Petrodollar system.

First of all, the author of the article from the link you posted said that there is no petrodollar, and that there hasn't been since the 1970s. The truth is that there wasn't the petrodollar until the 1970s. And we both know that the petrodollar system in question is the one that was hatched in the 70s. You seem genuinely unaware of what would happen to the U.S. economy should OPEC nations accept currencies other that just the U.S. dollar for their oil and other transactions. What happens when all of those dollars come back home because no one needs them anymore to buy oil? Are you familiar with the term "inflation," or "hyperinflation"?

And yes, I understand that you believe that the timing of the invasion of Iraq, and the threats to the very same countries that announced their abandonment of the U.S. dollar is just kind of a coincidence. When the WMD accusation was seen for what it was--total bullshit--the cry was then for "Iraqi freedom." But that was just more of the same bullshit. Hundreds of thousands (who were not Saddam) were killed initially, and who knows the kind of grief and misery the survivors experienced . And of course bombing the shit out of the country created over 4 million refugees. So, any talk about U.S. altruism would be an insult to the intelligence of anyone with two braincells. Iraq doesn't have dependable electric service after all these years. But the one thing that we immediately did get busy doing was switching their currency for oil back to U.S. dollars. Gee, you don't think we invaded just to . . . nah, it's too crazy, never mind. It's all circumstantial evidence. Sure, the timing was awful suspicious, and quickly repricing their oil back to U.S. dollars was awful suspicious, and yeah, calling for regime change in the very countries who announced their decision to accept currencies other than the U.S. dollar was awful suspicious. In fact, it's kind of hard to not see the common denominator in all of that. Don't ya think?

 

Money was the last thing on their minds. They were after those weapons of mass destruction. You wouldn't believe their sorrow when they discovered there wasn't any. All of those lives lost... But, at the same time, now the Iraqis were free!

 

Here are some other explanations. What are they missing?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09636412.2019.1551567
Why Did We Go To War? | Truth, War And Consquences | FRONTLINE | PBS
Why Did We Invade Iraq? | National Review
Why Did We Invade Iraq? - The Atlantic
America's unlearned lesson: the forgotten truth about why we invaded Iraq
What Is the Real Reason George Bush Invaded Iraq? | HuffPost
Jane K. Cramer, ed. Why Did the United States Invade Iraq.(2011), with articles by five expert analysts who don't place petero dollars high on the list of causes.

Talk among yourselves. I've wasted enough time. My sock drawer is waiting!

 

You have to masturbate into a sock?

 

I don't think he had time to do that. It would appear that he has read all five of the links he put up in perhaps record time.

From one of his links:


George W. Bush with part of his national security team at Camp David on September 15, 2001. "Knowing what we know now," the decision to invade Iraq can be traced back to that day.Reuters

Look at those clowns. Only Rummy has mastered the ability to appear not to look guilty as sin. Hey, I wonder if these guys know anything about who stole Libya's gold.

 

I agree with some of what the links say, but it's beside the point. They lied and they conspired, and they aren't being held accountable. On the contrary, they're being presented to us as heroes or people that we should idolize. It's sickening.

The thing is, I don't think Americans truly care. As long as it doesn't hit home, we don't care what goes on in the world. Oh, people say to the contrary, plenty. There's outcries and all that. But at the end of the day we go back to our TVs and internet.

I think this is a real sickness probably in humanity as well as just in America, in that we just don't really care. That's what the soap opera is to me. This distance people have from what they're viewing. And I've viewed it this way for as long as I can remember. It's the society of the spectacle. On the deepest level, we revel in disaster. On an intellectual level we know it has to stop, but on a primal level we hope it at least starts. It provides some excitement in our lives, sometimes some sense of unity. But look, what is it, 500,000 casualties in Iraq? I just have to shrug my shoulders, because I don't see how anyone can excuse that. And it seems like the more there are, the more insensitive we become.

I've been called a monster before for this belief, but I honestly believe it. The vast majority of people don't care about anyone but themselves. The sociopaths in power like Bush and co., knowing this, can meanwhile get away with murder. I don't know... It's all too sick for me. Anyone who can admit that this society is rotten to the core just can't face the truth of who they are. I don't even know what to say. It's just rife with sickness.

 

Storch

If it isn’t a conspiracy why are you talking about these producers of the soap opera, these people in the shadows that are secretly directing things and controlling the whole of US foreign policy to be about petrodollars?

Although you now seem to be implying you don’t know who these ‘producers’ are you just KNOW they exist.

So the pertinent question goes from who these people are to how do you know they exist?

 

To repeat - there is a difference between history and conspiracy theory

History - the reality - that muddles along buffered by events and circumstance where if there are any great plans they seldom if ever survive contact with the actuality

And

Conspiracy theory – a belief - that has secret actors pulling strings from the shadows to orderly international plan.

*

I think the US made a big mistake at Bretton Woods it could have been exceptional (as Americans often think of themselves) and done a lot of good but instead it chose to be normal and like any great power tried for hegemony.

It wasn’t conspiracy it was political opportunism and in doing so it was acting no differently than the imperial nations that had gone before it, not conspiracy just history.

So rather than choosing Keynes’ bancor it tried to make the US dollar the ‘world currency’, this wasn’t conspiracy it was the stupidity of a country with imperial dreams just like all the others before it.

The dream was of hegemony what resulted was the Nixon shock.

It also didn’t want to take on the bancor system in the 1940’s because it was the biggest owning nation after WWII (rather than a debtor one) and didn’t want to spend its surplus (on places like Europe or China for example) but as many have pointed out the US would probably really like the bancor system to be brought in now but China would probably very much disagree.

It was an opportunity missed but that is history the thing is can the US learn from it?

*

People that see conspiracy say that the US government lied about there been WMD’s in Iraq (then make up shadowy cabals to explain it) BUT do you think that 19th century British governments never lied to promote their imperial objectives? And it’s not like the US government didn’t have form, to just pluck something out of the air look up the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The President lied to start war

The occupation of Iraq wasn’t conspiracy it was hubris (as was Vietnam).

*

When the US Saudi deal on petrodollars is looked as history rather than as some overarching conspiracy then it makes perfect sense why wouldn’t an American government want to try and broker such a deal.

The history of the British Empire is full of such deals and just look what we did to China through the opium ‘trade’.

*

As I’ve said some Americans want to see the US as exceptional a break in the chain of history – it is not - it is just another chapter in history, another flawed power that wanted it all and did great harm to itself in doing so.

But I think some want to carry on thinking it is exceptional so they make up excuses for it, that Americans are being manipulated by a shadow governments and secret cabals which lets the people off the hook as accomplices in the ‘wrongdoings’.

 

Storch

It seems to me that you are trying to clear yourself and other Americans from wrong doing by blaming events on some shadowy forces rather than having to accept the collective blame and learn from the mistakes

It’s like the child blaming the smashed plate on his imaginary friend.

You seem to be trying to convince yourself that the American people are all fundamentally good and decent and would only do bad things if manipulated into it by some conspiracy of ‘others’

But I’m sorry to say a lot of Americans just like any other people can choose to do bad things.

You can go back and read the threads running up to and beyond the Iraq invasion and you will see there were plenty of people that didn’t need any excuses to go and kill the towelheads.

The neo-cons and their allies in the right wing press gave them fig leaves but many of the supporters for war didn’t really need them as the ease with which they went from one to the other made clear from we have to invade because Saddam was part of Al Qaeda to him having WMD’s to it been all about freeing the Iraqis from tyranny.

A lot of people were in favour of invading Iraq they were not bamboozled into it by some conspiracy.

The imperial dreaming of the neo-cons that pushed for it and the many that supported them thought it would be an easy win. The neo-cos had already argued for the invasion not for oil (but that was a plus) not to free the Iraqis (which became clear from their treatment of them) but because they wanted to set up a strategic centre from which the (imperial) US could dominate the Middle East (a position Iran had once held under the Shah).

(look into - Project for the New American Century (PNAC)

They also though it was an opportunity to showcase nation building based on their right wing ideological views and so tried to create (impose) the most free market orientated systems on Iraq.

(see Imperial Life in the Emerald City by Rajiv Chandrasekaran).

Thing is that a lot of people on the right in the US were gun-ho about the invasion and occupation that is until the shit hit the fan and they slowly began claiming that they had been led astray by the lies.

Something you seem to want to facilitate with you conspiracy bull shit.

Thing was the lies were so paper thin so transparently lies that you would need effort to actually swallow them.

 

OK so let us put aside the silly conspiracy theory and look at the supposed issue, which seems to be that some people feel there is a risk to the US economy of other countries moving away from the dollar as the international reverse currency.

So what could be done to lessen this risk?

Well get down the US debt.

Rescind the Trump tax cuts

Put up taxes on the richest especially inheritance tax

Cut the military budget

Bring in a Tobin tax on market speculation

Work with other countries to bring in internationally tax regulation

Are just a few ideas on that?

Next campaign to get the US involved in a new Bretton Woods agreement but this time get it right. I’ve been pushing for it for years and I think it is on many the wish list of left leaning and liberal economists.

*

Thing is that most of these ideas would be supported by many on the left and opposed by those on the right so it seems to me that probably the best thing to do to get the ball rolling is to vote for left leaning candidate.

 

So, presumably, there were discussions about going to war with Iraq. Then they fabricated reasons why we should go. But there wasn't a conspiracy. OK!

That there is precedent for conspiracy makes conspiracy okay? I'm sure there were no ulterior motives in Vietnam as well. But the fact that they conspired...that doesn't make it a wacky "conspiracy."

 

Whoever is feeding the media the bullshit narrative are the ones I'm talking about. However, those people pushing the bullshit narrative are sometimes not in the shadows. Who told the public that Iraq has ties with alquaeda? Who told the public about WMDs that didn't exists? I've already provided a chronological progression of bullshit claims from members of the Administration. Their narrative has been totally exposed as the bullshit it was from the beginning.

And you're still pushing your coincidence theory bullshit. You want to believe that the timing of the invasions and destruction of Iraq and Libya, and the threats to Iran, Syria, and Venezuela just happen to coincide with their decision to bypass the dollar in their oil sales and other transactions. Sure, man. It's just a coincidence. These things happen all the time.

Anyway:

Please point me in the direction of where I might find the news concerning the U.S.'s deal with OPEC nations to accept U.S. dollars only for their oil in order to avoid the consequence of having its currency devalued after it defaulted on the Bretton Wood agreement after foolishly running up the debt to the extent that it didn't have the gold to convert the dollars held by those nations ravaged by the war. Just a newspaper article or news video from that time will suffice. Otherwise, we can conclude that the Administration of that time decided to keep the details of that deal, and the reasons for it, out of the mainstream media and public view. In fact, in Nixon's televised address to the nation, he didn't mention anything about the devaluation of the dollar. He said he was closing the gold window to protect the dollar from speculators, when in reality, he was protecting the gold from those countries that had a legitimate claim to it. So, Balbus, who was pushing the soap opera version of events that don't reflect reality at all?

Anyway, here's an interesting article on the subject that's not based on the official narrative or Nixon's bullshit:

Thanks to OPEC's agreement (1971 and 1973) oil is exclusively sold in US dollars. This creates a permanent demand for dollars on the exchange market. Roughly 85 percent of the oil trade takes place completely outside the US. The related dollar cycle goes from exchange market, via oil purchasing countries, to oil producing countries, which spend them in different countries, which in turn bring them back to the exchange market.

Back on the exchange market there are, generally and since decades, always dollars missing (more demand than supply.)

Reasons:

a. The volume and price of the traded oil generally increases. More dollars are needed over time.
b. Thanks to free trade, many dollars stay in use in international trade outside the US.
c. Many foreign central banks keep dollars as strategic reserves.
d. The US Treasury issues bonds, which when sold to foreigners, reduces the amount of dollars available abroad.

So for decades, foreigners always needed more dollars. The US treasury issued extra dollars. And here it becomes very interesting. There is only one way to make these dollars available abroad. Spend them around the world! The US would purchase goods, services, shares, investments etc. But the US never had to deliver anything in return. Foreigners needed these dollars to buy oil. The purchases were just inscribed on the trade balances and the amounts added to the US foreign debt. For the US, the oil trade works like a fairy credit card. Each time more dollars are needed abroad, this means "free" shopping. Nothing can be done about it.

 

At times one wonders what the monetary/political landscape might have looked like had team Nixon / Kissinger not been able to sell the Petro -Dollar to the Saudi's and subsequently peg the dollar to oil . All to often international diplomacy, political discussions usually ignore the one factor which can make or break any political deal, party and sometimes a nation , that is monetary policy.


" Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws."

Mayer Amschel Rothschild

 

Storch

So let’s get this straight you don’t know who is in this supposed conspiracy and you are not even sure if they actually exist?

But you don’t seem to know if there are any ‘in the shadows’

No I’m just asking you to produce any evidence beyond your belief that there is a conspiracy of shadowy people.

The right wing of the US (its politicians, media and pundits) and right wing Americans lapped it up and believed it.

I was here (along with Skip and many others) on this very forum countering the bullshit that was said in their post and those that were trying to point out the lies and stop the war were mainly leaned to the left (although there were a few people who were far right wing conspiracy nuts that thought the twin towers was a false flag operation to start the Iraq war and seize the oil -which I and others also called out as bullshit).

Thing is that the stuff right wing pundits were telling people at the time was bull shit - but - obvious bull shit if someone actually looked at it - but those right wingers didn’t care, they were up for it.

You cannot blame some shadowy conspiracy for the gullibility of ill-informed voters. And it seem to me that spreading more misinformation about it been the fault of shadowy conspiracies doesn’t help that situation.

 

Storch

Sorry mate but honestly where are you going with this – you seem to be admitting there doesn’t seem to be any shadowy conspiracy and your main ‘revelations’ seem to be that politicians sometimes lie and governments of nations put their own interests first. Oh and that right wingers believe their right wing leaders even when they are pumping out obvious bull shit (just look at what the Trump supporters will swallow).

Yes I can see there are risks to the US from is reliance on the dollar been the reserve currency (and losing that position) but as pointed out you don’t seem to be putting up any solutions.

Have you any solutions?

 

" right wingers believe their right wing leaders even when they are pumping out obvious bull shit "
and Left wingers do exactly the same thing !

The way of lemmings.

 

New

In what way do they do ‘exactly’ the same thing?

 

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fact that you don't know who they are kind of conducive to the idea that they're in the shadows?

I don't know who the guys at the Pentagon who adjust movies to their liking are, either, but it's well known that they exist. To suggest that they don't do the same thing with other forms of mass media is kind of ridiculous. How does one go about naming names, though, unless you're an investigative journalist?

There is a hierarchy of power, as well, and even if you find a direct link it's doubtful you'll find out who hands down the orders. People with a lot of power in this country do operate mostly in secrecy. Sometimes they are exposed as being criminals. But it isn't for a lack of trying to keep their operations secret.

I don't get how anyone can believe that all available knowledge is a matter of public discourse. Conspiracy theories like this are just in the way you look at the world. You either trust the people with immense power or you don't. And you won't suspect anyone in particular until there's a paper trail of their influence. But even this paper trail won't really expose how strong their influence actually is, necessarily.

I am a bit of a paranoid person by nature, and I strongly suspect that there are those who try to orchestrate public opinion. The notion that they don't is naively silly to me.

 

You would be correct to assume public opinion is orchestrated. Political leaders spend enormous funds on focus groups, think tanks and slick advertising are all deployed to motivate you toward a particular position or action.

 

The point of using the media to push for an illegal invasion of Iraq was to gain public support for the invasion. And it wasn't to seize the oil. It was to return the sale of Iraq's oil to U.S. dollars, which was done immediately. But that information falls on deaf ears when it comes to you coincidence theorists. Expectedly, your posts in no way address the petrodollar system. Perhaps that's because I've provided numerous sources to show you that I'm not mistaken, while you've provided nothing to rebut it except for your "who's the shadowy people" mantra.

But if you'd really like to make an impression here, point me in the direction of where I might find a news source concerning the U.S.'s deal with OPEC nations to accept only U.S. dollars for their oil in order to avoid the consequences of having its currency devalued after it defaulted on the Bretton Wood agreement after foolishly running up the debt to the extent that it didn't have the gold to convert the dollars held by those nations ravaged by the war. Just a newspaper article or news video from that time will suffice. If you cannot do this, we can conclude that the Administration of that time decided to keep the details of that deal, and the reasons for it, out of the mainstream media and public view. Remember, in Nixon's televised address to the nation, he didn't mention anything about the devaluation of the dollar. He said he was closing the gold window to protect the dollar from speculators, when in reality, he was protecting the gold from those countries that had a legitimate claim to it.

If you disagree with what I've just said, go ahead and refute it with something other than your "who's the shadowy people" mantra.
______________________________________________________________________________________

And then tell me whether or not you have a problem with the following:

Also, So for decades, foreigners always needed more dollars. The US treasury issued extra dollars. And here it becomes very interesting. There is only one way to make these dollars available abroad. Spend them around the world! The US would purchase goods, services, shares, investments etc. But the US never had to deliver anything in return. Foreigners needed these dollars to buy oil. The purchases were just inscribed on the trade balances and the amounts added to the US foreign debt. For the US, the oil trade works like a fairy credit card. Each time more dollars are needed abroad, this means "free" shopping. Nothing can be done about it.