From 1870 to 1970, the United States ran persistent trade surpluses that averaged about 1.1 percent of GDP. During this period, the U.S. consistently exported more goods and services than it imported. By the early 1970s, inflation in the United States and a growing American trade deficit were undermining the value of the dollar. After Nixon collapsed Bretton Woods in favor of the OPEC petro$ monopoly. This move allowed currencies to float freely against each other, leading to significant changes in global trade dynamics. The U.S. trade balance shifted, and the country began running trade deficits.
The collapse of Bretton Woods coincided with the rise of OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). OPEC countries, particularly those in the Middle East consequent to the Arab oil embargo, due to the Arab alliance against Israel during the Yom Kippur War, gained significant influence consequent to their control over huge oil reserves. The use of the U.S. dollar (petrodollar) as the primary currency for oil transactions solidified the dollar’s role in global trade.
As the dollar’s value fluctuated and the U.S. faced economic challenges, the country’s trade balance shifted. The U.S. began running trade deficits, importing more than it exported. This trend has persisted in subsequent decades, shaping the modern global economy. The collapse of Bretton Woods, the rise of OPEC, and the shift from trade surpluses to deficits all played crucial roles in shaping the U.S. trade landscape.
The collapse of the Bretton Woods system and the subsequent rise of OPEC significantly altered the dynamics of international trade. The petrodollar’s dominance and the Middle East’s influence underscore how interconnected economic and geopolitical factors can be.
As for the United States returning to a gold standard, it’s a topic of ongoing debate. President-elect Donald Trump has expressed interest in the idea, and some of his advisors support it. However, reintroducing the gold standard would be a complex and challenging process. It would require significant changes to the current monetary system and could have far-reaching economic implications. While there is some support for the idea, it remains uncertain whether such a move will be pursued or implemented.
The idea of the U.S. pulling out of NATO in exchange for Russia withdrawing from Ukraine and Crimea is a complex and highly speculative scenario. The peace terms of the 1856 Crimean War, which included the Treaty of Paris, aimed to neutralize the Black Sea and diminish Russian influence in the region. Applying such historical terms to modern geopolitics would be challenging and unprecedented.
As for the U.S. returning to the gold standard, this would be a significant shift from the current fiat monetary system. The gold standard was abandoned in 1971, and reintroducing it would require substantial changes to the financial system. While some of Trump’s advisors have shown interest in the idea, it remains uncertain whether such a move would be pursued or implemented. The complexities of modern economics and the global financial system make a return to the gold standard a highly debated and contentious issue.
Historical demobilization processes and diplomatic appointments shape the course of nations. Whether in the aftermath of World War I or in today’s complex geopolitical landscape, thoughtful leadership remains essential.
The BRICS threat to the continued dominance of the dollar as the world currency, coupled with the huge national debt in conjunction with the almost total Federal bureaucracy corruption forces a massive downsizing of the Federal Government. Matt Whittaker serves to withdraw the US from the Nato alliance.
The BRICS nations have been increasingly assertive in challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. While the dollar has held this position since the end of World War II, recent geopolitical shifts and growing tensions between the West and Russia and China have prompted discussions about alternatives.
The process of de-dollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance—is gaining momentum. BRICS countries are exploring options beyond the greenback.
Whitaker’s legal and criminal justice background may seem unconventional for this role, but his appointment reflects the administration’s priorities in global affairs.
Amid ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, Whitaker’s position becomes crucial. His stance on the US withdraw from Nato, will play a crucial role in Russia agreeing to withdraw from the Ukraine and Crimea. Similar to the post war 1856 Crimean war.
Historical demobilization processes and diplomatic appointments shape the course of nations. Whether in the aftermath of World War I or in today’s complex geopolitical landscape, thoughtful leadership remains essential.
The BRICS threat to the continued dominance of the dollar as the world currency, coupled with the huge national debt in conjunction with the almost total Federal bureaucracy corruption forces a massive downsizing of the Federal Government. Matt Whittaker serves to withdraw the US from the Nato alliance.
The BRICS nations have been increasingly assertive in challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. While the dollar has held this position since the end of World War II, recent geopolitical shifts and growing tensions between the West and Russia and China have prompted discussions about alternatives.
The process of de-dollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance—is gaining momentum. BRICS countries are exploring options beyond the greenback.
Whitaker’s legal and criminal justice background may seem unconventional for this role, but his appointment reflects the administration’s priorities in global affairs.
Amid ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, Whitaker’s position becomes crucial. His stance on the US withdraw from Nato, will play a crucial role in Russia agreeing to withdraw from the Ukraine and Crimea. Similar to the post war 1856 Crimean war.
Historical demobilization processes and diplomatic appointments shape the course of nations. Whether in the aftermath of World War I or in today’s complex geopolitical landscape, thoughtful leadership remains essential.
The BRICS threat to the continued dominance of the dollar as the world currency, coupled with the huge national debt in conjunction with the almost total Federal bureaucracy corruption forces a massive downsizing of the Federal Government. Matt Whittaker serves to withdraw the US from the Nato alliance.
The BRICS nations have been increasingly assertive in challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. While the dollar has held this position since the end of World War II, recent geopolitical shifts and growing tensions between the West and Russia and China have prompted discussions about alternatives.
The process of de-dollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance—is gaining momentum. BRICS countries are exploring options beyond the greenback.
Whitaker’s legal and criminal justice background may seem unconventional for this role, but his appointment reflects the administration’s priorities in global affairs.
Amid ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, Whitaker’s position becomes crucial. His stance on the US withdraw from Nato, will play a crucial role in Russia agreeing to withdraw from the Ukraine and Crimea. Similar to the post war 1856 Crimean war.
Historical demobilization processes and diplomatic appointments shape the course of nations. Whether in the aftermath of World War I or in today’s complex geopolitical landscape, thoughtful leadership remains essential.
The BRICS threat to the continued dominance of the dollar as the world currency, coupled with the huge national debt in conjunction with the almost total Federal bureaucracy corruption forces a massive downsizing of the Federal Government. Matt Whittaker serves to withdraw the US from the Nato alliance.
The BRICS nations have been increasingly assertive in challenging the dominance of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency. While the dollar has held this position since the end of World War II, recent geopolitical shifts and growing tensions between the West and Russia and China have prompted discussions about alternatives.
The process of de-dollarization—reducing reliance on the dollar in international trade and finance—is gaining momentum. BRICS countries are exploring options beyond the greenback.
Whitaker’s legal and criminal justice background may seem unconventional for this role, but his appointment reflects the administration’s priorities in global affairs.
Amid ongoing conflicts like the war in Ukraine, Whitaker’s position becomes crucial. His stance on the US withdraw from Nato, will play a crucial role in Russia agreeing to withdraw from the Ukraine and Crimea. Similar to the post war 1856 Crimean war.
Kamala Harris has articulated some policy proposals for her economic approach, though many details remain vague. Her campaign emphasizes expanding tax credits, including the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and extending Affordable Care Act premium subsidies to assist low- and middle-income households. She also supports down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and increasing the corporate tax rate to 28%. However, analysts project that these measures will increase deficits over time, potentially affecting long-term economic growth by reducing investment and labor participation.
Trump’s economic policies before COVID focused on tax cuts, deregulation, and tariffs, which contributed to historically low unemployment rates, particularly for African-American and Hispanic communities. His opposition to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) stemmed from a preference for market-based health solutions, arguing that federal healthcare mandates interfere with personal choice and inflate costs. Instead of universal healthcare, Trump promoted alternatives such as association health plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). These initiatives aimed to reduce government involvement while encouraging competition among private insurers.
Harris’s economic approach focuses on targeted relief for low- and middle-income households through expanded tax credits, healthcare subsidies, and first-time homebuyer assistance. By raising corporate taxes, her plan aims to partially offset increased social spending. This strategy seeks to promote long-term stability through consumer demand and equitable growth, despite higher public debt risks.
In contrast, Trump’s plan centers on tax cuts and deregulation, which drove pre-COVID employment but relied heavily on deficit expansion and tariffs. His opposition to universal healthcare may limit access for lower-income families, reducing economic resilience during downturns.
Harris’s economic policy aligns with Federal Reserve practices by supporting fiat currency, even as BRICS challenges the U.S. dollar’s global dominance. Her strategy would likely involve stabilizing markets through expanded social programs, tax reform, and continued reliance on federal monetary tools.
Trump, by contrast, has criticized the Federal Reserve in the past, suggesting that he might favor radical changes, such as curtailing or even dismantling it. Reviving a 19th-century free-banking model, as seen under President Andrew Jackson, could align with Trump’s anti-centralization ethos. However, such a shift would carry risks, including financial instability.
A return to free-banking—without a central authority like the Federal Reserve—carries several risks beyond boom-bust cycles. These include:
Bank Failures and Runs: Without a lender of last resort, banks would struggle to survive liquidity crises, potentially triggering widespread panics.
Currency Fragmentation: Banks might issue their own notes, causing inconsistencies in value and trust, disrupting commerce.
Unstable Credit Supply: Fluctuations in bank lending could create extreme volatility, complicating long-term investments and economic planning.
Limited Response to Crises: In the absence of central monetary tools, the government would struggle to manage inflation, recessions, or currency attacks.
This model sacrifices predictability and oversight in favor of decentralized freedom.
The Federal Reserve’s reduction of the money supply mirrors the post-Civil War era, when Congress cut greenbacks by 25%, concentrating wealth in the hands of industrial monopolists. Similarly, after the 1929 Wall Street crash, the Fed reduced currency circulation, deepening the Great Depression. During the New Deal, FDR’s agricultural policies resembled Stalin’s collectivization, consolidating small farms into government-supported agricultural monopolies that still dominate today. This history highlights how monetary contraction and centralized farming policies have repeatedly favored elite interests at the expense of smaller producers and broader economic stability.
Trusting the Federal Reserve under Kamala Harris raises legitimate concerns given parallels to FDR’s centralized economic interventions. Both administrations lean toward government-led redistribution and state control, potentially expanding federal influence over the economy. The Fed’s past actions—constricting currency during crises—show how it can exacerbate inequality, favoring large financial institutions. If Harris follows a similar path, the risk exists that wealth concentration and corporate monopolies could increase, all under the guise of stabilizing the economy and combating inflation, mirroring patterns seen under FDR’s New Deal policies.
Voting for Harris might appeal to those who prioritize social equity, expanded healthcare access, and environmental sustainability over a return to gold-backed currency or a Congress-controlled monetary policy. Supporters may view her as a candidate focused on addressing income inequality and promoting a stable economy through targeted relief programs. They could argue that her approach fosters resilience in the face of global currency shifts, while Trump’s potential return to a gold standard could lead to economic uncertainty and reduced flexibility in monetary policy.
Voting for Trump in the 2024 election could appeal to those who appreciate his record of economic growth prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, including low unemployment rates and stock market gains. Supporters may view his tax cuts and deregulation efforts as beneficial for businesses and individuals alike. They might also prefer his more nationalistic approach to trade and immigration, believing it strengthens American interests. Additionally, his potential shift toward a gold-based currency could resonate with those favoring fiscal conservatism and limiting federal influence over monetary policy.
A lot of merit to the ideals of neo-liberalism. Minimize Government regulations/bureaucracy – that’s a Trump talking point. Reduce Government Spending and Taxes. Another Trump talking point. Loosen Government Control Over the Economy. Another Trump talking point. Confidence in Free Markets requires the break up of Government established Corporate Monopolies like the Federal Reserve for starters. Minimal State Intervention like the annulment of Roe vs. Wade which returns the issue of abortion to a States Rights issue and not a woman suffrage 19th Amendment issue!
The dark side of Neoliberals: the Democrat embracement of global mingling and open borders! So while it has roots in classical liberalism – think Adam Smith and his book “Wealth of Nations”. Going back to the basics as opposed to FDR’s John Maynard Keynes Centralized Bank Socialism, deficit spending to the tune of 35 trillion dollars!
Neo-liberalism more akin and aligned with the Frankfurt School of economics. Led by folks like Herbert Marcuse. Marxist ideology approved of the rise of the proletariat revolution. But the Frankfurt economics model argues that liberation from the clutches of the abuses of the Industrial revolution requires more than just a workers revolt.
Keynes a British economist. Post the Wilson abandonment of Andrew Jacksons 1825 free banking model America made a strong alliance with the British economic model. Trump by contrast weighs pulling out of NATO and bringing the Boys Home seeing that the USSR collapsed in 1991.
Now must consider the Chicago School lead by Milton Friedman — not big fans of Keynes economics either! Milton hated Keynesian Social Security! Keynes influence reached to Johnson’s Great Society. Nixon replace Johnson but exploded a $11.6 billion deficit based upon the British socialist Keynes ideas. Nixon switched the commodity based US dollar to the petro-dollar monopoly which just recently collapsed under Biden. Welcome the rise of the BRINCS counter currency to the dominance of the US dollar!
The Camel Toe Ho praises Nixon’s Keyns Wage and Price Controls! It failed miserably to tame the inflation monster which plagued Nixon’s misrule of American governance.
[[[2. Russia is worried about its security and needs to be constantly reassured that it’s safe. For this purpose, its neighbors should be disarmed and what Russia says about its true goals and intentions should be ignored. It has free markets after all, so this means it is a democratic country because see above.]]] Excuse me, Russia twice invaded through the plains of the Ukraine by Napoleon and Hitler. The Great Patriotic War witness a blood bath of some 27 million Soviet citizens, about half of the total 55 million victims of WWII.
Solving problems by throwing money at it … Hmmm reminds me of Chamberlains appeasement two-State solution Peace in our Time bull shit destruction of the Czech Republic in 1938!
The Strategic Israeli New World Economic World Order
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, the original economic alliance – think EU in 2009-2010. In 2024: Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates became official members. BRICS, conceived as a counterweight to Western dominance in managing the world economy. The population of BRICS – 45% of the global population!
BRICS focuses on political and economic cooperation. Ethiopia and Egypt joined in Jan 1st 2024 along with Argentina & Saudi Arabia. Algeria and Nigeria adds an intriguing dimension to this alliance of BRICS expansion to include African nations.
In 2001, a Goldman Sachs economist named Jim O’Neill had a brilliant idea. He was pondering the future of global economic growth and identified four countries in the Global South that collectively had enormous potential. These countries were Brazil, Russia, India, and China. O’Neill coined the term “BRIC” to encapsulate this quartet of rising economic powers.
Since then, BRICS has become more than just a term—it’s a platform for cooperation, collaboration, and economic muscle-flexing. The group discusses policy issues, shares common challenges, and even established the New Development Bank (NDB) to mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects. And all of this started with a little acronym cooked up by Goldman Sachs.
BRICS unity was based on the recognition that existing global institutions disproportionately favored Western interests. So, they decided to create their own forum for dialogue and cooperation.
Iran’s inclusion forces us to consider shared security interests that may sometimes run counter to U.S. interests. BRICS members must agree on what that alternative world order should look like. And that’s where the complexities of geopolitics come into play.
So, when people parrot about BRICS, they’re often touching on a fascinating experiment in global governance – Bush’s “New World Order”.
It’s shaping up as a serious challenger to the American-led order? Perhaps. Critics accused early 1990s Bush of political rhetoric and lacking vision. Bush’s “New World Order” aimed at post Cold War stability.
BRICS and the possibility, seeing that Saudi Arabia has abanoned the Nixon era petro-dollar monopoly commodity based oil currency, especially after Biden’s green energy prioritization. Saudi Arabia is gradually moving away from the exclusive use of greenbacks (U.S. dollars) in its oil trade. Instead, it’s exploring alternative markets.
This symbolic win for de-dollarization, the movement seeking to reduce the greenback’s stranglehold on world finance has transformed BRICS as one of the leading voices against the dollar.
The Nixon alliance with OPEC – dead. BRICS works with China on initiatives like mBridge – a cross-border payments system using central bank digital currencies.
President Biden’s focus on green energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels is reshaping global energy dynamics. It continues the Obama Era downturn of US domination. This Obama/Biden economic strategy has forced Saudi Arabia to recalibrate its economic strategies.
BRICS has a clear oil based currency dominance now with the alliance of Russia with OPEC. The US could counter by returning back to a gold based commodity currency.
If the U.S. were to consider returning to a gold-backed currency system, it would signal a significant shift. A gold-based commodity currency could potentially provide stability and act as an alternative to the current fiat currency system.
The classical gold standard, which prevailed during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, was a system where currencies were directly convertible into a fixed amount of gold. Under this system, the supply of money was inherently tied to the availability of gold reserves. Countries maintained fixed exchange rates relative to gold. Their currencies were pegged to a specific weight of gold.
Governments could only issue additional currency if they had corresponding gold reserves. This limited the expansion of the money supply. The gold standard aimed for price stability by linking money supply growth to gold reserves.
The fixed convertibility of currency into gold restricted policymakers’ ability to adjust money supply rapidly. In times of economic crisis or recession, flexibility restricted and limited. However, during the Civil War, the United States faced immense financial strain. Traditional gold-backed currency was insufficient to fund the war effort. Enter the “greenbacks”—emergency paper currency issued by the U.S. government. These greenbacks were printed in green ink on the back, hence the name.
Two forms of greenbacks: Demand Notes: Issued in 1861–1862, these bore no interest but were fully redeemable in gold. They were soon at par with gold. And United States Notes: Issued in 1862–1865, these were legal tender for most purposes but not backed by existing gold or silver reserves.
Greenbacks were a form of fiat money—legal tender without direct backing by gold or silver. While they carried varying promises of eventual payment in coin, their value relied on the government’s ability to maintain trust and stability. The greenbacks helped finance the war, even though they weren’t directly tied to gold reserves.
The greenbacks were a pragmatic solution during a time of crisis. They demonstrated the flexibility needed to fund the war effort. Lincoln’s dollar—represented by greenbacks—played a crucial role in financing the Civil War, even though it wasn’t strictly gold-backed.
A gold based commodity currency favors Free Banking policies over a Federal Reserve Central Bank. Closing the Federal Reserve Washington cound negate 90% of all Federal debt in a single day. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was around 97% last year, which is below the critical threshold of 100%. The US spent appoximately $695 billion to service just the interest owed on its debt in the last fiscal year.
The Fed clearly contributes to debt accumulation, a hidden tax upon the American people. While closing the Federal Reserve might not instantly negate 90% of all federal debt, it would indeed have significant implications. The debt-to-GDP ratio remains a critical metric, and the U.S. government’s ability to service its debt relies on investor confidence.
As of the second quarter of 2024, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 121.57%. This ratio reflects the relationship between the national debt and the overall economic output. While it’s below the critical threshold of 100%, economists remain concerned about the impact of interest payments on the U.S. economy. The US government, set to spend more than $1 trillion on interest payments in 2024, surpassing military spending for the first time in history.
Factors driving interest payments include deficit spending (especially during the pandemic) and the Federal Reserve’s anti-inflation interest rate hikes. The interplay between monetary policy, debt management, and economic stability continues to shape our financial landscape.
Free Banking refers to a system where banks issue their own currency notes without central regulation. These notes are backed by assets (such as gold) held by the bank. Proponents believe that competition among private banks issuing currency can lead to efficient and stable monetary systems.
The Federal Reserve (often called the Fed) is the central banking system established by President Wilson in 1913 which overthrew the free banking economic model established by President Andrew Jackson in 1825.. It controls monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply.
“Free Banking”, which allowed state-chartered banks to issue their own currency without strict federal regulation. Each bank’s notes were backed by its assets (often including gold or silver reserves). The Free Banking era was characterized by a multitude of banknotes in circulation, varying in value and reliability. Some banks thrived, while others collapsed, leading to financial instability.
The Fed was designed to address the shortcomings of the Free Banking system. It centralized control over monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply. Free Banking offered flexibility but lacked stability. It allowed for innovation but also led to frequent bank failures. The Fed too has witnessed major ‘To Big to Fail’ government established Corporate monopoly failures, which includes major Banking monopolies.
Free Banking allowed individual banks to issue their own currency notes without strict federal regulation. This flexibility led to innovation and diversity in banking practices. However, the lack of centralized control meant that some banks were poorly managed or fraudulent. Frequent bank failures and currency fluctuations were common during this era.
The Robber Baron Fed was established in 1913 to address the limitations of Free Banking. It centralized control over monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply. Post WWI, the Reparation Commission, set Germany’s war reparations – the final bill at 132 billion gold marks. (Appoximately $33 billion at the time.) The purchasing power of modern dollars: about $519 billion today. That’s an increase of inflated Fed fiat currency of $486 billion dollars in about 104 years. Inflation hence exists as a hidden tax upon the people. Which makes it “Taxation without Representation”. By adjusting for inflation concealed taxes $100 in 1920 would equal approximately $1,623! Thank you President Wilson for your Robber Baron IRS and theft of American wealth.
Fed bureaucrats unilateral, independent of Congressional overview, decided to back up the British and French economies during WWI. Hence when Wilson joined the war, he had no other choice but to side with England and France. Robber baron bureaucrats removed the power of Congress to make another 1812 War against the British. Post war, Britain and France imposed war reparations upon defeated Germany, to pay back its war debts owed to the Fed. The 1929 Crash of Wall Street Fed stupidity restricted the currency exchange by 1/3rd and caused the Great Depression, and stopped giving loans to Germany. Causing the economic collapse of Germany and the rise of Hitler’s Fascist Nazism.
The Strategic Israeli New World Economic World Order
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, the original economic alliance – think EU in 2009-2010. In 2024: Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates became official members. BRICS, conceived as a counterweight to Western dominance in managing the world economy. The population of BRICS – 45% of the global population!
BRICS focuses on political and economic cooperation. Ethiopia and Egypt joined in Jan 1st 2024 along with Argentina & Saudi Arabia. Algeria and Nigeria adds an intriguing dimension to this alliance of BRICS expansion to include African nations.
In 2001, a Goldman Sachs economist named Jim O’Neill had a brilliant idea. He was pondering the future of global economic growth and identified four countries in the Global South that collectively had enormous potential. These countries were Brazil, Russia, India, and China. O’Neill coined the term “BRIC” to encapsulate this quartet of rising economic powers.
Since then, BRICS has become more than just a term—it’s a platform for cooperation, collaboration, and economic muscle-flexing. The group discusses policy issues, shares common challenges, and even established the New Development Bank (NDB) to mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects. And all of this started with a little acronym cooked up by Goldman Sachs.
BRICS unity was based on the recognition that existing global institutions disproportionately favored Western interests. So, they decided to create their own forum for dialogue and cooperation.
Iran’s inclusion forces us to consider shared security interests that may sometimes run counter to U.S. interests. BRICS members must agree on what that alternative world order should look like. And that’s where the complexities of geopolitics come into play.
So, when people parrot about BRICS, they’re often touching on a fascinating experiment in global governance – Bush’s “New World Order”.
It’s shaping up as a serious challenger to the American-led order? Perhaps. Critics accused early 1990s Bush of political rhetoric and lacking vision. Bush’s “New World Order” aimed at post Cold War stability.
BRICS and the possibility, seeing that Saudi Arabia has abanoned the Nixon era petro-dollar monopoly commodity based oil currency, especially after Biden’s green energy prioritization. Saudi Arabia is gradually moving away from the exclusive use of greenbacks (U.S. dollars) in its oil trade. Instead, it’s exploring alternative markets.
This symbolic win for de-dollarization, the movement seeking to reduce the greenback’s stranglehold on world finance has transformed BRICS as one of the leading voices against the dollar.
The Nixon alliance with OPEC – dead. BRICS works with China on initiatives like mBridge – a cross-border payments system using central bank digital currencies.
President Biden’s focus on green energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels is reshaping global energy dynamics. It continues the Obama Era downturn of US domination. This Obama/Biden economic strategy has forced Saudi Arabia to recalibrate its economic strategies.
BRICS has a clear oil based currency dominance now with the alliance of Russia with OPEC. The US could counter by returning back to a gold based commodity currency.
If the U.S. were to consider returning to a gold-backed currency system, it would signal a significant shift. A gold-based commodity currency could potentially provide stability and act as an alternative to the current fiat currency system.
The classical gold standard, which prevailed during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, was a system where currencies were directly convertible into a fixed amount of gold. Under this system, the supply of money was inherently tied to the availability of gold reserves. Countries maintained fixed exchange rates relative to gold. Their currencies were pegged to a specific weight of gold.
Governments could only issue additional currency if they had corresponding gold reserves. This limited the expansion of the money supply. The gold standard aimed for price stability by linking money supply growth to gold reserves.
The fixed convertibility of currency into gold restricted policymakers’ ability to adjust money supply rapidly. In times of economic crisis or recession, flexibility restricted and limited. However, during the Civil War, the United States faced immense financial strain. Traditional gold-backed currency was insufficient to fund the war effort. Enter the “greenbacks”—emergency paper currency issued by the U.S. government. These greenbacks were printed in green ink on the back, hence the name.
Two forms of greenbacks: Demand Notes: Issued in 1861–1862, these bore no interest but were fully redeemable in gold. They were soon at par with gold. And United States Notes: Issued in 1862–1865, these were legal tender for most purposes but not backed by existing gold or silver reserves.
Greenbacks were a form of fiat money—legal tender without direct backing by gold or silver. While they carried varying promises of eventual payment in coin, their value relied on the government’s ability to maintain trust and stability. The greenbacks helped finance the war, even though they weren’t directly tied to gold reserves.
The greenbacks were a pragmatic solution during a time of crisis. They demonstrated the flexibility needed to fund the war effort. Lincoln’s dollar—represented by greenbacks—played a crucial role in financing the Civil War, even though it wasn’t strictly gold-backed.
A gold based commodity currency favors Free Banking policies over a Federal Reserve Central Bank. Closing the Federal Reserve Washington cound negate 90% of all Federal debt in a single day. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was around 97% last year, which is below the critical threshold of 100%. The US spent appoximately $695 billion to service just the interest owed on its debt in the last fiscal year.
The Fed clearly contributes to debt accumulation, a hidden tax upon the American people. While closing the Federal Reserve might not instantly negate 90% of all federal debt, it would indeed have significant implications. The debt-to-GDP ratio remains a critical metric, and the U.S. government’s ability to service its debt relies on investor confidence.
As of the second quarter of 2024, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 121.57%. This ratio reflects the relationship between the national debt and the overall economic output. While it’s below the critical threshold of 100%, economists remain concerned about the impact of interest payments on the U.S. economy. The US government, set to spend more than $1 trillion on interest payments in 2024, surpassing military spending for the first time in history.
Factors driving interest payments include deficit spending (especially during the pandemic) and the Federal Reserve’s anti-inflation interest rate hikes. The interplay between monetary policy, debt management, and economic stability continues to shape our financial landscape.
Free Banking refers to a system where banks issue their own currency notes without central regulation. These notes are backed by assets (such as gold) held by the bank. Proponents believe that competition among private banks issuing currency can lead to efficient and stable monetary systems.
The Federal Reserve (often called the Fed) is the central banking system established by President Wilson in 1913 which overthrew the free banking economic model established by President Andrew Jackson in 1825.. It controls monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply.
“Free Banking”, which allowed state-chartered banks to issue their own currency without strict federal regulation. Each bank’s notes were backed by its assets (often including gold or silver reserves). The Free Banking era was characterized by a multitude of banknotes in circulation, varying in value and reliability. Some banks thrived, while others collapsed, leading to financial instability.
The Fed was designed to address the shortcomings of the Free Banking system. It centralized control over monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply. Free Banking offered flexibility but lacked stability. It allowed for innovation but also led to frequent bank failures. The Fed too has witnessed major ‘To Big to Fail’ government established Corporate monopoly failures, which includes major Banking monopolies.
Free Banking allowed individual banks to issue their own currency notes without strict federal regulation. This flexibility led to innovation and diversity in banking practices. However, the lack of centralized control meant that some banks were poorly managed or fraudulent. Frequent bank failures and currency fluctuations were common during this era.
The Robber Baron Fed was established in 1913 to address the limitations of Free Banking. It centralized control over monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply. Post WWI, the Reparation Commission, set Germany’s war reparations – the final bill at 132 billion gold marks. (Appoximately $33 billion at the time.) The purchasing power of modern dollars: about $519 billion today. That’s an increase of inflated Fed fiat currency of $486 billion dollars in about 104 years. Inflation hence exists as a hidden tax upon the people. Which makes it “Taxation without Representation”. By adjusting for inflation concealed taxes $100 in 1920 would equal approximately $1,623! Thank you President Wilson for your Robber Baron IRS and theft of American wealth.
Fed bureaucrats unilateral, independent of Congressional overview, decided to back up the British and French economies during WWI. Hence when Wilson joined the war, he had no other choice but to side with England and France. Robber baron bureaucrats removed the power of Congress to make another 1812 War against the British. Post war, Britain and France imposed war reparations upon defeated Germany, to pay back its war debts owed to the Fed. The 1929 Crash of Wall Street Fed stupidity restricted the currency exchange by 1/3rd and caused the Great Depression, and stopped giving loans to Germany. Causing the economic collapse of Germany and the rise of Hitler’s Fascist Nazism.
The Strategic Israeli New World Economic World Order
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, the original economic alliance – think EU in 2009-2010. In 2024: Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and the United Arab Emirates became official members. BRICS, conceived as a counterweight to Western dominance in managing the world economy. The population of BRICS – 45% of the global population!
BRICS focuses on political and economic cooperation. Ethiopia and Egypt joined in Jan 1st 2024 along with Argentina & Saudi Arabia. Algeria and Nigeria adds an intriguing dimension to this alliance of BRICS expansion to include African nations.
In 2001, a Goldman Sachs economist named Jim O’Neill had a brilliant idea. He was pondering the future of global economic growth and identified four countries in the Global South that collectively had enormous potential. These countries were Brazil, Russia, India, and China. O’Neill coined the term “BRIC” to encapsulate this quartet of rising economic powers.
Since then, BRICS has become more than just a term—it’s a platform for cooperation, collaboration, and economic muscle-flexing. The group discusses policy issues, shares common challenges, and even established the New Development Bank (NDB) to mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects. And all of this started with a little acronym cooked up by Goldman Sachs.
BRICS unity was based on the recognition that existing global institutions disproportionately favored Western interests. So, they decided to create their own forum for dialogue and cooperation.
Iran’s inclusion forces us to consider shared security interests that may sometimes run counter to U.S. interests. BRICS members must agree on what that alternative world order should look like. And that’s where the complexities of geopolitics come into play.
So, when people parrot about BRICS, they’re often touching on a fascinating experiment in global governance – Bush’s “New World Order”.
It’s shaping up as a serious challenger to the American-led order? Perhaps. Critics accused early 1990s Bush of political rhetoric and lacking vision. Bush’s “New World Order” aimed at post Cold War stability.
BRICS and the possibility, seeing that Saudi Arabia has abanoned the Nixon era petro-dollar monopoly commodity based oil currency, especially after Biden’s green energy prioritization. Saudi Arabia is gradually moving away from the exclusive use of greenbacks (U.S. dollars) in its oil trade. Instead, it’s exploring alternative markets.
This symbolic win for de-dollarization, the movement seeking to reduce the greenback’s stranglehold on world finance has transformed BRICS as one of the leading voices against the dollar.
The Nixon alliance with OPEC – dead. BRICS works with China on initiatives like mBridge – a cross-border payments system using central bank digital currencies.
President Biden’s focus on green energy and reducing dependence on fossil fuels is reshaping global energy dynamics. It continues the Obama Era downturn of US domination. This Obama/Biden economic strategy has forced Saudi Arabia to recalibrate its economic strategies.
BRICS has a clear oil based currency dominance now with the alliance of Russia with OPEC. The US could counter by returning back to a gold based commodity currency.
If the U.S. were to consider returning to a gold-backed currency system, it would signal a significant shift. A gold-based commodity currency could potentially provide stability and act as an alternative to the current fiat currency system.
The classical gold standard, which prevailed during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, was a system where currencies were directly convertible into a fixed amount of gold. Under this system, the supply of money was inherently tied to the availability of gold reserves. Countries maintained fixed exchange rates relative to gold. Their currencies were pegged to a specific weight of gold.
Governments could only issue additional currency if they had corresponding gold reserves. This limited the expansion of the money supply. The gold standard aimed for price stability by linking money supply growth to gold reserves.
The fixed convertibility of currency into gold restricted policymakers’ ability to adjust money supply rapidly. In times of economic crisis or recession, flexibility restricted and limited. However, during the Civil War, the United States faced immense financial strain. Traditional gold-backed currency was insufficient to fund the war effort. Enter the “greenbacks”—emergency paper currency issued by the U.S. government. These greenbacks were printed in green ink on the back, hence the name.
Two forms of greenbacks: Demand Notes: Issued in 1861–1862, these bore no interest but were fully redeemable in gold. They were soon at par with gold. And United States Notes: Issued in 1862–1865, these were legal tender for most purposes but not backed by existing gold or silver reserves.
Greenbacks were a form of fiat money—legal tender without direct backing by gold or silver. While they carried varying promises of eventual payment in coin, their value relied on the government’s ability to maintain trust and stability. The greenbacks helped finance the war, even though they weren’t directly tied to gold reserves.
The greenbacks were a pragmatic solution during a time of crisis. They demonstrated the flexibility needed to fund the war effort. Lincoln’s dollar—represented by greenbacks—played a crucial role in financing the Civil War, even though it wasn’t strictly gold-backed.
A gold based commodity currency favors Free Banking policies over a Federal Reserve Central Bank. Closing the Federal Reserve Washington cound negate 90% of all Federal debt in a single day. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was around 97% last year, which is below the critical threshold of 100%. The US spent appoximately $695 billion to service just the interest owed on its debt in the last fiscal year.
The Fed clearly contributes to debt accumulation, a hidden tax upon the American people. While closing the Federal Reserve might not instantly negate 90% of all federal debt, it would indeed have significant implications. The debt-to-GDP ratio remains a critical metric, and the U.S. government’s ability to service its debt relies on investor confidence.
As of the second quarter of 2024, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 121.57%. This ratio reflects the relationship between the national debt and the overall economic output. While it’s below the critical threshold of 100%, economists remain concerned about the impact of interest payments on the U.S. economy. The US government, set to spend more than $1 trillion on interest payments in 2024, surpassing military spending for the first time in history.
Factors driving interest payments include deficit spending (especially during the pandemic) and the Federal Reserve’s anti-inflation interest rate hikes. The interplay between monetary policy, debt management, and economic stability continues to shape our financial landscape.
Free Banking refers to a system where banks issue their own currency notes without central regulation. These notes are backed by assets (such as gold) held by the bank. Proponents believe that competition among private banks issuing currency can lead to efficient and stable monetary systems.
The Federal Reserve (often called the Fed) is the central banking system established by President Wilson in 1913 which overthrew the free banking economic model established by President Andrew Jackson in 1825.. It controls monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply.
“Free Banking”, which allowed state-chartered banks to issue their own currency without strict federal regulation. Each bank’s notes were backed by its assets (often including gold or silver reserves). The Free Banking era was characterized by a multitude of banknotes in circulation, varying in value and reliability. Some banks thrived, while others collapsed, leading to financial instability.
The Fed was designed to address the shortcomings of the Free Banking system. It centralized control over monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply. Free Banking offered flexibility but lacked stability. It allowed for innovation but also led to frequent bank failures. The Fed too has witnessed major ‘To Big to Fail’ government established Corporate monopoly failures, which includes major Banking monopolies.
Free Banking allowed individual banks to issue their own currency notes without strict federal regulation. This flexibility led to innovation and diversity in banking practices. However, the lack of centralized control meant that some banks were poorly managed or fraudulent. Frequent bank failures and currency fluctuations were common during this era.
The Robber Baron Fed was established in 1913 to address the limitations of Free Banking. It centralized control over monetary policy, interest rates, and the money supply. Post WWI, the Reparation Commission, set Germany’s war reparations – the final bill at 132 billion gold marks. (Appoximately $33 billion at the time.) The purchasing power of modern dollars: about $519 billion today. That’s an increase of inflated Fed fiat currency of $486 billion dollars in about 104 years. Inflation hence exists as a hidden tax upon the people. Which makes it “Taxation without Representation”. By adjusting for inflation concealed taxes $100 in 1920 would equal approximately $1,623! Thank you President Wilson for your Robber Baron IRS and theft of American wealth.
Fed bureaucrats unilateral, independent of Congressional overview, decided to back up the British and French economies during WWI. Hence when Wilson joined the war, he had no other choice but to side with England and France. Robber baron bureaucrats removed the power of Congress to make another 1812 War against the British. Post war, Britain and France imposed war reparations upon defeated Germany, to pay back its war debts owed to the Fed. The 1929 Crash of Wall Street Fed stupidity restricted the currency exchange by 1/3rd and caused the Great Depression, and stopped giving loans to Germany. Causing the economic collapse of Germany and the rise of Hitler’s Fascist Nazism.
Conflict Resolution 