Post: #76

The main point I was attempting to make, but failed to state in my previous post is that the days of US petrodollar hegemony are numbered. To summarize what's been covered:

• Unsustainability of debt
• Weakening of military power
• Inability to exert pressure militarily
  

The final point is the Achilles heel of the petrodollar system. The house of Saud prices oil in dollars and buys our debt in return for our military patronage. Recent military actions reflect a pattern of preventing alternatives to the petrodollar system. We have already discussed what has happened in Libya, in Syria, and other recent conflicts.

As the US military continues to weaken, threats of military action will be taken less seriously, and countries will begin to exert their sovereignty more and more. Actions to circumvent the petrodollar system will grow bolder and bolder. As NTP covered in great deal, there is considerable incentive to develop an alternative to this unfair, one-sided system.

Related to diminishing military power is the hollowing out of the economy and industry. A smaller industrial base will mean an inability to produce military equipment, logistical chains, spare parts, etc. A diminished economy will mean lower tax receipts even as we approach the upper bound on the laffer curve. Lower tax receipts will exert additional political pressure against military spending (as can be seen in the discussions over the debt ceiling and sequestration).

Many industries have left for other countries due to the high regulatory and labor costs here. The FIRE economy has strip mined the wealth of the populace and destroyed the middle class. I addressed specific points of this in finer detail in the following post:

/thread-52322...pid1171235

To summarize that post, the wealth of all but the top 0.1% of the population is being sucked dry. The points I discussed in the post are:

• Disappearing full time jobs
• Increased hours for salaried workers
• Inflation of Student Loans
• Inflation of auto loan costs
• Obamacare (forced spending)
• Rise in cost of rent
• Rise in cost of commodities
• Rise in cost of all assets (not in the post)
• Destruction of wealth
• TPP (future)
• Fracking crash (future)

This may be a temporary boon for those at the top of the rentier economy, but the party will end badly. As the wealth is stripped away from individuals, consumer spending on all but the most necessary commodities will plummet. There will be an inability to save up capital for productive investment, leading to a lack of entrepreneurial ventures and anemic job creation.

The future appears grim. A weakened military will mean the end of the petrodollar system and a massive devaluation of the dollar. The debt will have to be restructured and the massive entitlement state will have to be destroyed, leading to a massive increase in the supply of labor, and political unrest. It will be more difficult to import goods (as other countries won't accept dollars or bonds on the same level as today), and there will be shortages of certain goods. The hollowing out of wealth and the devaluation of what's left will leave all but the 0.1% impoverished and desperate.

Manufacturing will be forced to return to the country, as the cost of importing manufactured goods will be too great. The masses of poor, unemployed people will be desperate to find work to survive. Increased automation will further erode the demand for labor. The current push for immigration reform would also lower demand for labor. Everything is being done to lower the cost of labor in the country. Everything is being done to erode the wealth of the country, to prevent the purchase of income generating assets, which would allow for citizens to gain a semblance of independence from the rat race. The amount of people who will be forced to work will increase, the cost of labor will greatly decrease. Worker rights and protections will disappear in the name of worker reform. Legislation like the TPP is a portent of what's to come in the future.

I'm of the opinion that the role of the corporation will play more prominently in the lives of people in the near future. With the destruction of other social networks such as the nuclear family, religious groups, and close friends, the corporation and coworkers will take center stage. The corporation could be seen as a replacement father figure as it provides money for food and shelter, provides an environment for socialization, and for many, a sense of fulfillment.

Post: #77

Excellent post thoughtgypsy. You pretty much hit the nail on the head and at a level that I, and many others, are able to understand. I PM'ed NTP a couple days ago asking his input on a question dealing with the same topic, though at a higher level.

Essentially, how soon and in what manner can we expect to see Neo feudalism take hold?

People have long joked (or predicted) that in the future we will have no national borders - just banks and corporations. Your post very clearly outlines that future. Another sign of what's coming is the increased privatization of many things. Being involved in the aviation industry, I have noticed a recent push once again to privatize the air traffic control and airspace system. This has slowly occurred in countries all over the world and I believe it's a matter of time before it happens here. I think we will even eventually see private militaries and that over a period of time government will become a relic of the past much like royal families. I also believe negative interest rates very much tie into this as well.

In addition to NTPs thoughts on this, since we're bringing this to a higher level and tying in neo feudalism, I'd like to hear what guys like Zelcorpion have to say on this.

Post: #78

Your higher level abstraction is right on kamoz. The initial thought for the thread came from posting on a U.S. Dollar thread and guys wanted me to talk about geo-politics so I created this one and organized it into a 5 elements based on WWIII already having started.

I have alluded to the beginning of nations and I added a 6th element with culture as I realized this would help transition back to ancient history and we could go back to 9,000 – 10,000 BC.

Modern civilization has been transitioning to Neo-feudalism and I propose that it will continue to do so. The corporatocracy of the second half of the 20th century was the beginning and it will continue to escalating over the next few decades. The building of mega cities has already begun and there will be private military forces to protect these cities. Within neighborhoods in these cities there will be private security that will be an extension of what is seen now in gated communities. When one travels around the world today, there can be a marked difference in gated communities in various countries around the world depending on the security situation in that country. This will continue to become more robust.

These private security forces will eventually be given police powers and then military grade weapons. If you look at the big corporations now you will see that this has happened. I was one such executive and we had security that was given police powers on corporate property to include lawful powers. There was a militarized aspect to the company as well as having former members of U.S. and foreign intelligence communities as employees that were in groups that focused on counter-intelligence, espionage and others within the corporate structure. We had arrangements with contract companies with former military personnel (like you see in the middle-east) that were on call should there be a need to assist executives or the corporation´s interests around the world. Hyper privatization is already being baked into the cake as it were.

Governments will not go away as it takes time for people to adjust and new systems to be set in place. They will evolve and you will probably see more private-public partnerships at the local level, then state level followed by national level and then across nationalities. At first it will be based on the codification of seeming innocent things like housing, power, water, then food. There will be international agreements that will transform into local policies and ordinances. These are the basic things for existence in the modern civilized world.

People will mistake these as having the force and effect of law. Through the herding mentality they will be like law and eventually these proclamations made through public-private partnerships will be accepted as social norms and then be made into laws. Those who do not comply will then be in violation of an international idea that was translated into a local ordinance but now carries the consequences of law of their particular nation. This has already begun and you have mentioned one on the national level. Watch for more of this to unfold. There will be a blending such that concept of nations will begin to erode. This will occur over the next century and probably into the middle of the 22nd century, the national concept will be very different than it is today.

Post: #79

NTP, very insightful post.

Your 'mega cities' quip made me think about the ultra wealthy cities built across the Arab world and Africa in the last two decades. Cities that seemingly arose from the desert out of nothing overnight, turning into global metropolises for the educated, moneyed, well connected, and skilled professionals.

Dubai
Doha
Eko Atlantic
Luanda
etc...


For example walking through Dubai feels like walking through Downtown Toronto. Global cities, for global 'cosmopolitan' populations.

Post: #80

This is presented as a continuation and deepening of the 6th element as well as linking with post #32, #42, and #50 on this Geo-Political thread as well as the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict thread here:

/thread-54904.html

Part I

This is part of controlling the fulcrum and applying specific pressure across three ancient empires (Russian, Persian, and Ottoman) to play them off against one another in order to control the trade conduit and the resources of the region. A few of the specific pressures as they relate to U.S. hegemony include surrounding Russia as well as Iran and maintaining a handle on Turkey.

Since 1994 Nagorno-Karabakh has been an independent state, but some countries refuse to recognize it as such.

The current country of Azerbaijan is now more of a 20th century creation, created by Stalin who ordered the border in order to contain the Armenians as well as keeping the Azeris occupied. These countries can trace their modern origins back to 10,000 B.C. and the Guruchay culture.

The (first) Persian Empire known as the Achaemenid Empire was formerly Kingdom of Media (under Medes is sometimes technically considered the first Persian Empire), the Kingdom of Lydia, and the Babylonian Empire during in the 6th – 4th century B.C. under Cyrus (II) the Great (who rebelled against his grandfather the Mede king). Cyrus created the role of Satraps or Governors.




Culturally the empire was more aligned with the Ancient Persians and it expanded further under Darius III in the 4th century B.C. After the death of Darius III, the area (Atropatene) being governed Atropates surrendered to Alexander (the Great). Alexander retained the satrapic administration. After replacing the area with a new governor (satrap), Alexander eventually returned Atropates to power and married his daughter to one of his commanders. Atropatene included the southern part of modern day Azerbaijan.

After Alexander´s death, the empire was divided amongst the Diadochi (rival generals) under the partition of Babylon.



--note both Media and Lesser Media should be colored red on this map.


Part of the division included the Seleucid Empire, where the satrap generally was designated as strategos; but their provinces were much smaller than under the Persians. The Seleucid Empire was a major center of Hellenistic culture that maintained a preeminence of Greek customs where a Greek political elite dominated, although much of the population was Persian as well as some being Assyrian and Anatolian (Turkish) in origin. The first king was Seleucus I Nicator.




This is KEY…. Atropates refused to pay allegiance to Seleucus I, and made Media Atropatene an independent kingdom (this was 1,000 years before the Mohammed). It subsequently lost the Media prefix in the name and came to be known as Atropatene. The former Achaemenid satrapy of Media was divided into two states: The greater (southern) part; Media Magna was assigned to Peithon, one of Alexander's bodyguards (not to be confused with Peithon, son of Agenor, who was satrap of the Indus). The smaller (northern) region referred to as Lesser Media, which had been the sub-satrapy of Matiene, became Media Atropatene under Atropates, the former Achaemenid governor of all Media, who had by then become father-in-law of Perdiccas, regent of Alexander's designated successor.

Things escalate between, Media Magna under Peithon and Matiene (Lesser Media that later was called Melitene by the Romans) under Atropatene.

Below is a 1st century map of Caucasian Albania and Atropatene. Caucasian Albania is the modern day Republic of Azerbaijan (sometimes referred to as northern Azerbaijan). Atropatene is the modern day Iranian Azerbaijan (sometimes referred to as southern Azerbaijan or Caucasian Azerbaijan by the Iranians).




Another element of this relates to Geo-politics and the Kurds (which is part of the modern day fulcrum). It has been suggested (by a Russian linguist) that Medes, who widely inhabited the land where currently the Kurds form the majority, might have been forefathers of the modern Kurds (see also post#42). Others have identified Kurdish dialects as Parthian, albeit with a Median substratum. See also the language map on post #11 of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Thread. One of the things to consider is how political policy backed by military force discourages/encourages immigration and emigration. Parts of Armenia have changed significantly over the past 100 years and this serves as an example of the weaponization of immigration/emigration that is underway in Europe. I postulate that this was and is by design in both locations.

I would also make a note of caution here as Turkey, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Iran use different types of disinformation and manipulations in information warfare. It is a challenge to paint an objective picture.

Here is an example Pan-Iranist ideology (who claim that all of Azerbaijan (beginning in the 7th century B.C.) and even Armenia have been a part of Iran) in the early 1920s in opposition to Pan-Turkism (denying the Armenians’ historical and legal rights as to the western part of their homeland of Western Armenia, Cilician Armenia and Armenian Mesopotamia, which were subjected to the Armenian genocide, as well as to the eastern part of their homeland of the liberated lands of Artsakh) and Pan-Arabism (who claim the Persian Gulf should be the Arabian Gulf). These types of ideologies (with and without facts) are driving Geo-politics.




In the 1st century B.C. the Sythians (Greek name for nomad), and Parthians (mostly Persian and antagonistic with the Armenians) along with the western part of Modern Georgia (as the eastern edge of the Roman Empire) formed the fulcrum. Seleucid expansion into Anatolia (Turkey and into the Armenian highlands) and Greece was halted after crushing defeats by the Roman army (see other posts). This was another major acceleration of hostilities that previously began some 300 hundred beforehand, and yet 700 years before the Muslim conquests.

The Seleucid dynasty gradually lost control of Persia over the next few centuries. In approximately 253 A.D., the Arsacid dynasty established itself in Parthia. Parthia was at the center of the silk Road. The dynasty founded by Atropates would rule the kingdom for several centuries, first independently, then as vassals of the Arsacids (who called it ´Aturpatakan´). It was eventually annexed by the Arsacids, who then lost it to the Sassanids (and later Dabuyid), who again called it ´Aturpatakan.´ Sometime between 639 and 643 the Arabs under the Rashidun (1st Caliphate) took control of the area during the reign of Umar. Atropatene formed a separate province of the early Islamic caliphate and was considered to have had strategic importance. It was during the Arab period that Middle Iranian (i.e. Parthian and Middle Persian) Aturpatakan became Adarbaygan or Azerbaijan.




This continued with the Rashidun Caliphate were 2 more Caliphates, then 3 more dynasties, an Empire, another dynasty, The Mongol Empire and Ilkhanate, 7 rival dynasties, 6 more dynasties and ended with Pahlavi Dynasty in 1979 and Mohammad Reza (Shah) Pahlavi.

Part II continues due to limitation of pictures.

Post: #81

Part II

Departing Iran and returning North to Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Turkey, and Russia.

In 20 B.C., Emperor Augustus (of Rome) nominated Ariobarzanes II, the son of Artavasdes, to be king of Media Atropatene and then he was also appointed king of Armenia. This lasted almost 40 years when he was murdered. During the 1st century AD, Greater Armenia remained an independent kingdom under the Arsacid dynasty.




Throughout this period, Armenia remained an area of contention between Rome and the Parthian Empire, as well as the Sasanian Empire (which eventually gained power), this was the reason for several of the Roman–Persian wars.




In the late 4th century A.D., Armenia was divided between Rome and the Sasanians. The Sasanians took control of the larger part (80%) of the Armenian Kingdom and in the mid-5th century abolished the Armenian monarchy altogether.

Under Roman rule, Melitene (formerly Matiene) was the base camp of Legio XII Fulminata. Emperor Theodosius I divided the region into two provinces: First Armenia (Hayk'), with its capital at Sebasteia (modern Sivas); and Second Armenia, with its capital at Melitene. The Satrapies in the south on the other hand, which had been under Roman influence already since 298 A.D., were a group of six fully autonomous principalities allied to the Empire (civitates foederatae): Ingilene, Sophene, Anzitene, Asthianene, Sophanene and Balabitene. The local Armenian Nakharars were fully sovereign in their territories, and were only required to provide soldiers upon request and to dispatch a golden crown to the emperor, as a token of submission. In return, they received their royal insignia, including red shoes, from the emperor. The situation remained unchanged for nearly a century, until a large-scale revolt by the satraps in 485 A.D. against Emperor Zeno occurred and the satraps were stripped of their sovereignty and their rights of hereditary succession. Then came a balkanization where Armenia was divided into 4 provinces and heavily taxed until a revolt sprung up and was quelled by the Romans and the revolt leaders took refuge in Persia.




In the 6th and 7th centuries A.D., Armenia once again became a battleground between the East Romans (Byzantines) and the Sasanians, until both powers were defeated and replaced by the Muslim Caliphate in the mid-7th century. In the last part of the 6th century A.D. most of Persia-Armenia was ceded to the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and Armenia came under direct Byzantine control. After the death of Muhammad in 632 A.D., the Arab conquest of Armenia began and lasted through the 11 century A.D. finishing with the Battle of Manzikert in 1071 A.D., when all of Armenia fell to the Seljuks.

During Islamic rule, Arabs from other parts of the Caliphate settled in Armenia. By the 9th century, there was a well-established class of Arab emirs, more or less equivalent to the Armenian Nakharars. At the end of this period, in 885, the Bagratid Kingdom of Armenia was established. Before this, Armenia had been the first country to establish Christianity as its state religion in 301 A.D and before that the dominant religion in Armenia was Zoroastrianism (promoted by the Parthian/Sassanid Empire).

Over one thousand years later, the map looked like something below where Armenia was largely under Ottoman rule. The vast majority of Armenians, grouped together under the name Armenian millet (community) and led by their spiritual head, the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople. Through the millet system, the Armenian community was allowed to rule themselves under their own system of governance with little interference from the Ottoman government with exceptions in large urban centers and the extremely wealthy areas.




With the silk road at the time looking something like this:




The area of Azerbaijan has historically been a part of a larger group to include the Mongols in the 13th Century and the Russian Empire in the 19th Century and was commonly known as Albania (not to be confused with Albania near Greece on the Adriatic) or Caucasian Albania until 1918.

The following will be a vast simplification. The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic proclaimed its independence in 1918 and became the first Muslim-majority democratic and secular republic. The choice of the name Azerbaijan in 1918 was not liked by the government in Persia (present-day Iran), who suspected that the republic was nothing more than a tool in the Ottoman Turks´ plans to eventually lay claim to the Persian province of Azerbaijan in Persia´s northwest.

The new Azeri government declared also the inclusion of Nagorno Karabakh and Zangezour (a mountainous area in the province of Siunik in southern Armenia) in its territory, but the Armenians in these two areas refused to accept the Azeri sovereignty. The Azeri claim was also supported by the Ottoman Turks who considered themselves the cousins of the Tatars (also known as Russian/Ukrainian (Turkic (not Turkish) speaking Mongols) Muslims and Caucasian Turks). The Ottoman Turks wanted geographic connectivity to those whom they believe(d) are their brothers (Caucasian Turks) in Baku, Daghestan, Turkestan, and Azerbaijan. However, the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh refused to give way and declared their independence. The Ottoman soldiers in Transcaucasia were eventually replaced by British soldiers after World War I and the Armenian slaughter (sometimes called the Armenian Holocaust (which had been preceded 6 years earlier with the Adana massacres and 15 years before that with the Hamidian massacres) or Armenian Genocide where 800,000-1,500,000 Armenians, Ottoman Greeks, and Assyrians were lost from 1915-1918). The Armenia communities that are seen around the world today are generally a direct result of this part of history in Armenia. Turkey denies such assertions and views them as quelling rebellions. Azerbaijan then tried to annex Nagorno-Karabakh with the help of the British in order to establish full control over the oil exports from Baku. History is rhyming a century later.




Azerbaijan was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1920 as the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. There is another piece of history here where the Soviets desired the new Republic of Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk to develop into a communist ruled country. The Soviets chose to donate Karabakh as well as Nakhichevan, both acknowledged parts of the Republic of Armenia during 1919-1920, to Azerbaijan, the Turks' closest cousins in the Transcaucasus, until this time Nakhichevan had no actual geographic common border with Turkey. I posit that this was part of Stalin´s policy of divide and rule (conquer).

Azerbaijan proclaimed its independence in August 1991, before the official dissolution of the USSR. In September 1991, the disputed Armenian-majority Nagorno-Karabakh region re-affirmed its desire to create a separate state as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The region, effectively independent since the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh War in 1991, is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan until a final solution to its status is found through negotiations facilitated by the OSCE (Minsk Group), but neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has accepted these proposals as satisfactory. An important factor that has been missing for all years of mediation efforts, however, remains Karabakh´s absence in the direct negotiations. To date, Azerbaijan has refused to recognize Karabakh as a counterpart to the conflict and insisted on their exclusion from the negotiations and instead discussed the issue with Armenia. The Constitution of Azerbaijan does not declare an official religion, and all major political forces in the country are secularist, but the majority of people and some opposition movements adhere to Shia Islam.


---------

More for another time, as there is a parallel and connection to the above in the Middle East where the Akkadian people of Mesopotamia eventually coalesced into two major Akkadian speaking nations: Assyria in the north, and, a few centuries later, Babylonia in the south. The capital of the Akadian empire (some consider this the first empire) Akkad has not yet been located. Interestingly, many of the more recent insights on the Akkadian Empire have come from excavations in the Upper Khabur area in northeastern Syria. The main rivals, neighbors and trading partners to early Assyrian during the 22nd 20th centuries B.C. were the Hattians and Hurrians to the north in Asia Minor (connecting to the end of post #42)

Assyria was originally an Akkadian kingdom which evolved in the 25th to 24th centuries B.C. after shaking off Sumerian domination. The Old Assyrian Empire from the 21st to 14th centuries B.C. The Middle Assyrian Empire from the 14th to the 9th centuries B.C. The Neo-Assyrian Empire was 10th -7th centuries B.C.

Post: #82

@NTP

Quote:The U.S. went off of the gold standard because nations, led by the example of President Charles De Gaulle of France began to ask for significant tonnage of their gold in 1968.

To simplify this, would you agree with "the members of Bretton-Woods started plotting and executing a bank run on the bank they all agreed to create?" And so to further clarify, you think it is dishonorable to default by fiat instead of defaulting by running out of gold?

Also, you state that other countries were resentful because the USD achieved an "unfair" advantage under BW. However, now that other countries are all using fiat currencies like the US, they are also justifiably resentful about "Dollar Hegemony?"

Quote:In the United States, rehypothecation is capped at 140% of the value of the original collateral, but rules are made to be broken with small fines for bankers and brokers. They just need to get the money out of the country and move it to other countries where there is no limit or the legal implications to what I am calling fraud and dishonesty.

Researching this shows that rehypothecation is capped at 140% of the amount borrowed by the owner of the collateral (and an implied cap of 100% of the asset value). Europe has no "cap," meaning an implied cap of 100% of the collateral (not the amount borrowed against the collateral). Also, AFAIK, this practice is limited to prime dealers, IE those most likely to have access to the credit facilities most likely to mitigate default risk.

Additionally, I can see how rehypothecation increases credit creation but am not understanding how it suppresses the price of gold. Could you further explain this mechanism?

Quote:It is not necessarily cornering the gold market as it is simply asking for the delivery of physical gold that does not exist in reality, but simply as a paper claim. However, I posit that there is a larger (reverse cornering) game being played where various entities are physically accumulating large hoards (cornering) of gold in order to break the (paper gold) manipulation and through this decrease U.S. Dollar hegemony; this is part of the economic war.

Isn't this text-book "cornering the market": Enter into long forward contracts, control the actual physical commodity and refuse to sell it, inflict wrath on the shorts?

Post: #83

@ NTP

Quote: The states have existed as instruments for organized predation and exploitation, rather than allowing a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others at voluntarily arrived prices.

To clarify, do you subscribe to the "noble savage" conception of humanity, that the natural state of man is to create "a network of free and voluntary exchanges"? Or are you saying that states have created functional markets but then acted "as instruments for organized predation and exploitation?" Or something else?

Quote:Say grasped the fundamental problem of economics, in that we live in a world of scarce means, but have unlimited desire or demands.

Is this how you personally view yourself (as an insatiable appetite machine unable to feel content) or just other people or do you mean something else?

Post: #84

I am personally very happy as I ride the wave in life, with my health, with my friends, with my finances, with women as well as being on the physical wave surfing. At the same time, I strive to understand my world in greater detail and push the limits of what I am capable with all of the things previously mentioned. To me, these are complimentary, not contradictory. Juggling young beautiful women in different ports around the world is part of fun as an older guy.




I like the idea of the noble-savage (individually), but I am experienced enough to understand that is not the way that the world works collectively after groups or states are formed. Capitalism is a cruel system. There are losers and a free market brings them (as well as the winners) to the foreground. These market losers, in terms of business or individuals in the businesses, may suffer and suffer significantly. A larger question (for another thread) becomes how does a society handle the consequences of those who lose (such as the poor)? I propose that it is not a function of the state, rather it is a function of humanity that includes one´s immediate and extended family as well as human charity in general (this is where religion often dovetails with economics in a society). In nature, suffering is simply something the individual endures.

By scarce means I think that Say is talking about physical limits of goods. For example there is a limited supply of Earth on the Planet Earth, and so on. Avarice has been around for a while. Recall he was writing a few hundred years ago and was not talking about women or game.

-------

The members agreed to the Bretton Woods system because they thought they could convert their dollars to gold and when they saw that the probability of this was becoming less likely (due to U.S. expenditures in Southeast Asia and the printing of U.S. Dollars to pay for the excursion without a commensurate increase of the gold hoard) they chose to mimic De Gaulle. They were acting in enlightened self-interest as they wanted their gold because they did not trust that the gold being held in custody for them (in the US) would be there as it was over allocated (due to the increased number of dollars).

Recall that this was 1968 and the comparison that you make is from today with regard to the ¨unfair.¨ In 1968 the U.S. could print dollars that were backed by gold, whereas today there are backed with the ability to tax and pay the interest on U.S. Treasury Bonds and Notes as well as the U.S. military. Now that the other countries are using fiat currencies, it is a race to the bottom (and a competitive devaluation), but the U.S. is in a better position because commodities are traded in U.S. Dollars (USD) per Bretton Woods, countries store USD as their banking reserves, and countries need USD to settle debts. This is part of the current USD hegemony and it is shifting as I have alluded to in the past.

In 2014 Germany asked for its 1,500 tons of gold and was given 5 tons and told to wait 7 years for an additional 300 tons; currently it has received 120 tons (from the U.S. and France).

I wish that honor was more objective, but my experience shows me that there is a great amount of relativity amongst nations (and individuals). I recall a thought from my father when he said; wish in one hand and crap in the other hand and see which one fills up first. The visual did it for me. There are principles that are more common across cultures and that is where I would focus. In the end, my opinion is that I think that it is dishonorable to default when you give your word, simply do not give it (but then do not be surprised if others do not want to do business with you). If you do give your word, you need to tough it out and accept the consequences, learn and make the future better. My view is partly based on leaving an example for future generations to emulate as that was done for me in my tradition.




You are correct Different T that the European countries have no 140% cap on the amount borrowed against the collateral. Welcome to the wonderful world of derivatives where you can make bets on bets (on bets…) with virtually no limits. It is interesting with the limitation to prime dealers and how conduits with secondary dealers are used. This also ties in with the exchange of U.S. Treasury Bonds for the cash in the banks (given to the banks via the Federal Reserve) which are then (the Bonds) used as collateral by the banks.

For suppressing the price of gold, imagine that I have short gold positions and I leverage those positions through various derivative instruments.

Federal Reserve´s agents and bullion banks like HSBC and JP Morgan Chase sell uncovered shorts (´naked shorts´) on the COMEX (gold futures market) in order to drive down an otherwise rising price of gold (because people/institutions/countries are buying it physically to be stored). By pumping so many uncovered short contracts into the futures market, an artificial increase in ´paper gold´ is created. This increase in supply drives down the price.

From the perspective of the market, I am controlling (leveraging) vast amounts of the commodity (physical gold) and then the contract expires. In a normal settlement of a commodity contract, it would be…show me the commodity (gold), but that is not necessary and you can now be mandated to settle in paper; I make a paper bet (short), I lose and I can settle the loss in paper. Nothing physical, I drive the physical spot price down and I lose some 1´s and 0´s electronically.




This works because hedge funds are the main purchaser of the gold contracts and do not take delivery of the gold that is represented in the contract, instead they take (or give) the cash. Therefore the bullion banks (who sold the contracts) are not at risk to cover the contract.

The first to be fined for this type of manipulation on the LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was Barclays bank for 26 million pounds for (failures in internal controls) influencing the price of gold and a trader was fined and banned. Barclays was also fined $450 million (pocket change) by US and UK regulators for rigging the LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) market. Eventually over 20 major banks have been implicated and even the U.S. Treasury Secretary was investigated for complicity to rig the market.

LIBOR is the average of interest rates estimated by each of the leading banks in London that it would be charged were it to borrow from other banks. It influences between $350 trillion and 750 trillion (and maybe more of the estimated 1.6 Quadrillion) in derivatives on the world market. The LIBOR market plays a central role in Dollar Hegemony as manipulating LIBOR directly influences the (U.S.) derivatives market as well as mortgages, student loans, car loans, financial products (and the derivatives that arise from these products). Ultimately this affects consumers.




As a side note, over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives also play a role in price suppression and simultaneously serve to provide long positions for the bullion banks that disguise their manipulation of prices in the futures market. OTC derivatives are privately structured contracts created by large banks and the U.S. Congress was convinced (by the chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury Secretary, and the chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)) to prevent the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation (CFTC) from regulating OTC derivatives. This means that without Congressional oversight, information is not available that would indicate the purposes for which the banks use these OTC derivatives. Recall those U.S. Treasury Bonds from the banks (that were exchanged for their cash, that was given to them by the Federal Reserve) can be used as collateral for these OTC derivatives.

Now these types of things as well as ESF (exchange Traded Fund) operations, and a few others are a matter of National Security.

Nowhere else in the futures market can the amount of a commodity represented by the paper commodity contracts (´open interest´) exceed the actual amount of the physical commodity available for delivery…except in gold and silver.

The suppression of precious metal prices protects the value and status of the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency and hence U.S. Hegemony.




Cornering the market is normally when an entity attempts to gain sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset to allow the price to be manipulated. Perhaps this is a peculiarity with me as I do not consider this text book cornering in the sense that they (the purchasing entity) actually wants to take physically delivery of the metal (because they actually want the gold due to fraudulent paper money as well as a fraudulent paper gold market) and when enough people, institutions or governments take physical delivery of the gold, the manipulated ´paper gold´ is set free and normal price discovery takes place due to the forces of supply and demand for; reverse cornering is the term I used. The market is being controlled (cornered) based on fraud in the first place (in my opinion).

Recall that I come from the perspective of warfare and gold and silver serve (have served) as money as well as industrial (especially silver) metals which makes them unique in terms of commodities.

Post: #85

Quote:I like the idea of the noble-savage (individually), but I am experienced enough to understand that is not the way that the world works collectively after groups or states are formed.

This reads that socialization is the cause of humanity's variance from being "noble-savages." Is that the way you want it to be interpreted?

Quote:By scarce means I think that Say is talking about physical limits of goods.

My question was not addressing Say's scarcity assumption. It was addressing his "human's have unlimited desire and demands" comment. I would argue that this perspective of humanity is dominant and also responsible for many of the subsequent perspectives on economic purpose. I will ask again (if you don't want to answer, I understand): Is this how you personally view yourself (as an insatiable appetite machine unable to feel content) or just other people or do you mean something else?

Quote:The members agreed to the Bretton Woods system because they thought they could convert their dollars to gold and when they saw that the probability of this was becoming less likely (due to U.S. expenditures in Southeast Asia and the printing of U.S. Dollars to pay for the excursion without a commensurate increase of the gold hoard) they chose to mimic De Gaulle.

I always enjoy reading your "grey piece" perspectives and interpretations. This perspective about BW, however, seems incredibly naïve. The US was by far the dominant power at the end of WWII. That it created a system that furthered its own interests while trying to bring other allied powers benefits as well (instead of inflicting its will at the expense of the interests of its allies) speaks in favor of that iteration of the Western power structure.

Compared to present, the men of the 1940's were ignorant of many economic/financial perspectives that exist today. Earlier in the thread, you state that going back to a gold standard wouldn't be a good idea (based on the knowledge that is available to you today); yet you find it honorable for a nation to commit financial suicide when its allies execute a bank run on the very bank they agreed to (if you disagree with the "bank run" perspective, I would appreciate clarification). You've already stated that the US printed more dollars than it had the gold to cover at the given conversion rate; do you think this was economically necessary, or do you think it was strictly due to "avarice?" And to be clear, I still do not understand why you consider default by running out of gold (do you dispute that this is what the allies' bank run would achieve?) as honorable.

Quote:Nowhere else in the futures market can the amount of a commodity represented by the paper commodity contracts (´open interest´) exceed the actual amount of the physical commodity available for delivery…except in gold and silver.

This is interpreted as "Oil, agricultural commodities, etc. future contracts do not represent a larger amount of the commodity than the amount available to purchase." Are you sure about that?

Quote:The suppression of precious metal prices protects the value and status of the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency and hence U.S. Hegemony.

I do not understand this. If gold re-valued in dollars isn't it also re-valued in yuan, rubles, won, yen, Euro, pounds, etc? Why does gold revaluation mean dollar devaluation relative to other currencies.

Post: #86

Quote:As the US military continues to weaken, threats of military action will be taken less seriously, and countries will begin to exert their sovereignty more and more. Actions to circumvent the petrodollar system will grow bolder and bolder. As NTP covered in great deal, there is considerable incentive to develop an alternative to this unfair, one-sided system.

Is any similarity perceived between this quote and the progressive statement: "Mubarak/Assad/Qaddafi developed an 'unfair, one-sided system' and actions to circumvent or undermine it will grow bolder, and bolder. There is considerable incentive to develop an alternative to this unfair, one-sided system."

Post: #87

Why is gold (or more liquid gold backed notes) considered an ideal currency? Is it mainly due to its limited availability and its corrosion properties?

You can't eat gold, so it doesn't serve the most basic survival needs. A society that adopts it would have to be above the complexity of a basic barter economy. Or perhaps it serves as a means to convert a surplus into something physical which does not corrode and can be exchanged later. But that also assumes that the trading partner would continue to want commodity in the future, and that the price would remain relatively stable.

Why gold, specifically. And not other metals which have intrinsic industrial value such as copper, silver, etc? Something I've always wondered.

Post: #88

Gold (or any other rare, precious metal) was very rarely the common "money." As NTP stated earlier, historically (which may be translated as "at lower levels of technology") it was the "money of kings" (a "money" for sovereigns whose claims in foreign realms would be, by definition, unsecure).

Post: #89

(04-08-2016 06:55 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  Why is gold (or more liquid gold backed notes) considered an ideal currency? Is it mainly due to its limited availability and its corrosion properties?

You can't eat gold, so it doesn't serve the most basic survival needs. A society that adopts it would have to be above the complexity of a basic barter economy. Or perhaps it serves as a means to convert a surplus into something physical which does not corrode and can be exchanged later. But that also assumes that the trading partner would continue to want commodity in the future, and that the price would remain relatively stable.

Why gold, specifically. And not other metals which have intrinsic industrial value such as copper, silver, etc? Something I've always wondered.

Gold has a nifty set of physical properties that makes it ideal for use as a primitive currency. It's an element, so it can't be synthesized. Gold can only be mined which gives it a relativity stable growth. There's some gold, but not too much of it. Something too rare would be worthless if there was not enough to go around. It's unreactive, so it won't degrade over time. It has a low boiling point, which means that impurities can be separated from it quite easily, as well as it can be molded into new shapes. Industrial value only recently became a big deal. Coppers conductive properties would have been meaningless to people a couple hundred years. Also, you don't want your currency to be used in manufacturing except in small amounts, otherwise available supply would be impossible to maintain.

Post: #90

@NTP
What's your take on tax havens? Are higher tax governments opposed to them in earnest, or is there behind-the-scenes collusion?

Post: #91

I prefer not to engage in discussing the idea of a ¨Noble Savage¨ as that can be seen as an oxymoron and we could go in a circle, I do not want to engage (or be engaged) in sophistry. I am trying to give an authentic response based on experience that attempts to transcend some of this and in an intellectual sense it most probably never will. If you desire to discuss Hobbsian (or even go back to Tacitus) notions (especially the idea of nature being war of all against all); we can start a thread in the deep thoughts section. I will join in as there are many relevant issues as it relates to a few more of the ideas that I will touch upon below.

The context of humans having unlimited desires and demands is a generalization that is taken in the context of limited resources. It is to illustrate a contrast that is part of who we are. It is relational, not linear in my view. I would not separate the two. As an exercise, if I were to try, I would say that I feel content (the surfer in me), but I want to surf more each day. I want to surf more and it is insatiable. I enjoy learning and I would say that my desire is insatiable to know more, yet I realize that I have finite capacities (that can be expanded) and a finite amount of time (which can be extended) and I am at peace with this (I feel content). Is that peace an illusion; perhaps. Is my desire satiable because at some point I will have had my fill, maybe, but for now, I am not there.

Interpretation is an interesting thing as I cannot directly account for the experiences or perceptions (other than basic generalizations) of other men and these are filtered through my lens. Socialization certain does vary (for better or worse) a man. At a basic instinctual level we can see how man is out of touch with his instincts in modern society.

Perhaps it is naïve to desire a business transaction where a man does what he says he will do, and I posit that it is one of the foundations for a peaceful society. Enlighten self-interest is a basic driver of mankind and not a bad thing, but when it combined with fraud it is a hazard. Going back to a gold standard right away would cause huge suffering now, perhaps after a gold-trade note and the financial reforms that would follow would set the stage for gold to be more directly involved with currencies and this would be a path to less suffering and loss. How we get there does not change the desire to get there. I would use the bank-run analogy economically, but morally I would not.

If I give my word, my actions should be reflective of this word. Consider that a larger issue might be in relation to another person (perhaps my father, grandfather) or group of people (the congress, president as well as a dictator, tyrant or king) making a promise. If so the question becomes should the promise or word be honored by the following group? To what degree is one group responsible for the actions of a previous group? This has components at the individual level as well as the group level. Who is responsible for the promise of the group? Generally, the world today views that, the current group (nation) is responsible for the actions (debts) of the previous iteration (generation) of the group (nation). At times, people revolt and say, I (not we yet) am not going to be responsible for the debts and actions of others, others feel similar inclinations and things change. Again these issues are for another thread.

In my view it was economically necessary (in order to keep the dollar viable as a world reserve currency) to go off of the gold standard as the gold hoard of the U.S. would have approached zero and the dollar would be considered worth less (not quite worthless, but moving in that direction). It was based on greed and the desire for power. The honorable act (and most productive based on a world-wide economy) would have been to stop spending money that the country (U.S.) did not have and focus attention on developing and implementing (morally) productive ways that promote capital formation as well as obtaining more gold through trade and mining. The same can be said of an individual, if he spends more than he makes. In a practical manner, what I consider a worthwhile focus, both individually and in groups, is to stop the fraud now and move toward honest transactions. There will be plenty of time for blame and reparations, but for now stop digging the hole deeper, work toward climbing out and build positive structures and relationships for the future.

Eventually this will most probably bring us around to a philosophical discussion of self-preservation (self-interest) and its relationship to altruism and self-sacrifice on an individual and group (national) level.

Gold revaluation is one of the keys and I think that it will happen. I proposed that this was suggested, accepted (by over 100 nations to include the U.S.) and then rejected in January-February 2014 by the U.S. (and the Ukraine conflict was proposed instead). If gold were to be revalued in dollars, it would affect the Yuan, Ruble, etc. The difference is that the magnitude of the advantage of the dollar would be lessened (relative to the other currencies). If we think of how many grams of gold it takes to buy a dollar bill as opposed to how many dollars it takes to purchase a gram of gold, we see the world differently.

I posit that now we are seeing a movement to have gold (and eventually other commodities) priced (internationally) in something other than the dollar. I project that this will be seen in 2017 and a decade long change will begin. Look to the Shanghai gold exchange as well as the creation of entities like ABX as a start.

My view is that countries are attempting to assert their sovereignty economically as militarily they would lose or suffer losses that need not occur should another path (trade) be followed. Groups of countries are focusing on trade and the trade window as one of the major ways to combat and affect change. It is a longer game and these economic elements are tied to various Geo-political machinations. This is history in the making.

Post: #92

In my general experience in life and dealing with the ¨State,¨ no matter the nation or who happens to be in power at the time is that 95% percent of the apparatus wants to control two things; your Ass and your Assets. People normally want to keep what they produce, but history shows that many are willing to sacrifice a modest amount for the good (infrastructure, defense, public works, coinage) of the whole (nation, city-state, empire, etc.). It is said that when Alexander (the great) conquered a nation, many cheered because he implement a 10% tax rate across the board which was a significant reduction from what the nation was experiencing previously.

A tax haven is relative to the country where you have your assets, whether it is your house, toys, cash, investments, etc. People will generally move (or position themselves legally) to a place of lower taxation (perhaps from one state to another in the U.S. or from one country to another), when the perceive that what they are receiving in terms of their quality of life (job, security, freedom, ability to do what they naturally desire) is no longer an equitable trade for what they are giving in return as a (productive) member of that nation, state, city and they ultimately vote with their feet.

It becomes a competitive advantage when there is a nation/state/city with more attractive goodies, which to includes lower taxes. It differentiates them and other (nations, states, cities) may get jealous or they may attempt to become competitive. In general groups with a more socialistic mindset are opposed to them as the socialistic system is not competitive and the more productive leave before the less productive who must then bear the load and that nation/state/city slowly erodes and the grip tightens as those in power desperately attempt to maintain what they once had attained.

I think there is collusion among the like-minded whether they are socialists, fascists, anarchists (meaning those who do not want government), or those desiring democracy or a republic. The issue becomes when the laws change in a large number of countries at relatively the same time with things like banking (controlling your assets) that influence individuals across the globe. The same can be said with passports (controlling your ass). Perhaps people may not have reflected that the electronic passport happened within a 5 year time frame across almost every country on the planet. Imagine the behind the scenes work it takes to pull that off at (so many) leadership levels from countries on all continents that are apparently fighting and/or against one another. This is out in the open, not hidden.

My personal opinion is that many of those in power fear independent men who are in touch with their instincts that can protect their Ass and the Assets and are not in need of the external power (group). These groups that exhibit fear exist on a multitude of levels whether they are governmental, corporate, or private (which include social and religious elements).

--------

I would make two points as to what makes gold a more ideal medium.

Firstly is the classical notion that there are four primary attributes of money are: 1) durability, 2) divisibility, 3) transportability, and 4) non-counterfeitability. Durability is critical for money to perform the related functions of medium of exchange and store of value. People are willing to accept an item in payment for one good because they are confident that the item can be traded at a later time for some other good. An item works as a medium of exchange precisely because it stores value from one transaction to the next and this requires durability. The durability of modern currency and bank account balances depends on the durability of social institutions. Divisibility alludes to money that can be divided into small increments that can be used in exchange for goods of varying values. Transportability is the (relative ease of) moving from one location to another when such movement is needed to complete exchanges. Non-counterfeitability is when the money cannot be easily duplicated.

Secondly is Richard Russell´s view that money has the following seven characteristics:

1) It must be durable, which is why we don’t use wheat or corn or rice.
2) It must be divisible, which is why we don’t use art work.
3) It must be convenient, which is why we don’t use lead or copper.
4) It must be consistent, which is why we don’t use real estate.
5) It must possess value in itself, which is why we don’t use paper.
6) It must be limited in the quantity that is available, which is why we don’t use aluminum or iron.
7) It should have a long history of acceptance, which is why we don’t use molybdenum or rhodium.

Only GOLD and SILVER fit all seven characteristics.

Post: #93

@ NTP

Thanks for clarifying. I do not consider the "noble-savage" discussion as sophistry. Either you look around and see a bunch of humans that would have *somehow* grown to be free, peaceful, prosperous if they weren't subjected to life in States and/or other groups; or you don't. But your answer to that most basic question bleeds into all of your perspectives about the world.

Post: #94

NTP: can you expand on electronic passports? Just some reference links would be enough.

Not that passports aren't a method of control, but they seem rather limited as opposed to all of the other methods of tracking, particularly of your online logins, security cameras coupled with facial recognition, and the technological wonder that is the smart phone which does all of the above and has a GPS to boot. The Stasi and KGB could only dream of the resources of today's top tech companies and the fire hoses of data they provide to alphabet soup agencies.

Should we be specifically envisioning harsher border crossing restrictions?

Post: #95

(04-10-2016 05:35 AM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  3) It must be convenient, which is why we don’t use lead or copper.
5) It must possess value in itself, which is why we don’t use paper.

Thank you again for your contributions to the thread. I still had a few questions regarding gold if you don't mind.

Why are lead and copper not convenient?

Why does gold possess value in itself?

Isn't it possible to counterfeit gold by plating tungsten in a thin layer of gold?

Gold also strikes me as being highly illiquid. It seems impractical to try and buy a bottle of water with a gram of gold. I guess this is why gold backed notes of varying denominations have been introduced. It seems like it would also be possible to trade in coinage of lesser value (silver, copper coins), though those metals seem to be more volatile in terms of value, and difficult to plan around as an investment or store of value.

Post: #96

(04-10-2016 09:30 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  Why are lead and copper not convenient?

To store $10,000 at current market prices in:

Copper @ $2.09 per pound, density: 0.324 lb per cubic inch
$10,000 ÷ $2.09 = 4,784.69 lb (2170 kg)
4,784.69 ÷ 0.324 lb/in3 = 8.54 cubic feet (0.24 cubic metres)

Gold @ $19,789.80 per pound, density: 0.698 lb per cubic inch
$10,000 ÷ $19,789.80 = 0.51 lb (0.23 kg)
0.51 ÷ 0.698 lb/in3 = 0.73 cubic inches (12 cubic centimetres)


So $10k worth of copper would weigh as much as an SUV and be about the size of a small coffee table. $10k worth of gold would weigh as much as a half-empty can of soda and be about the size of a pen.

Post: #97

This is one of those threads, where I desperately want to keep up, but it is so far over my head.

Gonna keep reading, but wow.

Post: #98

Tungesten (also known as Wolfram) can be used to fool some (smart) people. This was done with a number of 1 kilo Swiss gold bars, but more so with 400oz (American) gold bars in the 2010-2012 timeframe. The Germans and especially the Chinese were pissed and that is why they have been melting the down old European gold at Swiss refineries and having them recast in Kilo bars with Chinese stamps. I have not seen this personally, but I have second hand knowledge based on long time trusted members in this field that have seen and touched these 1 kilo and 400oz Tungsten plated bars. This is one reason why I have recommend in other places that if you want own gold, you want have coins up to the $50-80 million level.

There are ultrasonic tests that you want to do with large bars or you may have them assayed. Neodymium magnets can be used, but there are limitations (based on purity, hence 22 carat or 91.67% will have more errors than 24 carat or 99.99(9)% fine. There are two other important issues with the technique. Firstly, oxygen is paramagnetic. Oxygen has a much greater molar magnetic susceptibility than tungsten. When the gold bar is placed above the balance, air containing paramagnetic oxygen is displaced. This effect must be considered. Second, the magnetic susceptibility of the plastic envelope must be considered.

Also, the gradient of the magnetic field (how the field's intensity varies with space) determines the force, rather than the strength of the magnetic field. Often, the sample is suspended from a microgram balance, the sample being between the poles of a large electromagnet.

Checking for ultrasound echoes coming from the interior of the bar at a gold/tungsten interface and measuring the speed of sound in the bar are techniques in use to rule out gold plated tungsten bars. You should be able to find a portable ultrasound detector for $400-500 U.S. that is adequate for most needs.

Coins can be faked as well and that is why it is important to understand various tests from chemical, to how they feel, the sound they make when they strike a surface or another coin, the weight in your hand (as gold is much more dense) based on the standard thickness and circumference. As I have PM´ed to a number of guys, knowing your buyer and having a relationship with them over time is paramount!!! It is something that is developed and takes effort.

The notion of gold possessing value in and of itself is good question and I would like to give a hard and fast objective answer, but I cannot, I like Richard´s (he was a personal friend and a real old school guy) example. The confusion rests on a mixing up of two very different proposi¬tions: 1) gold and silver are his¬torically valuable; and 2) gold and silver have intrinsic value. Also a strong point can be made that gold does not have intrinsic value because it is relying on the madness of crowds.

What I will say is that gold has a unique and beautiful color, unlike other elements, it is brilliant as the atoms in gold are heavier, and the electrons move faster, creating absorption of some light. Gold also has social prestige. Hold a gold coin in your hand and tell me how you feel?

From another perspective I would say that gold has an intrinsic cost (what it takes to dig it up and then refine it into a coin), but we are splitting hairs here. If gold has that value to someone, and it is not being over-produced, you could say that it has that intrinsic value. Where it gets interesting is that gold is very good for hoarding as a store of value. It may also be of interest to note that the intrinsic cost today is above the spot price for some (not all) mines and that is why mines are closing down and they take many years to open up which will affect future supply (this is another post).

With this in mind and connecting it back to the geo-political framework, there is a concerted effort to transfer the 15,000-20,000 tons of non-monetized gold in the hands of the citizenry of India to the government of India in exchange for rupee bonds bearing interest and thereby attempt to bring this 4,000+ year hoard of gold into the market. In the end, I predict that the attempt will fail.

Returning to intrinsic value, humans are group beings, and prefer company (on varying levels) over complete independence. It is easier to work in groups than attempt to live off the land on our own. This human traits forces us back to a barter system and finding ways of working together, which leads back to finding a way to exchange good and services easily and efficiently. Even if a gold has no intrinsic value to the person holding it (he or she can't eat it or drink it), if an agreement is made that turns metal into coins which can be used for easy exchange of goods, that coin takes on a value. Because others believe it has value, you do to, and because they think you value it, they value it too.

Gold is illiquid in the modern world if you want to go into a store and buy some food as they will not accept your 1/10 ounce gold coin or silver coins at other than face value (a 1964 silver quarter is worth $4 dollars, plus or minus, in silver, not 25 cents. When you look at some of the western gold coins they put a $50 (U.S. and Canadian are two examples) face value on the coin in order to discourage people psychologically. Try to take the 10 one ounce coins through U.S. customs and not declare it on the FinCen (105) form and they are likely to get confiscated and you may get fined and/or imprisoned. If you say it is worth $500 dollars, they will tell you no it is worth $12,000+ or whatever they see as the spot price. Stop by customs the next time you are in the airport and have a chat with them.


I view gold as a primary means to transfer wealth across generations as well as insurance against failures of currencies and the associated loss in confidence in governments, not as an investment.

There is a gold thread and I have contributed to it, if others want to discuss these types of things in more detail. I will post this there as well.

/thread-3939-...pid1197600

Interestingly, I have found the (U.S.) customs men amongst the better members of the state apparatus. My perception is that they understand the laws and act like the U.S. Marshalls of the late 1800´s. The electronic passports are a basic example and there are others that are much more restrictive, I used that one as it is more common in the experience of people and made a generalization about 5 years. As for links here is one from late 2008 showing 60ish countries showing 93 in early 2012 with a prognosis for 2016.

http://findbiometrics.com/over-60-countr...passports/

http://www.secureidnews.com/news-item/e-...the-globe/


In the near future (5-15 years) I do see harsher border crossing and the first signs of this should come as more countries enact laws for capital controls.

Post: #99

(02-07-2016 03:44 AM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  Yes, there is a striking pattern of countries whose politicians talk about or act on selling energy in currencies other than the dollar being invaded, or regime change being initiated. This is not by accident as it challenges the foundation of the US dominated petro-dollar system and hence US power.

...

Watch for Iran to ask for oil in Euros and then Saudi Arabia to begin to accept multiple currencies including the US Dollars. These will be pivotal events. China has created and is using its own rating agency and an alternative to the Swift financial transaction system (they have credit card transactions that are almost as great as that of both VISA and MasterCard combined) while Russia has also developed (but not using) an alternative to the Swift system.

It is interesting to note that after 13 years of silence, the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 comission related to Saudi Arabia's involvement in the WTC attacks is now being made into a public controversy. No longer is discussion confined to backwater channels, this was front and center on 60 minutes yesterday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10...-continues

The timing of the decision to raise the issue once again seems highly unusual. Going back to post #8 in the thread, perhaps Saudi Arabia is gearing up for a major move away from involvement with the petrodollar system. This publicity stunt might be a veiled threat to rein in Saudi Arabia, or will be used as an attempt to demonize Saudi Arabia and garner public support against petrodollar breakaways.

Post: #100

(04-11-2016 07:59 PM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

(02-07-2016 03:44 AM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  Yes, there is a striking pattern of countries whose politicians talk about or act on selling energy in currencies other than the dollar being invaded, or regime change being initiated. This is not by accident as it challenges the foundation of the US dominated petro-dollar system and hence US power.

...

Watch for Iran to ask for oil in Euros and then Saudi Arabia to begin to accept multiple currencies including the US Dollars. These will be pivotal events. China has created and is using its own rating agency and an alternative to the Swift financial transaction system (they have credit card transactions that are almost as great as that of both VISA and MasterCard combined) while Russia has also developed (but not using) an alternative to the Swift system.

It is interesting to note that after 13 years of silence, the redacted 28 pages of the 9/11 comission related to Saudi Arabia's involvement in the WTC attacks is now being made into a public controversy. No longer is discussion confined to backwater channels, this was front and center on 60 minutes yesterday.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-10...-continues

The timing of the decision to raise the issue once again seems highly unusual. Going back to post #8 in the thread, perhaps Saudi Arabia is gearing up for a major move away from involvement with the petrodollar system. This publicity stunt might be a veiled threat to rein in Saudi Arabia, or will be used as an attempt to demonize Saudi Arabia and garner public support against petrodollar breakaways.

There are questions / theories that could be floated from this possibility.

One or more would be in regard to exactly how the Saudis allowed themselves to get into this possible checkmate situation (central involvement in 9/11 doesn't seem like it would be a logical move from their perspective - due to exactly this type of press and possible subsequent U.S. action).

I'm also not sure how the U.S. fell into such a perfect justification for regime change in Saudi Arabia, in the context of NST's apt review of the global currency war.

What strikes me as most salient, at the moment, is the precise control over information in the public sphere.

This information was available, but as thoughtgypsy noted it was only through 'backwater' channels.

But I do note that these channels keep this information, as it now hits mainstream discussion, from seeming like it was invented and introduced for purposes of regime change. The backwater discussion lends an air of legitimacy to the current discussion, even though that discussion is occurring fifteen years later.

Second, the firewall between that backwater discussion and mainstream attention was seemingly rather impregnable. That's impressive information control, given the nature of modern social media and the internet in general.

Third, the noise introduced by other conspiracy theories seemed essential in keeping this facet of 9/11 from reaching a critical mass of popular attention.

I offered a theory on the public access to, and mass acknowledgement of, valid information on sensitive events in this post:

/thread-31466...pid1274014