First the Shrug,... and then what?
The following 3 categories here on FreedomsPhoenix have produced an overlapping picture that I think helps illuminate the future for us.
On November 17th 2006 we posted a story from IndiaDaily that reported, "The biggest bubble of all - derivatives Trading Soars to $370 Trillion – it will be the root cause for global depression".
Today (12/01/2006) Bill Bonner, of DailyReckoning.com, reported "The derivatives market has reached a face value of $480 trillion...30 times the size of the U.S. economy...and 12 times the size of the entire world economy"
November 28th 2006 - "In an interview with CNBC, a vice president for a prominent London investment firm yesterday urged a move away from the dollar to the "amero," a coming North American currency" The report about a CNBC interview was reported on WorldNetDaily so I expect a bit of 'Faux News' spin. If I can't find the same story anywhere else that doesn't refer right back to the WorldNetDaily version then I suspect that something is being feed into "the Matrix" for public mind consumption.
WorldNetDaily's 'Amero Currency Warning' July 6th, 2006 was the first hit when I Google'd "WorldNetDaily Amero".
Search "Amero" and "The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'" by Jerome R. Corsi comes up on another online "Conservative" site (Human Events) at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017.
Jerome Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry”. So anything written by Mr. Corsi I can expect to be "flavored" rhetoric of the right. Not that this disqualifies anything the right has to say (Pat Buchanan hits the nail on the head often) but I do find that the seeding of fear in the minds of their audience is a common tactic to get attention and to motivate followers to,... follow. So I need to look deeper into where the idea of a North American Union common Currency came from. I have no doubt that the big bad guys that see the world as theirs to manipulate have a regulated global currency on their wish list, but the campaign for a North American Currency had to have a start.
The Fraser Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Canada, according to Wikipedia. The following link takes you to a September 1999 article advocating for a North American Currency called the ‘Amero’
I found the following section particularly interesting
The United States is the world's largest and most prosperous economy. Americans are proud of these achievements and the US dollar is an important political and nationalistic symbol. Why would Americans ever want to join a North American Monetary Union, lose the uniqueness of their currency, and give foreigners a seat on the Federal Reserve where they would be able to influence monetary policy? Why would they want to sign an agreement that limits their ability to incur government deficits since no such policy has been enacted domestically? What interest groups in the United States would support such a policy initiative.30
It is tempting to suggest for the reasons inherent in the preceding questions that the government of the United States will never agree to the creation of a North American Monetary Union. However, I am more optimistic for a number of reasons.
History of international agreements and the American national interest
First, if anyone had asked analogous questions 60 years ago about the prospect of the United States becoming a member of the World Trade Organization (formerly the General Agreement on Tarifs and Trade), the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and, more recently, the North American Free Trade Agreement, most people would have answered much as they now do when it is a question of the proposed agreement on a North American Monetary Union.
Yet, the United States did become a member of all of these organizations and did surrender a significant degree of national sovereignty. There are escape clauses in all of these treaties that can be invoked if the national interest is threatened seriously. Similar escape clauses are certain to be in the proposed monetary agreement. There is still much opposition to these organizations in the United States and it receives much media attention. However, political movements like those headed by Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot that make withdrawal from such organizations a major plank in their platforms have not had significant electoral successes.
I believe that the United States became a member and accepted the accompanying loss of national sovereignty because the benefits from doing so outweigh the costs. Increased trade, more stable economies in the rest of the world, and continuous forums for the exchange of views have increased the prosperity of Americans. The United States may be large but the rest of the world is even larger and American relationships with other countries matter to economic growth and national security. By extension, the proposed monetary agreement will benefit the United States since it is expected to improve the size and stability of the economies of Canada and Mexico; American trade and investment will grow correspondingly.
Finally, the preceding analysis of the merit of monetary union implies that some real economic benefits will also accrue directly to the United States just as they will to Canada and Mexico. These benefits to the United States will be much smaller in relation to national income than the benefits to the other two countries. But, there will be significant savings in the cost of currency exchange and protection against exchange-rate uncertainty. The increased size of the market will make for more efficient and deeper capital markets. American firms will have even more incentives and opportunity to produce and market their goods and services in the entire continent. At the same time, Canadian and Mexican firms will invest in the United States and bring consumers better and lower-priced goods and services. These and other gains will grow through time as the economies of Canada and Mexico grow absolutely and probably also relative to the American economy.
I’m still doing some research but I wanted to peak your curiosity while I continued this thread of investigation. I have some ideas but only history is able to give them any real form.
But this is where my mind is heading….
The US Dollar is coughing up blood and the world knows it. After the American Revolutionary War the Colonies were flooded with the Revolutionary currency.
“The faltering patriotism of the people was also accused, and committees of safety, armed with despotic powers, were entrusted with the task so dealing with the refractory persons who had branded themselves with infamy and become enemies to their country by disparaging and discrediting the Continental money.
All was, however, in vain. Depreciation, the evil genius of the republic, had laid his hand on its currency and refused to release it from his palsying grasp. Every successive issue increased the glut of currency and lowered its value as compared with coin.”
The article, ”Did the Constitution Betray the Revolution?” is a great history lesson in a tight package. But I am interested in what happened to the ‘War Debt’ and how was it paid off.
One country after another is abandoning the US Dollar. It has gotten common enough that they are trying to come to agreements on how fast they can safely divest themselves of dollars in favor of,… something else. But for too long the dollars were being bought,… why?
Many things have been swirling in my mind from past experience and my paying attention since 1989 and learning some history. The first thing that comes to mind is the goal of Alexander Hamilton to create a central government with the power to tax so… he could have a central government with the power to tax (have sustained wars, hang out with Europe’s Monarchs etc.). A Central Bank was important to him and his friends and that effort is a story in itself…
“As Secretary of the Treasury in President Washington's first cabinet, Hamilton negotiated the first loan obtained by the new government on September 13, 1789. The amount of $200,000 was obtained from the Bank of New York, a private corporation underwritten by the Bank of England, against which the treasury drew a series of warrants.
Those warrants constitute a milestone in establishing the credit of the new United States government, albeit with continued economic dependence upon the Bank of England. Hamilton's economic vision and firm grasp of banking principles served the Bank of New York well.
Working in concert with Hamilton, Aaron Burr helped to secure a charter and raise subscriptions for a private company to improve the water supply of pestilence-ridden Manhattan, but New Yorkers were shocked to learn that the surplus capital from the venture had been used to establish the Bank of Manhattan (renamed the Bank of New York). The Bank of New York was created by Hamilton and other wealthy New York investors that included Burr and the Bank of England. It was, and is still, underwritten by the Bank of England and was later chartered by the Congress as the First Bank of the United States.”
But the other story not well known either is that while he did his best to keep the Constitutional Convention a secret he and his supporters were buying up “Continentals”
“The Continental Currency ("Not worth a Continental") that American colonists issued for the Continental Congress to finance the Revolutionary War.”
Insider Trading is the American Way - The Founding Scam - By MARK SCARAMELLA - “Would the holders of the Continental IOUs be stiffed? Would the US try to pass off Continentals to the Europeans, ruining its credit? Amid factional and geographic disputes, ordinary American IOU holders expected to be left holding the bag of Continentals.
But the ingenious Hamilton had other ideas, ideas known to his banking associates and other insiders. Hamilton privately convinced President Washington (who didn't bother himself with financial arcana and left such details to Hamilton) that the newly formed government should pay off the debts at full value.
Soon, Hamilton's associates -- bankers, agents, and speculators -- got wind of the government's secret plans to pay off the debt in full and bought up the supposedly worthless Continentals at 10% of their face value, letting the rubes believe that they'd starve before there would ever be a government capable of paying them off, or that they'd never be able to prove that their claims on the government were valid.
But Hamilton's circle knew they stood to make ten times their money when Hamilton's clever plans were implemented. The main opposition to Hamilton was Thomas Jefferson who thought that Hamilton's financial schemes were too royal, too British, and therefore too corrupt.”
Soooo, I think some of you can understand why I might ask questions about what the plans are for hundreds of trillions of “Continentals”.
Publisher - FreedomsPhoenix