United States Foreign Exchange Reserves | 1957-2020 Data

The Petrodollar Is The Root of All Evil

So here is the core element of what I believe, drives US foreign policy (Wars/Conflicts/Sanctions) and also domestic policy. I tried to trim my draft down so it's not a TLDR, but not leave out any critical information or citations/sources. This is pulled directly from this brief article: Petrodollar
"KEY TAKEAWAYS
This list of facts should make clear just how dependent US currency is on the global oil economy. Which brings us to something called The Triffin Dilemma .
"By "agreeing" to have its currency used as a reserve currency, a country pins its hands behind its back.
In order to keep the global economy chugging along, it may have to inject large amounts of currency into circulation, driving up inflation at home. The more popular the reserve currency is relative to other currencies, the higher its exchange rate and the less competitive domestic exporting industries become. This causes a trade deficit for the currency-issuing country, but makes the world happy. If the reserve currency country instead decides to focus on domestic monetary policy by not issuing more currency then the world is unhappy."
"Reserve Currency ParadoxBecoming a reserve currency presents countries with a paradox. They want the "interest-free" loan generated by selling currency to foreign governments, and the ability to raise capital quickly, because of high demand for reserve currency-denominated bonds. At the same time they want to be able to use capital and monetary policy to ensure that domestic industries are competitive in the world market, and to make sure that the domestic economy is healthy and not running large trade deficits.
Unfortunately, both of these ideas – cheap sources of capital and positive trade balances – can't really happen at the same time."
Obviously, the US and global economy is a complex system with many moving parts but I think, just this small amount of information begins to clarify the bigger picture. It seems as though most people have accepted the idea that we have engaged in bad faith wars in the name of stealing oil, which is true on some level, but we are not actually trying to seize the oil, we are trying to force the entire world to participate in OUR oil economy in a way that benefits us the most.
Which leads me to the final part of this post. The Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) is a collection of approximately 120 nations that have joined together, starting back during the cold war, in an effort to remain independent and not be pressured in to choosing sides between the US and Russia. Many of these countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and most recently, Venezuela and Syria, have either dropped the petrodollar or made efforts to trade in other currencies. If this list looks familiar, it's because we have invaded, occupied and/or attempted regime change backed by MSM reporting of human rights violations or threat of nuclear proliferation. Obviously, we have pretty solid evidence that most of these claims were completely false.
One of the main focuses of NAM these days, has been to conduct trade and handle the oil on their land, any way they see fit and they have been mounting a pretty strong coalition in response to the insanely harsh sanctions that we have tried to levy. Article About NAM and US Sanctions . This is essentially economic terrorism and unfortunately, most people, including myself, are not quite able to grasp just how de-stabilizing these sanctions are but it is slowly becoming clear to the public that we have been carrying out this policy of global dominance for decades.
The Trump WH and John Bolton just happen to be much more open about their motives: In January, White House National Security Advisor John Bolton issued a veiled threat on Twitter: My advice to bankers, brokers, traders, facilitators, and other businesses: don’t deal in gold, oil, or other Venezuelan commodities being stolen from the Venezuelan people by the Maduro mafia. We stand ready to continue to take action.
On his Twitter account, Trump insisted, “We have only one real currency in the USA, and it is stronger than ever, both dependable and reliable. It is by far the most dominant currency anywhere in the World, and it will always stay that way. It is called the United States Dollar!”
I realize that this may not be the most exciting topic, considering the kind of news we have been peppered with recently, but I think it is important for people to consider. It seems pretty clear that almost all of our military operations around the world have everything to do with giant oil companies, defense contractors and the petrodollar and have nothing to do with spreading democracy or freeing civilians from oppressive regimes. Our allegiance with Saudi Arabia makes a lot more sense and our insane obsession on Russia also starts to take focus. Russia is also a member of NAM and is basically the biggest country that has chosen to defy the US. And since we can't push them around like a weaker country, we rely on a constant fear-mongering campaign by our media outlets.
Following the NAM summit, Venezuelan Economy Minister Tareck El Aissami announced his country’s establishment of a payment system to meet obligations to Russia that will be covered with rubles. The developments have sent the US establishment into a frenzy.
Still working on part 2, but hope some people will find this informative....
submitted by rustcole01 to WayOfTheBern [link] [comments]

How Hong Kong Protests are Portrayed By Different News Media Worldwide • Fake News vs. Real News •

How Hong Kong Protests are Portrayed By Different News Media Worldwide • Fake News vs. Real News •
This Russian government's state funded "news network" RT News is so comical to me, they would love to convince the whole world that the US has become a declining power, the US dollar is not the world's number one reserve currency, that the Chinese Yuan is and that all next generation high-tech in this planet is now being indigenously innovated in China.
https://i.redd.it/typ9ikw5wat31.jpg
It seems laughable to me watching RT news coverage of the Hong Kong demonstrations making real hard efforts to protrait the pro-democracy movement as being demonstrations of people "experiencing economic hardship" confusing democracy with "economic prosperity" whilst at the same time accusing the demonstrators of being manipulated and funded by Western intelligence services including the CIA.
I told myself "well which one is it? Are they confused demonstrators experiencing economic hardship or manipulated puppets of the West?" LOL!
At the end I just said to myself what an insult to the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrators. Portraying them of not being intelligent enough to organize themselves and accusing them of not knowing their own cause.
China's CGTN in the other hand while just as bad if not worse than RT, does a lot better job at spreading propaganda. Perhaps because they are much better funded. Doing it a lot more tactfully and assertively.
Their efforts being more concentrated at projecting China as a highly-developed Nation under the rule of law, and a "responsible world leader", minimizing if not censoring the impact the trade war with the US has had on their economy. With it's market widely open to foreign investment where IP protection takes the highest priority.
Covering the situation in Hong Kong more or less as a "city under siege of rioters and vandalism".
Even going as far as calling Xin Jiang China a "prosperous paradise for Uighur Muslims". And you can forget any mentioning of "re-education camps". Even devoting entire segments to "China's human rights developments".
It's extraordinarily unbelievable the claims networks like RT news and CGTN from China make and how far they're willing to go to misinform their domestic population and now International audiences through their multilingual news branches which most governments where they operate consider them "Kremlin and Beijing propaganda outlets" rather than legitimate and credible news networks.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2174927/uk-watchdog-may-probe-china-state-medias-role-confession-peter
If such claims were true, 90% of all foreign business transactions worldwide would not be conducted in US dollars.
And that is just one statistic. 61% of all world foreign currency reserves are in dollars. According to the international monetary fund.
Eclipsing the next 4 other currencies put together with the Euro at 20%, the Japanese Yen at over 5% the British pound at just under 5% with the Chinese Yuan last under 2%.
The Chinese Yuan has not replaced the USD and won't be replacing it anytime soon:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex-currencies/091416/what-would-it-take-us-dollar-collapse.asp
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/why-us-dollar-will-remain-strong/
https://www.thebalance.com/world-currency-3305931
China has made great progress modernizing itself and deserves credit for it. With new high-tech hub cities like Shenzhen attempting to rival Silicon Valley.
Keyword "attempting to". In addition to Shenzhen, Tel Aviv Israel, Tallinn Estonia, Melbourne Australia and Toronto Canada are also considered cities rivaling Silicon Valley:
https://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/top-5-tech-hubs-to-rival-silicon-valley
But that isn't the important story. 90 - 95% of all the high-tech in China has been imported from abroad, rebranded and falsely claimed to have been innovated indigenously. In other words "invented in China". Through various means raging from forced tech transfers, intellectual property and Trade secrets theft by either cyber attacks on foreign competitor's databases, corporate spying and bribery.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/from-bounty-payments-to-espionage-u-s-alleges-chinese-ip-theft
The list of companies whose intellectual property and trade secrets were stolen is so vast it couldn't be compiled in this article alone. But here are some important ones:
AMSC - Wind Turbine technology
Westinghouse - Nuclear technology
Solar World - Solar panel technology
Kawasaki Heavy Industries - High-Speed rail technology
US Steel - Steel Technology
Alcoa - Aluminium Technology
Micron - Semiconductor Technology
T-Mobile, Motorola, Cisco Systems and Nortel Networks - Wireless and Telecommunications Technology
Sources:
https://youtu.be/AzZlymlpPmU
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-unreal-scope-of-chinas-intellectual-property-theft/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huaweis-yearslong-rise-is-littered-with-accusations-of-theft-and-dubious-ethics-11558756858
It's for these masterful intelligence operations expanding 2-3 decades, that I give China most credit for.
As to whether American is a declining power or not depends on how a state's power is measured but most importantly how it's perceived, individually and collectively by other nations.
What you personally believe, What region of the world you're in, which language you speak and what sources of information you have access to is actually more important than any public survey taken or any official state statistic or international ranking.
But a most recent survey conducted by 2019 Best countries and multiple other organizations surveyed 20,000 individuals from 4 different regions around the world. And when asked to name the most powerful countries in the world taking into consideration military, political and economic influence the US came in first followed by Russia with China surprisingly in 3rd place.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-powerful-countries/
To summarize, in this modern day in age of false news, state propaganda and politically biased misinformation campaigns the most important thing is to no longer depend on a single source of information but multiple sources of information.
During my research I've compiled a list of reliable international news sources with at least an "attempt to report the news with limited bias" and report verified news with some degree of neutrality.
My most reliable news and information sources list is:
1 DW News (Germany)
2 PBS (U.S.)
3 Al Jazeera (Qatar)
4 BBC News (UK)
5 France 24 (France)
6 Wikipedia (US) in 285 languages.
Additionally here is a list of most unreliable, bias and heavily censored state funded international news organizations fiercely criticized for attempting to further domestic political propaganda abroad:
1 RT News (Russia)
2 CGTN (China)
3 CCTV (China)
4 TRT News (Turkey)
5 HispanTV / IRIB (Iran)
Finally, the following is a list I felt also needed to be compiled as it merits mentioning. News organizations that despite being politically biased, do report real news and events although be it spined to fit their narrative. But also exclude important and relevant news topics and/or allocate limited coverage to further their in-house political agendas:
1 TRT News (Turkey)
2 CNN News (US Far-left)
3 Fox News (US Far-right)
4 MSNBC News (US Far-Left)
5 Sky News Australia (Far-right)
For more information I recommend visiting the following websites:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trt-world/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/
By Allan Rios
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel and get updates on articles and original content videos: https://www.youtube.com/usededoshucos
UPDATE OCT 19, 2019
Here is an extraordinary piece from DW news debunking Hong Kong fake social media posts: https://youtu.be/9AB32zU_EW8
This is one of the reasons why I chose to place DW news at the top of my list. After watching this piece, Notice how besides exposing the chinese communist government's misinformation campaign it also exposes Twitter and Facebook as co-conspirators facilitating the spread of fake news propaganda in it's platforms. "Accepting money from the CCP".
Reporting news with a high degree of objectivity, covering this report from multiple sides, not just telling one side of the story.
submitted by Dedoshucos to HongKong [link] [comments]

A Comprehensive Guide to Fake News & Real News Agencies • RT • CGTN • FOX • CNN • DW News • BBC

This Russian government's state funded "news network" RT News is so comical to me, they would love to convince the whole world that the US has become a declining power, the US dollar is not the world's number one reserve currency, that the Chinese Yuan is and that all next generation high-tech in this planet is now being indigenously innovated in China.
https://i.redd.it/typ9ikw5wat31.jpg
It seems laughable to me watching RT news coverage of the Hong Kong demonstrations making real hard efforts to protrait the pro-democracy movement as being demonstrations of people "experiencing economic hardship" confusing democracy with "economic prosperity" whilst at the same time accusing the demonstrators of being manipulated and funded by Western intelligent services including the CIA.
I told myself "well which one is it? Are they confused demonstrators experiencing economic hardship or manipulated puppets of the West?" LOL!
At the end I just said to myself what an insult to the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrators. Portraying them of not being intelligent enough to organize themselves and accusing them of not knowing their own cause.
China's CGTN in the other hand while just as bad if not worse than RT, does a lot better job at spreading propaganda. Perhaps because they are much better funded. Doing it a lot more tactfully and assertively.
Their efforts being more concentrated at projecting China as a highly-developed Nation under the rule of law, and a "responsible world leader", minimizing if not censoring the impact the trade war with the US has had on their economy. With it's market widely open to foreign investment where IP property protection takes highest priority.
Covering the situation in Hong Kong more or less as a "city under siege of rioters and vandalism".
Even going as far as calling Xin Jiang China a "prosperous paradise for Uighur Muslims". And you can forget any mentioning of "re-education camps". Even devoting entire segments to "China's human rights developments".
It's extraordinarily unbelievable the claims networks like RT news and CGTN from China make and how far they're willing to go to misinform their domestic population and now International audiences through their multilingual news branches wich most governments where they operate consider them "Kremlin and Beijing propaganda outlets" rather than legitimate and credible news networks.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2174927/uk-watchdog-may-probe-china-state-medias-role-confession-peter
If such claims were true, 90% of all foreign business transactions worldwide would not be conducted in US dollars.
And that is just one statistic. 61% of all world foreign currency reserves are in dollars. According to the international monetary fund.
Eclipsing the next 4 other currencies put together with the Euro at 20%, the Japanese Yen at over 5% the British pound at just under 5% with the Chinese Yuan last under 2%.
The Chinese Yuan has not replaced the USD and won't be replacing it anytime soon:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex-currencies/091416/what-would-it-take-us-dollar-collapse.asp
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/why-us-dollar-will-remain-strong/
https://www.thebalance.com/world-currency-3305931
China has made great progress modernizing itself and deserves credit for it. With new high-tech hub cities like Shenzhen attempting to rival Silicon Valley.
Keyword "attempting to". In addition to Shenzhen, Tel Aviv Israel, Tallinn Estonia, Melbourne Australia and Toronto Canada are also considered cities rivaling Silicon Valley:
https://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/top-5-tech-hubs-to-rival-silicon-valley
But that isn't the important story. 90 - 95% of all the high-tech in China has been imported from abroad, rebranded and falsely claimed to have been innovated indigenously. In other words "invented in China". Through various means raging from forced tech transfers, intellectual property and Trade secrets theft by either cyber attacks on foreign competitor's databases, corporate spying and bribery.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/from-bounty-payments-to-espionage-u-s-alleges-chinese-ip-theft
The list of companies whose intellectual property and trade secrets were stolen is so vast it couldn't be compiled in this article alone. But here are some important ones:
AMSC - Wind Turbine technology
Westinghouse - Nuclear technology
Solar World - Solar panel technology
Kawasaki Heavy Industries - High-Speed rail technology
US Steel - Steel Technology
Alcoa - Aluminium Technology
Micron - Semiconductor Technology
T-Mobile, Motorola, Cisco Systems and Nortel Networks - Wireless and Telecommunications Technology
Sources:
https://youtu.be/AzZlymlpPmU
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-unreal-scope-of-chinas-intellectual-property-theft/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huaweis-yearslong-rise-is-littered-with-accusations-of-theft-and-dubious-ethics-11558756858
It's for these masterful intelligence operations expanding 2-3 decades, that I give China most credit for.
As to whether American is a declining power or not depends on how a state's power is measured but most importantly how it's perceived, individually and collectively by other nations.
What you personally believe, What region of the world you're in, which language you speak and what sources of information you have access to is actually more important than any public survey taken or any official state statistic or international ranking.
But a most recent survey conducted by 2019 Best countries and multiple other organizations surveyed 20,000 individuals from 4 different regions around the world. And when asked to name the most powerful countries in the world taking into consideration military, political and economic influence the US came in first followed by Russia with China surprisingly in 3rd place.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-powerful-countries/
To summarize, in this modern day in age of false news, state propaganda and politically biased misinformation campaigns the most important thing is to no longer depend on a single source of information but multiple sources of information.
During my research I've compiled a list of reliable international news sources with at least an "attempt to report the news with limited bias" and report verified news with some degree of neutrality.
My most reliable news and information sources list is:
1 DW News (Germany)
2 PBS (U.S.)
3 Al Jazeera (Qatar)
4 BBC News (UK)
5 France 24 (France)
6 Wikipedia (US) in 285 languages.
Additionally here is a list of most unreliable, bias and heavily censored state funded international news organizations fiercely criticized for attempting to further domestic political propaganda abroad:
1 RT News (Russia)
2 CGTN (China)
3 CCTV (China)
4 TRT News (Turkey)
5 HispanTV / IRIB (Iran)
Finally, the following is a list I felt also needed to be compiled as it merits mentioning. News organizations that despite being politically biased, do report real news and events although be it spined to fit their narrative. But also exclude important and relevant news topics and/or allocate limited coverage to further their in-house political agendas:
1 TRT News (Turkey)
2 CNN News (US Far-left)
3 Fox News (US Far-right)
4 MSNBC News (US Far-Left)
5 Sky News Australia (Far-right)
For more information I recommend visiting the following websites:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trt-world/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/
By Allan Rios
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel and get updates on articles and original content videos: https://www.youtube.com/usededoshucos
UPDATE OCT 19, 2019
Here is an extraordinary piece from DW news debunking Hong Kong fake social media posts: https://youtu.be/9AB32zU_EW8
This is one of the reasons why I chose to place DW news at the top of my list. After watching this piece, Notice how besides exposing the chinese communist government's misinformation campaign it also exposes Twitter and Facebook as co-conspirators facilitating the spread of fake news propaganda in it's platforms. "Accepting money from the CCP".
Reporting news with a high degree of objectivity, covering this report from multiple sides, not just telling one side of the story.
Rick Sanchez and Michele reenstein RT News at the top of my list for reporting fake news
submitted by Dedoshucos to China [link] [comments]

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the LARGEST in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels.
While ignoring (and even supporting) the atrocities of authoritarian regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Uzbekistan, US oligarchs have targeted Venezuela for “regime-change” in the name of “democracy”.
Currently, the US is engaging in economic warfare against Venezuela to foment a coup and remove its democratically elected president Nicolás Maduro.
Without providing solid evidence, our corporate-controlled government and mainstream media portray Maduro as a corrupt, repressive, and illegitimate leader with little to no support.

Ask yourself:

Do I ever see officials from the Venezuelan government appear in corporate news shows to tell THEIR side of the story?
What people DO get to comment on Venezuela and what are their credentials and agenda? Are these people essentially public relations agents for the US-orchestrated coup?
Does corporate news provide me with historical background of US imperialism in Venezuela to put these current events in context?

What Corporate-Controlled Media will NOT Tell You

The CIA was involved in the failed coup against Venezuela's popular leader Hugo Chavez in 2002.
Venezuela is not a strictly socialist country; it has a “mixed” economy - not unlike Norway or other Scandinavian countries.
Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY - unlike US-allies Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
In 2012, Jimmy Carter went on record saying:
“As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”
The opposition to Maduro knew they were going to lose the last election and so boycotted it in attempt to delegitimize the results.
The US actually tried to dissuade Maduro’s opponents from running!
Maduro invited international observers into the country in 2018 to monitor the last election but the opposition asked the UN not to send observers!
More than 80% of the Venezuelan population had not even HEARD of Juan Guaidó before Trump and the US state proclaimed him the “rightful” president.
Maduro’s approval ratings within his country are on par with opposition-controlled National Assembly. According to an October poll by opposition-aligned pollster Datanalisis, Venezuela's National Assembly, of which Juan Guaidó is president, has a disapproval rating of 70%.
Venezuela WANTS to sell its oil to the US – the US is their largest market and refines a majority of their oil.
US companies Chevron Corp, Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International all have operations in Venezuela, and are allowed to continue to engage in transactions and activities with PDVSA and its joint ventures through July 27.
“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.” Organization of American States Charter

Why is the US Corporatocracy so Keen to Remove Maduro?

While Venezuela’s economy is not a strictly-state-run economy, its oil industry is nationalized and uses its revenues for the benefit of its citizens (especially the poor).
After years of crippling US sanctions Maduro stepped over a crucial line in October when his government announced that Venezuela was abandoning the US dollar and would be make all future transactions on the Venezuelan exchange market in euro.
Saddam Hussein also went off the dollar in favor of the euro in 2003 – we started dropping bombs on him the next month.
A similar decision by the Gadhafi government in Libya (2011) was quickly followed by a devastating US-orchestrated conflict - culminating in Gadhafi's capture by radical Islamists who sodomized him with a bayonet before killing him. Since then, Libya has gone from Africa's wealthiest country to a truly failed-state complete with a slave trade! To make matters worse, after the collapse of the Libyan government, its military arms were smuggled out of that country and into the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria - enabling US-orchestrated chaos in those countries.

Who cares what currency a country uses to trade petroleum?

Answer: US oligarchy

The US dollar is central to US world economic domination.
Like all other modern currencies, it is a fiat currency – backed by no real assets to prop up its value.
In lieu of a “gold standard” we know operate on a de-facto “oil-standard”:
"After the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold standard in the early 1970s, the United States struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to standardize oil prices in dollar terms. Through this deal, the petrodollar system was born, along with a paradigm shift away from pegged exchanged rates and gold-backed currencies to non-backed, floating rate regimes.
The petrodollar system elevated the U.S. dollar to the world's reserve currency and, through this status, the United States enjoys persistent trade deficits and is a global economic hegemony." Investopedia
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence. Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.” Anthony Wile

US Foreign Policy is about Oligarchy Not Democracy

Since World War II, the US has attempted to over-throw the 52 foreign governments. Aside from a handful of exceptions (China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.), the US has been successful in the vast majority of these attempts.
US foreign policy is not about democracy – it is about exploiting the world’s resources in the interests of a small, ultra-wealthy global elite.
This exploitation benefits a small percentage of people at the top of the economic pyramid while the costs are born by those at the bottom.

US CIA Coup Playbook:

How to Plunder Resources from Foreign Countries While Pretending to Support Democracy
  1. Find a country with resources you want.
  2. Send in an “Economic Hitman” to offer bribes the country’s leader in the form of personally lucrative business deals. If he accepts the deal, the leader will amass a personal fortune in exchange for "privatizing” the resources you wish to extract.
If the leader will not accept your bribes, begin the regime-change process.
3) Engage in economic warfare by imposing crippling sanctions on the country and blame the ensuing shortages on the leader’s “socialist” policies.
4) Work with right-wing allies inside country to fund and organize an “astroturf” opposition group behind a corporate-friendly puppet.
5) Hire thugs inside country to incite unrest and violence against the government in coordination with your opposition group. Use corporate media to publicize the orchestrated outbursts as popular outrage and paint a picture of a “failed state” mired in corruption and chaos.
6) When the government arrests your thugs, decry the response as the brutal repression. Use corporate-owned media to demonize the target government as a despotic regime while praising your puppet opposition as champions of democracy.
7) Work with right-wing military leaders to organize the overthrow the government (offer them the same business deals the current leader refused).
8) If a military-led coup cannot be organized, create a mercenary army to carry out acts of terrorism against the government and its supporters. Portray the mercenaries as “freedom fighters” and their acts of terrorism as a “civil war”.
9) If the target government has popular and military support and is too well-defended for your mercenaries to over-throw: label the country a “rouge state” and wait for the right time to invade. Meanwhile, continue to wear the country’s government and populace down using steps 3 – 8.
10) Escalate the terror campaign within the country to provoke a military response from the country against the US. If they won’t take the bait , fabricate an attack or threat that you can sell to the US population as justification for an invasion.
11) Once the government is removed, set up your puppet regime to provide the illusion of sovereignty. The regime will facilitate and legitimize your appropriation of the country’s resources under the guise of "free" trade.
12) As you continue to extract the country’s resources, provide intelligence and military support to the puppet regime to suppress popular dissent within the country.
13) Use the demise of the former government as yet another example of the impracticality of “socialism.”
What Can I Do?
Call your senators and representatives to voice your opposition to US regime-change efforts in Venezuela.
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/
Please share this message with others.
Sources included at: https://link.medium.com/8DiA5xzx4T

‘Venezuela’: Media’s One-Word Rebuttal to the Threat of Socialism

ALAN MACLEOD FEBRUARY 8, 2019
A recent Gallup poll (8/13/18) found that a majority of millennials view socialism favorably, preferring it to capitalism. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States, while new leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) policies of higher taxes on the wealthy, free healthcare and public college tuition are highly popular—even among Republican voters (FAIR.org,1/23/19).
Alarmed by the growing threat of progressive policies at home, the establishment has found a one-word weapon to deploy against the rising tide: Venezuela. The trick is to attack any political figure or movement even remotely on the left by claiming they wish to turn the country into a “socialist wasteland” (Fox News, 2/2/19) run by a corrupt dictatorship, leaving its people hungry and devastated.
Leading the charge have been Fox News and other conservative outlets. One Fox opinion piece (1/25/19) claimed that Americans should be “absolutely disgusted” by the “fraud” of Bernie Sanders and Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, as they “continue to promote a system that is causing mass starvation and the collapse of a country,” warning that is exactly what their failed socialist policies would bring to the US. (Back in the real world, while Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez identify as socialists, Warren is a self-described capitalist, and Booker is noted for his ties to Wall Street, whose support for his presidential bid he has reportedly been soliciting.) A second Fox Newsarticle (1/27/19) continues in the same vein, warning that, “At the heart of Venezuela’s collapse is a laundry list of socialist policies that have decimated its economy.”
The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) describes calls for negotiations in Venezuela as “siding with the dictator.”
In an article entitled “Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and the Starving Children of Venezuela,” the Washington Examiner (6/15/17) warned its readers to “beware the socialist utopia,” describing it as a dystopia where children go hungry thanks to socialism. The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) recently condemned Sanders for his support of a “dictator,” despite the fact Bernie has strongly criticized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and dismissed Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, as a “dead Communist dictator” (Reuters, 6/1/16).
More supposedly centrist publications have continued this line of attack. The New York Times’ Bret Stephens (1/25/19) argued: “Venezuela is a socialist catastrophe. In the age of AOC, the lesson must be learned again”—namely, that “socialism never works,” as “20 years of socialism” has led to “the ruin of a nation.” The Miami Herald(2/1/19) cast shame on Sanders and AOC for arguing for socialism in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it, describing the left’s refusal to back self-appointed president Juan Guaidó, someone whom less than 20 percent of Venezuelans had even heard of, let alone voted for, as “morally repugnant.”
This useful weapon to be used against the left can only be sustained by withholding a great number of key facts—chief among them, the US role in Venezuela’s devastation. US sanctions, according to the Venezuelan opposition’s economics czar, are responsible for a halving of the country’s oil output (FAIR.org, 12/17/18). The UN Human Rights Council has formally condemned the US and discussed reparations to be paid, with one UN special rapporteur describing Trump’s sanctions as a possible “crime against humanity” (London Independent, 1/26/19). This has not been reported by any the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or any other national US “resistance” news outlet, which have been only too quick to support Trump’s regime change plans (FAIR.org, 1/25/19).
Likewise, the local US-backed opposition’s role in the economic crisis is barely mentioned. The opposition, which controls much of the country’s food supply, has officially accepted responsibility for conducting an “economic war” by withholding food and other key goods.
For example, the monolithic Empresas Polar controls the majority of the flour production and distribution crucial for making arepa cornbread, Venezuela’s staple food. Polar’s chair is Leopoldo Lopez, national coordinator of Juan Guaidó’s Popular Will party, while its president is Lorenzo Mendoza, who considered running for president against Maduro in the 2018 elections that caused pandemonium in the media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18).
Conspicuously, it’s the products that Polar has a near-monopoly in that are often in shortest supply. This is hardly a secret, but never mentioned in the copious stories (CNN, 5/14/14, Bloomberg, 3/16/17, Washington Post, 5/22/17, NPR, 4/7/17) focusing on bread lines in the country.
Also rarely commented on was the fact that multiple international election observer missions declared the 2018 elections free and fair, and that Venezuelan government spending as a proportion of GDP (often considered a barometer of socialism) is actually lower than the US’s, and far lower than most of Europe’s, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The London Daily Express (2/3/19) demonstrates that redbaiting works equally well on either side of the Atlantic.
Regardless of these bothersome facts, the media has continued to present Venezuela’s supposedly socialist dictatorship as solely responsible for its crisis as a warning to any progressives who get the wrong idea. So useful is this tool that it is being used to attack progressive movements around the world. The Daily Express (2/3/19) and Daily Mail (2/3/19) condemned UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his “defense” of a “dictator,” while the Daily Telegraph(2/3/19) warned that the catastrophe of Venezuela is Labour’s blueprint for Britain. Meanwhile, the Greek leftist party Syriza’s support for Maduro (the official position of three-quarters of UN member states) was condemned as “shameful” (London Independent, 1/29/19).
“Venezuela” is also used as a one-word response to shut down debate and counter any progressive idea or thought. While the panel on ABC’s The View (7/23/18) discussed progressive legislation like Medicare for All and immigration reform, conservative regular Meghan McCain responding by invoking Venezuela: “They’re starving to death” she explained, leaving the other panelists bemused.
President Trump has also used it. In response to criticism from Senator Elizabeth Warren over his “Pocahontas” jibe, he replied that she would “make our country into Venezuela” (Reuters, 10/15/18).
The weapon’s effectiveness can only be sustained through a media in lockstep with the government’s regime-change goals. That the media is fixated on the travails of a relatively small and unimportant country in America’s “backyard,” and that the picture of Venezuela is so shallow, is not a mistake. Rather, the simplistic narrative of a socialist dictatorship starving its own people provides great utility as a weapon for the establishment to beat back the domestic “threat” of socialism, by associating movements and figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn with an evil caricature they have carefully crafted.

Corporate Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President: MSM Will Not Let Facts Interfere With Coup Agenda

Facts Don’t Interfere With Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President Joe Emersberger
Guaidó, anointed by Trump and a new Iraq-style Coalition of the Willing, did not even run in Venezuela’s May 2018 presidential election. In fact, shortly before the election, Guaidó was not even mentioned by the opposition-aligned pollster Datanálisis when it published approval ratings of various prominent opposition leaders. Henri Falcón, who actually did run in the election (defying US threats against him) was claimed by the pollster to basically be in a statistical tie for most popular among them. It is remarkable to see the Western media dismiss this election as “fraudulent,” without even attempting to show that it was “stolen“ from Falcón. Perhaps that’s because it so clearly wasn’t stolen.
Graph: Approval Ratings of Main Venezuelan Leaders Nov 2016 - July 2018 Data from the opposition-aligned pollsters in Venezuela (via Torino Capital) indicates that Henri Falcón was the most popular of the major opposition figures at the time of the May 2018 presidential election. Nicolás Maduro won the election due to widespread opposition boycotting and votes drawn by another opposition candidate, Javier Bertucci.
The constitutional argument that Trump and his accomplices have used to “recognize” Guaidó rests on the preposterous claim that Maduro has “abandoned” the presidency by soundly beating Falcón in the election. Caracas-based journalist Lucas Koerner took apart that argument in more detail.
What about the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald's claim that Maduro “continues to reject international aid”? In November 2018, following a public appeal by Maduro, the UN did authorize emergency aid for Venezuela. It was even reported by Reuters (11/26/18), whose headlines have often broadcast the news agency’s contempt for Maduro’s government.
It’s not unusual for Western media to ignore facts they have themselves reported when a major “propaganda blitz” by Washington is underway against a government. For example, it was generally reported accurately in 1998 that UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq ahead of air strikes ordered by Bill Clinton, not expelled by Iraq’s government. But by 2002, it became a staple of pro-war propaganda that Iraq had expelled weapons inspectors (Extra! Update, 10/02).
And, incidentally, when a Venezuelan NGO requested aid from the UN-linked Global Fund in 2017, it was turned down. Setting aside how effective foreign aid is at all (the example of Haiti hardly makes a great case for it), it is supposed to be distributed based on relative need, not based on how badly the US government wants somebody overthrown.
But the potential for “aid” to alleviate Venezuela’s crisis is negligible compared to the destructive impact of US economic sanctions. Near the end of the Miami Herald article, author Jim Wyss cited an estimate from the thoroughly demonized Venezuelan government that US sanctions have cost it $30 billion, with no time period specified for that estimate. Again, this calls to mind the run-up to the Iraq invasion, when completely factual statements that Iraq had no WMDs were attributed to the discredited Iraqi government. Quoting Iraqi denials supposedly balanced the lies spread in the media by US officials like John Bolton, who now leads the charge to overthrow Maduro. Wyss could have cited economists independent of the Maduro government on the impact of US sanctions—like US economist Mark Weisbrot, or the emphatically anti-Maduro Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez.
Illegal US sanctions were first imposed in 2015 under a fraudulent “state of emergency” declared by Obama, and subsequently extended by Trump. The revenue lost to Venezuela’s government due to US economic sanctions since August 2017, when the impact became very easy to quantify, is by now well over $6 billion. That’s enormous in an economy that was only able to import about $11 billion of goods in 2018, and needs about $2 billion per year in medicines. Trump’s “recognition” of Guaidó as “interim president” was the pretext for making the already devastating sanctions much worse. Last month, Francisco Rodríguez revised his projection for the change in Venezuela’s real GDP in 2019, from an 11 percent contraction to 26 percent, after the intensified sanctions were announced.
The $20 million in US “aid” that Wyss is outraged Maduro won’t let in is a rounding error compared to the billions already lost from Trump’s sanctions.
Former US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield, who pressed for more sanctions on Venezuela, dispensed with the standard “humanitarian” cover that US officials have offered for them (Intercept, 2/10/19):
And if we can do something that will bring that end quicker, we probably should do it, but we should do it understanding that it’s going to have an impact on millions and millions of people who are already having great difficulty finding enough to eat, getting themselves cured when they get sick, or finding clothes to put on their children before they go off to school. We don’t get to do this and pretend as though it has no impact there. We have to make the hard decision—the desired outcome justifies this fairly severe punishment.
How does this gruesome candor get missed by reporters like Wyss, and go unreported in his article?
Speaking of “severe punishment,” if the names John Bolton and Elliott Abrams don’t immediately call to mind the punishment they should be receiving for crimes against humanity, it illustrates how well the Western propaganda system functions. Bolton, a prime facilitator of the Iraq War, recently suggested that Maduro could be sent to a US-run torture camp in Cuba. Abrams played a key role in keeping US support flowing to mass murderers and torturers in Central America during the 1980s. Also significant that Abrams, brought in by Trump to help oust Maduro, used “humanitarian aid” as cover to supply weapons to the US-backed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
In the Miami Herald article, the use of US “aid” for military purposes is presented as another allegation made by the vilified Venezuelan president: “Maduro has repeatedly said the aid is cover for a military invasion and has ordered his armed forces not to let it in, even as food and medicine shortages sweep the country.”
Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Secretly Shipping Arms After Weapons Found on Plane with Possible CIA Ties | Democracy Now!
Calling for international aid and being democratically elected will do as little to protect Maduro’s government from US aggression as being disarmed of WMD did to prevent Iraq from being invaded—unless there is much more pushback from the US public against a lethal propaganda system.

When Is a Democracy not a Democracy? When It’s Venezuela and the US is Pushing Regime Change. Venezuela has as much right to call itself a democracy as does the United States. Until that is understood by enough people, the Trump administration will continue to devastate Venezuela’s economy with illegal sanctions and push it towards civil war.
Suggested Reading:
UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions Cause Death in Venezuela
Guaido is playing it fast and loose with the Bolivarian Constitution to justify a dictatorship
Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017
How could Venezuela's president 'steal' the 2018 election from an unknown who didn't run?
In other news...
The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn’t Over. What Happened?
submitted by roy_batty3000 to EndlessWar [link] [comments]

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

This article is taken from the Wall Street Journal written about nine months ago and sits behind a a paywall, so I decided to copy and paste it here. This article explains Trump's policies toward global trade and what has actually happened so far. I think the article does a decent job of explaining the Trade War. While alot has happenedsince the article was written, I still think its relevant.
However, what is lacking in the article, like many articles on the trade war, is it doesn't really explain the history of US trade policy, the laws that the US administration is using to place tariffs on China and the official justification for the US President in enacting tariffs against China. In my analysis I will cover those points.

SUMMARY

When Trump entered the White House people feared he would dismantle the global system the US and its allies had built over the last 75 years, but he hasn't. He has realign into two systems. One between the US and its allies which looks similar to the one built since the 1980s with a few of quota and tariffs. As the article points out
Today, Korus and Nafta have been replaced by updated agreements(one not yet ratified) that look much like the originals. South Korea accepted quotas on steel. Mexico and Canada agreed to higher wages, North American content requirements and quotas for autos. Furthermore, the article points out Douglas Irwin, an economist and trade historian at Dartmouth College, calls these results the “status quo with Trumpian tweaks: a little more managed trade sprinkled about for favored industries. It’s not good, but it’s not the destruction of the system.” Mr. Trump’s actions so far affect only 12% of U.S. imports, according to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. In 1984, 21% of imports were covered by similar restraints, many imposed by Mr. Reagan, such as on cars, steel, motorcycles and clothing. Protectionist instincts go so far in the US, there are strong lobby groups for both protectionist and freetrade in the US.
The second reflects a emerging rivalry between the US and China. Undo some of the integration that followed China accession to the WTO. Two questions 1) How far is the US willing to decouple with China 2) Can it persuade allies to join.
The second is going to be difficult because China's economic ties are greater than they were between the Soviets, and China isn't waging an ideological struggle. Trump lacks Reagan commitment to alliance and free trade. The status quo with China is crumbling Dan Sullivan, a Republican senator from Alaska, personifies these broader forces reshaping the U.S. approach to the world. When Mr. Xi visited the U.S. in 2015, Mr. Sullivan urged his colleagues to pay more attention to China’s rise. On the Senate floor, he quoted the political scientist Graham Allison: “War between the U.S. and China is more likely than recognized at the moment.” Last spring, Mr. Sullivan went to China and met officials including Vice President Wang Qishan. They seemed to think tensions with the U.S. will fade after Mr. Trump leaves the scene, Mr. Sullivan recalled. “I just said, ‘You are completely misreading this.’” The mistrust, he told them, is bipartisan, and will outlast Mr. Trump. both Bush II and Obama tried to change dialogue and engagement, but by the end of his term, Obama was questioning the approach. Trump has declared engagement. “We don’t like it when our allies steal our ideas either, but it’s a much less dangerous situation,” said Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute whose views align with the administration’s more hawkish officials. “We’re not worried about the war-fighting capability of Japan and Korea because they’re our friends.”
The article also points out unlike George Kennan in 1946 who made a case for containing the Soviet Union, the US hasn't explicitly made a case for containing the Soviets, Trump's administration hasn't, because as the the article explains its divided Michael Pillsbury a Hudson Institute scholar close to the Trump team, see 3 scenarios
Pillsbury thinks the third is most likely to happen, even though the administration hasn't said that it has adopted that policy. The US is stepping efforts to draw in other trading partners. The US, EU and Japan have launched a WTO effort to crack down on domestic subsidies and technology transfers requirement. US and Domestic concerns with prompted some countries to restrict Huawei. The US is also seeking to walloff China from other trade deals. However, there are risk with this strategy

ARTICLE

Trump Didn’t Kill the Global Trade System. He Split It in Two.

INTRODUCTION

My main criticism of this article is it tries like the vast majority of articles to fit US trade actions in the larger context of US geopolitical strategy. Even the author isn't certain "The first goes to the heart of Mr. Trump’s goal. If his aim is to hold back China’s advance, economists predict he will fail.". If you try to treat the trade "war" and US geopolitical strategy toward China as one, you will find yourself quickly frustrated and confused. If you treat them separately with their different set of stakeholders and histories, were they intersect with regards to China, but diverge. During the Cold War, trade policy toward the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc was subordinated to geopolitical concerns. For Trump, the trade issues are more important than geopolitical strategy. His protectionist trade rhetoric has been fairly consistent since 1980s. In his administration, the top cabinet members holding economic portfolios, those of Commerce, Treasury and US Trade Representative are the same people he picked when he first took office. The Director of the Economic Council has changed hands once, its role isn't as important as the National Security Advisor. While State, Defense, CIA, Homeland Security, UN Ambassador, National Security Advisor have changed hands at least once. Only the Director of National Intelligence hasn't changed.
International Trade makes up 1/4 of the US economy, and like national security its primarily the responsibility of the Federal government. States in the US don't implement their own tariffs. If you add the impact of Treasury policy and how it relates to capital flows in and out of the US, the amounts easily exceed the size of the US economy. Furthermore, because of US Dollar role as the reserve currency and US control of over global system the impact of Treasury are global. Trade policy and investment flows runs through two federal departments Commerce and Treasury and for trade also USTR. Defense spending makes up 3.3% of GDP, and if you add in related homeland security its at most 4%. Why would anyone assume that these two realms be integrated let alone trade policy subordinate to whims of a national security bureaucracy in most instances? With North Korea or Iran, trade and investment subordinate themselves to national security, because to Treasury and Commerce bureaucrats and their affiliated interest groups, Iran and the DPRK are well, economic midgets, but China is a different matter.
The analysis will be divided into four sections. The first will be to provide a brief overview of US trade policy since 1914. The second section will discuss why the US is going after China on trade issues, and why the US has resorted using a bilateral approach as opposed to going through the WTO. The third section we will talk about how relations with China is hashed out in the US.
The reason why I submitted this article, because there aren't many post trying to explain US-China Trade War from a trade perspective. Here is a post titled "What is the Reasons for America's Trade War with China, and not one person mentioned Article 301 or China's WTO Commitments. You get numerous post saying that Huawei is at heart of the trade war. Its fine, but if you don't know what was inside the USTR Investigative report that lead to the tariffs. its like skipping dinner and only having dessert When the US President, Donald J Trump, says he wants to negotiate a better trade deal with other countries, and has been going on about for the last 35 years, longer than many of you have been alive, why do people think that the key issues with China aren't primarily about trade at the moment.

OVERVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE ORIENTATION

Before 1940s, the US could be categorized as a free market protectionist economy. For many this may seem like oxymoron, how can an economy be free market and protectionist? In 1913, government spending made up about 7.5% of US GDP, in the UK it was 13%, and for Germany 18% (Public Spending in the 20th Century A Global Perspective: Ludger Schuknecht and Vito Tanzi - 2000). UK had virtual zero tariffs, while for manufactured goods in France it was 20%, 13% Germany, 9% Belgium and 4% Netherlands. For raw materials and agricultural products, it was almost zero. In contrast, for the likes of United States, Russia and Japan it was 44%, 84% and 30% respectively. Even though in 1900 United States was an economic powerhouse along with Germany, manufactured exports only made up 30% of exports, and the US government saw tariffs as exclusively a domestic policy matter and didn't see tariffs as something to be negotiated with other nations. The US didn't have the large constituency to push the government for lower tariffs abroad for their exports like in Britain in the 1830-40s (Reluctant Partners: A History of Multilateral Trade Cooperation, 1850-2000).
The Underwood Tariffs Act of 1913 which legislated the income tax, dropped the tariffs to 1850 levels levels.Until 16th amendment was ratified in 1913 making income tax legal, all US federal revenue came from excise and tariffs. In contrast before 1914, about 50% of UK revenue came from income taxes. The reason for US reluctance to introduced income tax was ideological and the United State's relative weak government compared to those in Europe. After the First World War, the US introduced the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921, than the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922 followed by a Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Contrary to popular opinion, the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 had a small negative impact on the economy, since imports and exports played a small part of the US economy, and the tariffs were lower than the average that existed from 1850-1914.
Immediately after the Second World War, when the US economy was the only industrialized economy left standing, the economic focus was on rehabilitation and monetary stability. There was no grandiose and ideological design. Bretton Woods system linked the US dollar to gold to create monetary stability, and to avoid competitive devaluation and tariffs that plagued the world economy after Britain took itself off the gold in 1931. The US$ was the natural choice, because in 1944 2/3 of the world's gold was in the US. One reason why the Marshall Plan was created was to alleviate the chronic deficits Europeans countries had with the US between 1945-50. It was to rebuild their economies so they could start exports good to the US. Even before it was full implemented in 1959, it was already facing problems, the trade surpluses that the US was running in the 1940s, turned to deficits as European and Japanese economies recovered. By 1959, Federal Reserves foreign liabilities had already exceeded its gold reserves. There were fears of a run on the US gold supply and arbitrage. A secondary policy of the Bretton woods system was curbs on capital outflows to reduce speculation on currency pegs, and this had a negative impact on foreign investment until it was abandoned in 1971. It wasn't until the 1980s, where foreign investment recovered to levels prior to 1914. Factoring out the big spike in global oil prices as a result of the OPEC cartel, it most likely wasn't until the mid-1990s that exports as a % of GDP had reached 1914 levels.
Until the 1980s, the US record regarding free trade and markets was mediocre. The impetus to remove trade barriers in Europe after the Second World War was driven by the Europeans themselves. The EEC already had a custom union in 1968, Canada and the US have yet to even discuss implementing one. Even with Canada it took the US over 50 years to get a Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA was inspired by the success of the EEC. NAFTA was very much an elite driven project. If the Americans put the NAFTA to a referendum like the British did with the EEC in the seventies, it most likely wouldn't pass. People often look at segregation in the US South as a political issue, but it was economic issue as well. How could the US preach free trade, when it didn't have free trade in its own country. Segregation was a internal non-tariff barrier. In the first election after the end of the Cold War in 1992, Ross Perot' based most of independent run for the Presidency on opposition to NAFTA. He won 19% of the vote. Like Ross Perot before him, Donald Trump is not the exception in how America has handled tariffs since the founding of the Republic, but more the norm.
The embrace of free trade by the business and political elite can be attributed to two events. After the end of Bretton Woods in 1971, a strong vested interest in the US in the form of multinationals and Wall Street emerged advocating for removal of tariffs and more importantly the removal of restrictions on free flow of capital, whether direct foreign investment in portfolio investment. However, the political class embrace of free trade and capital only really took off after the collapse of the Soviet Union propelled by Cold War triumphalism.
As mentioned by the article, the US is reverting back to a pre-WTO relations with China. As Robert Lighthizer said in speech in 2000
I guess my prescription, really, is to move back to more of a negotiating kind of a settlement. Return to WTO and what it really was meant to be. Something where you have somebody make a decision but have it not be binding.
The US is using financial and legal instruments developed during the Cold War like its extradition treaties (with Canada and Europe), and Section 301. Here is a very good recent article about enforcement commitment that China will make.‘Painful’ enforcement ahead for China if trade war deal is reached with US insisting on unilateral terms
NOTE: It is very difficult to talk about US-China trade war without a basic knowledge of global economic history since 1914. What a lot of people do is politicize or subordinate the economic history to the political. Some commentators think US power was just handed to them after the Second World War, when the US was the only industrialized economy left standing. The dominant position of the US was temporary and in reality its like having 10 tonnes of Gold sitting in your house, it doesn't automatically translate to influence. The US from 1945-1989 was slowly and gradually build her influence in the non-Communist world. For example, US influence in Canada in the 1960s wasn't as strong as it is now. Only 50% of Canadian exports went to the US in 1960s vs 80% at the present moment.

BASIS OF THE US TRADE DISCUSSION WITH CHINA

According to preliminary agreement between China and the US based on unnamed sources in the Wall Street Journal article US, China close in on Trade Deal. In this article it divides the deal in two sections. The first aspects have largely to do with deficits and is political.
As part of a deal, China is pledging to help level the playing field, including speeding up the timetable for removing foreign-ownership limitations on car ventures and reducing tariffs on imported vehicles to below the current auto tariff of 15%. Beijing would also step up purchases of U.S. goods—a tactic designed to appeal to President Trump, who campaigned on closing the bilateral trade deficit with China. One of the sweeteners would be an $18 billion natural-gas purchase from Cheniere Energy Inc., people familiar with the transaction said.
The second part will involve the following.
  1. Commitment Regarding Industrial Policy
  2. Provisions to protect IP
  3. Mechanism which complaints by US companies can be addressed
  4. Bilateral meetings adjudicate disputes. If talks don't produce agreement than US can raise tariffs unilaterally
This grouping of conditions is similar to the points filled under the 301 investigation which serve the basis for initiating the tariffs. I have been reading some sources that say this discussion on this second group of broader issues could only be finalized later
The official justifications for placing the tariffs on Chinese goods is found under the March 2018 investigation submitted by the office of the President to Congress titled FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION INTO CHINA’S ACTS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES RELATED TO TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, AND INNOVATION UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE TRADE ACT OF 1974. From this investigation the United States Trade Representative (USTR) place US Tariffs on Chinese goods as per Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Here is a press release by the USTR listing the reasons for placing tariffs, and the key section from the press release. Specifically, the Section 301 investigation revealed:
In the bigger context of trade relations between US and China, China is not honoring its WTO commitments, and the USTR issued its yearly report to Congress in early February about the status of China compliance with its WTO commitments. The points that served as a basis for applying Section 301, also deviate from her commitments as Clinton's Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky paving the way for a trade war. Barshefsky argues that China's back sliding was happening as early as 2006-07, and believes the trade war could have been avoided has those commitments been enforced by previous administrations.
I will provide a brief overview of WTO membership and China's process of getting into the WTO.
WTO members can be divided into two groups, first are countries that joined in 1995-97, and were members of GATT, than there are the second group that joined after 1997. China joined in 2001. There is an argument that when China joined in 2001, she faced more stringent conditions than other developing countries that joined before, because the vast majority of developing countries were members of GATT, and were admitted to the WTO based on that previous membership in GATT. Here is Brookings Institute article published in 2001 titled "Issues in China’s WTO Accession"
This question is all the more puzzling because the scope and depth of demands placed on entrants into the formal international trading system have increased substantially since the formal conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations in 1994, which expanded the agenda considerably by covering many services, agriculture, intellectual property, and certain aspects of foreign direct investment. Since 1994, the international community has added agreements covering information technology, basic telecommunications services, and financial services. WTO membership now entails liberalization of a much broader range of domestic economic activity, including areas that traditionally have been regarded by most countries as among the most sensitive, than was required of countries entering the WTO’s predecessor organization the GATT.
The terms of China’s protocol of accession to the World Trade Organization reflect the developments just described and more. China’s market access commitments are much more far-reaching than those that governed the accession of countries only a decade ago. And, as a condition for membership, China was required to make protocol commitments that substantially exceed those made by any other member of the World Trade Organization, including those that have joined since 1995. The broader and deeper commitments China has made inevitably will entail substantial short-term economic costs.
What are the WTO commitments Barshefsky goes on about? When countries join the WTO, particularly those countries that weren't members of GATT and joined after 1997, they have to work toward fulfilling certain commitments. There are 4 key documents when countries make an accession to WTO membership, the working party report, the accession protocol paper, the goods schedule and service schedule.
In the working party report as part of the conclusion which specifies the commitment of each member country what they will do in areas that aren't compliant with WTO regulations on the date they joined. The problem there is no good enforcement mechanism for other members to force China to comply with these commitments. And WTO punishments are weak.
Here is the commitment paragraph for China
"The Working Party took note of the explanations and statements of China concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report. The Working Party took note of the commitments given by China in relation to certain specific matters which are reproduced in paragraphs 18-19, 22-23, 35-36, 40, 42, 46-47, 49, 60, 62, 64, 68, 70, 73, 75, 78-79, 83-84, 86, 91-93, 96, 100-103, 107, 111, 115-117, 119-120, 122-123, 126-132, 136, 138, 140, 143, 145, 146, 148, 152, 154, 157, 162, 165, 167-168, 170-174, 177-178, 180, 182, 184-185, 187, 190-197, 199-200, 203-207, 210, 212-213, 215, 217, 222-223, 225, 227-228, 231-235, 238, 240-242, 252, 256, 259, 263, 265, 270, 275, 284, 286, 288, 291, 292, 296, 299, 302, 304-305, 307-310, 312-318, 320, 322, 331-334, 336, 339 and 341 of this Report and noted that these commitments are incorporated in paragraph 1.2 of the Draft Protocol. "
This is a tool by the WTO that list all the WTO commitment of each country in the working paper. In the goods and service schedule they have commitments for particular sectors. Here is the a press release by the WTO in September 2001, after successfully concluding talks for accession, and brief summary of key areas in which China hasn't fulfilled her commitments. Most of the commitments made by China were made to address its legacy as a non-market economy and involvement of state owned enterprises. In my opinion, I think the US government and investors grew increasingly frustrated with China, after 2007 not just because of China's back sliding, but relative to other countries who joined after 1997 like Vietnam, another non-market Leninist dictatorship. When comparing China's commitments to the WTO its best to compare her progress with those that joined after 1997, which were mostly ex-Soviet Republics.
NOTE: The Chinese media have for two decades compared any time the US has talked about China's currency manipulation or any other issue as a pretext for imposing tariffs on China to the Plaza Accords. I am very sure people will raise it here. My criticism of this view is fourfold. First, the US targeted not just Japan, but France, Britain and the UK as well. Secondly, the causes of the Japan lost decade were due largely to internal factors. Thirdly, Japan, UK, Britain and France in the 1980s, the Yuan isn't undervalued today. Lastly, in the USTR investigation, its China's practices that are the concern, not so much the trade deficit.

REASONS FOR TRUMPS UNILATERAL APPROACH

I feel that people shouldn't dismiss Trump's unilateral approach toward China for several reasons.
  1. The multilateral approach won't work in many issues such as the trade deficit, commercial espionage and intellectual property, because US and her allies have different interest with regard to these issues. Germany and Japan and trade surpluses with China, while the US runs a deficit. In order to reach a consensus means the West has to compromise among themselves, and the end result if the type of toothless resolutions you commonly find in ASEAN regarding the SCS. Does America want to "compromise" its interest to appease a politician like Justin Trudeau? Not to mention opposition from domestic interest. TPP was opposed by both Clinton and Trump during the election.
  2. You can't launch a geopolitical front against China using a newly formed trade block like the TPP. Some of the existing TPP members are in economic groups with China, like Malaysia and Australia.
  3. China has joined a multitude of international bodies, and at least in trade, these bodies haven't changed its behavior.
  4. Dealing with China, its a no win situation whether you use a tough multilateral / unilateral approach. If the US endorse a tough unilateral approach gives the impression that the US is acting like the British during the Opium War. If you take a concerted Western approach you are accused of acting like the 8 Powers Alliance in 1900.
  5. Trump was elected to deal with China which he and his supporters believe was responsible for the loss of millions manufacturing jobs when China joined the WTO in 2001. It is estimate the US lost 6 Million jobs, about 1/4 of US manufacturing Jobs. This has been subsequently advanced by some economists. The ball got rolling when Bill Clinton decided to grant China Most Favored Nation status in 1999, just a decade after Tiananmen.
  6. China hasn't dealt with issues like IP protection, market access, subsidies to state own companies and state funded industrial spying.
To his credit, Trump has said his aim was not to overthrow authoritarian governments, and that even applies to the likes of Iran. The Arab spring scared Russia and China, because the US for a brief moment placed the spread of democracy over its security interest.

UNDERSTANDING HOW THE US MAKES DECISIONS REGARDING CHINA

At this moment, China or the trade war isn't an area of great concern for the American public, among international issues it ranks lower than international terrorism, North Korea and Iran's nuclear program.
According to the survey, 39 percent of the country views China’s growing power as a “critical threat” to Americans. That ranked it only eighth among 12 potential threats listed and placed China well behind the perceived threats from international terrorism (66 percent), North Korea’s nuclear program (59 percent) and Iran’s nuclear program (52 percent). It’s also considerably lower than when the same question was asked during the 1990s, when more than half of those polled listed China as a critical threat. That broadly tracks with a recent poll from the Pew Research Center that found concern about U.S.-China economic issues had decreased since 2012.
In looking at how US conducts relations foreign policy with China, we should look at it from the three areas of most concern - economic, national security and ideology. Each sphere has their interest groups, and sometimes groups can occupy two spheres at once. Security experts are concerned with some aspects of China's economic actions like IP theft and industrial policy (China 2025), because they are related to security. In these sphere there are your hawks and dove. And each sphere is dominated by certain interest groups. That is why US policy toward China can often appear contradictory. You have Trump want to reduce the trade deficit, but security experts advocating for restrictions on dual use technology who are buttressed by people who want export restrictions on China, as a way of getting market access.
Right now the economic concerns are most dominant, and the hawks seem to dominate. The economic hawks traditionally have been domestic manufacturing companies and economic nationalist. In reality the hawks aren't dominant, but the groups like US Companies with large investment in China and Wall Street are no longer defending China, and some have turned hawkish against China. These US companies are the main conduit in which China's lobby Congress, since China only spends 50% of what Taiwan spends lobbying Congress.
THE ANGLO SAXON WORLD AND CHINA
I don't think many Chinese even those that speak English, have a good understanding Anglo-Saxon society mindset. Anglo Saxons countries, whether US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are commerce driven society governed by sanctity of contracts. The English great philosophical contributions to Western philosophy have primarily to do with economics and politics like Adam Smith, John Locke, David Hume and Thomas Hobbes. This contrast with the French and Germans. Politics in the UK and to a lesser extent the US, is centered around economics, while in Mainland Europe its religion. When the Americans revolted against the British Empire in 1776, the initial source of the grievances were taxes.
Outside of East Asia, the rest of the World's relationship with China was largely commercial, and for United States, being an Anglosaxon country, even more so. In Southeast Asia, Chinese aren't known for high culture, but for trade and commerce. Outside Vietnam, most of Chinese loans words in Southeast Asian languages involve either food or money. The influence is akin to Yiddish in English.
Some people point to the Mao and Nixon meeting as great strategic breakthrough and symbol of what great power politics should look like. The reality is that the Mao-Nixon meeting was an anomaly in the long history of relations with China and the West. Much of China-Western relations over the last 500 years was conducted by multitudes of nameless Chinese and Western traders. The period from 1949-1979 was the only period were strategic concerns triumphed trade, because China had little to offer except instability and revolution. Even in this period, China's attempt to spread revolution in Southeast Asia was a threat to Western investments and corporate interest in the region. During the nadir of both the Qing Dynasty and Republican period, China was still engaged in its traditional commercial role. Throughout much of history of their relations with China, the goals of Britain and the United States were primarily economic,
IMAGINE JUST 10% OF CHINA BOUGHT MY PRODUCT
From the beginning, the allure of China to Western businesses and traders has been its sheer size I. One of the points that the USTR mentions is lack of market access for US companies operating in China, while Chinese companies face much less restrictions operating in the US.
This is supported by remarks by Henry Paulson and Charlene Barshefsky. As Paulson remarked
Trade with China has hurt some American workers. And they have expressed their grievances at the ballot box.
So while many attribute this shift to the Trump Administration, I do not. What we are now seeing will likely endure for some time within the American policy establishment. China is viewed—by a growing consensus—not just as a strategic challenge to the United States but as a country whose rise has come at America’s expense. In this environment, it would be helpful if the US-China relationship had more advocates. That it does not reflects another failure:
In large part because China has been slow to open its economy since it joined the WTO, the American business community has turned from advocate to skeptic and even opponent of past US policies toward China. American business doesn’t want a tariff war but it does want a more aggressive approach from our government. How can it be that those who know China best, work there, do business there, make money there, and have advocated for productive relations in the past, are among those now arguing for more confrontation? The answer lies in the story of stalled competition policy, and the slow pace of opening, over nearly two decades. This has discouraged and fragmented the American business community. And it has reinforced the negative attitudinal shift among our political and expert classes. In short, even though many American businesses continue to prosper in China, a growing number of firms have given up hope that the playing field will ever be level. Some have accepted the Faustian bargain of maximizing today’s earnings per share while operating under restrictions that jeopardize their future competitiveness. But that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it. Nor does it mean they aren’t acutely aware of the risks — or thinking harder than ever before about how to diversify their risks away from, and beyond, China.
What is interesting about Paulson's speech is he spend only one sentence about displaced US workers, and a whole paragraph about US business operating in China. While Kissinger writes books about China, how much does he contribute to both Democrats and the Republicans during the election cycle? China is increasingly makING it more difficult for US companies operating and those exporting products to China.

CONTINUED

submitted by weilim to IntlScholars [link] [comments]

A Comprehensive List Of Fake News and Real News Agencies • RT • CGTN • FOX • CNN •

This Russian government's state funded "news network" RT News is so comical to me, they would love to convince the whole world that the US has become a declining power, the US dollar is not the world's number one reserve currency, that the Chinese Yuan is and that all next generation high-tech in this planet is now being indigenously innovated in China.
https://i.redd.it/1fywkb9vnat31.png
It seems laughable to me watching RT news coverage of the Hong Kong demonstrations making real hard efforts to protrait the pro-democracy movement as being demonstrations of people "experiencing economic hardship" confusing democracy with "economic prosperity" whilst at the same time accusing the demonstrators of being manipulated and funded by Western intelligent services including the CIA.
I told myself "well which one is it? Are they confused demonstrators experiencing economic hardship or manipulated puppets of the West?" LOL!
At the end I told myself what an insult to the Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrators. Portraying them of not being intelligent enough to organize themselves and accusing them of not knowing their own cause.
China's CGTN in the other hand while just as bad if not worse than RT, does a lot better job at spreading propaganda. Perhaps because they are much better funded. Doing it a lot more tactfully and assertively.
Their efforts being more concentrated at projecting China as a highly-developed Nation under the rule of law, and a "responsible world leader", minimizing if not censoring the impact the trade war with the US has had on their economy. With it's market wisely open to foreign investment where IP property protection takes highest priority.
Covering the situation in Hong Kong more or less as a "city under siege of rioters and vandalism".
Even going as far as calling Xin Jiang China a "prosperous paradise for Uighur Muslims". And you can forget any mentioning of "re-education camps". Even devoting entire segments to "China's human rights developments".
It's extraordinarily unbelievable the claims networks like RT news and CGTN from China make and how far they're willing to go to misinform their domestic population and now International audiences through their multilingual news branches wich most governments where they operate consider them "Kremlin and Beijing propaganda outlets" rather than legitimate and credible news networks.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/nov/29/24-hour-putin-people-my-week-watching-kremlin-propaganda-channel-rt-russia-today
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/2174927/uk-watchdog-may-probe-china-state-medias-role-confession-peter
If such claims were true, 90% of all foreign business transactions worldwide would not be conducted in US dollars.
And that is just one statistic. 61% of all world foreign currency reserves are in dollars. According to the international monetary fund.
Eclipsing the next 4 other currencies put together with the Euro at 20%, the Japanese Yen at over 5% the British pound at just under 5% with the Chinese Yuan last under 2%.
The Chinese Yuan has not replaced the USD and won't be replacing it anytime soon:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex-currencies/091416/what-would-it-take-us-dollar-collapse.asp
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/why-us-dollar-will-remain-strong/
https://www.thebalance.com/world-currency-3305931
China has made great progress modernizing itself and deserves credit for it. With new high-tech hub cities like Shenzhen attempting to rival Silicon Valley.
Keyword "attempting to". In addition to Shenzhen, Tel Aviv Israel, Tallinn Estonia, Melbourne Australia and Toronto Canada are also considered cities rivaling Silicon Valley:
https://www.theneweconomy.com/technology/top-5-tech-hubs-to-rival-silicon-valley
But that isn't the important story. 90 - 95% of all the high-tech in China has been imported from abroad, rebranded and falsely claimed to have been innovated indigenously. In other words "invented in China". Through various means raging from forced tech transfers, intellectual property and Trade secrets theft by either cyber attacks on foreign competitor's databases, corporate spying and bribery.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-28/from-bounty-payments-to-espionage-u-s-alleges-chinese-ip-theft
The list of companies whose intellectual property and trade secrets were stolen is so vast it couldn't be compiled in this article alone. But here are some important ones:
AMSC - Wind Turbine technology
Westinghouse - Nuclear technology
Solar World - Solar panel technology
Kawasaki Heavy Industries - High-Speed rail technology
US Steel - Steel Technology
Alcoa - Aluminium Technology
Micron - Semiconductor Technology
T-Mobile, Motorola, Cisco Systems and Nortel Networks - Wireless and Telecommunications Technology
Sources:
https://youtu.be/AzZlymlpPmU
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-unreal-scope-of-chinas-intellectual-property-theft/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/huaweis-yearslong-rise-is-littered-with-accusations-of-theft-and-dubious-ethics-11558756858
It's for these masterful intelligence operations expanding 2-3 decades, that I give China most credit for.
As to whether American is a declining power or not depends on how a state's power is measured but most importantly how it's perceived, individually and collectively by other nations.
What you personally believe, What region of the world you're in, which language you speak and what sources of information you have access to is actually more important than any public survey taken or any official state statistic or international ranking.
But a most recent survey conducted by 2019 Best countries and multiple other organizations surveyed 20,000 individuals from 4 different regions around the world. And when asked to name the most powerful countries in the world taking into consideration military, political and economic influence the US came in first followed by Russia with China surprisingly in 3rd place.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/most-powerful-countries/
To summarize, in this modern day in age of false news, state propaganda and politically biased misinformation campaigns the most important thing is to no longer depend on a single source of information but multiple sources of information.
During my research I've compiled a list of reliable international news sources with at least an "attempt to report the news with limited bias" and report verified news with some degree of neutrality.
My most reliable news and information sources list is:
1 DW News (Germany)
2 PBS (U.S.)
3 Al Jazeera (Qatar)
4 BBC News (UK)
5 France 24 (France)
6 Wikipedia (US) in 285 languages.
Additionally here is a list of most unreliable, bias and heavily censored state funded international news organizations fiercely criticized for attempting to further domestic political propaganda abroad:
1RT News (Russia)
2 CGTN (China)
3 CCTV (China)
4 TRT News (Turkey)
5 HispanTV / IRIB (Iran)
Finally, the following is a list I felt also needed to be compiled as it merits mentioning. News organizations that despite being politically biased, do report real news and events although be it spined to fit their narrative. But also exclude important and relevant news topics and/or allocate limited coverage to further their in-house political agendas:
1 TRT News (Turkey)
2 CNN News (US Far-left)
3 Fox News (US Far-right)
4 MSNBC News (US Far-Left)
5 Sky News Australia (Far-right)
For more information I recommend visiting the following websites:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/trt-world/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/
By Allan Rios
Please subscribe to my YouTube channel and get updates on articles and original content videos: https://www.youtube.com/usededoshucos
UPDATE OCT 19, 2019
Here is an extraordinary piece from DW news debunking Hong Kong fake social media posts: https://youtu.be/9AB32zU_EW8
This is one of the reasons why I chose to place DW news at the top of my list. After watching this piece, Notice how besides exposing the chinese communist government's misinformation campaign it also exposes Twitter and Facebook as co-conspirators facilitating the spread of fake news propaganda in it's platforms. "Accepting money from the CCP".
Reporting news with a high degree of objectivity, covering this report from multiple sides, not just telling one side of the story.
submitted by Dedoshucos to business [link] [comments]

[DIPLOMACY] A New Monetary Paradigm: Turkey and the ECB

Republic of Turkey

Ministry of Finance

[Nov/Dec 2048]
Turkey is at the tail-end of an economic slowdown, caused by fiscal uncertainty in a time of war and the globalized effects of geopolitical risk. However, the Turkish economy remains fundamentally strong, with phenomenal growth potential in its new territories in Azerbaijani Turkey and new previously-untapped trade relationships with the Middle East, Iran, and Central Asia.
The resulting growth will be of tremendous benefit to not just Turkey, but the European economy as a whole. As a close partner of the European Union, via political alignment, our membership in the Council of Europe, and free trade agreement, Turkey comes to the European Union to establish deeper monetary ties.
We propose a special relationship between the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey (TCMB) and the European Central Bank (ECB).
While the Turkish Lira has gained international prominence due to the growing influence of the Turkish economy, the need to maintain a "war chest" of foreign exchange reserves in order to guarantee financial, fiscal, and monetary stability means productive financial resources are tied up unnecessarily.
Turkey typically maintains forex reserves equivalent to ~9% of GDP. By comparison, while Eurozone countries keep lower levels due to no need to back up their currency, the Bank of England and Reserve Bank of Australia's reserves are ~5% and ~3.4% of GDP, respectively.
We believe our mutual interests can be helped by reducing the burden on the TCMB to back up the Turkish Lira and financial system, freeing up financial resources to stimulate the economy.
The plan would mean the TCMB becomes eligible to administer Emergency Liquidity Assistance to solvent financial institutions in Turkey. Unlike European national banks which are members of the Eurosystem, the TCMB would not be autonomous in its decision making, subject to approval and oversight by the ECB itself. (m: national banks can fund financial institutions independently via this mechanism up to certain durations / amounts)
The arrangement would allow solvent Turkish institutions with adequate collateral (aka this isn't just free cash) to receive liquidity in times of financial instability, allowing the Turkish banking sector to lean both on the TCMB and ECB. Operations would be conducted, of course, in Euros -- meaning the ECB is not exposed to exchange rate risk when dealing with Turkish banks.
Eligible Turkish institutions would need to register with the ECB, meeting their criteria and subject to their oversight.
Sharing the responsibility of lender of last resort will allow financial resources to be freed up, giving an important boost to the Turkish economy and Europe-Turkey trade. We expect to move to a long-term band of 6-7% of GDP in foreign exchange reserves, freeing up roughly $38 billion.
submitted by DabsByMike to worldpowers [link] [comments]

Is my understanding of a currency peg wrong?

I recently have been reading up on currency pegs and have been getting confused.
I have no formal training in economics or finance, and I have always thought that a currency peg works by a mixture of law as well as supply and demand.
So for example, if a monetary authority of a country called XYZ sets its own currency at $7 XYZ dollars to $ 1 US dollar, commercial banks worldwide have to follow these exchange rate to 7 to 1. The market respects and follows these rate so long as the market thinks and trust it is a fair exchange. This peg is also maintained by how desirable the economy of the country is. So for example, people wants the currency of XYZ because they believe they can use it to buys goods and services and do trading in the economy of XYZ country. Conversely, if the economy of XYZ country is a hellhole, then very few people want that currency, the demand for it goes down because they can't do much with that currency. hence, they will ask for more and more XYZ dollars in exchange for every $US dollar.
Hence, countries on a currency peg or on a free float, would keep forex reserves, using these reserves to buy up their own currency, reducing the supply, and hence, make demand goes up, due to decreased supply.

But I am now reading this investopedia article https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/051503.asp and these few sentences caught my eye:

"Theoretically, for a currency board to function, it must have at least 100% of reserve currency available, and have a long-term commitment to the local currency. As such, a currency board is required to use a fixed rate of exchange; it must also maintain a minimal amount of reserves, as determined by law."

"Thus, the money base in a currency-board system (M0) is 100%-backed by foreign reserves. A currency board will usually hold a little more than 100% of foreign reserves in order to cover all of its liabilities (issued notes and coins)."

" However, given what we now know about currency boards, it seems hard to imagine how and why the Hong Kong dollar could fall subject to speculation: the currency is anchored at a fixed exchange rate, with at least 100% of the currency's money base covered by foreign reserves (in this case, there were foreign reserves equal to three times the M0). "

Reading the above paragraphs, the impression I am getting is that in Hong Kong's dollar case, for every Hong Kong dollar in existence, it is backed up by an equivalent value in US dollars held b the Hong Kong monetary authority.
Obviously, that can't be possible, because due to a fractional reserve lending system, Hong Kong dollars are being created all the time, there is no way for the HKMA to keep track of all the Hong Kong dollars being created into existence by the act of lending.
Also, I think that HKMA's forex reserves are initially gained by exchanging HK dollars with other banks, hence, it can't be possibly for HKMA to have more forex reserves that HK dollars.
Am I missing something here?

submitted by curioustraveller1985 to AskEconomics [link] [comments]

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

US Venezuela Policy is About Oligarchy, Not Democracy

The proven oil reserves in Venezuela are recognized as the LARGEST in the world, totaling 297 billion barrels.
While ignoring (and even supporting) the atrocities of authoritarian regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Uzbekistan, US oligarchs have targeted Venezuela for “regime-change” in the name of “democracy”.
Currently, the US is engaging in economic warfare against Venezuela to foment a coup and remove its democratically elected president Nicolás Maduro.
Without providing solid evidence, our corporate-controlled government and mainstream media portray Maduro as a corrupt, repressive, and illegitimate leader with little to no support.

Ask yourself:

Do I ever see officials from the Venezuelan government appear in corporate news shows to tell THEIR side of the story?
What people DO get to comment on Venezuela and what are their credentials and agenda? Are these people essentially public relations agents for the US-orchestrated coup?
Does corporate news provide me with historical background of US imperialism in Venezuela to put these current events in context?

What Corporate-Controlled Media will NOT Tell You

The CIA was involved in the failed coup against Venezuela's popular leader Hugo Chavez in 2002.
Venezuela is not a strictly socialist country; it has a “mixed” economy - not unlike Norway or other Scandinavian countries.
Venezuela is a DEMOCRACY - unlike US-allies Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait.
In 2012, Jimmy Carter went on record saying:
“As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we've monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”
The opposition to Maduro knew they were going to lose the last election and so boycotted it in attempt to delegitimize the results.
The US actually tried to dissuade Maduro’s opponents from running!
Maduro invited international observers into the country in 2018 to monitor the last election but the opposition asked the UN not to send observers!
More than 80% of the Venezuelan population had not even HEARD of Juan Guaidó before Trump and the US state proclaimed him the “rightful” president.
Maduro’s approval ratings within his country are on par with opposition-controlled National Assembly. According to an October poll by opposition-aligned pollster Datanalisis, Venezuela's National Assembly, of which Juan Guaidó is president, has a disapproval rating of 70%.
Venezuela WANTS to sell its oil to the US – the US is their largest market and refines a majority of their oil.
US companies Chevron Corp, Halliburton, Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Weatherford International all have operations in Venezuela, and are allowed to continue to engage in transactions and activities with PDVSA and its joint ventures through July 27.
“No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.” Organization of American States Charter

Why is the US Corporatocracy so Keen to Remove Maduro?

While Venezuela’s economy is not a strictly-state-run economy, its oil industry is nationalized and uses its revenues for the benefit of its citizens (especially the poor).
After years of crippling US sanctions Maduro stepped over a crucial line in October when his government announced that Venezuela was abandoning the US dollar and would be make all future transactions on the Venezuelan exchange market in euro.
Saddam Hussein also went off the dollar in favor of the euro in 2003 – we started dropping bombs on him the next month.
A similar decision by the Gadhafi government in Libya (2011) was quickly followed by a devastating US-orchestrated conflict - culminating in Gadhafi's capture by radical Islamists who sodomized him with a bayonet before killing him. Since then, Libya has gone from Africa's wealthiest country to a truly failed-state complete with a slave trade! To make matters worse, after the collapse of the Libyan government, its military arms were smuggled out of that country and into the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria - enabling US-orchestrated chaos in those countries.

Who cares what currency a country uses to trade petroleum?

Answer: US oligarchy

The US dollar is central to US world economic domination.
Like all other modern currencies, it is a fiat currency – backed by no real assets to prop up its value.
In lieu of a “gold standard” we know operate on a de-facto “oil-standard”:
"After the collapse of the Bretton Woods gold standard in the early 1970s, the United States struck a deal with Saudi Arabia to standardize oil prices in dollar terms. Through this deal, the petrodollar system was born, along with a paradigm shift away from pegged exchanged rates and gold-backed currencies to non-backed, floating rate regimes.
The petrodollar system elevated the U.S. dollar to the world's reserve currency and, through this status, the United States enjoys persistent trade deficits and is a global economic hegemony." Investopedia
“The central banking Ponzi scheme requires an ever-increasing base of demand and the immediate silencing of those who would threaten its existence. Perhaps that is what the hurry [was] in removing Gaddafi in particular and those who might have been sympathetic to his monetary idea.” Anthony Wile

US Foreign Policy is about Oligarchy Not Democracy

Since World War II, the US has attempted to over-throw the 52 foreign governments. Aside from a handful of exceptions (China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.), the US has been successful in the vast majority of these attempts.
US foreign policy is not about democracy – it is about exploiting the world’s resources in the interests of a small, ultra-wealthy global elite.
This exploitation benefits a small percentage of people at the top of the economic pyramid while the costs are born by those at the bottom.

US CIA Coup Playbook:

How to Plunder Resources from Foreign Countries While Pretending to Support Democracy
  1. Find a country with resources you want.
  2. Send in an “Economic Hitman” to offer bribes the country’s leader in the form of personally lucrative business deals. If he accepts the deal, the leader will amass a personal fortune in exchange for "privatizing” the resources you wish to extract.
If the leader will not accept your bribes, begin the regime-change process.
3) Engage in economic warfare by imposing crippling sanctions on the country and blame the ensuing shortages on the leader’s “socialist” policies.
4) Work with right-wing allies inside country to fund and organize an “astroturf” opposition group behind a corporate-friendly puppet.
5) Hire thugs inside country to incite unrest and violence against the government in coordination with your opposition group. Use corporate media to publicize the orchestrated outbursts as popular outrage and paint a picture of a “failed state” mired in corruption and chaos.
6) When the government arrests your thugs, decry the response as the brutal repression. Use corporate-owned media to demonize the target government as a despotic regime while praising your puppet opposition as champions of democracy.
7) Work with right-wing military leaders to organize the overthrow the government (offer them the same business deals the current leader refused).
8) If a military-led coup cannot be organized, create a mercenary army to carry out acts of terrorism against the government and its supporters. Portray the mercenaries as “freedom fighters” and their acts of terrorism as a “civil war”.
9) If the target government has popular and military support and is too well-defended for your mercenaries to over-throw: label the country a “rouge state” and wait for the right time to invade. Meanwhile, continue to wear the country’s government and populace down using steps 3 – 8.
10) Escalate the terror campaign within the country to provoke a military response from the country against the US. If they won’t take the bait , fabricate an attack or threat that you can sell to the US population as justification for an invasion.
11) Once the government is removed, set up your puppet regime to provide the illusion of sovereignty. The regime will facilitate and legitimize your appropriation of the country’s resources under the guise of "free" trade.
12) As you continue to extract the country’s resources, provide intelligence and military support to the puppet regime to suppress popular dissent within the country.
13) Use the demise of the former government as yet another example of the impracticality of “socialism.”
What Can I Do?
Call your senators and representatives to voice your opposition to US regime-change efforts in Venezuela.
https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/
Please share this message with others.
Sources included at: https://link.medium.com/8DiA5xzx4T

‘Venezuela’: Media’s One-Word Rebuttal to the Threat of Socialism

ALAN MACLEOD FEBRUARY 8, 2019
A recent Gallup poll (8/13/18) found that a majority of millennials view socialism favorably, preferring it to capitalism. Democratic socialist Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the United States, while new leftist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (AOC) policies of higher taxes on the wealthy, free healthcare and public college tuition are highly popular—even among Republican voters (FAIR.org,1/23/19).
Alarmed by the growing threat of progressive policies at home, the establishment has found a one-word weapon to deploy against the rising tide: Venezuela. The trick is to attack any political figure or movement even remotely on the left by claiming they wish to turn the country into a “socialist wasteland” (Fox News, 2/2/19) run by a corrupt dictatorship, leaving its people hungry and devastated.
Leading the charge have been Fox News and other conservative outlets. One Fox opinion piece (1/25/19) claimed that Americans should be “absolutely disgusted” by the “fraud” of Bernie Sanders and Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, as they “continue to promote a system that is causing mass starvation and the collapse of a country,” warning that is exactly what their failed socialist policies would bring to the US. (Back in the real world, while Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez identify as socialists, Warren is a self-described capitalist, and Booker is noted for his ties to Wall Street, whose support for his presidential bid he has reportedly been soliciting.) A second Fox Newsarticle (1/27/19) continues in the same vein, warning that, “At the heart of Venezuela’s collapse is a laundry list of socialist policies that have decimated its economy.”
The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) describes calls for negotiations in Venezuela as “siding with the dictator.”
In an article entitled “Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn and the Starving Children of Venezuela,” the Washington Examiner (6/15/17) warned its readers to “beware the socialist utopia,” describing it as a dystopia where children go hungry thanks to socialism. The Wall Street Journal (1/28/19) recently condemned Sanders for his support of a “dictator,” despite the fact Bernie has strongly criticized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and dismissed Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, as a “dead Communist dictator” (Reuters, 6/1/16).
More supposedly centrist publications have continued this line of attack. The New York Times’ Bret Stephens (1/25/19) argued: “Venezuela is a socialist catastrophe. In the age of AOC, the lesson must be learned again”—namely, that “socialism never works,” as “20 years of socialism” has led to “the ruin of a nation.” The Miami Herald(2/1/19) cast shame on Sanders and AOC for arguing for socialism in the face of such overwhelming evidence against it, describing the left’s refusal to back self-appointed president Juan Guaidó, someone whom less than 20 percent of Venezuelans had even heard of, let alone voted for, as “morally repugnant.”
This useful weapon to be used against the left can only be sustained by withholding a great number of key facts—chief among them, the US role in Venezuela’s devastation. US sanctions, according to the Venezuelan opposition’s economics czar, are responsible for a halving of the country’s oil output (FAIR.org, 12/17/18). The UN Human Rights Council has formally condemned the US and discussed reparations to be paid, with one UN special rapporteur describing Trump’s sanctions as a possible “crime against humanity” (London Independent, 1/26/19). This has not been reported by any the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN or any other national US “resistance” news outlet, which have been only too quick to support Trump’s regime change plans (FAIR.org, 1/25/19).
Likewise, the local US-backed opposition’s role in the economic crisis is barely mentioned. The opposition, which controls much of the country’s food supply, has officially accepted responsibility for conducting an “economic war” by withholding food and other key goods.
For example, the monolithic Empresas Polar controls the majority of the flour production and distribution crucial for making arepa cornbread, Venezuela’s staple food. Polar’s chair is Leopoldo Lopez, national coordinator of Juan Guaidó’s Popular Will party, while its president is Lorenzo Mendoza, who considered running for president against Maduro in the 2018 elections that caused pandemonium in the media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18).
Conspicuously, it’s the products that Polar has a near-monopoly in that are often in shortest supply. This is hardly a secret, but never mentioned in the copious stories (CNN, 5/14/14, Bloomberg, 3/16/17, Washington Post, 5/22/17, NPR, 4/7/17) focusing on bread lines in the country.
Also rarely commented on was the fact that multiple international election observer missions declared the 2018 elections free and fair, and that Venezuelan government spending as a proportion of GDP (often considered a barometer of socialism) is actually lower than the US’s, and far lower than most of Europe’s, according to the conservative Heritage Foundation.
The London Daily Express (2/3/19) demonstrates that redbaiting works equally well on either side of the Atlantic.
Regardless of these bothersome facts, the media has continued to present Venezuela’s supposedly socialist dictatorship as solely responsible for its crisis as a warning to any progressives who get the wrong idea. So useful is this tool that it is being used to attack progressive movements around the world. The Daily Express (2/3/19) and Daily Mail (2/3/19) condemned UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn for his “defense” of a “dictator,” while the Daily Telegraph(2/3/19) warned that the catastrophe of Venezuela is Labour’s blueprint for Britain. Meanwhile, the Greek leftist party Syriza’s support for Maduro (the official position of three-quarters of UN member states) was condemned as “shameful” (London Independent, 1/29/19).
“Venezuela” is also used as a one-word response to shut down debate and counter any progressive idea or thought. While the panel on ABC’s The View (7/23/18) discussed progressive legislation like Medicare for All and immigration reform, conservative regular Meghan McCain responding by invoking Venezuela: “They’re starving to death” she explained, leaving the other panelists bemused.
President Trump has also used it. In response to criticism from Senator Elizabeth Warren over his “Pocahontas” jibe, he replied that she would “make our country into Venezuela” (Reuters, 10/15/18).
The weapon’s effectiveness can only be sustained through a media in lockstep with the government’s regime-change goals. That the media is fixated on the travails of a relatively small and unimportant country in America’s “backyard,” and that the picture of Venezuela is so shallow, is not a mistake. Rather, the simplistic narrative of a socialist dictatorship starving its own people provides great utility as a weapon for the establishment to beat back the domestic “threat” of socialism, by associating movements and figures such as Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jeremy Corbyn with an evil caricature they have carefully crafted.

Corporate Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President: MSM Will Not Let Facts Interfere With Coup Agenda

Facts Don’t Interfere With Propaganda Blitz Against Venezuela’s Elected President Joe Emersberger
Guaidó, anointed by Trump and a new Iraq-style Coalition of the Willing, did not even run in Venezuela’s May 2018 presidential election. In fact, shortly before the election, Guaidó was not even mentioned by the opposition-aligned pollster Datanálisis when it published approval ratings of various prominent opposition leaders. Henri Falcón, who actually did run in the election (defying US threats against him) was claimed by the pollster to basically be in a statistical tie for most popular among them. It is remarkable to see the Western media dismiss this election as “fraudulent,” without even attempting to show that it was “stolen“ from Falcón. Perhaps that’s because it so clearly wasn’t stolen.
Graph: Approval Ratings of Main Venezuelan Leaders Nov 2016 - July 2018 Data from the opposition-aligned pollsters in Venezuela (via Torino Capital) indicates that Henri Falcón was the most popular of the major opposition figures at the time of the May 2018 presidential election. Nicolás Maduro won the election due to widespread opposition boycotting and votes drawn by another opposition candidate, Javier Bertucci.
The constitutional argument that Trump and his accomplices have used to “recognize” Guaidó rests on the preposterous claim that Maduro has “abandoned” the presidency by soundly beating Falcón in the election. Caracas-based journalist Lucas Koerner took apart that argument in more detail.
What about the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald's claim that Maduro “continues to reject international aid”? In November 2018, following a public appeal by Maduro, the UN did authorize emergency aid for Venezuela. It was even reported by Reuters (11/26/18), whose headlines have often broadcast the news agency’s contempt for Maduro’s government.
It’s not unusual for Western media to ignore facts they have themselves reported when a major “propaganda blitz” by Washington is underway against a government. For example, it was generally reported accurately in 1998 that UN weapons inspectors were withdrawn from Iraq ahead of air strikes ordered by Bill Clinton, not expelled by Iraq’s government. But by 2002, it became a staple of pro-war propaganda that Iraq had expelled weapons inspectors (Extra! Update, 10/02).
And, incidentally, when a Venezuelan NGO requested aid from the UN-linked Global Fund in 2017, it was turned down. Setting aside how effective foreign aid is at all (the example of Haiti hardly makes a great case for it), it is supposed to be distributed based on relative need, not based on how badly the US government wants somebody overthrown.
But the potential for “aid” to alleviate Venezuela’s crisis is negligible compared to the destructive impact of US economic sanctions. Near the end of the Miami Herald article, author Jim Wyss cited an estimate from the thoroughly demonized Venezuelan government that US sanctions have cost it $30 billion, with no time period specified for that estimate. Again, this calls to mind the run-up to the Iraq invasion, when completely factual statements that Iraq had no WMDs were attributed to the discredited Iraqi government. Quoting Iraqi denials supposedly balanced the lies spread in the media by US officials like John Bolton, who now leads the charge to overthrow Maduro. Wyss could have cited economists independent of the Maduro government on the impact of US sanctions—like US economist Mark Weisbrot, or the emphatically anti-Maduro Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez.
Illegal US sanctions were first imposed in 2015 under a fraudulent “state of emergency” declared by Obama, and subsequently extended by Trump. The revenue lost to Venezuela’s government due to US economic sanctions since August 2017, when the impact became very easy to quantify, is by now well over $6 billion. That’s enormous in an economy that was only able to import about $11 billion of goods in 2018, and needs about $2 billion per year in medicines. Trump’s “recognition” of Guaidó as “interim president” was the pretext for making the already devastating sanctions much worse. Last month, Francisco Rodríguez revised his projection for the change in Venezuela’s real GDP in 2019, from an 11 percent contraction to 26 percent, after the intensified sanctions were announced.
The $20 million in US “aid” that Wyss is outraged Maduro won’t let in is a rounding error compared to the billions already lost from Trump’s sanctions.
Former US Ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield, who pressed for more sanctions on Venezuela, dispensed with the standard “humanitarian” cover that US officials have offered for them (Intercept, 2/10/19):
And if we can do something that will bring that end quicker, we probably should do it, but we should do it understanding that it’s going to have an impact on millions and millions of people who are already having great difficulty finding enough to eat, getting themselves cured when they get sick, or finding clothes to put on their children before they go off to school. We don’t get to do this and pretend as though it has no impact there. We have to make the hard decision—the desired outcome justifies this fairly severe punishment.
How does this gruesome candor get missed by reporters like Wyss, and go unreported in his article?
Speaking of “severe punishment,” if the names John Bolton and Elliott Abrams don’t immediately call to mind the punishment they should be receiving for crimes against humanity, it illustrates how well the Western propaganda system functions. Bolton, a prime facilitator of the Iraq War, recently suggested that Maduro could be sent to a US-run torture camp in Cuba. Abrams played a key role in keeping US support flowing to mass murderers and torturers in Central America during the 1980s. Also significant that Abrams, brought in by Trump to help oust Maduro, used “humanitarian aid” as cover to supply weapons to the US-backed Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
In the Miami Herald article, the use of US “aid” for military purposes is presented as another allegation made by the vilified Venezuelan president: “Maduro has repeatedly said the aid is cover for a military invasion and has ordered his armed forces not to let it in, even as food and medicine shortages sweep the country.”
Venezuela Accuses U.S. of Secretly Shipping Arms After Weapons Found on Plane with Possible CIA Ties | Democracy Now!
Calling for international aid and being democratically elected will do as little to protect Maduro’s government from US aggression as being disarmed of WMD did to prevent Iraq from being invaded—unless there is much more pushback from the US public against a lethal propaganda system.
Suggested Reading:
When Is a Democracy not a Democracy? When It’s Venezuela and the US is Pushing Regime Change. Venezuela has as much right to call itself a democracy as does the United States. Until that is understood by enough people, the Trump administration will continue to devastate Venezuela’s economy with illegal sanctions and push it towards civil war.
UN Rapporteur: US Sanctions Cause Death in Venezuela
Guaido is playing it fast and loose with the Bolivarian Constitution to justify a dictatorship
Trump’s Economic Sanctions Have Cost Venezuela About $6bn Since August 2017
How could Venezuela's president 'steal' the 2018 election from an unknown who didn't run?
In other news...
The Largest Protest Ever Was 15 Years Ago. The Iraq War Isn’t Over. What Happened?
submitted by roy_batty3000 to Communist [link] [comments]

First R1 of some stupid deficit fear mongering video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZLdqmA4nqw
First of all, I don't have any formal training in macroeconomics beside a course or two in college and what I've read online, but this video was actually shown in class by my prof(thankfully not an economics prof, but a finance prof nonetheless). There will be probably be some bad economics here of my own. I am sure you guys can do a far better R1 on this then I did, and I would appreciate if someone did, actually.
It is also interesting how this video is labelled "2014 Collapse" but has data from around the recession, when the government had an expansionary fiscal policy combined with a recession, leading to a larger budget deficit than usual.
At 0:37
Ever think about paying your mortgage with your credit card, that's exactly what uncle sam does(by issuing new bonds to pay interest on old bonds)
Wow, first of all, the interest rate on treasury bonds is far far lower than on any mortgage or credit cards. Secondly, a sovereign borrower is not like an individual. A sovereign government has a far, far larger credit "line", is perpetual, can increase their revenue substantially through tax raises, and their debt is actually demanded by hundreds of millions of individuals and institutions around the globe.
1:08
It's such a huge amount of money, uncle sam is running out of people to borrow money from
Standard & Poor's credit rating for the United States stands at AA+ with stable outlook. Moody's credit rating for the United States was last set at Aaa with stable outlook. Fitch's credit rating for the United States was last reported at AAA with stable outlook. . In general, a credit rating is used by sovereign wealth funds, pension funds and other investors to gauge the credit worthiness of the United States thus having a big impact on the country's borrowing costs. This page includes the government debt credit rating for the United States as reported by major credit rating agencies
http://www.statista.com/statistics/189302/trading-volume-of-us-treasury-securities-since-1990/
2:26
Remember the foreign governments that lent money to Uncle Sam, when they lent money to uncle sam, something interesting happened. It made the US look richer, and their countries look poorer
Does China investing the trillions of US forex they have on US bonds really make the US dollar appreciate?I understand capital inflows can increase demand for a currency, but did it really happen to extent that it provided a significant incentive for US companies to outsource operations, as he states later on?
When a country looks poor due to America, one dollar of our money, buys a lot of their money, so they can pay their workers only a few pennies a day. With such low labor costs, they can sell their products in America for lower prices than any American manufacturer can.
Obviously the difference in currency prices can affect the trade balance, but the inherent reason why Chinese goods and manufacturing is cheaper is because the the cost of labor and operations there is just a fraction of what it is in the US, in real terms.
2:50
The easiest way for American companies to compete, is to move their factories overseas, and pay their workers a few pennies a day too. This contributes to a recession
Ah yes, an increase in trade between China and the US and the wage depreciation among workers of America's massive industrial sector has been demonstrated to cause recessions
3:40
He[Uncle Sam] can't have the federal reserve make more money without making the inflation worse"
Obviously expansionary monetary policy tends to increase the rate of money supply growth in the economy and thus inflation, but the level of inflation wasn't above the threshold where it could be a problem. The recession actually had deflationary pressures rather inflationary,.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. Federal Reserve has kept interest rates near zero and pursued a bond-buying program – now discontinued – known as quantitative easing. Some critics of the program alleged it would cause a spike in inflation in the U.S. dollar, but inflation peaked in 2007 and declined steadily over the next eight years. There are many, complex reasons why QE didn't lead to inflation or hyperinflation, though the simplest explanation is that the recession was a strong deflationary environment, and quantitative easing ameliorated its effect
3:57
Whether its in two months or two years, the day will come when uncle sam can no longer pay its bills
Its been more than two years since this video was posted on youtube(most likely just a retitled version of an older video), the US government still has by far the best credit rating in the world.
submitted by FlairCannon to badeconomics [link] [comments]

RUPEE AND THE FOREX RESERVES Forex Market Basics by Investopedia List of Countries by Foreign Exchange Reserves Understanding Forex Quotes Investopedia Videos Unknown Facts About How to Trade Forex on News Releases - Investopedia

Foreign currency reserves are vital to a nation's economic well-being. Without adequate reserves, an economy can grind to a halt, and a country may be unable to pay for critical imports, such as 15a 6 Investopedia Forex Upside Downside Capture Investopedia Forex Online Bruchsal Investopedia tag handel : The most common types of derivatives are options, futures, forwards, swaps and .. In an up-and-in barrier option, the option only comes into existence if the price of the underlying asset rises above the pre-specified barrier, which is foreign exchange reserve: Deposits of a foreign currency held by a central bank. Holding the currencies of other countries as assets allow governments to keep their currencies stable and reduce the effect of economic shocks. The use of foreign exchange reserves became popular after the decline of the gold standard. So at the end of that video the central bank of country B ended up with foreign currency reserves. It ended up with some of A's currency on its balance sheet. What I want to do in this video is think about what if demand goes the other way and how could the central bank use its foreign currency reserves to prevent its currency from devaluing. Foreign Exchange Reserves in the United States increased to 132239 USD Million in May from 128802 USD Million in April of 2020. Foreign Exchange Reserves in the United States averaged 58159.09 USD Million from 1957 until 2020, reaching an all time high of 153075 USD Million in September of 2012 and a record low of 12128 USD Million in August of 1971.

[index] [3093] [12083] [12798] [14045] [1045] [10142] [9275] [13557] [11791] [238]

RUPEE AND THE FOREX RESERVES

If you intend on joining Foreign exchange trading, a fantastic thing to keep in mind is to constantly confirm yourself prior to making a trade. Most of us make reckless mistakes every now and then. 6 Correlated Currency Pairs by Investopedia - Duration: 2:07. Kiss Trading Academy ... A Simple Explanation of Forex Investopedia Academy - Duration: 4:53. Investopedia Academy 14,591 ... Foreign Exchange Reserves of India went up in June this year. It went up to $ 507.644 billion beginning this month. Last week, it went down by $ 2 billion because of reported depreciation in ... forex trading investopedia advantages of foreign exchange reserves can forex trading be a full time job advantages of forex trading over stocks what's easier stocks or forex FOREX or the foreign exchange otherwise known as currency trading is the market in which currencies are traded. Simply explained, traders pair two different foreign currencies (majors, minors, or ...