Gaddafi’s Plan to Introduce Gold Dinar

Dang, really you are going to go there Davey? You have to know without the US you would be speaking either German or Russian right now. I am a war vet of this nation, but am not a pro-military action person, but its truly depressing to think our "European Allies" so quickly forget how you are free solely because of our nation, and the trillions in today's currency we spend to free and defend you. This makes me even less inclined to help any European country again.

Btw, the UK had such a wonderful track record as well, right? Oh, I forgot, they just committed genocide in their adventure in Afghanistan but still retreated in disgrace. Does the US makes mistakes? Absolutely. I was protesting from the beginning against Iraq, and Afghanistan should have take 2 years, not ten, but the fact that the entire free world has expected us to pay for their freedom for 60 years is unchanged. We were simply the sucker who said, "ok".

Chris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was expecting such a response on how the US saved our backside.
The US did not come to our rescue as many Americans think they did, before joining the war you supplied arms and equipment and charged us for it, it wasn`t free.
Then 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on US
Germany and Italy have announced they are at war with the United States. America immediately responded by declaring war on the two Axis powers.
Three days ago, US President Franklin Roosevelt announced America was at war with Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on its naval base at Pearl Harbor.
Today Italian dictator, Benito Mussolini, made his declaration first - from the balcony over the Piazza Venezia in Rome - pledging the "powers of the pact of steel" were determined to win. Then Adolf Hitler made his announcement at the Reichstag in Berlin saying he had tried to avoid direct conflict with the US but, under the Tripartite Agreement signed on 27 September 1940, Germany was obliged to join with Italy to defend its ally Japan.

You joined because Germany, Italy and Japan declared war on you.

Many many countries were involved in WWII and with the help of the US a common enemy was defeated,
If anyone saved our backsides it was the Russians and good old Uncle Joe Stalin as the Americans liked to call him.
My parents fought in WWII we lost homes and businesses due to nightly bombing , the Battle of Britain was over before the US got involved Hitler was repelled and he then made the mistake of concentrating on defeating Russia.
If you are concerned about the money you spent, you got it back with high interest
At midnight on 31st December 2006, Britain finally paid off the last tranche of its multi-billion dollar debt to the Americans from the end of World War

 

I really doesn't matter to me what your opinion on this matter is. However your opinion doesn't change the facts that were posted. I won't address the other wars because this is a topic about gold having influenced the attack on Libya. i.e. it's irrelevant.

 

I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said (although the US does have the largest monetary contribution to NATO slightly above Germany), however it just goes to show that our nations are not autonomous. So I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened without US support, just that it sheds light on which nations are under the thumb of the 1%. I remember seeing on the news a woman saying how he was a tyrant, he deserved to die, and that was justice. If people think execution without a trial or due process is justice that doesn't bode well for the rule of law.

 

You're going to a lot of trouble with long posts changing the subject to avoid admitting that your original post stating that the US was not in Libya was WRONG. Why not just admit it? Everyone here knows you were wrong. You know you were wrong. Just accept it.

 

The US was not in Libya, no boots were on the ground as with the other participants, nobody went in.
It was airborn plane and missile attacks.
The discussion was about Gaddafi’s Plan to Introduce Gold Dinar , I read all that and had no real thoughts on it.
But when certain people start saying it was the US that did all the work and it was all financed by the US and boasting about how the US saved the world with all their efforts in wars I had to post some real facts and real history to prove it.
Don`t get me wrong I`m not anti US, I have close relatives living in NY, KY amd CA.
Americans don`t like criticism but I had to show to the armchair warriors it isn`t like a John Wayne movie.
The US was part of a NATO and allied attack on Libya, it certainly did not lead it, wholly finance it or do most of the sorties.
I know you don`t like it but those are the facts and the truth just as the facts and figures from previous US involvement in wars was true.

 

You completely failed if that was the purpose of your postings in this topic. The people you were attacking were not boasting about America's war accomplishments. They were complaining that we were even involved in Libya. (it was unconstitutional IMO) They were not boasting that we financed the war. They were complaining that we spent ANY money on it given the dire state of the economy. You missed this completely and it explains why I was confused about your posts.

Ironically, by shooting off with the wrong conclusions you only demonstrated the very John Wayne American behavior armchair soldier behavior that you accused us of. Moral of the story here is to keep your own side of the street clean and let everyone else worry about theirs. It will save these topics from being taken off topic such as this.

 

I assume he just posted the story because he found it was gold related and it gave his website some new content. It was likely wrote by copying and pasting exhisting information found online and changing a few words. He may not even believe the story, himself. Where the original story started can be anyone's guess.
As far as needing certain credentials to post a story on a website and express an opinion, anyone can do it as far as I know. One doesn't need credentials of any kind to read a story and pass judgement. Afterall, Iraq was invaded on a lie so why wouldn't any reasonable person read this story and find the idea somewhat plausable?
Nothings has improved in Lybia because of our intervention. From the news I get, there is now a lot of infighting among tribes, looting, destruction of inocent peoples homes, imposed Sharia law and could possibly turn into another Iraq scenerio real fast.
None of us can say how much the U.S. was involved because none of us were there, but Mrs. Clinton showing up October 18 and Gadaffi being killed October 20 then being put on display, certainly doesn't look good. Different news sources say he had reached a truce and was on his was out of Lybia before his convoy was hit. As to who in NATO delivered the final blow remains unclear. France says it was one of there jets and a NATO official claims it was a US drone.
No one here is anti-american but the current US Secretary of State is a total fool.
fool = one who is deficient in judgment, sense, or understanding.

 

One of the reasons why Britain and France were so eager to attack Libya had to do with oil contracts which Gadhafi awarded to Chinese/Indian oil companies (they outbidded and beat Shell/BP etc). They are now being re done to favor western oil companies, not that it right or wrong just pointing out the main reason europe was so eager to topple him while criticizing US actions in Iraq. Gadhafi was no Saddam, in fact Libyan women and other religions enjoyed the most freedom out of any Arab country. As we are seeing in Egypt we are now see another Islamic government and Sharia law in place of moderate government.

 

DaveyDempsey, I had composed a response earlier but never posted it. I do not wish to start a war or think I am another "America is the Greatest Country in History" kind of American. I disagree with some of your points but it doesn't matter. I am simply tired and bewildered why the US needs to have troops all over the world, messing with every other countries business, and putting ourselves in debt while areas that we protect use the money they don't have to spend for defense to invest in industry and infrastructure. The US has plenty of areas we need to invest in, so why not spend this money here, rather than everywhere else.

No offense meant Sir, and I meant it that I believe the British are one of our few true friends. If the Libya operation would have been a purely British enterprise I would have supported it more, since your country has been our one friend, (besides maybe Canada), we can usually count on.

Chris

 

I come to a slightly different conclusion, given Mr Durden's posting a week later about Zimbabwe going onto a gold standard.

The problem with the concept of the dollar failing amid a worldwide shift toward a gold standard lies in misunderstanding of what backs the dollar.

Assuming the dollar gets unseated as the primary reserve currency, Treasury rates will increase and the value of US DEBT will decrease. If the world decided to unpeg currencies from dollar denominated securities, that would actually decrease the national debt. Why? Because the US dollar is backed by the US government.

People argue that the US government doesn't have goid. People argue that the US dollar is a fiat monstrosity waiting to implode. These same people have an agenda that profits only from a scenario in which the US dollar fails miserably.

Gaddafi demanding payment in gold for oil reserves in Libya, assuming it's true, would be more of a problem for fellow OPEC nations than for petroleum importing countries. In order to stabilize the petro-dollar economy, non-Libya OPEC members would merely boost production to off-set the oil that Libya refused to sell.

Given the arrangement between the US and OPEC, OPEC wanting Gaddafi dead makes for a better conspiracy theory. The US merely "rallied the troops" to please its petro-dollar counterparts.

OPEC nations are oil-backed currencies. As we enter into the latter phases of peak oil (assuming peak oil hit in 2007), these nations need to find a different vehicle to define their currencies and obligations. The thing with the US is that we haven't begun to tap the resources that would make the dollar truly the strongest currency in the world. The US controls four/five major resources for the next century:

1) Land. The United States government owns 650mm acres of land. For comparison sake, the UK occupies 59.7mm acres of land, and McDonald's owns a paltry 2,847 acres.

2) Military. The world relies on the United States for weaponry and ballistics.

3) Natural Gas, Coal & Shale. There is enough carbon chain energy stored in the United States to support continued industrial growth for 50-85 years. That assumes not using nuclear, solar or geo-topography energy sources... oh, and assumes a complete abandonment of external petrol.

4) Rare Earths and uranium. The United States has large stores of rare earths, uranium, and even platinum group metals that have not been exhausted. Large jade deposits in the NW (including Alaska) add to existing (but dwindling) gold and silver supplies.

5) Water & Food. As the world transitions into its next enviro-economic age, water and food will become far more valuable resources than we give them credit for now. Many parts of the world hate the United States for its gluttonous culture. The United States throws away enough food in a day to feed smaller countries for weeks or months. The United States wastes potable water on irrigation of soil. If water/food value ever normalized with demand/lifestyle, the United States is primed to control the global economy.

For all the talk of the failure of the United States economy, the failure was in the economy of excess. This is why the "I am the 99" protests are so popular among recent college graduates. It's not that they can't find honest work. The issue is that they can't access the earnings of excess which are spotlighted on television.

 

Your theory fails for these three reasons:

1. The USD isn't issued by the USA and isn't backed by the USA. The $ is issued by the Federal Reserve which does not have access to USA assets as colleratal. It is unbacked by anything beyond what is on it's asset sheets. Furthermore, a holder of the $ has no claim on anything.
2. You claim the USD would be strong because of the USA's Land, Resources, Agriculture, Military. By this definition, the Russian Federation would be the strongest currency in the world. It's obviously not.
3. It doesn't address the underlying issues at hand that are destroying faith in the US economy. It won't be fixed by selling off public assets or trying to extract resources that are enormously expensive to reach. And, as I said in #1, the Federal Reserve Note is not issued by the USA anyway.

 

But Fatima, you are taking too literal Federal Reserve notes for dollars. Around the world, the "dollar" is US debt, so it has absolutely no bearing on the Fed. All of the FRN together are meaningless compared to US treasuries. Therefor, that fact invalidates your points 1 and 3. Point two is invalid since its cumulative economy, not raw resources, that backs our debt, therefor our dollar. You are correct if it were simply raw resources the Russians would be the richest in the world, and they are not.

Just my opinion.

Chris

 

1) The dollar (as most take it to mean) is represented by Federal Reserve Notes. FRNs are backed by debt issued from the US Treasury.

2) I claimed five different elements that parlay into the value of the USD. Also, all currency officially issued by the US (which invalidates the $10,000 notes that were thrown out in a fire) govt for circulation is valid to this day. Since wartime "Hawaii" notes were withdrawn from circulation (and redeemable), I assume they would be classified akin to the $10,000 note.

By contrast, the Russian gov't revalued its currency in 1995, making old rubles worth 1/1000 of new rubles. Given that 1 USD ~ 30.5 PP, that would mean that 1 USD ~ 30,500 PP without revaluation. This would imply that the number of rubles in circulation vastly exceed the number of dollars, thereby rendering your argument mute.

Basically, even if the aggregated holdings of the Russian Federation exceeded that of the US govt by a factor of 10:1, the circulating currency would render the ratio to reflect a US dollar having a strength of value of 100:1 against the ruble.

3) I don't understand your point. The US gov't holds 8100 tons of gold. That's good for third on the list in terms of %age (74.7%) of FOREX accounted for by gold... the two countries ahead of the US are Portugal and Greece. For your argument, Russia has 6.7% of their FOREX assets backed by gold. China has 1.7%.

The key issue destroying faith in the dollar is that the US economy is based upon debt. This was a question I asked Goldman Sachs in 2007 related to the spread of the carry trade to the retail sector. I was told the debt would come from somewhere else should it dry up. This is a PRIVATE SECTOR financier. This isn't a problem of the US gov't. US gov't spending is driven by private contracts. If the US gov't spends a dollar, it results in $5 of commerce. The argument of a smaller gov't for the sake of economic stability has never been proven. I'm a conservative. I advocate for state's rights. I also understand that we can't shutdown the US gov't until the private sector figures out a more efficient distribution of assets.

Lastly, the problem with US debt is how it's derived. It's primarily money owed to Social Security. However, no one wants to decrease/delay Social Security benefits with the sheer mass of voters that baby boomers represent.

Edit: BTW, Fatima, what aspect of the US's involvement in Libya did you find to be a violation of the US Constitution?

 

GS may be a private sector financier, but they become a burden on the public sector with TARP. Nevermind that they provided the toxic debt to Greece that helped them off the cliff. Other companies like AIG and GM are a problem for the US govt since they've been nationalized, and that's essentially been done with the TBTF banks, indebting future generations at the expense of propping up the derivatives market at all costs.

Also, the US debt has been derived from a lot more than Soc Sec. There's the $trillion student loan debt and massive defense spending among numerous other things hold their share, but it's the compounding interest that makes the debt nearly impossible to get under control. I would have no problem giving up my social security benefits if it meant I didn't have to pay any more into it. It's a socialistic program, and reminds me of a quote I saw recently, something about being altruistic with other people's money.

 

When I said it isn't a problem of the US gov't, I didn't mean it isn't a problem FOR the US gov't. I meant that the US gov't didn't create the problem. I fully agree that the problems created by the private sector are a burden upon the US gov't and broader economy. I meant to say that it wasn't CAUSED by the US gov't, as people seem to be intent on believing.

TARP/TALF was basically a way for Obama to repay his political backers. This is pretty straight-forward. Yes, the Big Three could have been allowed to fail, but Obama had promised the auto unions that he'd save their jobs. Arguably, the US investment in GM is a failure (and if you take the most liberal approach of accounting for tax revenues generated from plant workers and social spending implied therein, you get, at best, a wash). But, let's be honest with ourselves, TARP/TALF created enough smoke and mirrors to float the stock market through what would have been a run on banks many times worse than the Great Depression. Some argue that the US gov't, even if it makes a profit on TARP, won't be rewarded for the risk it took on the investments. I disagree with that. Thanks to the bailouts, the DJIA effectively bottomed at ~8000 points. Yes, I'm aware that it got as low as 6600, but that was during a three month "bottoming" that only someone trying to time the market would consider a bottom. Yes, TARP/TALF/PPIP benefited the top-1% of Americans, but it also benefited the retirement portfolios of the "99." Without TARP/TALF/PPIP in place, the "99" would have been hurt by bank failures and economic collapse, with a DJIA bottom closer to that indicated by the Great Depression. Basically, we would have seen a bottom closer to 4500 points, and a secondary dip into the 800-3000 point range. The greatest threat to a money supply is fear. Fear results in hoarding and pessimism. If it cost the US gov't $1T to stymie fear, so be it. That subsidy is a small price to pay compared to the potential loss of $11T in US market capitalization we would see if the gov't didn't step in.

 

Ah yes, then I agree with you mostly. The issue I see with spending $1T to prevent a run on the banks is that it just added more debt to a problem that stemmed from debt to begin with, causing the supposed liquidity problem. Although some argue liquidity was never the issue, but rather funds not moving because money is being parked while interest rates aren't providing any tangible returns.

I suppose I would agree that fear is the greatest threat, but fear is an effect of monetary debasement and irresponsible fiscal policy, not the cause. Ultimately all that the added spending has done is bought us more time at a greater expense without addressing the fundamental problems that will require bigger and bigger band-aids to prevent the outcome that a free market seeks which is equilibrium. The more that is resisted, the more the market will push back.

 

If the gov't did away with Soc.Sec., you would pay $0 into the program. That said, the gov't would increase taxes on corporations/individuals by the necessary amount to off-set the loss of 10.4% in taxes.

Also, what is the source of the $1T in student loans number? I would assume it couldn't be that big, unless you're including privately issued student loans, which shouldn't be included into the national debt. Sallie Mae originating loans equate to $200B or so, if I recall from their financials. That amount would be guaranteed by the US gov't, but the default rate is realistically ~40% of that, so $80B of bad debt originating from student loans.

If the US gov't eliminated SocSec/Medicare, that would wipe $1.545T away from the expense side of the ledger. Assuming the gov't figures out a way to continue to collect those taxes (which our lawmakers will), that move alone would bring the US budget into a $300B surplus for FY12. It would also remove the obligation on the liabilities side of the ledger, which would mean the interest payments owed to SS/MC would be removed from the deficit, as well. It's silly, but the US gov't is running a deficit in much the same way a baby boomer getting ready to retire does: Spend money today assuming that you'll get your pension/social security in two years.

The problem is that one of two things must break:

A) The US Govt defaults on external debt.

or

B) Those waiting on Soc Sec will wake up one day to the shock of their lives.

I've already accepted that I'll never get a single cent out of Soc Sec. I accepted that while I was still in college in the 90s. I don't complain about paying for Soc Sec, since I never expected to see the money anyway. I do however complain about how the money is distributed to the generation before me. Those in their 40s/50s should understand that they need to work into their 70s/80s to prevent complete failure of the system they take for granted.

I assume that I'll work into my 50s/60s/70s then die of a massive heart failure. If I don't, terrific! If I do, I expected it.

 

1. Thanks for the reply. I will answer in 2 posts
2. Most important. The FRN $ is not backed by US debt from the US Treasury. i.e. A holder of the FRN has absolutely no claim on the US taxpayers. How the Federal Reserve works is confusing because there is a huge amount of obfuscation that implies the $ is backed by the taxpayers, but it isn't. The USA does create taxpayer Treasury Notes and deposits them at the FR. In response, the FRN deposits the equivalent $s in the Treasury's account (so to speak). The USA can then spend these dollars. However the Federal Reserve is free to create as many $s as it needs, without backing or oversight so that it can conduct it's monetary policy. For example, $s created by QE are not backed by Treasury Notes. This misunderstood fact about the currency gives the Federal Reserve enormous power to affect or destroy the economy. The Federal Reserve is not controlled by the Congress or President but rather it's controlling members are the TBTF banks.
3. Item #2 on your list is invalidated by the point I made in #1. i.e. The Federal Reserve can increase the number of $s to infinity if it likes.
4. Faith in the US economy is highly dependent upon faith the Finance Industry (Insurance, Banking, Wall Street) are regulated as utilities to the economy. This has been destroyed by 20 years of deregulation and lack of enforcement of what rules are left. What happened at MF Global just a couple of weeks ago, at the hands of people who are/have been part of the highest levels of the US Government, is an excellent example of this. There are two possible outcomes: Either the people at the top fix things (unlikely) or the people at the top will get tarred and feathered (literally) by the 250 million in this country who are ending up with nothing. You can't have a functioning society where all the rewards end up in the hands of the bankers, politicians, corporate executives and government elite.
5. Gold currently functions as the currency of the Central Banks. Much of what they do with it is kept secret and our own head of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, recently gave sworn testimony to the US congress that gold was not money. Of course he is also a liar. Everyone else, including bullion buyers knows otherwise. It's another example of the "contempt" these people have towards the rest of us. It's also a demonstration of the primary fault of central banking. That is, it requires a constant set of lies to make it work.
6. Surely you should realize the GS isn't impartial in its answer. Private commerce always trumps government control. 70 years of central planning in the Soviet Union proves this. Small Business creates more jobs than anything else, yet a huge amount of government regulations & taxation makes starting a small business extremely difficult and the problems grow exponentially when it tries to hire additional employees. My beliefs on how to fix it go so much against the "common wisdom" that I won't bother to mention them here. It makes people become unglued.
7. Social Security is not a problem. It's completely funded by its own tax. The problem is the money collected for SS & Medicare is being used for other purposes.

 

Part 2:
The intent by the framers of the Constitution was to prevent the USA from entering into military actions that had nothing to do with the defense of the USA. Thus the Congress was given the power to declare war but the President was made commander in chief. Furthermore the Congress has the only authority to fund the military. Later more specifics were added to this which placed requirements on the President to get congress's permission within a certain time period after committing troops or they had to be withdrawn.

Thus, the attack on Libya was Unconstitutional IMO. Libya presented no danger to the USA, no war was declared, Congress took no votes, and Obama did not get Congress's permission. Yet there we are spending 100s of millions of $s blowing up the place and killing people. The people in power, ignored the intent of the Constitution and instead weasel worded around it. i.e. No troops were committed from a technical perspective because advances in technology allow them to send in robots to do the work from remote control.