If Iran War about euro bourse, why is Europe backing us?

[yurbud]

Obviously, the drive for war with Iran is about oil and likely their oil for euros bourse, not the threat of them getting a handful of nukes that would never be a threat to us.

If this is the case though, why are some of the European countries backing us?

[Heewack]

Because that theory is incorrect.

I raised that same question in another thread.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. So which "theory" is correct? nt

[ProfessorGAC]

17. It's A Lot Simpler Than This Convoluted Nonsense

It's because the people behind PNAC and this new american imperialism are idiots. THEY think the switch to Euros will matter. There is absolutely no evidence in the history of modern economics to suggest that a currency switch will negatively impact any large country's macroeconomy. None.

But, they are worried about it. That means that if anybody here is concerned that such a move will hurt an $11 trillion economy, then they agree with Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol, Cheney, Strauss, et al. If you wish to throw in with those buffoons, be my guest. But, since i've actually reviewed the data, and since i pretty much have consigned myself to believing that anything they believe is WRONG(and there's plenty of proof of that), then i am inclined to dismiss this theory.
The Professor

[BlueEyedSon]

26. So the theory that they guys in charge are going to invade Iran

because of the impending currency switch (regardless of whether the switch is a threat, and while telling the US public - and the world - a different bullshit story) is correct...?

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Double Edged Question

Yes, that's what i think they think. I think they believe this imperial adventure will prevent this from happening, even though they're wrong about the impact.

But, that's a consequence of a simpler theory. They want to invade Iran because they're idiots.
The Professor

[BlueEyedSon]

50. LMFAO!!! thx! nt

[davekriss]

40. ProfessorGAC

I respect your posts, but on this one I have to disagree. There are two aspects to this. First, I'll address the aspect we're more likely to agree on.

USG foriegn policy is in major part about punishing those that show signs of opting out of neo-liberal arrangements that benefit the owning class (this the legacy of Nitze, Kennan, et alia). We don't invade Panama, escort a leader out of Haiti at gunpoint, mine the harbors of Nicaragua, or march into Baghdad because anyone in the know perceives them, in themselves, to be a geniune threat. It's all about crushing the example of alternate models. The capitalist says Greed is Good in one breath and whispers apathy is better in the next -- it's all the more easy to exploit those who have no hope for a better future!

(I digress, but one shivers at the symbolism of re-appointing Elliot Abrams, Otto Reich, John Negroponte, and, though now gone, John Poindextor to positions of power, these shatterers of dreams from the American Holocaust in Central America. Recall the sight of storm-troopers at the FTAA meetings in Miami in 2003? Jack London's The Iron Heel made real. "Alternate" will be brutally repressed wherever it is seen.)

Iran, by pricing oil in Euros, is pursuing an independent course that, in itself, does not threaten dollar hegemony, but it is an example of a course that, if followed by more oil producers, would be a threat. So our madmen at the helm will indeed attack Iran -- it will be meant to punish them, show other producers that if you follow this course of action then we will pummel your infrastructure into rubble, kill and maim your young men, poison your land with DU, and torture citizens as a matter of course, so the message -- "don't do it, or else" -- isn't meant for Iran itself, but for every other producer nation.

The second aspect is where you disagree (I believe) and that is, if most oil producing nations abandoned the dollar for other currencies, there'd be no harm to our economic juggernaut. How can that be? The argument goes that one thing (not the only thing) that allows us to spend ourselves into cavernous debt without consequence is that the dollar survives (any other nation would have to markedly curtail consumption via high interest rates or inflate their currency). How does the dollar survive?

Almost every barrel of oil purchased by an oil importer must purchase that oil in US Dollars. So every other nation needs to sell their marcs and yen and yuan and buy dollars, ensuring a floor to the dollar. As long as other nations consume large quantities of imported oil, the dollar floats. If this petrodollar floor was removed, our dollar would devalue (goes the argument), and we'd have to raise interest rates significantly to attract the foriegn flows needed to sustain our current levels of consumption.

Of course, these high interest rates would slow consumption, so it would be a losing battle (deep recession or even depression would result), a battle no political class wants to fight. So, instead, they bomb Iraq over non-existent WMD, and they'll bomb Iran over non-existent WMD (ElBaradi, I believe, has already said that there is no evidence that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, we've heard this song before).

You, professorGAC, have richer knowledge and access to empirical data, so I am very interested to see you refute the second aspect of my argument if possible. I'd love to hear our economy is less brittle than it appears.

[FloridaPat]

44. Please explain why we changed heads of gov't in Panama and

Haiti. What alternate models? This is interesting.

[ProfessorGAC]

45. The Data Itself, Refute The Concern

Shifts have occurred in the past as to the currency of choice in the past, (like pounds for oil to dollars for oil, or pounds for sugar to dollars for sugar or rice). In these cases, however, the switch was done following the shift of economic dominance. (The British Empire fell below the U.S. in this regard.) The shift of currency was an effect of the global dominance of a single macroeconomy. It was not a factor in the attainment of dominance. (A result, not a cause, iow.)

However, there is not one shred of data to suggest that a voluntary shift in the currency of choice affects the economy. These relationships are not bidirectional. EVery cause cannot be an effect and vice versa.

I'd be easier to convince if it had EVER happened before. But, there is no evidence in the last 150 years of mercantilism and capitalism to hint at this effect. Now, it's fair to say that if the EU really incorporate the U.K., and they get their continental act together in a truly united fashion, they could threaten the U.S. for global economic dominance. Then, the switch to the euro for oil could occur, but once again it would not be a cause of economic tectonics, but as a result of this seismic shift.

That's all i can tell you. There is nothing in mountains of data to support that currency leads an economy. But, there is a ton of evidence that currency follows the economic dominance.

And, once again: If geniuses like Wolfie, Perle, and Kristol believe it, i'm sure it's wrong.

Edited to address 2nd thought of yours: Sorry i forgot. There is a misconception of where these dollars go. If all oil were sold in euros, then we would have to buy in euros, IF we bought any from the middle east. (We already buy only a fraction of our oil from there.) But, in order to buy euros to pay for oil, we'd need to spend dollars at whatever market exchange rate exists. So, the dollars are still in circulation, the velocity remains unchanged, and just one extra layer of exchange, done with electrons on very fast computers, is created. There is no change in dollar volume, demand for dollars, or the value of each dollar. The misconception is rooted, i think, in the fact that the dollar is traded on open markets against other currency. But, it is intrinsically valueless. All that matters is the value of the commodity being purchased. Oil will still cost the same amount, no matter the currency. So, one small shift in the root by which those dollars are spent (instead of dollars = oil, it would be dollars = euros = oil) is transparent to the ultimate transaction.
The Professor

[BlueEyedSon]

51. If geniuses like Wolfie, Perle, and Kristol believe it, i'm sure its wrong

PG, you are my hero!

[ProfessorGAC]

53. I Do Hope You Understand

That's not my whole reason. But, it was my reason to model the data and determine the probability of them being correct. Now, i was probably less than totally dispassionate, given my loathing for those "gentlemen". (Sometimes i'm TOO polite.)

But, after examining the evidence, i'm quite sure they're wrong, which is what i'd figured all along. Now, please don't ask me which of those men i loathe the most. That would require a pondering for which i don't have time. There are just so many variables to process!
The Professor

[rustydad]

55. My feeble understanding.....

...is that it is not so much the purchasing in dollars that is critical to the dollar dominance but rather the holding of dollar securities. That holding by nations that save keeps the dollar strong and enables the current account deficits that we run at over 2 billion a day. Absent the worlds need to hold onto dollars the US economy would crash and interest rate would soar. Inflation would return with a vengeance. In fact it is likely that no matter Iran the above scenario is inevitable. Bob

[ProfessorGAC]

58. Read The Part Of One Of My Replies. . .

. . .regarding the use of those dollars. Once again, the type of understanding you admit is on the light side, is the absolute DEPTH of the understanding of the PNAC'ers. While the basis of my argument is scientific, i cannot make it any simpler than to question anybody who wants to agree with idiots like Bill Kristol.
The Professor

[Burning Water]

1. Good question.

I'll have to think about it

[Marie26]

25. It is

Probably the answer is that nothing's that simple. Maybe the bourse is one factor, but Iran's increasing rhetoric is another, as is their attempt to get nuclear power. If it was the bourse alone, you're right, you'd think Europe would support this move.

[lonestarnot]

69. It's another of the culmination of events, one world market, one world

currency, one world domination, wars and rumors of wars leading up to the Armegedon that bushitler is pushing to put into the history books unless we stop him.

[AGENDA21]

2. Interesting question........

[Birthmark]

3. That's a softball question.

If the US economy crashes, the European economy crashes - no matter what the Euro is worth.

[Heewack]

4. That's a bit extreme.

Both economies crash because Iran get's paid in Euro's????

[Birthmark]

7. No not because Iran gets paid in Euros...

...but because the value of the dollar drops, perhaps plummets. That makes imports into the US more expensive - and a good deal of our stuff is imported. That makes demand go down - in an economy that's 2/3rds consumer driven. That results in a recession in the US. That results in a recession in Europe and China. It doesn't matter what the value of the Euro is if there's no demand for your products, although a stronger Euro will almost certainly lead to a drop in demand for European products.

All that said, I'm have no position on whether this is the underlying cause of the obsession with Iran. But the idea can't be dismissed as easily as your initial question would indicate.

[Heewack]

12. I agree to a point, but not the end result

Iran taking payment in Euro's would certainly reduce the number of Euro's in circulation causing the Euro's value to increase short term, but the response to that would be to print more Euro's which would even out the effect.

All I'm saying is that the change to the Euro would be neither distasterous nor beneficial to either the US or Europe. It's a moot issue.

[Birthmark]

16. So demand would have no effect on the dollar's worth?

That's a rather extraordinary position. Tell me more.

[Heewack]

23. I didn't say that.

I said that the EU would print more Euro's to offset the difference and the US would simply print fewer dollars. It would be a net wash. The US economy does to dirive any inherent benefit from being the fiat oil currency.

[Birthmark]

29. If we print fewer dollars...

...what happens to interest rates in the US?

[Heewack]

41. Nothing

It's stays in the current equilibrium if the adjustments are made.

[HereSince1628]

39. actually, as nations build reserves in Euros, they'd quit buyng US T-bills

That would mean the end of floating our debt.

As those T-bills get turned into cash, wouldn't the US would be forced to increase the money supply to make the payments or be faced with default?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

15. The Great Depression didn't just affect the US...

although we aren't taught that in school. There was a ripple effect worldwide. Global economies are even more interlocked now than they were then.

[yurbud]

24. which is why other countries would be unlikely to attack us.

China buys our debt and we buy the crap they make.

Our entanglements with Europe are even deeper.

Everyone else is simply not a military threat.

And stateless terrorists in their wildest dreams would be lucky to pull off a 9/11 level event every couple of years, but even then, the result would be at least as bad as what happened after the actual 9/11--random collective punishment and plunder of an Arab nation.

[Strelnikov_]

35. I Used To Think This, Until I Read 'Guns Of August' And Sir John Keegans

'World War I'.

The economies of Europe were also intertwined, and it was a time of prosperity. The business leaders of Germany were guaranteed, as always, that it would be a short war since a war lasting more than 3 months would bring on economic ruin.

War fever seems to be a creature that trumps all other consideration.

[yurbud]

46. and we've got it--at least the Bushies do

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. They all have interests in the Middle East.

Many Western nations have interests in that area, or are affected by events there. A war the US and/or Israel against Iran is in nobody's best interest.

[savemefromdumbya]

54. Pakistan has the bomb already and an unstable gov.

Iran - so what's missing - 3 guesses

[BigYawn]

65. Big difference between Iran & Pakistan.....

Iran is ruled by mullah's who preach fundy islam.
Pakistan is ruled by a pro-USA dictator. But I shudder
at the thought of Musharraf getting shot, and mullah's
take over Pakistan, since majority of Pakistani's are
fundy islamists.

But my guess is that if mullah's take over PAkistan, CIA
has detailed knowledge of where the nukes are, and they will
be bombed out soon after.

[enigma000]

6. "handful of nukes that would never be a threat to us"

Very blase about the whole nuclear proliferation thing are we? I remember the 1980s with the massive anti-nuclear marches in major cities of the Western World. Many marching for nuclear freeze, some for disarmament, even some for unilateral disarmament. But now, some religious nut-case may get his hands on some nukes and, hey, who cares?

[Birthmark]

8. "Never" is too big a word

But any nukes Iran develops (which are still years away) cannot be a threat to us for quite some time after that. They need a delivery system.

[yurbud]

13. and a reason to deliver and a possibility of surviving counter-attack...

War is like chess, and any world leader is capable of thinking at least two moves ahead.

Nuke us is like sneaking up behind a cop and kicking him in the ass.

Could you do it? Yes.

Could you get away with it? Go try and get back to me.

[yurbud]

10. Do you think a nation would commit suicide? We have 10,000 warheads

While their might be stateless groups of suicide bombers, if Iran or any country gets a few dozen nukes, they know that at best they would get off one or two lucky shots before we wiped them off the map.

They would also know that if they gave nukes to terrorists that use them here, the result would be the same since our oil companies have such a hard on for them.

People sitting on trillions of dollars generally don't commit suicide, which is why Saddam was no threat to us either. If he had what we said, he knew it would have been insane to use it. Even George Tenet was forced to admit this before the war. And as rotten as Saddam was, he asked our permission before attacking Iran AND Kuwait.

Proliferation of weapons is a problem and I don't even like the idea of building more nuclear power plants because of the waste issue alone. I am not for unilateral disarmament or reduction beyond a minimum deterrent level although that could be quite a bit lower than what we have now.


But the solution is not to invade Iran, kill a lot of Iranians, get our troops killed, steal their oil, and set up a puppet government. That creates enemies and actually increases the likelihood that someone will think they have nothing to lose by attacking us.

[Zynx]

56. Iran's nukes aren't a threat to us, period. Too far away.

You can't hit the US from Iran with a serious ICBM, let alone Iranian missiles.

[BigYawn]

66. If Iran attacks Israel with nukes, Israel will surely retaliate with nukes

and that means catastrophic disaster in the middle-east.

[meganmonkey]

11. Europe is concerned about Iran developing nuclear weapons

which, IMO, is a valid concern, although not an urgent one. So in that sense, we are on the same side. Ultimately, the UN should keep an eye on things, although I think sanctions (which in practice punish the citizens for the actions of their gov't) would be a horrible idea.

However, the US (and Israel for that matter) seems to be more intent on a near-future military solution, and promoting this with fearmongering, exaggerating the potential and time frame of Iran's nuclear program. This is a result of Iran's planned oil bourse.

[yurbud]

21. given the likely course of US and Israeli action, it's hard to see long

term advantage for Europe, apart from keeping our economy from collapsing.

[meganmonkey]

27. Exactly. Right now, on the surface,

the world is 'uniting' to deal with the 'Iranian problem'. But as it was with Iraq, I expect to see a sharp split between European diplomacy and the U.S.'s aggressive threats very soon.

[leveymg]

28. Nobody wants Iran to have the bomb, but the EU-3 are only going to

take this as far as threatening some essentially meaningless sanctions on Iran. The Europeans aren't going to cut themselves off from 15-20 percent of their oil.

Neither the US nor Israel can really wipe out Iran's nuclear program through a preemptive strike - there are some 350 targets that would need to be destroyed, and the Iranians could shut down the Straits of Hormuz and cause massive casualties against US troops in Iraq through a combination of chem/bio strikes and a generalized uprising of the Shi'a. That would likely lead to a generalized Middle East War that nobody wins, and everyone loses.

Iran knows this is all a bluff, and by withdrawing its funds in European banks is calling that bluff.

The US is going to have to live smaller in a world with an Iranian Euro oil bourse and, eventually, a nuclear-capable Iran. But, we've survived worse - the threat of global annihilation during the Cold War, for instance.

The titular heads of the US and Iran are clearly incompetent to make any sort of decision with these consequences, so both will likely be removed before they can ratchet up tensions too much further. The third leg of the stool is already gone.

[meganmonkey]

30. I hope you are right, that it is all a bluff

but I don't trust Bushco on that. At all. A similar analysis of the situation in Iraq in Fall of 2002 or so could have indicated a 'bluff' too, and look what happened there.

I am really worried that we are, at the very least, support Israel in airstrikes against Iran, or at most bomb the crap out Iran ourselves and 'redeploy' our troops there.

:scared:

[leveymg]

37. Iraq displayed our real weakness: we can't win through airpower

All the Iranians have to do is wait us out. If we bomb, they'll retaliate in ways that are unacceptably costly to us and anyone who helps us. If we are stupid enough to invade, the Iranians will conduct guerrilla warfare, and we'll soon be forced by economic and political considerations to withdraw. Then, they'll just go back and redouble their efforts to build a bomb -- they have plenty of uranium ore -- and they would feel well-justified in using it against us, some day, not too many years from now.

What's going on now is theater -- chiller theater.

[yurbud]

47. that is the trump card Iran has if we attack, they could saboutage

oil wells, which would hurt other economies, but help oil companies by driving up prices in the short term.

[dysfunctional press]

14. and if it's the Bourse, of course- then why is Iran going nuclear NOW?

why would Iran be pushing so hard on the nuclear(energy) front, knowing that it could very likely result in U.S. aggression, or more likely- sanctions, at least to start...and either case would certainly put a crimp in the Bourse activity/opening.

If Iran with it's euroBourse is holding the keys to the demise of the petroDollar and with it our economy- why would they jeopardize it all by breaking the U.N. seals and such at this...juncture? it seems extremely counter-productive.

[Heewack]

18. I would agree.

A collision course of ideas that are mutually destructive.

[dysfunctional press]

33. it all seems like part of a bizarre script...

that's already been written...

and the curtain's about to go up-

stay tunned...

[meganmonkey]

19. Look what happened to Iraq when Saddam switched to the Euro

Of course Iran is going to assert itself now.

Wouldn't you?

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

31. um....No.

Iran isn't going to have nukes of it's own in time to stop whatever it is that's going to happen.
and except for the whole nuke thing- Iran isn't nearly as universally despised as saddaam hussein was.

If Iran wanted to "assert" itself NOW- it would be able to assert itself MUCH harder against the U.S. with the Bourse than with a fledgling nuclear program.

and by choosing now to play with the uranium, rather than 6 months to a year down the road- they very much risk losing out on BOTH the Bourse and The Bomb.

something tells me that china is a lot more than knee-deep in all of this drama too, and that things could get very interesting very quickly...on a global scale.

[meganmonkey]

36. It seems to me

that it isn't about actually having a nuclear bomb that they can use immediately, it is about asserting itself as a sovereign nation that can make its own decisions, such as developing nuclear technology for energy or weapons. A sovereign nation that can trade its oil and invest its money any way it wants.

It is posturing. Which is something that Bush has made us very familiar with.

[dysfunctional press]

38. but it's a stupid time for that kind of posturing-

they need to take a page from teddy roosevelt's book- "speak softly, and carry a big Bourse..." or something like that.

by posturing with nukes(even tho' they don't even have them), Iran loses the support of the rest of the U.S.-hating western world.

it just puzzles me why they would choose now, and makes me think that there's something more to it.

[Poll_Blind]

57. Iran's biggest friends are the Russians and the Chinese. By...

...posturing, Iran is taunting the thinly-stretched army of a fast-fading superpower. Should that superpower or its ally Israel attack it, it will give justification for cutting off the oil sales to those and possibly other countries. Oil is a resource which China and the Russians need control of more than we do. If the Iranians are selling exclusively or almost-exclusively to the Russians and Chinese then A) The Russians and the Chinese get the oil they want and also know that the stock they are drawing from will not be as quickly sold to competitive nations and B) the Iranians, for their end of the deal, will continue to receive or possibly receive at an accelerated rate* weapons and technology from those two countries.


* I beleive that it would not be a stretch to assume that Russia and China have made it clear that if they (Iran) can cut the U.S. out of line at the oil trough that they will make sure Iran not only does not lose on the deal economically but gains extra advantages from it by way of Russia/China.

PB

[Dover]

63. Some further thoughts.....what ifs.....

Mike Whitney: 'How Iran's oil exchange threatens the greenback'
Monday, January 23 @ 10:23:07 EST

The Bush administration will never allow the Iranian government to open an oil exchange (bourse) that trades petroleum in euros. If that were to happen, hundreds of billions of dollars would come flooding back to the United States crushing the greenback and destroying the economy. This is why Bush and Co. are planning to lead the nation to war against Iran. It is straightforward defense of the current global economic-system and the continuing dominance of the reserve currency, the dollar.

The claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a mere pretext for war. The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) predicts that Iran will not be able to produce nukes for perhaps a decade. So too, IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has said repeatedly that his watchdog agency has found "no evidence" of a nuclear weapons program.

There are no nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs, but Iran's economic plans do pose an existential threat to America, and not one that can be simply brushed aside as the unavoidable workings of the free market.

America monopolizes the oil trade. Oil is denominated in dollars and sold on either the NYMEX or London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), both owned by Americans. This forces the central banks around the world to maintain huge stockpiles of dollars even though the greenback is currently underwritten by $8 trillion of debt and even though the Bush administration has said that it will perpetuate the deficit-producing tax cuts.

America's currency monopoly is the perfect pyramid-scheme. As long as nations are forced to buy oil in dollars, the United States can continue its profligate spending with impunity. (The dollar now accounts for 68% of global currency reserves up from 51% just a decade ago) The only threat to this strategy is the prospect of competition from an independent oil exchange; forcing the faltering dollar to go nose-to-nose with a more stable (debt-free) currency such as the euro. That would compel central banks to diversify their holdings, sending billions of dollars back to America and ensuring a devastating cycle of hyper-inflation...cont'd

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=24530&mode=nested&order=0

_______________________________


...The following is pure educated speculation: What if Iran goes through with its threat to sell oil for Euros instead of U.S. Dollars? Well, then Dollars won't help you much if you want to buy oil from Iran. So, you sell the Dollars you are holding for Euros. Whenever anything is sold en masse, its value drops. This means less demand for Dollars, which means the Fed will not be able to print excessive amounts of Dollars without further driving down the Dollar's value. There would simply be too much supply. Right now, the Fed can print all the Dollars they want because the demand for Dollars has been on the rise, especially as the cost of oil has risen. In other words, lately it has taken more Dollars to buy oil, so the demand for Dollars has been up. Again, this extra demand has allowed the Fed to print all it feels like with little consequent damage to the Dollar.

However, if the Dollar were to tank - and the Iran oil Bourse should push the Dollar in that direction - it puts pressure on Treasury Bonds and other U.S. financial assets to fall as well, since they are denominated in a declining-value currency. In this event, the Fed would have to step up its buying of U.S. financial assets to lend support to these asset prices - to stabilize U.S. markets. In other words, the Fed would have to monetize the U.S. Treasury's debt, and also monetize equity markets (be the buyer that keeps prices from falling). This would take so much fresh money that the Fed would need to create it in secret. Thus, they would have to announce that they are no longer going to transparently reveal the level of the money supply, but will hide it. The alternative is to punish Iran for - and make no mistake about this - effectively declaring economic war against the United States

Cont'd

http://www.safehaven.com/article-4403.htm


______


What's the Fed Up To With the Money Supply?
by Robert McHugh

Over the past two days, December 21st - when our first Hindenburg Omen (of whatever cluster is coming) - and Thursday December 22nd, the Federal Reserve has conducted one of the largest two-day Repo injections of money into the system since back in September 2001. On Wednesday they added $18.0 billion in reserves and on Thursday they added another $20.0 billion. Is this a coincidence, coming right as we get another Hindenburg Omen? Probably not. Is something high-risk going on behind the scenes here? Let's review some facts at the Fed. On November 10th, 2005, shortly after appointing Bernanke to replace Greenbackspan, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide M-3 effective March 2006.

M-3 has been the main staple of money supply measurement and transparent disclosure since the Fed was founded back in 1913. It is the key monetary aggregate that includes Fed Repo transactions, that mechanism whereby the Fed increases reserves. The date when M-3 will start being hidden also happens to be the exact month that Iran will declare economic war against the U.S. Dollar by trading its oil in Petro-Euros on its new bourse. But there is more. The Federal Reserve currently has three vacancies within the 19 top Regional Bank and Board of Governor spots. Why? Part of ongoing wholesale resignations.

The latest is from the Philly Fed. Fed President and Open Market Committee member Anthony Santomero has announced his resignation after only a brief year and a half tenure. Very unusual. Hey, Fed Presidents are treated like gods. They have enormous power, prestige, and presence. Why quit? He is far from alone. Over the past few years no less than six Federal Reserve Regional Bank Presidents have resigned. This is highly unusual.

An immediate impact is that we are about to have a largely inexperienced batch of individuals conducting monetary policy in the United States. So of course, the first thing they will do is hide the key money figures. Two positions for the Board of Governors (there are 7)have been open for quite a while. Plus six of the 12 Regional Head spots have turned over during the past few years.

If a substantial amount of oil transactions will suddenly be conducted in Euros instead of Dollars, this should put pressure on the Dollar as folks exchange Dollars for Euros, jeopardizing the Dollar's status as the world's reserve currency, making it more difficult to print all the dollars the Fed wants to without driving the Dollar into the ground. Iraq threatened to do what Iran has threatened to do just before we went in looking for weapons of mass disappearance. If the Dollar tanks, Treasuries might not be far behind. If Treasuries tank, kiss the Housing-driven boom goodbye. Could the Master Planners be hiding M-3 because they anticipate they may have to monetize the Federal debt, buy our own Treasury Bonds during the coming economic attack against the Dollar? That would require a ton of new fresh money creation - too much to disclose. Could it be some folks at the top of the Fed do not have the stomach to be part of what is about to go down?...cont'd

http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=4331&pv=1

[okieinpain]

64. and it that happens, they will also instantly become the big bad

ass in the middle east. usa or no usa, everybody including the Israelis will have to deal with them.

[LunaC]

67. "something more " - Maybe this?

Dueling Armageddon’s - Waiting for the rapture in Iran

Two crazed religious fundamentalist leaders who believe in their own version of “democracy” and the Second Coming are pushing their own agendas behind the scenes. Let’s hope that calmer, wiser minds prevail and their twisted dreams don’t come true……


For those who believe, the devotion is real. Tears stream down the cheeks of 2,000 men ripe for the return of the Mahdi, the 12th Imam they expect will soon emerge to bring justice and peace to a corrupt world.

-snip-

As at a Christian revivalist meeting that promises healing and redemption, many weep as they pray for the Shiite Muslim version of the second coming of the Messiah.

-snip-

"Bush said: 'God said to me, attack Afghanistan and attack Iraq.' The mentality of Mr. Bush and (President) Ahmadinejad is the same here - both think God tells them what to do," says Mr. Mohebian, noting that end-of-time beliefs have similar roots in Christian and Muslim theology.

"If you think these are the last days of the world, and Jesus will come , this idea will change all your relations," says Mohebian. "If I think the Mahdi will come in two, three, or four years, why should I be soft? Now is the time to stand strong, to be hard." That mind-set also hearkens back to the missionary ambition of the newly forged Islamic Republic. "What Ahmadinejad believes is that we have to create a model state based on ... Islamic democracy - to be given to the world," says Hamidreza Taraghi, head of the conservative Islamic Coalition Society. "The ... government accepts this role for themselves."

Any possibility of détente with the US may also be in jeopardy, if the US-Iran conflict is cast in Mahdaviat terms. That view holds that the US - with quasireligious declarations of transforming the Middle East with democracy and justice, deploying military forces across the region, and developing a new generation of nuclear weapons - is arrogantly trying to assume the role of Mahdi.

More………

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1221/p01s04-wome.html

[yurbud]

20. my guess is they would like nukes for the same reason all countries want

them--absolute invasion insurance.

No one will invade a country with nukes, or at least it hasn't happened yet.

[dysfunctional press]

22. they can't wait 6 months...?

besides- israel/U.S WON'T let them get there- which is still a ways off in the distance...remember what happened to Saddaam's reactor?

[WCGreen]

32. One interesting Fail Safe is the Russian and Columbian and

Afghani and all the other "underworld" organizations across the globe...

How you say?

They deal in dollars, always have...

Probably as much, if not more money flows around the world via the legally defined illicit trades...

And the Chinese currency is tied to the Dollar....


So even if all OPEC countries suddenly switch to the Euro, an unlikely event given Saudi and Kuwaiti and Iraqi ties to the greenback, the effect on the dollar would be minimiumized...

[leveymg]

42. Good point

I agree that the opening of the Bourse won't necessarily be as cataclysmic as some are making it out to be. The Euro has been around for more than a decade, and the Dollar hasn't and likely won't be altogether abandoned or collapse unless we do something REALLY stupid, like go to war with Iran.

Only a real enemy of the United States would actually push the country into that sort of disastrous outcome. Some in this Administration have not been acting in the interests of the US. The Scooter Libby and Larry Franklin-OSP-AIPAC-Abramoff prosecutions are only the beginning. There are contingencies in play for dealing with the problem of a conspiracy to illegitimately escalate an international crisis into another unwinnable war.

[yurbud]

48. good point--the drug dealers and mafia will save us

[leveymg]

49. I didn't say that.

I said the Dollar will probably remain the global reserve currency of choice unless we do something truly stupid that drastically devalues it relative to other currencies, like preemptively attack Iran.

[WCGreen]

61. They won't save us....

But because all their investments, notoriously short term, are in green backs, the dollar will remain the international currency for some time....

[yurbud]

62. I meant it ironically

[FloridaPat]

43. No one wants a disruption in the oil supply. They could be paying

double if the oil supply tightens. We would be paying 4 times as much.

[leveymg]

52. If we attack, there would be multiple forces pushing the Dollar down:

1) A spike in energy prices
2) A further deterioriation in the U.S. balance of payments
3) Safeharbouring in competing currencies and precious metals
4) Another drop in US equities values
5) Rising bond prices, and public debt
6) A selloff of dollar-denominated assets

[stevietheman]

59. But Europe *isn't* backing our military posturing.

What they're doing is pushing forward on the diplomatic efforts. Like with Iraq, they do not want war. And as of today, war is wholly unjustified, as Iran is many years away from having a bomb.

Further, re: the oil bourse, of course it won't destroy the U.S. economy, but instead would trigger a timely U.S. recession that, in turn, would very much hurt the Republican Party in November. And this would cause long-term damage to the aims of PNAC. On top of that, consider how high the price of oil will go with Iran unable to export its oil. Bush's oil industry buddies will *really* like that scenario.

Therefore, for its own political survival, PNAC will push for Iran to be attacked. And Bush has his own reasons: help to his favored oil industry and paving the way to Republicans maintaining control of Congress, so more of his regressive legislation can be passed.

[Odin2005]

60. The Euros are afraid of Russian and Chinese influence in Iran.

That and the fact that a fall in the drop of the dollar is not good for Europe either. The Neocons are basicaly taking Europe along for the ride because the US's economic tentacles are everywhere.

[Stockholm]

68. Please stop viewing Europe as a single country

There are as many reasons as there are countries.