| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy. CRG E-Newsletter | | Date: | Monday, May 4, 2009 17:57:00 (+1200) | | From: | William Hugh McGunnigle <wmcgunn @.........nz>
|
VERY good points. The same applied to the British Empire once it dropped its
trarrif barriers and allowed the pound Sterling to become a reserve trading
currency. Most of the decline in the Pound Sterling can be attributed to
free trading of the Pound sterling on International markets. contrary to
popular opinions that it has been a decline in productivity in British
industry. A collossal amount of damage was done to the value of sterling
during the disasterous "Thatcher era" when it was deliberately allowed to
become overvalued on the International markets using the oil revenues from
the North sea fields. The USSR offered an oil for manufactured goods deal to
the UK during the 1960's but was turned down by panaoid politicians and
civil servants in Westminster who felt that they may become reliant on an
oil source that may not be reliable. This was at the height of the "Cold
War" of course. Nevertheless in trading the USSR was always straight up and
honest. IT never welched on deals. During WW2 THE USSR went to a great deal
of trouble to pay for much of the equipment siupplied by the USA and UK in
GOLD. This led to an epic salvage operation on HMS EDINBURG sunk in the
Barents sea off Northern Norway, Russia and Finland during the Murmansk
convoys. Loaded into Edinburgs 4" magazines were several tons of Gold sent
by Stalin to pay for the armaments that had been delivered from the UK and
USA. It was recovered in a saga that matched the narratives about those
convoys. This however has nothing to do with our discussions, except oin a
periferal way. I simply mention it because it supports your comment that the
USSR was prepared to trade with anyone on a barter system actually it was
called a bilateral trade agreement. Goods for goods without money
transactions although the goods were evaluated to enable an exchange to take
place. The USSR certainly traded oil to the Warsaw pact countries and many
of these suffered badly when the old regime fell in the USSR because the
replacement government repudiated many of those agreements. Only Roumania
was not reliant on the USSR for oil, but Roumania exported oil too and this
stopped Industrial developement in Roumania because it imported much of its
consumer goods and machinery from other countries paying for these by oil
exports to other Warsaw Pact countries. Ironically when the Eastern bloc
fell aprt Roumania suffered far more than other Warsaw Pact countries,
because it lost many of its oil markets to the Middle east. Again we have an
enigma because Roumania has enough land and resources to be self sufficient,
but today this is far from the case. There has to be an explanation for
this, and I suspect it is the incompetant monetary system prevalent in the
world that is upsetting the local currency and preventing it from being used
efficiently within Roumania. Detailed study would be needed to ascertain
this postulation.
Regards
Bill MC G
----- Original Message -----
From: <socredus@yahoo.com>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: "Ellen Brown" <ellenhbrown@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:51 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Re: Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy. CRG
E-Newsletter
>
> Graeme, I am declining to approve your message for distribution. I am,
> however, replying to it, with a copy to the list.
>
> I take exception to this assertion:
>
> "...the US, since Brettonwoods, has gone into wars to defend the exclusive
> use of USDs when any oil trade occurs..."
>
> The United States has not only NEVER gone to war to defend the use of the
> dollar, it has never had a reason to do so. That is simply a myth floating
> around crank Internet sites. The latest being the supposed threat by
> Sadaam Hussein to sell his oil for Euros. But at the time he was
> prohibited, under United Nations sanctions, from selling oil directly. It
> had to be sold through the Oil for Food program, and that was in dollars.
>
> The utilization of the dollar as the world's reserve currency is entirely
> a consequence of it's trade deficit with the rest of the world. And its
> trade deficit is a consequence of its adherence to free trade ideology,
> which is a false religion, if there ever was one, and its doctrine of
> "comparative advantage."
>
> That ideology has engendered the progressive de-industrialization of
> America's industrial base. A factory, with a clean smokestack, good wages
> and safe working conditions, developed through the Industrial Revolution
> and beyond in building the American standard of living, is forced to
> compete, in its own marketplace, with a factory overseas that has no such
> requirements. Its costs of production are inherently higher that its
> "foreign" competitor. No matter how "productive" and "efficient" it
> becomes, there's no way it can compete. Eventually, it must go out of
> business. We are now facing the imminent demise of our automotive sector.
> Sector after sector of the industrial base have been thereby destroyed.
>
> The exporter, who is exporting goods for dollars, is enslaving his work
> force, and polluting his environment. The dollars he receives are
> exchanged at his central bank for the local currency at the official
> exchange rate, and he books a profit. The dollars his central bank
> accumulates are exchanged for interest bearing United States Treasury
> securities, not American products.
>
> The strength of America was developed during the nineteenth and early
> twentieth centuries, within its Constitution, with free trade between its
> constituent states, but behind a tariff wall. Its strength has withered
> once that wall was dismantled.
>
> This has mostly been the result of ideology. Some justification was that
> it was a way of supporting our allies during the Cold War. Making friends
> by surrendering some of our industrial base.
>
> There is not much to admire in the old Soviet system. But their foreign
> trade didn't involve money at all, but barter agreements. We'll deliver
> you so much oil if you'll deliver us so much sugar, for example.
>
>
>
> ------------------original message--------------------
>
> Subject: Re: [socialcredit] Re: Revive Lincoln's Monetary Policy. CRG
> E-Newsletter
> Date: Monday, April 27, 2009 22:47:42 (+1000)
> From: Graeme Taylor <telergy@bigpond.com>
>
> Ellen
>
> I read one of your articles on Global Research, and, as an Australian
> who's been involved with LETS for 20 years, watch the current GFC with an
> acute eye. That the US, since Brettonwoods, has gone into wars to defend
> the exclusive use of USDs when any oil trade occurs, makes me wonder why
> you see a basket of currencies (some euro, some USD, some yen, some yuan)
> as a global reserve currency, instead of the USD, as a terror. I see it as
> a blessed relief. Not that I trust the IMF, but global co-operation is no
> bad thing, even for US citizens, who have hardly benefitted from the
> profiteering taking place by the US financial elites. Prior to USDs
> dominating all oil trade, pre ww2, it was the British Pound that was
> dominant by force. They controlled the oil resources from their mid-east
> colonies gotten from the Ottomans after WW1. Then after WW2, it was USDs.
>
> Recapitalising the US lending banks was good policy, as President Obama
> said, since they could turn it into six times that much. The lack of
> regulation by Greenspan, of the capitalisation rate of banks, relative to
> the amount of new loans they wrote, led to the "easy money" implosion. As
> to why Greenspan ignored 400 years of best practice banking is the real
> question. Blind faith in the marketgod? Blind faith in USD exceptionalism?
> Political expediency? or another agenda? Saving the butt of merchant banks
> however, is, what is that capitalist fundamentalist phrase, "moral
> hazard". Easy money instead of letting them fall on their own sword. As to
> government "printing more money". Such Monetary Seignoriage does seem
> warranted in the short term. The Fiscal Seignoriage where the difference
> between the costs of printing new banknotes compared to it's face value
> going to the Reserve Banks to fund the IMF etc, could be given a 12 month
> holiday, but the IMF
> argued the opposite.
>
> cheers
>
> Graeme Taylor
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email wmcgunn@maxnet.co.nz
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message