This is Ridiculous

I just checked my email, and I received an email yesterday from the Ron Paul Campaign.  In the CBS debate Saturday night, Ron Paul was given a whopping 89 seconds of speaking time out of 90 minutes of debate time.  89 seconds.  Michele Bachmann didn’t fare any better.  I am really sick of this blatant blacklisting of Ron Paul by the mass media.  I’m not a big Bachmann fan, but you know, everyone deserves to have an equal say in a debate.

For those of you who don’t know who Ron Paul is – if you found your way here, you probably know who Ron Paul is – I strongly urge you to find out immediately.  Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn’t calling for an attack on Iran.  Ron Paul is the only candidate in favor of bringing our troops home and stopping these endless wars, which are contributing to our bankruptcy.  Ron Paul is the only candidate who is serious about shrinking the federal government to a manageable size.  And most importantly, he is the only candidate who is serious about ending the Federal Reserve.

Please, educate yourselves on Austrian economics.  I, too, thought economics was a dull subject intended only for math wizards and people with too much time on their hands, but Austrian economics is a genuinely rewarding, uplifting field of economic study.  Read Frederic Bastiat.  Read Murray Rothbard.  Read Ayn Rand.  Read Garett Garrett.  Do it now.  You will be so glad that you did.

Most importantly, if you’re a Ron Paul supporter, please donate to his campaign immediately.  I know that times are hard.  I know that most people don’t have a lot of extra money right now.  But if you can spare even five or ten bucks this month, please, invest it in liberty.  We have got to give this man a fighting chance.  We have to make a statement that we want real change, not more of the same, tired old rhetoric of war, endless spending, and lies.  It’s time America learned the truth and got back on track to prosperity and freedom.  But we have to stand up and fight for it.

I don’t mean to get up on a soapbox, but we’ve got to be vigilant.  This may be the most important election in the last century.  Are we really ready for four more years of Obama or – God forbid – Rick Perry or Mitt Romney?

The Usual Suspects

They say all that glitters is not gold… But apparently, gold can make a big difference now in the survival of a nation’s regime.  I stumbled across an article in The New American (via Infowars, I admit it), and it’s giving a lot of credence to a somewhat off-hand remark I made to my husband one night several months ago when this whole Libya business started up.  I mentioned to him, although I didn’t know exactly why the whole thing was going down, that I bet it had something to do with Libya’s vast gold and oil reserves.  Looks like this wildcat blogger might have struck a gusher, after all!

According to the article, titled “Gadhafi’s Gold-money Plan Would  Have Devastated Dollar,” NATO went into Libya for reasons other than human rights violations.  I’ve heard a lot of my own friends tooting the horn for the death of Gadhafi, many of whom were anti-war doves to the extreme when Bush was invading Iraq.  I find it amazing that so many of them were willing to lambast Bush for what, although undesirable, was a legal war, and praise Obama to the skies for what is unequivocally an illegal war.  But I’m getting sidetracked.  The article states that NATO more likely invaded Libya because of a plan Gadhafi had that would have given substantial bargaining power back to Africa and potentially other oil-exporting countries in the Middle East: only sell oil for gold dinars.  This idea hasn’t gotten a lot of mainstream coverage in the US, but I have managed to dig up some articles about it.

Gadhafi’s regime had its own state bank that was wholly owned and operated by the government of Libya.  That government was also sitting on about 144 tons of gold, which isn’t chump change.  Gadhafi had been lobbying for Africa to come together under a gold-backed currency, the dinar, and begin purchasing oil and other commodities – thereby excluding the dollar.  This is according to economist Anthony Wile of The Daily Bell.  Had this event come to pass, it would have meant big problems for the elites in control of the Western financial system.  In effect, it may have caused yet another financial collapse.

If you lay aside the fact that this plan may have cost Gadhafi his life, this is actually a decent proposition for Africa.  Given the fact that oil is a finite resource with a time limit that is, in relative terms, ticking down rather quickly, it makes financial sense to do this.  Whether or not one believes in pumping to capacity, the fact remains that the USA, along with countries that are heavily involved in production, use an awful lot of oil.  Demanding gold in exchange for oil is a brilliant move because, let’s face it, most Middle Eastern countries don’t have other exportable sources that will ever command the prices that oil and natural gas do.  It would ensure the influence of the oil-rich nations in a post-petroleum world, which isn’t that far off, if we’re being honest and realistic.  The issue of oil and a post-industrial world is something I’d like to and will tackle in another article, however.

The fact remains that Gadhafi was attempting to undermine the Western powers in a very real way.  NATO saying that they wanted to save the Libyan people from a brutal murderer is a lot of hogwash.  NATO has no real designs to get rid of any dictator, regardless of how brutal, so long as that dictator is supportive of Western policy aims.  I sincerely doubt it is the policy aim of the West to lose control of the world financial system.

Take a look at the US.  If you include Medicare and Social Security, we’re in debt to the tune of about $56 trillion.  That isn’t chump change, either.  If the US dollar were to be thrown out as the currency of choice for oil trades – and the US dollar has been the currency of choice for decades, much to our advantage – the US would lose most of its international clout overnight.

Another immediate consequence would be African freedom from the Western-controlled international lending institutions.  The IMF and World Bank haven’t done all that much to help the situation in Africa.  In fact, many intellectuals would argue that they have held Africa back.  This would have a serious effect on countries such as France, that still maintain a stronghold on their old African colonial states.  Now it begins to make sense, why Sarkozy was so keen to get the rebels in and get Gadhafi out.

Yet another curious occurrence involves the almost-immediate formation by the rebel government of a new central bank of Benghazi.  The article appeared in Bloomberg after the rebel government issued a statement saying that they had formed their own oil company and central bank.  Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal finds it rather strange that this rebel government would be so keen to set up a central bank, of all things, while still on the hunt for Gadhafi.  It speaks volumes about the foreign influence in this revolution, that a rebel government would be able to set up a new central bank and appoint a president almost overnight.  It also says a lot about who has the most vested interest in control of Libya, as well as its vast oil and gold reserves.  I’d be interested to find out where all those gold reserves have gone.

Interestingly, there was a similar situation with Iraq and Saddam Hussein right before Bush ordered the invasion.  In 2000, Saddam  had started accepting euros as the trading currency for Iraqi oil.  Of course, we all know that after 9/11, the Bush administration was just looking for any excuse – really, any excuse would do – to go in there and get rid of Saddam, a guy the US government installed in the first place.  Of course, Iran has been trading in “petroeuros” since about 2006.  Iran has a free trade zone on Kish Island and is now using a basket of currencies, including the Iranian rial, the Chinese yuan, and others, to trade for its oil.  In fact, it does business in most any currency except the dollar.  Additionally, Iran supplies India with 400,000 barrels per day and China with a million, respectively.  Iranian oil counts for 15% of China’s petroleum imports.  In spite of the embargo that has been in place since 1979, Iran doesn’t seem to have problems finding buyers for its oil.

And therein lies the dilemma.  When the oil-rich countries stop trading in dollars, we have to stop printing them.  Essentially, when other countries buy our dollars, we get goods and services free of charge back home.  That’s why the US can run such a massive trade deficit year after year.  That’s also why we can keep on financing the printing of “free money” at the Federal Reserve.  That’s why the government doesn’t seem to care about reining in spending.  But if countries stop trading in dollars, well… Let’s just say it would speed what I personally believe is the now-inevitable demise of the US dollar.

Time will tell if we see a sequel to Libya play out in Iran, but I have to think that, unless Iran suddenly changes its mind and decides to start trading in USD overnight, it’s going to keep giving a confident middle finger to the US government.  And honestly, I’m not sure if I blame them.

Check it out yourself:

The New American: “Gadhafi’s Gold-money Would Have Devastated Dollar”
Deccan Herald: “Who Will Now Control Libya’s Gold and Oil?”
The Daily Bell: “Real Cause for Gaddafi’s Expulsion: Wanted Gold Currency”
The Final Call: “Gold, Oil, and Why the West Wants Gadhafi Dead”
Bloomberg: “Rebel Council Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi’s”
CNBC: “Rebels Form Their Own Central Bank”
Rianovosti: “Sam’s Exchange: Iran’s Oil Bourse.  Who’s Next?”
Money Maker: “The OIL Currency”

Proceed with Caution

There has been a lot in the news lately about the possibility of preemptive strike against Iran.  The media seems to be on a fear-mongering mission.  When I searched Fox News for news items about Iran, and the first item that came out pertained to two Ayatollahs who believe that this is the end times, and that they believe the United States is the “Great Satan” and Israel “Little Satan.”  There is very little in the way of factual reporting in the article.  Most of it focuses on instilling fear in the reader about unknown and frightening people in a far-flung, culturally strange land.  Does anyone else hear the drumbeats just over the other side of that hill over there?

Everyone is worried about Iran becoming a nuclear power.  Of course, the government and media have been wringing their hands about this for over a decade now.  We passed a sanctions bill in 1996 that effectively punishes any ally or even corporation that elects to trade with Iran.  Although one might argue that we haven’t behaved aggressively towards them as yet, the fact of the matter is that sanctions are a prelude to war.  Sanctions generally also hurt members of the civilian population the most.

The Cato Institute has an interesting article out about the IAEA report whose contents nobody has read yet but everyone seems to feel they are in a position to judge.  It’s difficult to make assumptions when we have no clear idea of what that report might contain.  If Iran does, in fact, have nuclear weapons, there are many factors that bear consideration.

The first thing to consider is the effect that preemptive strike would have on Iran.  It is extremely difficult to predict what the total effect would be of such a strike against suspected nuclear weapon sites.  I think it is quite possible that it would go a long way towards validating the notion that the US is an aggressor state, the likes of which cannot be kept out without nuclear weapons.  And of course, if Israel elects to go in even without us, it would implicate the US to a certain degree, given the nature of our government’s relationship with Israel.

Another issue to consider is the democratic movement with Iran itself.  Threatening to launch strikes against the country is hardly sowing the seeds for future good relations.  I know that is a strange thing to consider, but it is possible that at some point, Iran will become a democracy.  According to Cato, about 75% of the country’s population is under 35 for whom, “the Islamic Revolution is a historical event, not a burning cause.”  Do you know what does cause people to be enflamed with causes, however?  Bombing their country.  In fact, studies done on suicide bombers and their motivations have proven that, more often than not, rage, retaliation, altruism, and humiliation play a far larger role in a person’s propensity to turn suicide bomber than does their choice of religions.  Religion tends to be the common ground that unites the groups together, rather than the reason for their committing the act in the first place.  To me, it seems rational to conclude that most Islamic terrorists are motivated out of a desire for revenge for being attacked in the first place.

We might also consider any and all costs involved in launching yet another attack on foreign soil.  The fact of the matter is that we, as a nation, are dead broke.  In fact, we’re worse than dead broke – we’re in the hole to the tune of several trillion dollars.  Can we really afford to be involved in yet another overseas commitment?  I know that this might be the point where some people will say, “But Obama is dialing down the Iraq occupation.”  That’s what he says, but the reality of the situation is somewhat different from the way it’s painted but the media.  The Embassy is built on a plot of land about the same size as the Vatican.  The place requires thousands upon thousands of people just to keep it up and running.  Are we really getting out?  From a monetary perspective, no.  Also, I think it’s foolish to think that all of those troops are coming home.  They’re likely going to be moved into Kuwait and other neighboring countries.  There’s an excellent blog post on it from Rabbi Brant Rosen.

Here’s another question: From a purely theoretical standpoint, why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear weapons?  If they feel there is a threat, real or imagined, of their country being invaded, do they not have the right, as a sovereign nation, to make the choice for themselves about whether or not they want to pursue a nuclear program?  What if Canada announced to us that, because we have a nuclear weapons program, they’re going to consider a preemptive strike because we might attack them first?  How would we react to that?  Would we feel it to be any of Canada’s business?

One last thing we might want to think about is how Israel’s course of action reflects back on us.  Because of the US government’s special relationship with Israel, should Israel choose to attack, we can fully expect that the US will share in whatever the ultimate result of those actions may be.  Frankly, at this point, if we were to attack without a concrete reason, we are going to look like implacable bullies.

My ultimate thought on Iran is that we need to tread very carefully.  Although it is tempting to get swept up in the media fear mongering, I urge readers to take a long, hard look at all of the issues before making any knee-jerk reactions.  We must examine all angles intelligently and thoughtfully before making up our minds one way or the other about what may or may not be going on with Iran.