Currency Wars: Jim Rickards on Financial Warfare

This is likely to be the spin:

The problem is not that an irresponsible Fed and a corrupt Congress ruined the US dollar through a failure in stewardship, crony capitalism, and a series of control frauds culminating in a financial collapse that caused great harm to other countries, particularly in Europe. The dollar is a 'victim' of the evil empire that is jealous of our success and who hates freedom. (Let me have some 'freedom dressing' on my sandwich, please.) Markets are only useful when they do what we wish them to do, when they support our agenda and serve our will to power. The rest of the world is required to obey our enlightened rule, and serve their proper roles in the New World Order."

I am not quite sure where Rickards is coming from on this, but read the entire paper and judge for yourselves. What seems ironic is that the US has been the dominant user of economic warfare, economic hitmen if you will, since WW II. For example, US Banks Financing Mexican Drug Cartels. This is in part the natural outcome of its being the clear financial superpower, supplanting the City of London and the British Empire of private corporations against which the US had itself rebelled successfully, an event which it will commemorate in a few days on 4 July. But it has also gotten much worse in the past twenty years because of the erosion of regulation and the capture and corruption of key political processes.

You should also be aware that one of the financials bestsellers in mainland China is a book, with a recently published sequel, titled 'Currency Wars.' The author is said to fall into the old memes of scheming international bankers, which has been used by some to issue a blanket condemnation and discredit his premise in the West. I confess I have not read it, since it is not available in translation. What is most important is that the book has a wide readership and influence in the Chinese intelligentsia.

"Worse even than the long, slow grind along the bottom described in the foregoing section is a sudden catastrophic collapse. In that context, the greatest threat to U.S. national security is the destruction of the U.S. dollar as an international medium of exchange. By destruction we do not mean total elimination but rather a devaluation of 50 percent or more versus broad-based indices of purchasing power for goods, services, and commodities and the dollar’s displacement globally by a more widely accepted medium.

The intention of Central Bank of Russia would be to cause a 50 percent overnight devaluation of the U.S. dollar and displace the U.S. dollar as the leading global reserve currency. The expected market value of gold resulting from this exchange offer is $4,000 per ounce, i.e., the market clearing price for gold as money on a one-for-one basis. Russia could begin buying gold “at the market” (i.e., perhaps $1,000 per ounce initially); however, over time its persistent buying would push gold-as-money to the clearing price of $4,000 per ounce. However, gold selling would stop long before Russia was out of cash as market participants came to realize that they preferred holding gold at the new higher dollar-denominated level. Gold will actually be constant, e.g., at one ounce = 25 barrels of oil; it is the dollar that depreciates.

Another important concept is the idea of setting the global price by using the marginal price. Russia does not have to buy all the gold in the world. It just has to buy the marginal ounce and credibly stand ready to buy more. At that point, all of the gold in the world will reprice automatically to the level offered by the highest bidder, i.e., Russia.

Basically, the mechanism is to switch the numeraire from dollars to gold; then things start to look different and the dollar looks like just another repudiated currency as happened in Weimar and Zimbabwe. Russia's paper losses on its dollar securities are more than compensated for by (a) getting paid in gold for its oil, (b) the increase in the value of its gold holdings (in dollars), and (c) watching the dollar collapse worldwide."

Jim Rickards, Economics and Financial Attacks

US Said to Ready Special Armed Forces Unit For Domestic Deployment in Case of Disaster or Civil Unrest

Although the National Guard has been used in the past to deal with protests, they were called by the state governors and were not acting at the direction of the Federal government.

"The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (today the Army, Navy, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) within the United States.

The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act during peacetime."

I wonder if this is true, and if the Obama Administration intends to deploy Federal troops, or declare martial law, this summer prior to the elections. I am not familiar with the Newark Examiner.

It does not seem consistent with the law, because this is a regular army regiment. The provisions for their deployment passed during the Bush Administration had been repealed, setting the use of troops back to the conditions of Insurrection as I recall.

I believe that is the premise by which the government directed MacArthur to lead regular army troops to dispel the WWI veterans from the Capitol in the last Great Depression.

Even in the race riots of the 1960's which were in many cases armed and dangerous, the National Guard was deployed at the direction of the state's governor. I am not aware of any other legal precedents or rules on this. Perhaps someone else can oblige.

P.S. A reader informs me that this news report is from a 'conservative' news source that has a variety of virtual locations in different states. The size of this military unit is also said to be greatly overestimated at 80,000. I suspect that this might be the case, and that the purpose of this news piece may be to incite misplaced concerns. But it does serve to bring up the issue, and to make people aware that posse commitatus has been considered a 'liberty' of the land for over a hundred years. If it is ignored, and the law is broken, then the American people will speak out against it again, as is their duty and their obligation.

Newark Examiner
Special army unit ready to be deployed on American soil just before Nov. elections
April 21, 2010

In October of this year, one month prior to the November midterm elections, a special army unit known as 'Consequence Management Response Force' will be ready for deployment on American soil if so ordered by the President.

The special force, which is the new name being given to the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry, has been training at Fort Stewart, Georgia and is composed of 80,000 troops.

According to the Army Times,

"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal
with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in
response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield
explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

The key phrase is 'may be called upon to help with civil unrest.'

This afternoon a local radio talk show host reported that he had been in contact with a member of the military. This military source stated that the armed forces have been alerted to the strong possibility that civil unrest may occur in the United States this summer, prior to the midterm elections of 2010.

The source described this as 'our long, hot summer of discontent' that could be eerily reminiscent of the summer of 1968 when riots broke out in many of our largest cities.

However, the summer of 2010 could well be much worse due to the players involved. In 1968 the major players were war protesters. This time, the outrage simmering beneath the surface of American society involves a broad cross-section of the heartland, and most of them are heavily armed...

Read the rest here.