On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 1:43 AM Charles Haynes <charles.hay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The superficial layers like the bond markets or federal reserve are not > > stand alone, I see that they are ultimately inherited from military power. > > > > And I have pointed out that falls apart under analysis.
No. Your analysis is entirely based on the idea that there's ever a second place in war, well there isn't. The winner dictates the rules for everyone else. As I previously said, if Russia or China had 10x the military force of the US, Moscow or Shanghai could easily take over as the capital market of the world. Whether they had a sophisticated understanding of finance wouldn't even come into it. It may not be to the liking of everyone, but if anyone had that kind of power, the rest of the world would have no option but to be silent. This is the equivalent of the Huns who invaded Europe and India. They may have just been bums on horses who wouldn't know culture if it bit them, but they could shoot better than anyone else, and that's all that mattered. > > In fact nobody trusts the Federal Reserve anymore than they absolutely have > > to. > > > > That's another bald, unsupported assertion, and it's also false. No one > "has to" trust the US Federal Reserve, and the value of the dollar is an > indication of how much or little they do trust it. If the Fed loses trust, > the dollar loses value precisely because no one "has to" trust it. Hardly possible when the world sells to the US and holds US debt, it is not in anyone's interest at the moment to see anything happen to the Dollar. Stockholm syndrome. This is military power that has been translated into economic power. > False again. The Swiss used QE in 2008 at at the same time the US was doing > so, and did so at a larger rate than *any* *other* *country.* Far from > being laughed at or sanctioned, exactly nothing was done. Expansionary monetary policy does not always increase money supply, this was the case with the Swiss who only wanted to have a cheaper CHF. On the other hand with the US QE was used to lower interest rates and thereby allow banks to create new money when they issued loans thus greatly increasing money supply. One is monetary policy, the other is manipulation, but the line is vague and there is no impartial umpire of such determinations. The only country that maintains a list of currency manipulators is the US, and it has never placed itself on its own list. This is the blow-back, or lack of it. > > Sanctions are enforced by the military. > > > > No, sanctions for currency manipulation are addressed by negotiation and > economic sanctions, not the military. Without the supremacy of the military the economic sanctions would have no effect. The various US fleets perform force displays in Asia for this very reason. I think you are being intentionally blind to details. > Which means that the dollar is not backed by the military, it's backed by > the power of the US Federal Reserve, which is what I said. The WSJ article > cited in the email you quoted points out this very thing - and what > countries are doing to reduce that power and get around that stick. In > particular what European countries are doing to pull the teeth of the USA > in unilaterally sanctioning Iran against the wishes of our European allies. > The US military will not be useful in addressing the European response. The threat of withdrawal of NATO is the big stick approach. All protection rackets need the capacity to deliver force. > > In fact nobody has any idea exactly how many dollars are out there, and > > that's how the US likes it. So much the easier to dump plane loads of cash > > over Afghanistan or Columbia. > > > > Wut? The Fed has a pretty good idea how many "dollars are out there" and so > can you if you want to read their monthly H.6 report. As of April 2019* > there are 14,513,500,000,000 dollars out there. A wise man was asked "how many crows are there in Delhi?" He says there are 14,513,500,000,000 crows. The questioner asks, "how do you know for sure?", and he replies, "bring them all to me one by one, and I will count them in front of you". Again it's a question of who's going to question the Fed. The centrality of the dollar makes the Dollar economy like Hotel California. You can't check out. > > They don't control the World Bank, IMF, Wall Street, LIBOR. Supposedly > > independent institutions that in reality answer to America more often than > > not. > > > > Now you've veered off into tin foil hat territory. I'm not going to play > sinister global conspiracy games, especially because they have nothing to > do with whether the US dollar is backed by the US military or not. The World Bank has always had a US appointed President, and the IMF gets most of its money from the US, so the US is not without great influence. Dismissing theories of the US puppet-mastering the global institutions is typical. That is not a response. I recommend reading the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman. > the US military is not involved, and will not be involved. Are you kidding me? Petro-Dollar warfare or Currency wars is a very real thing.
