by its puppet UK. No wonder France, but not UK (which has also suffered under US dollar hegemony) was the first to start complaining about US "exorbitant privilege".
Historians had never known that a transcript existed, when delegates from 44 allied nations fighting Hitler gathered to create the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. There were three copies in archives and libraries around Washington that had never been made public, until now.
“It’s as if someone handed us Madison’s notes on the debate over the Constitution,” said Eric Rauchway, a historian the University of California, Davis.
Economic historians who have viewed the transcript say it adds color and detail to the historical record, an already thick one given the many contemporaneous and subsequent accounts of Bretton Woods. The transcript depicts John Maynard Keynes, hurrying to marshal support for the broad agreements on international finance. It underscores the tremendous power then wielded by Britain and, especially, the United States. It also shows how the seeds of contemporary disputes being sown.
The most important part was the IMF agreement, which introduced an adjustably foreign exchange rate system pegged to gold. Governments were only supposed to alter exchange rates within narrow margins to correct a fundamental disequilibrium.
Member countries pledged to make their currencies convertible for trade-related and other current account transactions. There were, however, transitional provisions that allowed for indefinite delay in accepting that obligation, and the IMF agreement explicitly allowed member countries to regulate capital flows.[11] The goal of widespread current account convertibility did not become operative until December 1958, when the currencies of the IMF's Western European members and their colonies became convertible.
As it was possible that exchange rates thus established might not be favourable to a country's balance of payments position, governments had the power to revise them by up to 10% from the initially agreed level ("par value") without objection by the IMF. The IMF could concur in or object to changes beyond that level. The IMF could not force a member to undo a change, but could deny the member access to the resources of the IMF.[12]
All member countries were required to subscribe to the IMF's capital. Membership in the IBRD was conditioned on being a member of the IMF. Voting in both institutions was apportioned according to formulas giving greater weight to countries contributing more capital ("quotas").
The seminal idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was the notion of open markets. In his closing remarks at the conference, its president, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, stated that the establishment of the IMF and the IBRD marked the end of economic nationalism. This meant countries would maintain their national interest, but trade blocs and economic spheres of influence would no longer be their means. The second idea behind the Bretton Woods Conference was joint management of the Western political-economic order, meaning that the foremost industrial democratic nations must lower barriers to trade and the movement of capital, in addition to their responsibility to govern the system.Peter Klevius: So take a look at it today! $-freeloader US (since 1971-) has certainly taken care of its national interest - by stealing from the rest. And US management of the Western political-economic order has led to sanctions, protectionism, tensions, more militarization, seizure of assets, terrorist attacks on infrastructures (e.g. Nord Stream) and wars - all initiated by a desperate US which could repeat the Danish saying from the 1990s: It's going to hell - but in first class! However, the Danish didn't threat the world with some thousand nuke bases around the world!
Comments
Post a Comment