Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 17, 2015

Towards The End Of The U.S. Dominated International Money System

Welcome to the end of Brenton Woods and the Washington Consensus that defined the world money systems around U.S. controlled institutions and the U.S. dollar as the sole reserve currency.

Defying U.S., European allies say they'll join China-led bank

Germany, France and Italy said on Tuesday they had agreed to join a new China-led Asian investment bank after close ally Britain defied U.S. pressure to become a founder member of a venture seen in Washington as a rival to the World Bank.

The concerted move to participate in Beijing's flagship economic outreach project was a diplomatic blow for the United States, reflecting European eagerness to partner with China's fast-growing economy, the second largest in the world.

It comes amid prickly trade negotiations between Brussels and Washington, and at a time when EU and Asian governments are frustrated that the U.S. Congress has held up a reform of voting rights in the International Monetary Fund due to give China and other emerging economies more say in global economic governance.

Especially under the Obama administration the U.S. abused its important role in international finance to further its political pet projects at the cost of other participants in the system.

On Washington's insistence the International Monetary Fund is breaking its rules to finance a civil war in Ukraine. U.S. spying on the SWIFT banking information exchange is used to sanction U.S. enemies by excluding them from the international banking system. Foreign banks get punished with huge fines because they conduct business with countries the U.S. sees as unpalatable. Wall Streets huge mortgage scam and selling of worthless derivatives to foreign entities left the world economy in shambles and investors and whole countries bankrupt but went completely unpunished.

Enough. Over time the world will no longer adhere to the rules set in Washington. The global banking system will evolve into a multipolar system where different public international banks will act and where monetary information exchanges can be conducted on various systems under various jurisdiction.

This will be a huge loss to the coercive power of the U.S. and thereby a good step towards a more Westphalian world where power is more equally distributed. International sanctions against countries that defy U.S. regime change orders will no longer be sustainable.

Posted by b on March 17, 2015 at 14:27 UTC | Permalink

next page »

this article in it's simplicity explains what soon will be the beginning of the new reality...the party is about over....time to sweep up and remove the trash!!!!

Posted by: michael | Mar 17 2015 14:56 utc | 1

Bretton Woods ended in August, 1971, not this week.

I think the creation of the China investment bank is an entirely separate issue from the US dollar as the global reserve currency. The Chinese bank will still be part of that global system, just not directly controlled by the US as is the case with the present World Bank.

As far as a global reserve currency generally, I'm not sure that the merits of being one aren't overstated. One drawback is that the issuer of the global currency will always by definition run an accounts deficit with the rest of the world.

Posted by: sleepy | Mar 17 2015 15:12 utc | 2

Its correct that that the World is moving away from US politicized and exploited monetary system. Some big whales arent even mentioned, like Russia moving from under Western finance system at the speed of light, Iran is already there (just under the table) with China and Russia. BRICS cant wait to test an alternative to SWIFT, you name it.

Posted by: Harry | Mar 17 2015 15:24 utc | 3

PIIGS and BRICS unite!

Posted by: nmb | Mar 17 2015 15:48 utc | 4

This meme seems like just more wishful thinking as the dollar surges in value. The BRICS are doing some things to protect themselves but their economies are not doing that well and that means investors will seek safe haven in the dollar. The Euro and the Yen are diving so what are people to buy, the Sucre or rubles?

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 17 2015 16:09 utc | 5

"PIIGS and BRICS unite!"

Reminds me of the fable The Three Little Pigs. The third pig's house was made of bricks and the big bad wolf died trying to blow the brick house down. Maybe the world's wolf will meet a similar fate trying to stop this house from being built.

Posted by: Ben Zanotto | Mar 17 2015 16:22 utc | 6


I think you put this discussion in the correct context, 'Fairy Tale'.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 17 2015 16:35 utc | 7

revenge of the vampire.....

Posted by: denk | Mar 17 2015 16:41 utc | 8

The fact is that the US does not play the great game very well. Maybe if the Harvard Mafia spent less time flipping houses and networking at cocktail parties, they'd get a clue that global governance does not necessarily include them in the top positions. Russia and China are well on track to becoming the new global hegemons for the next 200 years. They have the "home-field advantage." India will join them shortly and the EU would be wise to look East for growth and prosperity.

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 17 2015 16:48 utc | 9

Even under the reform package created a few years ago, the US is allowed to keep its IMF veto. This has already become untenable in my opinion.

Posted by: purple | Mar 17 2015 17:05 utc | 10

The reform package being held up in Congress.

Posted by: purple | Mar 17 2015 17:06 utc | 11

That German Bank mentioned in the link to the article was fined 1 billion for breaching US sanctions. French "Bank BNP Paribas is expected to pay up to $9 billion in a potential criminal settlement of U.S. charges the French banking giant violated economic sanctions by doing business with Sudan, Iran and Cuba" I hope more countries defy 'the masters of the universe'. If they wish to be independent, they must learn to hang together. Or they will be hung separately.

Posted by: harry law | Mar 17 2015 17:51 utc | 12

This globalized system certainly appears to be a House of Cards and those responsible for creating it and setting it in motion are definitely not playing with a full deck. Kevin Spacey doesn’t do them justice. On a scale, I’d say the architects reside somewhere between Frank Underwood and Hannibal Lecter. They say, “what goes up must come down,” but that physical maxim doesn’t hold in a vacuum. The architects believe they are James Dyson. I believe they are Thomas Crapper and their invention is being used to flush humanity from the face of the earth.

Somebody’s Ringin’ The Bell

The Potemkin Presidency

Posted by: Cold N. Holefield | Mar 17 2015 17:55 utc | 13

Interesting article by Alistair Crooke in Conflicts Forum-- 'Non-Dollar trading is killing the petrodollar'.

Posted by: harry law | Mar 17 2015 18:32 utc | 14

"This meme seems like just more wishful thinking as the dollar surges in value."

The dollar surging in value makes American goods and services more expensive wrt the rest of the world. Our imports will increase, exports decrease, driving our already monstrous trade deficit up, screwing Americas workers even worse as dollars (potential domestic income) flows out of the country. A strong dollar hurts the American worker way more than it helps.

"what are people to buy, the Sucre or rubles?"

Yeah like people HAVE to buy currency to survive. Last time I checked none of these currencies are edible. Why should we care about an activity that benefits only 0.001% of the worlds population at the expense of the rest of us?

Posted by: paulmeli | Mar 17 2015 18:39 utc | 15

The transition to this "end" (not quite yet, but soon enough) has been, continues to be, and will continue to be costly in human and material losses the world over, particularly for those countries who chose to defy the so-called "New World Order," and were sacrificed in their vain attempts. The "New-est World Order" being built by Russia, China, et al, does not exclude the old one, but it prevents its domination over others. New financial, political, economic and social institutions have been created, BRICS by BRICS, to contain the new world emerging from the ashes of the destruction and pillaging of the old Soviet Union, right on time to avoid the state of "permanent war" the US/UK/Eurostan neocons dream to impose upon the planet, with the only aim of perpetuating their savage, neoliberal brand of capitalism and their post-modern, decadent life. The world is not free from war just yet, but the creation of a new geopolitical sphere within a giant landmass with deep strategic reserves, i.e. Russia, China, and India, a nuclear armed counter-pole to the Empire + Eurominions, could be enough deterrent to either postpone or avoid a war of cataclysmic proportions. The Empire will continue to sell wars, no doubt, even if low intensity conflicts, to feed blood and flesh to the Mil-Ind monster and to defend/expand/control its sphere of influence, in marked declination. They will have no choice, however, but to deal with the newly founded “alternative” institutions, regardless of country, or they will be left behind in their positioning within the new sphere.

Posted by: Lone Wolf | Mar 17 2015 18:56 utc | 16

Psaki's breats are quite large is she having a kid maybe?

Would be great to get rid of her daily propaganda.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 17 2015 19:25 utc | 17

It's Bretton Woods, not Brenton Woods!

Even with the emergence of BRICS type systems, local currency trade deals, alternatives to SWIFT, and such, Dollar power will remain for a good while. The reason is that China has a vital interest in it as the largest holder of Dollar-denominated debt and an export economy dependent on a stable Dollar system. The position of the Dollar in the world system will be the one that suits China. Shanghai is emerging as a center of Dollar power to challenge new York and London. Arguably, China's position with one foot in Dollar world and the other foot in BRICS world will make them more powerful in the world currency system than the US has been since the 1960s because they will have more financial tools with which to act in their own interests. In a multi-polar financial world, China would be the kingmaker.

Posted by: Thirdeye | Mar 17 2015 19:31 utc | 18

This has to be a huge story. Maybe not something that will capture headlines in the 24/7 news cycles. But certainly to those of us who track history in increments of decades. When Hillary and Obama announced their pivot to Asia, the strong message was that this was a new policy to isolate China economically from rest of Asia — especially from the island nations in the Western Pacific as well as the SE and Southern Asian nations.

So what does the US do next but to attack Russia through Ukraine. Russia responded by moving closer to China. The US responds by increasing sanctions against Russia. Russia responds by sending the South Stream oil pipeline through Turkey. And what does China do? Something I would have never predicted but to set up a bank in competition with the IMF and succeed in attracting England, Australia, France and Germany and for sure in coming weeks South Korea. Obviously Russia and Taiwan will join but for good political reasons will delay their involvement. In any case, it looks like China has yet again out maneuvered the fools that lead the US.

This is the outcome of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy vision. Of course we can blame Obama since he gave her that position to pursue these utterly insane policies. The net result is that US foreign policy is in complete taters. In 1950 the Republicans ran on the question of ‘who lost China’. In the coming election, if the Republicans have any sense they will be running on ‘who lost Europe’ [of course the Republicans were the primary advocates for the policies that have resulted in this fiasco]. Of course, Obama is responsible since he appointed Hillary to SOS and she is retained those neocons in State that created the mess in Ukraine.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 17 2015 19:42 utc | 19

This track from Brenton Woods is one of my favorites

Posted by: Nana2007 | Mar 17 2015 19:47 utc | 20

Iran, Hezbollah left off US terror threat listing.

Posted by: lysias | Mar 17 2015 19:54 utc | 21

Seems like Netanyahu will continue to rule Israel, thats really bad.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 17 2015 20:08 utc | 22

good comments from many folks. thanks.

regarding b's overall post - i think it's a worthwhile discussion on long and short term developments.. the imf bending the rules to let ukraine borrow money to make war seems to highlight how the world financial system under usa's leadership benefits the usa in these so called 'world financial mechanisms- the imf, world bank, swift and how they are used as financial weapons against anyone they choose.. this will stop, but it will also take some time.. one wonders how much collective pain has to happen before it changes.

i encourage everyone to read this link that harry law provided @13 to get a good overview on these developments, along with the history of world finances that has brought us where we are now globally speaking..

Posted by: james | Mar 17 2015 20:55 utc | 23

well, fable for fable, here's mine...

economic growth is over. there is only economic consolidation. there are not now nor will there ever be paying jobs for everyone. i mean, not even close to everyone.

prosperity will have to be redefined.

Posted by: john | Mar 17 2015 21:19 utc | 24

All this is imho related to the IMF completely reliquishing its mandate, its charter, its agreements, as exposed in part by Helmer, link in b’s top post again below.

What?? World taxpayers are supposed to offer Ukraine loans they cannot pay back so that they can buy arms from the USA? More than half of the first IMF lend/probably gift/ tranche is, I have read, already earmarked for that, the contracts are agreed, and the expenditure, see Helmer, is sorta ‘off the books’ in the sense of not calculated in the usual rubrics. (Complicated.)

That the IMF is despised by ordinary ppl, many countries, is totally understandable (see Perkins, Economic Hit Man, Naomi Klein, and so on) yet once it olé olé by-passes or ignores other countries who participate and agree to its scams, even if under vague or dire threat or just in a lowly position or finding some illusory political advantage, then the IMF is on the way to being discredited, crumbling, and game over. I have no doubt that many at the IMF are scared for their jobs…

Btw, SWIFT resisted before, stated sanctions could not apply to them, and has now nominated a Russian to its board, on 6 March 2015, for the first time.

Mercouris is a quick read on the IMF mess:

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 17 2015 21:31 utc | 25

@ 23 @ john
Listen John, Here in the fortress of scum we have been pushing that meme hard since 2008, And BTW we already have a pretty good "new" definition of prosperity, if you didn't get the email it doesn't apply to you..I do wonder though, how we will get the vast majority to agree to our "new definition of prosperity" which screws them 3 times harder and faster than b4 (something most people at Los Alamos and the Jet Propulsion lab believed to be a physical impossibility...way to "innovate" capitalism!) Of course, that means even the pretense of "democracy" (he he he ) will have to be dropped, but this is troubling fact- the iron fist has never worked long term and in America its already beginning to come apart (see Ferguson)...

Posted by: psakiwacky | Mar 17 2015 21:38 utc | 26

European Allies Defy U.S. In Joining China-Led Development Bank

March 17, 2015 5:22 PM ET
Four key European allies have broken ranks with the U.S. to join a major new development bank created by China. Germany, France, and Italy today agreed to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Last week, the U.K., one of America's staunchest allies, became the first Western nation to join the new bank.

The Obama administration opposes the AIIB, due to open later this year, and has pressured allies such as South Korea, Japan and Australia not to join the new bank. The administration says there's no need for another international lending institution.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 17 2015 22:56 utc | 27


Back to the State Department Fact Sheet: the new UAS export policy “also ensures appropriate participation for U.S. industry in the emerging commercial UAS market, which will contribute to the health of the U.S. industrial base, and thus to U.S. national security which includes economic activity.” In other words, what’s good for General Atomics, maker of the Predator, is good for America. Micah Zenko writes: “With a projected $80 billion in global spending over the next ten years, drones constitute a potential growth industry for the aerospace and defense sectors.”[8] Putting corporate profits before human lives—there’s the real US model.

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 17 2015 23:16 utc | 28

THE REAL NEWS on the Israeli elections

Max Blumenthal

Posted by: okie farmer | Mar 17 2015 23:52 utc | 29

WOW: "This meme seems like just more wishful thinking as the dollar surges in value".

Relative value of $ is conjuctural and does not indicate "strength" or much of anything on a grand scale. In addition, overvalued $ is *bad* for US economy. "Strong dollar" is actually a sign of a diseased US-centric international financial system.

We are financially in a situation similar to the late '90s before the "Asian" financial crisis of 1997. We all know what followed in the next 15 years: The gates of hell opened.

The US can only play the same broken record over and over again. That indicates that the USA is incapable of structurally reforming itself so as to follow a different path. But the current path is already proven to be a dead end.

The US imperialist attempt at world hegemonic dictatorship has failed. Now the actual US hegemony over the Triad at the end of WW2 will come into jeopardy as well.

And "wow", will end up an "American Baathist" deadender.

Posted by: Matt | Mar 17 2015 23:56 utc | 30


Much of what you write is true but the subject being discussed is the reserve currency not fluctuations in exports.

People are little more than commodities at this level of the game so some would say "Let Them Eat Cake" With the control the US exploits with the reserve currency many people end up begging and hoping for even crumbs from the cake.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 18 2015 0:05 utc | 31

"Psaki's breasts are quite large is she having a kid maybe?

"Would be great to get rid of her daily propaganda".

The more she lies, the bigger they get...:-)

Actually, Psaki has been one of the more tolerable of those fronting for the WH. She at least has a sense of humor that must be constantly, but barely, suppressed.

Posted by: Matt | Mar 18 2015 0:05 utc | 32

Does Westphalian Sovereignty imply a 30 year war? Are we already counting?

Posted by: slirs | Mar 18 2015 0:17 utc | 33

@slirs, 33:

"Does Westphalian Sovereignty imply a 30 year war? Are we already counting?"

We all know how that ended up for Germany, which is still paying the price.

Posted by: Vintage Red | Mar 18 2015 0:28 utc | 34

Yes, Psaki is expecting a baby and is going back to the White House on April 1. (No foolin'.) It's heartwarming when lying sociopaths have a soft place to land in the Beltway Bubble while spawning.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 0:36 utc | 35

Everyone, cool the hyperbole. Calm down (And Alastair Crooke is wrong.)

Obama DID create the first break in ruining America's reserve currency status by sanctioning Russia. If China's yuan wins that spot by 2030, history will note that act as the day it began.

However. There is the sober financial fact that there is still a $600 billion/day trade market in treasury securities. They're still the safest market asset in the world, which is why nations clamour for them. It will take years for China to create a similar infrastructure.

As long as Saudi Arabia is demanding global payment in USD, the so-called petrodollar is safe. Countries that import oil from SA will need USD to pay for it, and will therefore need to continue to sell to America to get the USD. Crooke references Zero Hedges' "Oil-Producing Countries' Currencies Are Getting Crushed" as proof of dollar demise. He doesn't have a goddam clue what's talking about. It's now CHEAPER for oil-importing countries to pay for their energy needs.

Look. This is what you look out for:

(1) Saudi Arabia wants their oil denominated in something other than USD. And drops the USD.
(2) The other counties of the world no longer want to sell us stuff--meaning they need USD--then the USD as reserve status is finished.
(3) Everyone is trying to sell their treasury securities to exchange for (1). But the thing about this is that if no one wants USD, who can they sell to? If they're willing to take a bath on their treasury securities, then we really will have a global meltdown...but go look at the Daily Treasury Statement. Ain't gonna happen any time soon.

US treasury securities are US cash. They are issued by the US Treasury after Congress appropriates new spending because it increases the money supply in the economy by putting new interest-free dollars into US vendor accounts. US treasury securities then mop up that extra money supply and restores the money supply to balance. The US federal government offers interest as an enticement, but moreover, it offers them risk-free; no one ever loses their money buying treasury securities because they are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. If you have more than $250,000 in a commercial bank, you could lose everything like some people did in 2008. The Federal Reserve uses treasury securities issuance to maintain something called the Fed Funds rate, or the overnight interest rate that banks charge each other. (Canadians call it the Prima Rate.) This is how the Federal Reserve maintains monetary policy and the payment system.

When other countries buy them it is the equivalent of you buying a CD at your local bank. THEY ARE NOT LOANING US MONEY. THEY ARE NOT BUYING OUR "DEBT," although treasury securities are sloppily referred to as that (from the public's point-of-view) because the GOVERNMENT uses double-entry accounting, and after the fact, the government must account for the currency it creates. So it puts the amount, as an accounting artifact, in the Liabilities column, affectionately known in accounting terminology as "debt." But it has zero, and I mean zero, to do with the debt ordinary business and households incur. No one has to pay federal debt back because that money is in every pension fund and bank account in the country. It's the people's money, sometimes known as Debt Held By the Public on the US Treasury FAQ page.

When you cash in your CD at your bank, what do you tell your friends? "I'm paying off the bank's debt?" OR, "I cashed in my CD today?" Because "I'm paying off the bank's debt" is technically what you are doing. That's how it's labeled at the federal level.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 0:39 utc | 36

U.S. warring and IMF indebting entire nations indefinitely has driven pretty much the entire planet, including all the U.S.'s closest allies into the AIIB's arms. For the sake of their own survival. People all around the globe have been desperate for an alternative to these horrible IMF/western programs for a long time. Will the IMF end up ditching the U.S. in order to get in on the action and save itself? Or will the west be trying to corrupt the AIIB with pro-bank, anti-people concepts?

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 0:45 utc | 37

re: my 36,

The issue is that the higher dollar, and the floating exchange rate, is affecting currencies from other countries. All countries that were holding US reserves (US treasury securities) at the Fed (the only place in the world where they are allowed to hold them) before the oil drop benefit from the drop in oil.

If they are holding $1000 in treasury securities with the understanding that their energy costs are going to cost them $100 this year, guess what? When the price of oil drops to $50, they've saved $50.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 0:50 utc | 38

@mrw. thanks.. i am on record predicting a war involving saudi arabia 2018-19 area based on astro.. not sure how that plays into this, but it is long enough away for everyone to forget i said it, lol..

Posted by: james | Mar 18 2015 0:51 utc | 39

@36 MRW or anyone who knows about these matters,

What effect does fiat US$ have on this scenario? With gold being finite and therefore not backing most of the paper dollars the U.S. has printed? Maybe off-topic, but how does Bitcoin fit in this equation?

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 0:55 utc | 40

Thanks, mrw, nice to be able to the only unquestionably super exceptionless country. Phew, Thx :)

Posted by: Cortes | Mar 18 2015 1:08 utc | 41

Rely on was missing from earlier post :(

Posted by: Cortes | Mar 18 2015 1:10 utc | 42

What is really at stake here is the PRIVATE monetary and financial system of the FED and City of London against the SOVEREIGN monetary and financial systems of the rest of the world's countries. Private control of the monetary system has been in place for centuries and will not give up easily.

This will get ugly but it is way past due.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 18 2015 1:15 utc | 43


Another point is that since the U dollar in no longer backed by anything tangible (gold) all those Treasuries are essentially bitcoin. The power comes from the countries standing behind the system.

The resettlement of the new monetary system will just be a lot of haggling over numbers in the end.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 18 2015 1:21 utc | 44

Thanks for responding to 36 rather than 40. ;) Still looking for concepts that make sense. You do not.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 1:23 utc | 45

@ 45 But Bitcoin is not linked to any currency, therein lies their strength. No?

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 1:26 utc | 46

Posted by: Murican | Mar 17, 2015 8:45:30 PM | 37,

The problem is this.

US law does not allow USD to leave the banking system. Yes, people can take a maximum of $10Gs out in paper form. But all USD accounts in the world are in the USA, at the Federal Reserve. Everybody's.

The Federal Reserve has two kinds of accounts, basically checking and savings.

The Federal Reserve has four kinds of clients:
(1) US federal government
(2) US banks
(3) Foreign governments
(4) Foreign banks

No individual can bank at the Federal Reserve.

When a foreign company sells something to Walmart or Best Buy, the payment is sent to the foreign bank's checking account at the Fed. If the foreign company wants to wire the money home, it does what you do when you go on a trip: it exchanges USD on the open market for its currency. Otherwise, the money sits in checking earning nothing. Most foreigners want to earn a little interest. So they buy treasury securities, which pay more interest. They are as good as cash. That's why they are called "marketable" and are traded everyday.

When a foreign country wants treasury securities, it authorizes the Fed to take the money out of its checking account and buy the treasury securities at auction. The Fed then parks the treasury security in the foreign bank's savings account at the Fed and it stays there as long as the foreign company wants it to. When it sells the treasury security, the Fed moves the principal and the interest back into the bank's checking account. (That's called "Paying Off the National Debt, btw...moving money from a foreign bank's savings to checking account is called paying off the national debt. "You buy the debt, then you pay it off.")

Now that you have this background

A foreign government's savings account at the Federal Reserve is supposed to be sacrosanct. The US federal government agreed not to interfere with it.

And this is what the US has done. It has walked in with its dick swinging and ordered the Fed to block a foreign government's accounts. Sanctions. Because it's the keeper of the keys. It has violated every international financial law it agreed to--for decades since Bretton Woods--because it can.

I don't know which President started it, but Obama now thinks its his right, and so do his uneducated advisors.

China, France, Germany, and others are fed up with it. It's like your parents cut off your allowance. But now you plan to work for people in the neighborhood to get some money, and screw your parents controlling you like that.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 1:26 utc | 47

@ 41 Cortes

The last 3 paragraphs of MRW's post apply to any sovereign currency nation. There's nothing exceptional about the US in that regard.

Posted by: sleepy | Mar 18 2015 1:27 utc | 48

@48 MRW
Thank you for your educating and thoughtful response. While I'm still digesting the entire first part of your post, a different language than what I'm used to speaking, my initial response to the latter part of your post:

"China, France, Germany, and others are fed up with it. It's like your parents cut off your allowance. But now you plan to work for people in the neighborhood to get some money, and screw your parents controlling you like that."

This mentality is entirely part of the problem. The U.S. sees itself as the "parent" or boss of the planet, patronizing and hurtful instead of seeing fellow human beings as peers, which they are. There are some exceptional people from every country, but there is no exceptional country. If the U.S. ever was "exceptional" to all other countries, we've blown that reputation big time through a full decade of balls-out warring and total disregard for all international law. International law that the U.S. was involved in creating. Shameful. A terrible time to be American and witness the fall of a once great country. Can we recover?

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 1:39 utc | 49

Today the IMF, tomorrow NATO. And won't dollar-denominated Saudi crude at some point make ruble-denominated Russian crude more attractive? Should Venezuela and Russia come to some sort of an understanding?

And should not India and the South - including Spain, Italy, and Greece - just cut to the chase, make an end run 'round the oil patch and go straight for photosynthetic hydrogen?

Radicle problems require radicle solutions.

Posted by: jfl | Mar 18 2015 1:40 utc | 50

@ 54 JFL

Nov 2014:"Russian state oil company Rosneft has signed a deal with the Venezuelan government which will see the state entity import 1.6 million tonnes of oil and 9 million tonnes of oil derivatives from Venezuela’s state owned oil company, PDVSA."

How 'bout them apples? While China and Russia make allies and business deals around the planet, the U.S. hemorrhages our hard-earned dollars waging war and killing people. All international deals made in the past few years are non-committal and for the sake of the U.S. saving face, because they're afraid of our military and how we use it. But in reality, it seems they don't want anything to do with us or our hurtful, wasteful ways. The world wants progress and peace, while the U.S. wants hegemony, war and 1%.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 1:51 utc | 51

Posted by: Murican | Mar 17, 2015 8:55:31 PM | 40

What effect does fiat US$ have on this scenario? With gold being finite and therefore not backing most of the paper dollars the U.S. has printed? Maybe off-topic, but how does Bitcoin fit in this equation?

We, the US, went off the gold standard domestically in 1934. It was the best thing that ever happened to us. It was the Republican Mormon banker, Marriner Eccles, (didn't finish high school, but had become very rich as a banker in his early 20s) who went to DC (1932) to explain how we could get out of the Depression, and urged that we drop the gold backing and issue our own currency per the Constitution. He appeared before the Senate. He was really plain-speaking and became more popular than Mylie Cyrus.

FDR later made him the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve (1935).

Oddly enough, the ideas that Eccles told the Senate were the same as, but four years before, John Maynard Keynes "General Theory" (1936) came out.

The gold standard (National Gold Standard Act 1900) tied us to another fiat that was in short supply: gold. We had some gold mines, but we didn't have a lot. Everytime a new gold mine around the world was discovered, the value of our dollar went down during the last half of the 1800s, so the National Gold Standard Act pegged an ounce of gold at $20 to provide some stability.

When FDR took us off the gold standard, the dollar was now back on the full faith and credit of the US government, and we were a young, rich country. The 1870 Supreme Court Legal Tender Case Laws had determined that anything the US government puts the US Great Seal on and determined that it would only accept for taxes made the US dollar legal tender. Eccles knew that.

Eccles also told FDR that he could, and he urged him to, start the great projects that a country with a fiat currency could now do: build out the country's infrastructure, build schools and finance real education, create telecommunications, build roads and post offices, hire artists and writers, build dams and monuments. Put the people back to work. And provide for the young, infirm, and old people.

So FDR did that. Unemployment went down from 25% to 14% in two years. The Republicans and his stupid Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, got scared when they saw the outlays, not understanding how the new currency worked. They scared FDR into putting on the spending brakes, which he did. Unemployment soared within 11 months to 20% in 1937-38. Back to the depression.

Then WWII started in 9/1939. Three government economists DID understand how the new currency worked, and they created the Victory Plan--

not the military
to meet the country's needs. We were selling planes and weaponry to Britain. These three economists put the entire country back to work. Eccles knew that the country's workers had bulging savings accounts because they couldn't spend it on anything, everything was rationed.

So they made plans for after the war. They raised the taxes on the rich and ultra-rich to keep them from spending, and kept the taxes on the little people low. That created the middle class.

To be contd.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 1:56 utc | 52

Posted by: Murican | Mar 17, 2015 8:55:31 PM | 40,


That fiat money created the golden age of 1945-1973, as only it can do. If we had stayed on the gold standard, which means we were still on a fixed exchange rate, we could never have grown as a country the way we did.

The problem was that we were still on the gold standard internationally. The Vietnam War started in the 60s was paid for in some of that gold.

Also, the French President was saving every US dollar and cashing them in for US gold. Nixon said screw you in 1971, and took us off the gold standard internationally.

That was the moment we became truly 100% sovereign with a floating exchange rate and we gained our monetary freedom. Had journalists understood it, and had they not been preoccupied with Nixon's election, Watergate, and oil embargo, they could have explained it to us.

But no one knows that it could have made the prosperity of the middle class every bigger. Still can. The Debt Limit is a 1917 law empoyed to put a set of suspenders and a belt around the nation's gold supply. Completely, absolutely meaningless now. Like saying you have to keep the same number of horses in a barn as you have horsepower in your car.

We elected Reagan whose fourth item on his platform was to restore the gold standard and he ruled like a fossil. He had no clue about the difference between a federal government that issues its own currency and a state government that does not. So he ran the country like California, a state that has to earn income just like every other state or business or household.

The US federal government is not constrained by revenue like a US state is. Taxes do not pay for anything. In fact, in 1946, Beardley Ruml, then Chairman of the Fed, gave a speech you can find online: "Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete."

Taxes are for heating up or cooling down an economy. A thermostat. That is the essence of having a fiat currency; this is what you have to understand about fiat. It is a legal construct enshrined in law required for taxes and is the official unit of account for a nation. When the economy is in the tank, cut taxes and increase spending. When the economy is white hot and everyone is employed (like after WWII), increase taxes and cut spending.

Federal taxpayers don't pay for a damn thing. Get rid of that notion. We, as citizens, tell our government what to spend on. We don't need to claim our right as taxpayers because it's meaningless. Right now there are a lot of out-of-work people. Do they not have the right to bitch? Of course they do. They are citizens.

Bitcoin is not legal tender. 'Buff said.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 2:19 utc | 53

Posted by: Soros | Mar 17, 2015 10:28:24 PM | 59

Bitcoin is bullshit. It's a ponzi scheme.

[Sorry, I'm working my way through the other comments so I am behind.]

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 2:32 utc | 54

MRW is misleading folks about the private/sovereign nature of the FED. Go read Secrets of the Temple by Greider for more serious depth of understanding.

What MRW did not tell you is that the 12 regional FED banks are privately owned. The bottom line is that the US dollar is NOT sovereign.

Another issue that will get called out in this coming monetary and finance readjust is the ongoing accumulation of private ownership of property through inheritance. China has 99 year leases. The bottom line is who "owns" and controls the world, the centuries old cadre of private families or sovereign governments.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 18 2015 2:34 utc | 55

plan b.....escalate the *pivot*,
setting fire all around china's border/

Posted by: denk | Mar 18 2015 2:50 utc | 56

@ 65 "plan b.....escalate the *pivot*,
setting fire all around china's border/"

No mistake ISIS is now in northern Afghanistan (noted as being relatively peaceful, compared to rest of Afghanistan), from where they can move further north and east into Russia and China, respectively. How bout that for coincidence? [not] Indicates more agitation on Russia's and China's borders. Wonder who might want to make such unrest and trouble for Russia and China? Hmmm?

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 3:02 utc | 57


Better trolls please. And yes, I have read a bit of history that perhaps you have not. US dollar is not sovereign, just like the British about City of London.....same scheme as FED

Legal tender does not mean sovereign. What is the next misdirection from MRW going to be?....grin

Posted by: psychohistroian | Mar 18 2015 3:06 utc | 58

p.s. Speaking of movements of ISIS, how did they get from Iraq/Syria to Libya? What transport took them either over the Mediterranean Sea or through Egypt? I can just picture the ISIS fighters in their nicely branded uniforms and flags on board a commercial airliner, requesting additional peanuts and pillows. WTF? And since when do insurgencies have budgets or know about branding and social media and have matching outfits, flags and painted Toyota trucks? So commercial in that respect. So western in that respect.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 3:07 utc | 59

"Seems like Netanyahu will continue to rule Israel, thats really bad.
Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 17, 2015 4:08:20 PM | 21"

Agreed, really bad. Just like here in the U.S. where the neo-cons never gave up power after Bush I and II. One might say McCain really did beat Obama in 2008 because the U.S. foreign policy is totally violent neo-con agression that never abated after Bush II left office. In fact, I fault Obama not only for continuing but escalating the foreign conflicts, not just in the Middle East, but also way ramped up in Africa and, most disturbing to me, in Ukraine, as we keep pushing NATO to Russia's borders and threatening them with fabricated color revolutions. (Also promoted and escalated unconscionably deadly drone warfare to unprecedented and unregulated levels.) The U.S. may regret teaching the world these evil things since we in the U.S. now have a corrupt and therefore weak government -- just the kind that could succumb to some kind of color revolution. That others could perpetrate upon us.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 3:16 utc | 60

Where are my comments going? I see them published by not after I refresh.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:16 utc | 61

@ 72 MRW

No doubt stuck in the NSA server. ;)

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 3:19 utc | 62

Two long replies to psychohistorian down the tubes.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:41 utc | 63

Maybe I should try parts

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:41 utc | 64

Not working in parts either. Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 17, 2015 10:34:09 PM | 62 is wrong.

The Fed is divided into 12 district banks. There is no national bank, only regional ones. Each bank is owned by the banks in its region, which buy shares in the district Fed bank. No matter the size or number of branches of the bank, each bank in each district bank has one vote.

The ownership rights of Federal Reserve Bank stock are completely different than the common stock of typical corporations. In a regular cooperation, the number of votes a shareholder has is proportional to the number of shares he owns.

Not so in the Federal Reserve. Ownership of Federal Reserve Bank stock entitles the shareholder to one vote when voting for its regional Federal Reserve Bank officials regardless of how many total shares the member bank may own. The vast majority of member banks (about 1,000) are US federal and state banks.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:44 utc | 65

The banks in the district Federal Reserve bank can only vote on electing a certain class of directors in the district. They cannot vote on how to conduct the Federal Reserve district business. That comes from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the government body that controls, rules over, and regulates the district bank. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors is controlled by Congress.

Each shareholder bank--individuals and non-bank firms are not allowed to participate--is paid a dividend equal to 6% of the price of the original Fed district shares purchased, not of the value of its shares to date.

In 2010, for example, the Federal Reserve paid 1.56% of its earnings over all 12 regional banks to its shareholders. You can read this in the 2010 Annual Report here: (just because it was the first one I grabbed).

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:45 utc | 66

After expenses, the remaining profits of the Federal Reserve are 100% returned to the US Treasury, and have done so since required by law in 1947. In 2010, the Fed Reserve earned $81 billion. It returned $79.xx billion to the US Treasury. Look at the Annual Report I linked to.

Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. This year is was Deloitte and Pricewaterhouse. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office. Congress conducts oversight twice a year, by law.

Most of the 12 regional banks list their member banks on their websites. (I say most because I haven't checked all 12, only a few.) Here is a 54-page list of the large commercial banks and the percentage foreign-owned:

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:45 utc | 67

The Federal Reserve was not created as a result of the Panic of 1907. That was a claim made in one sentence in a 1947 textbook by Nobel Prize economist Paul Samuelson, and all the authors picked it up with verifying it. It was the Panic of 1893 that started it. That panic created a worldwide depression and was the seed of the Russian Revolution. Americans were terrified of the government controlling banks and their money. They were terrified of socialism as they heard it unfold in Russia. So they insisted that the banks remain private within the Federal Reserve system.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 3:48 utc | 68

murican 68,

how did they manage to *miss* that gleaming convoy of toyota trucks in the desert ? [1]

the same way they *manage* to miss the whereabout of mh370 and what happened to mh17 and........the 911 attack on wtc and PENTAGON !

they put it all down to INTEL FAILURE.
doncha know CIA/NSA are just a bunch of *INCOMPETENT FOOLS.*
no more *conspiracy theories* please, case close.


Posted by: denk | Mar 18 2015 4:00 utc | 69

MRW, Are you paid by the word?

Lets cut to the chase.

Should banking be a public utility with all proceeds and control belonging to the public?

It is not now in the US and UK. Read the history since the feudal period. When private ownership of property and inheritance got included in "Rule of Law", banking was also agreed to be private and only evolved to be this pseudo sovereign thing with first The City of London and the British empire and then later the FED became the same bastard child.

Banking is only totally sovereign or totally private. There is no thing about being just a little bit pregnant.

I vote for totally sovereign banking and finance. How about you?

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 18 2015 4:01 utc | 70

Posted by: Soros | Mar 17, 2015 11:59:54 PM | 80 [I've lost five good posts, so I am ending this shit soon.] ;-)

The 1907 was created by bankers like Morgan to railroad the US into creating the Fed

I know the story about Morgan supposedly creating the 1907 Panic, can't remember the exact reason why.

They already had a Fed-like system, but it was controlled by the NY bankers. Think it was called something like the National Banking Association. Something like that. Changing that had nothing to do with an upcoming war. The demand for credit was controlled by them because the bankers could see when they needed money They knew when farmers and ranchers needed cash to bring the harvest in or move the cows to Chicago. They could capitalize on it and strangle them with interest costs. The bankers controlled the railroads and farmers and ranchers needed those railroads for distribution. Don't forget most people still travelled by horse. Very few people had cars.

The war was paid for in gold. In order to keep the gold for the war, because people could trade $20 into an ounce, Wilson's government created Liberty Bonds which paid interest. That was the come-on. Kept people from trading in USD for gold.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 4:11 utc | 71

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 18, 2015 12:01:46 AM | 82,

Something better than they have now. But. But. But. I want the Federal Reserve under US Treasury control. Not Congress, like now. Too much of an invitation to shenanigans. Can you imagine if we removed the independence the Fed and Congress got control of it? Shit.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 4:21 utc | 72

Posted by: psychohistorian | Mar 18, 2015 12:01:46 AM | 82,

Congress gets to determine the spending. That's in the Constitution. Then US Treasury (the executive) takes over. That's where the central bank (CB) should be. It's already telling the Fed to mark up the General Account, pay the vendors, and creating the treasury bills to rebalance the money supply. So why shouldn't the CB be there?

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 4:27 utc | 73

Banking is only totally sovereign or totally private. There is no thing about being just a little bit pregnant.

C'mon. The Post Office is a public-private org, just like the military. That's the Fed/commercial bank arrangement as well.
MRW, Are you paid by the word?

No, I wrote a response, then lost it. Wrote another, and another, lost those, but copied two of them. Then just pasted.
Posted by: MRW |

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 4:32 utc | 74

MRW @ #various.

Thanks for your contributions to this thread.
Slightly OT but, is there a short version of any parallels between the US transition to prosperity via fiat currency and Germany's financial machinations between WWI and WWII which enabled an indebted country to finance a huge military apparatus?

There's always a lot of uninformed trolling going on here and your opinions seem more harmonious and logical than those of your critics.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 18 2015 4:33 utc | 75

Definition of sovereign currency. A country's unit of account is 100% non-convertible with a floating exchange rate, which allows the nation to denominate all its debt in its own currency. Bond vigilantes can't touch it. Eg: British Pound, Canadian Dollar, Japanese Yen, Australian Dollar, US Dollar. The Yen is one of the strongest currencies in the world, extraordinarily high living standards, and it has a credit rating below Botswana; doesn't hurt them.

Look at poor Greece and Spain. They gave up their sovereign currencies for a foreign one: the Euro. They're fucked

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 4:40 utc | 76

murican 68,

dont want any misunderstanding,
i was in *snark* mode.

Posted by: denk | Mar 18 2015 4:41 utc | 77

@87 MRW n Hoarsewhisperer,
Thank you for intelligence and thoughtful responses. Cheers and have a good night. Here's wishing peace for the planet.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 4:44 utc | 78

Denk @ 89
All good here. Hope you and yours are as well. Have a good night and here's wishing for peace on this beautiful planet of ours.

Posted by: Murican | Mar 18 2015 4:50 utc | 79

Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 18, 2015 12:33:44 AM | 87,

Yeah, there is. The Germans were starving and jobless after the hyperinflation of 1923 (using the country's gold to buy Francs and pounds and USD to pay Versailles reparations). Hitler promised to fix it, and he did it by hiring Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht who ditched the reparations, and created a jobs program that put everyone back to work, give them holidays, and health care.
Here's on bio about Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht:

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 4:55 utc | 80


I guess you are the ill-informed Murikan, the groups in Libya that have joined the Islamic State were and are Libyans or mostly Libyans just as the group in Afghanistan that have joined the IS are Afghans. This is an international movement that respects no Western designated borders.

They certainly do know how to use modern PR and financing which just shows how well organized they are.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 18 2015 6:04 utc | 81

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18, 2015 12:55:08 AM | 92

Thank you. Just what I wanted - a thumbnail sketch + guide to further info.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 18 2015 7:16 utc | 82

regarding the conversation with mrw and psychohistorian...

in spite of what little i know about how the federal reserve works, i am inclined to agree wtih psychohistorians viewpoint.. maybe i am jaded from reading 'creature from jekyl island' a long time ago.. i just can't get past the idea of the fed reserve being a useful tool for a click of private banks owned and controlled by private interests that continue to have everything to do with the power to make money the best way they know how and that is by having their hands directly on the control of the printing press. it is not in the public's best interest.. it's in the interest of the owners of these private banks..this is how i differ with what i perceive as MRW's neutral view on the role of the federal reserve as a type of neutral gatekeeper here.. i see the fed reserve as a corrupt vehicle that continues to serve the interests of the few, as opposed to the well being of the many...

Posted by: james | Mar 18 2015 7:19 utc | 83

jesus, james, this comment software won't take my answer to you. So saving and will try mañana.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 10:21 utc | 84

james, I'm on a completely different time zone than you. Check back in 8-12 hours. I have a tale to tell you about the Bank of Canada that will knot your shorts. But I have to get some sleep.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 10:57 utc | 85

A whole slew of inaccuracies and fallacies.
1) The US dollar doesn't have to cease being used in trade in order for problems to occur. 34% of overall world trade occurs in dollars even though the US' actual involvement in world trade is around 12%. In contrast, the euro is involved in around 38% of all world trade with 36% of of said trade actually going to/from the euro zone. That 20%+ difference is the issue. This is what funds the US' ability to manage ridiculously oversized budgets and perpetual deficits.
In more concrete terms, this 20% represents roughly $6T in cash and equivalents outside of the US. If the 34% falls anywhere close to 12%, then trillions of dollars come flooding back to the US with resulting nasty consequences. And for this to happen, all that has to occur is that countries that don't trade to or from the US stop using the dollar in transactions - and that is happening.
2) Gold under FDR
To say Eccles/FDR took the US off the gold standard is wrong. What actually occurred was a confiscation, followed by an arbitrary gold revaluation higher which equaled an instant inflation, then a return to the convertibility of gold to dollars - but only for sovereign governments. Gold was thus not a pure fiat nor was it purely gold backed for all.
3) Taxes as a control of the economy. Totally false and indicative of a complete lack of any form of numerical or economic understanding.
4) US Treasuries are US cash. This is true in one literal sense, but untrue in that the US government can and does take in trillions in payments of various sorts. These aren't US Treasuries, they're certainly US cash. Payments by foreign governments to the US government aren't made in US Treasuries, they're US cash dollars. A US Treasury is simply the largest and most common means for the US government to get more cash; other means include Savings bonds, Social Security payments for which obligations to repay are in the future, etc.
5) The German "Economic Miracle" under Hitler was primarily due to massive investment from American financiers. An early version of "hot money".

Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 18 2015 12:53 utc | 86

More fallacies slain:
5) Petrodollar is what matters. Yes, and no. Overall oil consumption is a shade under 90 million barrels per day for the entire world. If we say 60 million bpd is actually traded (just a guess, I'd say the actual number is lower), and we say $80/barrel, that yields $1.7 trillion in trade per year. World trade volume in 2013 was $18.8 trillion - thus the petrodollar trade is only 9% of overall world trade at best. The US imports roughly 9.2 million barrels per day and consumes about 18.9 million barrels per day, so a big part of the 12% of world trade noted above is direct US oil trade. The EU imports about 10 mbpd, so the 60 mbpd is likely high.

Posted by: ǝn⇂ɔ | Mar 18 2015 13:15 utc | 87

@mrw - take your time. i am in no rush.. thanks!

Posted by: james | Mar 18 2015 18:13 utc | 88

james | Mar 18, 2015 3:19:58 AM | 96

I understand your point-of-view, james; however, much of what was written in Creature From Jekyll Island (I read the early 1990s copy and the 2010 revised edition) is erroneous. I found the documents that refute Griffin’s version of the genesis. Official documents. Not going to go into it all here. One was scanned by Google in late 2008 and another early 2011. Griffin does not know about them. The last time these docs were taken out of the research section of the New York Public Library was 1917 and 1919. People do not do their homework, but I absolutely do not want to malign Edward Griffin. He has said in his talks many times that future discovery of documents could change everything.

The problem with the Federal Reserve is not the system specifically. It's the people hired to run it. The American people are at fault for not complaining; it’s our fucking government. The NY Fed has the specific duty to regulate mortgage banks. SPECIFIC. No one else can do it. Mortgage banks in the USA are not regulated by whatever the federal bank charter is called. Only by the NY Fed regulates mortgage banks.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 20:27 utc | 89

test test - why don't posts stick?

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 20:30 utc | 90

MRW, I agree with your take on the fed. I know that is not fashionable with those of us on the left. However, it would be better if it was not led by the banksters. Our political system is so corrupt I wouldn't trust Congress to have control over it.

I have read your posts here in this thread. Some of the things you are saying sound like modern monetary theory. I have difficulty understanding what that entails so perhaps those are superficial similarities.

Posted by: ToivoS | Mar 18 2015 21:13 utc | 91

MRW, great comments. You may be having trouble with time-out that I have experienced when writing long comments. Hopefully someone will know more about this and how to address the problem.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Mar 18 2015 21:20 utc | 92

I can't comment. Nothing sticks. This is tech problem. "b" you listening?

ToivoS: I have spent five years calling the Federal Reserve, US Treasury, and the Congressional Research Service (the group that Congress relies upon for unbiased into). What I am saying here is devoid of political party leanings, or at least, I hope so. I am a firm believer that unless you know how things work, you can't make an informed decisions going forward.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 21:29 utc | 93

@MRW - technical issues

1. compose
2. copy
3. refresh
4. paste
5. Add/delete a character to regain ability to post.
6. post

Posted by: Thirdeye | Mar 18 2015 21:33 utc | 94

ToivoS, I think the issue now is that regular folk need to understand how things work. Congress isn't going to help until the regular folk are able to tell them 'fuck you, you cheap piece of shit, you understand nothing, and you're lying to all of us. Here is what you either don't know, or you're hiding from us'. Citizenship comes at a price.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 21:35 utc | 95

Thanks, Thirdeye. Will try.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 21:36 utc | 96

I give up.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 21:42 utc | 97

@103 mrw.. thanks.. i am sorry about the technical issues here posting. i don't know the answer, but have had only very minor problems posting from time to time so don't have any insight to offer. it would be nice if b commented.. don't give up. i appreciate your input and value your sharing what you have to this point.. it's quite interesting what you state in your post @103.

as i understand it, the people hired to run the fed are all insiders.. the gov't doesn't get to choose.. it is the banks that do and i believe that it has to be someone inside the system who is one of them. correct me if i am wrong. the rules set up by the imf in regards central banks is such that gov'ts have to have a hands off approach to how they are run. i got this from various posts on the topic of the russian central bank which has been thru some turmoil of late with the devaluation of the ruble.. it was interesting to follow and i learned a few things. here is a 304 page pdf of a book called rouble nationalization - the way to russia's freedom by nikolay starikov.. you might get something out of it. i wasn't willing to read it all, but probably would if i could find a hard copy of the book where i don't have to read on the net.. as i recall from somewhere around page 20-35 covers how central banks interface with gov't.. as i understand it, this applies to all central banks. i could be wrong..

i just don't see the federal reserve as being neutral, but maybe it is due the fact that those who are put in the position to run it are serving the interests of the few as opposed to the many and congress is happy to keep the relationship going.. i live in canada, so i don't understand the mechanism's at work, but know canadas central bank will typically get ex goldman sachs types to run it too, so i don't believe much is different with our central bank.. it seems like a closed circuit that is intentionally opaque which is just what this private cadaver of bankers want... hopefully mrw is willing to continue posting on this important thread in understanding central bank dynamics..

Posted by: james | Mar 18 2015 22:14 utc | 98

'Especially under the Obama administration the U.S. abused its important role in international finance to further its political pet projects at the cost of other participants in the system'

presumably this is due to control of US by political parties with their own agendas. What do american people think of the new bank?

Posted by: brian | Mar 18 2015 23:05 utc | 99

james @112

"as i understand it, the people hired to run the fed are all insiders.. the gov't doesn't get to choose." On the contrary, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are chosen by the President for 14 year terms.

Posted by: MRW | Mar 18 2015 23:29 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.