During the interview, Dr K. Petrov also directed me to a recent speech
by Hon. Ron Paul of Texas titled �The End of Dollar Hegemony� before
the U.S. House of Representatives to endorse his findings over the
years. Congressman Ron Paul gallantly presented his case underlying
with relative precision how if the U.S does not change it�s ways in
terms of the economic, diplomatic & military policies in certain parts
of the world, the end of dollar hegemony could be on the cards as it
is replaced by another currency or gold as the leading standard bearer
in the global markets. The speech by R. Paul very much continues the
legacy and the picture that has been painted by Dr. K. Petrov and W.D.
Clark in terms of the policies and strategies that the U.S. has
historically used to maintain the dollar as the dominant currency on
the world markets. The �bullish� confidence that has formed the
benchmark in preserving the dollar boasted well for! financing
extravagance by conquering foreign lands, which in return meant less
strains on domestic labour and productivity as it reaped the benefits
not only gold but slaves (cheap labour) all contributing towards the
economic and military might of the American empire. These foreign
excursions also provided more ample opportunities to tax people &
nation states, all assisting in preserving the dominance of the
empire. Based on this historical observation, R. Paul states that when
the wealth of nations had been sapped and gold no longer could be
maintained, the military prowess of the empire subsequently also
plummeted. Today, the principles are the same but the process is
different. Paper money has replaced gold as the currency of the realm,
but the goals remain essentially the same, namely to �compel foreign
countries to produce and subsidize the country with military
superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.�
The Other side of the Coin
R. Paul suggests that since printing money is nothing short of
counterfeiting, military ascendancy is paramount for its successful
operation. However, the drawback is that such a policy tramples on the
character of the counterfeiting nation depleting the incentive to save
and produce, propelling increasing debts and welfare instability.
At the stage when paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out,
wealth accumulation and political stability are lost. The term
�dollar
diplomacy� in the late 19th century was rephrased with �dollar
hegemony� during the second half of the 20th century. The Federal
Reserve System from 1913-1971, WW II created a simple formula, which
was increasing the money supply of dollars and military might equalled
a virtual monopoly on global economic trade with the dollar acting as
the catalyst in the system. The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement had
solidified this dominance making the purchase of dollars holding equal
a footing as gold with a purchase power at 1/35th ounce of gold which
was illegal for American Citizens to own. As R. Paul mentions, this
was a policy that was destined to fail as in the following years the
U.S. increased the supply of dollars without gold backing. This
unseemly !adventure came to an end on Aug 15, 1971, when Nixon closed
the gold window.
Preserving the Dollar Hegemony
R. Paul�s article highlights how the U.S. agreement with OPEC to
price
oil in U.S dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions gave the
dollar a pivotal position in the global currency market as the dollar
would now be extricable linked to oil. In exchange, U.S. protection
was guaranteed towards the oil rich nations and the dollar gained in
relative strength allowing the U.S. to export �monetary inflation�
and
buy oil and other goods at a discount rate fostering further the quest
for dollar hegemony.
However, the key points that R. Paul highlights in the article is that
the OPEC arrangement was not as strong and stable as the Bretton Woods
arrangement or the gold standard of the late 19th century. This
volatility was highlighted when in the 1970�s the dollar nearly
collapsed and extortionate interest rates of 21% were required to
bring stability back into the system. To this date, central banks and
international commercial banks have preserved the strength of the
dollar giving it similar footing to that of gold.
Economic Warfare: A New Kind of Warfare?
Congressman R. Paul points out that the artificial demand for the
dollar along with the military might places the U.S. in the unique
position to the rule the world without hindering its own domestic
resources or deficits. This cosy relationship can�t last!
In the past 5 years, the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by
more than fifty percent. The above analysis has shown, that if anyone
does challenge the status quo in terms of the link between the dollar
and oil e.g. Saddam Hussein (2000), the powers that be will use all
economic and military means to remove that challenge (regime change)
at whatever costs, including at times illegitimate authorisation as in
Iraq. In 2001, Venezuela�s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela
switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. This was immediately
thwarted with economic pressure from the U.S.. The U.S. foreign policy
in recent years has heightened tensions and increased resentment
amongst majority Muslim nations around the world. This does not hold
well when it comes to U.S. credibility and diplomacy in the
international arena. R. Paul states that the $ 2.trillion never ending
war must be paid for one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the
vehicle to do jus!t that. The key is to propel the dollar dependency
among states, so that they remain �allies to the fraud� and hence
keep
the dollars artificial value high. If Iran does go ahead with the
planned Iranian Oil Bourse from March 2006, if previous precedents is
to go by, she will be subjected to the same economic and military
pressures until a regime change has been put firmly in place in the
region. As R. Paul highlights, using force to compel people to accept
money without real value can only work in the short run. Economic law
is based on fiduciary exchange of goods with real value as opposed to
the superficial values system the dollar hegemony project is
promoting. It seems that the tide is slowly changing, when we will see
the oil rich nations bartering in currencies other than the dollar.
Although, the authors of the three main articles in this analyses
would cherish seeing that day, the immediate likelihood is that the
neo-conservative U.S. global econ!omic dollar hegemonic project will
continue using both political and military pressure to foster this
global agenda.
by Hon. Ron Paul of Texas titled �The End of Dollar Hegemony� before
the U.S. House of Representatives to endorse his findings over the
years. Congressman Ron Paul gallantly presented his case underlying
with relative precision how if the U.S does not change it�s ways in
terms of the economic, diplomatic & military policies in certain parts
of the world, the end of dollar hegemony could be on the cards as it
is replaced by another currency or gold as the leading standard bearer
in the global markets. The speech by R. Paul very much continues the
legacy and the picture that has been painted by Dr. K. Petrov and W.D.
Clark in terms of the policies and strategies that the U.S. has
historically used to maintain the dollar as the dominant currency on
the world markets. The �bullish� confidence that has formed the
benchmark in preserving the dollar boasted well for! financing
extravagance by conquering foreign lands, which in return meant less
strains on domestic labour and productivity as it reaped the benefits
not only gold but slaves (cheap labour) all contributing towards the
economic and military might of the American empire. These foreign
excursions also provided more ample opportunities to tax people &
nation states, all assisting in preserving the dominance of the
empire. Based on this historical observation, R. Paul states that when
the wealth of nations had been sapped and gold no longer could be
maintained, the military prowess of the empire subsequently also
plummeted. Today, the principles are the same but the process is
different. Paper money has replaced gold as the currency of the realm,
but the goals remain essentially the same, namely to �compel foreign
countries to produce and subsidize the country with military
superiority and control over the monetary printing presses.�
The Other side of the Coin
R. Paul suggests that since printing money is nothing short of
counterfeiting, military ascendancy is paramount for its successful
operation. However, the drawback is that such a policy tramples on the
character of the counterfeiting nation depleting the incentive to save
and produce, propelling increasing debts and welfare instability.
At the stage when paper money is rejected, or when gold runs out,
wealth accumulation and political stability are lost. The term
�dollar
diplomacy� in the late 19th century was rephrased with �dollar
hegemony� during the second half of the 20th century. The Federal
Reserve System from 1913-1971, WW II created a simple formula, which
was increasing the money supply of dollars and military might equalled
a virtual monopoly on global economic trade with the dollar acting as
the catalyst in the system. The 1944 Bretton Woods agreement had
solidified this dominance making the purchase of dollars holding equal
a footing as gold with a purchase power at 1/35th ounce of gold which
was illegal for American Citizens to own. As R. Paul mentions, this
was a policy that was destined to fail as in the following years the
U.S. increased the supply of dollars without gold backing. This
unseemly !adventure came to an end on Aug 15, 1971, when Nixon closed
the gold window.
R. Paul�s article highlights how the U.S. agreement with OPEC to
price
oil in U.S dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions gave the
dollar a pivotal position in the global currency market as the dollar
would now be extricable linked to oil. In exchange, U.S. protection
was guaranteed towards the oil rich nations and the dollar gained in
relative strength allowing the U.S. to export �monetary inflation�
and
buy oil and other goods at a discount rate fostering further the quest
for dollar hegemony.
However, the key points that R. Paul highlights in the article is that
the OPEC arrangement was not as strong and stable as the Bretton Woods
arrangement or the gold standard of the late 19th century. This
volatility was highlighted when in the 1970�s the dollar nearly
collapsed and extortionate interest rates of 21% were required to
bring stability back into the system. To this date, central banks and
international commercial banks have preserved the strength of the
dollar giving it similar footing to that of gold.
Economic Warfare: A New Kind of Warfare?
Congressman R. Paul points out that the artificial demand for the
dollar along with the military might places the U.S. in the unique
position to the rule the world without hindering its own domestic
resources or deficits. This cosy relationship can�t last!
In the past 5 years, the dollar has been devalued in terms of gold by
more than fifty percent. The above analysis has shown, that if anyone
does challenge the status quo in terms of the link between the dollar
and oil e.g. Saddam Hussein (2000), the powers that be will use all
economic and military means to remove that challenge (regime change)
at whatever costs, including at times illegitimate authorisation as in
Iraq. In 2001, Venezuela�s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela
switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. This was immediately
thwarted with economic pressure from the U.S.. The U.S. foreign policy
in recent years has heightened tensions and increased resentment
amongst majority Muslim nations around the world. This does not hold
well when it comes to U.S. credibility and diplomacy in the
international arena. R. Paul states that the $ 2.trillion never ending
war must be paid for one way or another. Dollar hegemony provides the
vehicle to do jus!t that. The key is to propel the dollar dependency
among states, so that they remain �allies to the fraud� and hence
keep
the dollars artificial value high. If Iran does go ahead with the
planned Iranian Oil Bourse from March 2006, if previous precedents is
to go by, she will be subjected to the same economic and military
pressures until a regime change has been put firmly in place in the
region. As R. Paul highlights, using force to compel people to accept
money without real value can only work in the short run. Economic law
is based on fiduciary exchange of goods with real value as opposed to
the superficial values system the dollar hegemony project is
promoting. It seems that the tide is slowly changing, when we will see
the oil rich nations bartering in currencies other than the dollar.
Although, the authors of the three main articles in this analyses
would cherish seeing that day, the immediate likelihood is that the
neo-conservative U.S. global econ!omic dollar hegemonic project will
continue using both political and military pressure to foster this
global agenda.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
