Since the year 2000, the following seven events have either caused or been the symptom of the present economic crises:
- Year 2000: Iraq dumps the US dollar and switches to the Euro - The following article,"The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq", which was written before the US invasion of Iraq, lays forth an argument that the war in Iraq was not just about oil but about the currency in which oil is traded. It is mandatory reading for anyone who wants to understand the basic concepts of American foreign policy, economics, and its military operations around the world. This article states that the principle reason why the United States invaded Iraq was because Saddam Hussein in the year 2000 went "ahead with its plans to stop using the U.S. dollar in its oil business" and start using the Euro.
Iraq switching from the US Petro-dollar to the Euro meant that countries would no longer be obligated to buy oil in US dollars, so they would no longer have to maintain their US dollar reserves.
Since reaching a double top in the year 2001/02, the US dollar has been devalued approximately 35%.
click to enlarge
Even though Iraq dumping the US currency is no longer an issue because the United States is now occupying Iraq, many countries continue to sell the dollar, converting their reserves to other currencies. Some of these countries include: Sweden, Cuba, U.A.E., China, Russia, India, Indonesia, North Korea, Venezuela, and many more. If the tipping point has been reached, it would explain the dollars dramatic devaluation.
- Year 2005: Rewriting the U.S. Bankruptcy Law - After years of lobbying, the “dream bill for credit card and financial service companies” finally came into effect in the United States. Two years ago the financial institutions that were preparing for the coming crash were able to lobby Congress to pass the ‘Bankruptcy Bill’. This law that took effect in 2005 created what is now widely refereed to as Debt Slavery and is “the biggest rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law in a quarter century”.
The Bill was conveniently introduced at a time when US household debt was at an all time high.
click to enlarge
Those who were wise enough to realize what the implications of the Bill would be declared bankruptcy before it took effect. Those unfortunates to have been caught unaware are now just realizing that corporations, who’s debts are wiped clean when they declare bankruptcy, have more rights then they do. Unfortunately, since personal bankruptcies have been surging, many people are finding out about their slave status the hard way.
- Year 2006: Discontinuance of M3 - “On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System” ceased publishing the M3 monetary aggregate. The M numbers (M1, M2, and M3) are “components of the United States money supply”, which “show the amount of dollars in circulation”.
click to enlarge
“M1 is the most volatile, equivalent to cash on the loose. M2 is less volatile, equivalent to savings account deposits. M3 is least volatile, equivalent to Rich Folks Money which they park.” One of the most important things that the M numbers are used for is to measure inflation. Clearly, the data indicates that “there has been substantial money growth since 2000”.
If there is more money in circulation then it becomes devalued. The downside of devaluing a currency is that it can cause inflation and force the government to increase interest rates, but there are positive effects.
As the Federal Reserve states, “A key effect of devaluation is that it makes the domestic currency cheaper relative to other currencies. There are two implications of a devaluation. First, devaluation makes the country's exports relatively less expensive for foreigners. Second, the devaluation makes foreign products relatively more expensive for domestic consumers, thus discouraging imports. This may help to increase the country's exports and decrease imports, and may therefore help to reduce the current account deficit.”
However, not knowing how much money the Banks are printing means that there is no longer an accurate indication of how much currency is in circulation. This basically means that we are playing Monopoly with people who can take money out of the bank anytime they want, because they are the bank. This should be raising alarm bells across the United States the way it has done across the world, as the dumping of the US dollar by most countries indicates. After all, why would anyone want to hold on to a currency that has lost more than 67 percent in five-years relative to its peers?
- Year 2006: Iran moves from US dollars to the Euro - At the end of 2006 Iran announced that they would “use the euro instead of the US dollar in the country's budget for the next Iranian year”. This announcement is at least an order of magnitude more significant than Saddam Hussein saying that Iraq would start selling oil in Euros.
If the United States was willing to invade Iraq to prevent oil from being traded in any other currency then the dollar, then it would be logical to assume that they will also confront Iran regarding their plans to permanently and absolutely phase out the US dollar. The United States now finds itself between a rock and a hard place, because they will either need to invade, bomb, or enforce sanctions against Iran along with any other country that decides to stop using US dollars in their oil exports, or they will have to watch the complete collapse of their economy and the devaluing of the Federal Reserve currency known as the US dollar.
click to enlarge
Where this will lead is yet to be determined but we now know that the United States is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives, both American and foreign, and is willing to execute the leaders of sovereign countries to prevent them from switching from US dollars to the Euro.
- Year 2006/07: Subprime Market Collapses - “Subprime lending , also called B-paper, near-prime, or second chance lending, is the practice of making loans to borrowers who do not qualify for the best market interest rates because of their deficient credit history. The term also refers to paper taken on property that cannot be sold on the primary market, including loans on certain types of investment properties and certain types of self-employed individuals. Subprime lending is risky for both lenders and borrowers due to the combination of high interest rates, poor credit history, and adverse financial situations usually associated with subprime applicants.”
In the US the competition between these lenders became so fierce that “when the rates were getting too low, they switched to competing by way of advance ratio versus selling price.”
“In other words, if lender ‘A’ was offering 90% financing, lender ‘B’ would go to 100% financing, then lender ‘C’ would advance 100% of selling price plus costs, then to 105%, etc. We have seen the U.S. equity lenders now go to 130% of selling price, giving back 10-15% to the purchasers to help buy furniture, large electronic products, groceries, while the remaining 15-20% was eaten up in fees.”
Why would a lender risk giving someone 130% of the value of a property, especially if the people are considered to be high risk? Fractional-reserve banking of course: A system that has been established to allow financial institutions to “loan their customers many times the sum of the credit reserves than they hold”. It’s a pyramid scheme in which everything continues to work until the bottom falls out, and the bottom has fallen out in the United States where “States have subprime exposure between 18% to 30%” and early payment defaults are rising. This problem with the subprime mortgage market is intensifying with the US and UK housing market crashes.
The following animated documentary contains further information on our present monetary system, and is a great introduction to fractional reserve banking: Money As Debt (47:07)
With this kind of banking system where money is created from debt, is it any wonder that the International Monetary Fund is warning that “house prices in the UK are overpriced by as much as 40 per cent and the bubble might burst” in Britain as well as several other European markets as it has in the United States.
- Year 2007: Run on The Bank in the UK - “A bank run is a type of financial crisis. It is a panic which occurs when a large number of customers of a bank fear it is insolvent and withdraw their deposits,” and this is exactly what happened in Britain, the financial capital of the world, in September of this year.
“The queues that formed outside Northern Rock, the country's fifth-biggest mortgage lender, represented the first bank run in Britain since 1866. The panic was prompted by the very announcement designed to prevent it. Only when the Bank of England said that it would stand by the stricken Northern Rock did depositors start to run for the exit. Attempts by Alistair Darling, the chancellor of the exchequer, to reassure savers served only to lengthen the queues of people outside branches demanding their money. The run did not stop until Mr Darling gave a taxpayer-backed guarantee on September 17th that, for the time being, all the existing deposits at Northern Rock were safe.”
This banking crisis is not an anomaly that just became realized in the UK. Banks in the rest of Europe are also facing a crisis and all indications are that this “Force 5 economic-hurricane that just touched ground in Great Britain is headed for America and gaining strength on the way.”
The following documentary is worth viewing to fully understand the causes and implications of what is taking place: ZEITGEIST, The Movie: Part 3 of 3 (47:05)
- Year 2007: 52% Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran - In the most recent Zogby Poll released October 29, the “majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election.”
Why would an attack on Iran be considered an economic event? Because war is the perfect consuming machine and a racket. “It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.” (Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC)
The US economy was on the verge of collapse before 911 and again before the invasion of Iraq, but it was saved thanks in large part to the wars. “What do the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the economic recovery in the United States have in common? More than one might expect, to judge from the last couple of rounds of US growth figures (2004).”
How much did the Iraq war contribute to boasting the economy? “During the second quarter of 2003, when the war in Iraq was in full swing, some 60 per cent of the 3.3 per cent GDP growth rate was attributable to military spending.”
“The war has been a large part of the justification for the Bush administration to run ever-widening budget deficits, and those deficits, predicated largely on military spending, have in turn pumped money into the economy and provided the stimulus that low interest rates and tax cuts, on their own, could never achieve.”
This however has run its course and the American economy has taken a serious downturn. As it is the case with delaying the inevitable, the present economic crisis is much graver than it was pre-Iraq, hence a bigger intervention is required to rejuvenate the American economy with its cannibalistic corporate structure.
Thanks to these wars, US debt is at historic levels, $9 trillion and counting, and all indications are that it is going to go a lot higher.
click to enlarge
So what is this ever-widening budget deficits mean? The above chart is a “projection of the US budget” for the near future. “These are the US government’s own projections—and we all know they have every incentive to accent the positive. If this is the best they can do at this point, then you know things are not just bad, they are calamitous.
“This glimpse at the future clearly shows that the debt of the US will, in the foreseeable future, go from being a troubling yet manageable fraction of the economy to being several times the size of economy. That can’t happen without serious repercussions.
“The US government will be spending money they don’t have, which means creating more of it out of thin air and diluting the value of all the dollars that came before. It doesn’t take a Harvard MBA to know that the kind of deficits projected above guarantee a persistently weak dollar, higher inflation and higher interest rates going forward.”
So how does a collapsing empire as large as the United States recover from such disastrous fiscal policy? If history is any indication, a World War is the only solution. “The Great Depression ended as nations increased their production of war materials at the start of World War II. This increased production provided jobs and put large amounts of money back into circulation.” Hence in large part, WWII helped to bring about the end of the great depression.
Unfortunately however it was not the general public that benefited from the war. “World War II spending often required a conversion of plants designed for civilian good production into military factories and back again over the 9 year period. Substantially higher federal tax rates that were paid by the majority of households imposed much stronger fiscal drags on the benefits of the spending. Finally, less of the military spending was earmarked for wages and use of locally produced inputs, which reduced the direct stimulus to the local economy.” In essence, World War II just helped to consolidate corporate assets for the privileged few.
This attack on Iran will be nothing short of World War III which happens to be the mantra of the neocons who, with their corporate connections, would have everything to gain while the human race would have everything to lose, specially considering that this global war to save the American Empire is about to begin with the use of Nuclear weapons.
Unwittingly, the American populace is beginning to support the Bush administration’s plans to attack Iran, but they fail to realize that the decision to start World War III is solely an economic one to prevent the banking institutions from collapsing.
So what are the implications of all this?
In a recent lecture, Seymour Hersh, an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, stated that he feared what would happen if American citizens began to believe the propaganda from the Bush administration now that the rhetoric to attack Iran has changed from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons to stopping them from killing American troops in Iraq. He states that this change in tactics by the US administration seems to be working and Americans are starting to support an attack on Iran. As the Zogby Poll indicates, Hersh’s fears are becoming realized.
The US economy is showing signs that it is in a recession and heading for a hard landing, due in large part to the subprime crisis and the inevitable end to fractional reserve banking. Unfortunately economists believe that the short term solution to saving the banking theocracies from completely collapsing, with a crisis of this magnitude, is to wage war. However this strategy has the reverse effect, and completely collapses an economy if the war drags on by mushrooming the national debt and depleting the resources of the warring nations. This kind of economic lifeline has two major consequences: First it devastates the populace and the environment, and second it consolidates assets for the elite.
There is also one major setback to this proposal of a war with Iran: An attack on Iran would be nothing less then World War III. But then again maybe that is what the US economy needs to stay alive, a World War: The Perfect Consuming Machine. After all it was World War II that decisively ended the great depression, and since most economic indicators are worst now then they were then, it would be reasonable to assume that the United States will start World War III for nothing else then to continue the American lifestyle, maintain the banking plutocracy, and consolidate world assets into the corporate coffer.
If World War III, the minimum expected death toll for which is 200 million, is allowed to take place to save the banking institutions from collapse, then it is a true sign of corporate economic intelligence and control, however this well not resonate well with humanity, but then again, corporations are anything but human and war is everything but humane.