Showing posts with label James Wesley Rawles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Wesley Rawles. Show all posts

Thursday, December 15, 2016

Could the Dollar Fall? What the Federal Reserve is doing!

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Federal Reserve and the U.S. dollar. This follows this post about Jesus Christ and Christmas. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Several recent headlines in London's Financial Times illustrate a continuing thought among world financial leaders. The first headline said, “Brazil and China Eye Plan to Axe Dollar.” “China Attacks Dollar's Dominance” read another. A third spoke of “De-Dollarization and the Ending of America's Financial-Military Hegemony.” Another spotlighted the lack of confidence in American financial leadership: “Dollar Falls as Geithner [the U.S. Treasury Secretary] Hails Recovery Hopes.”
Warning shots are being fired across America's bow. Many want an end to the era of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. If that happens, your financial world will be forever altered.

Could this happen?

The United States is now the world's largest debtor nation ($10.6 trillion). And China owns more of that debt than any other nation—more than $800 billion. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has publicly expressed “worries” over China's significant holdings of U.S. government bonds, which ties China to America's good times and its bad times.
China is concerned that the U.S. Treasury bills (T-bills) and bonds it holds will lose much of their worth if the dollar is devalued or the financial crisis does not turn around.
By calling for the creation of another reserve currency, China, Russia and other nations seek insurance for their economies against the problems generated when one country's economy goes bad. They also seek to end American dominance over the world economy. America's decline and China's rise fit their geopolitical ambitions.
Ending the dollar's role in the world economy is not an easy matter. The Wall Street Journal stated: “The technical and political hurdles to implementing China's recommendation [to create a new standard world currency to replace the dollar] are enormous, so even if backed by other nations, the proposal is unlikely to change the dollar's role in the short term.
“Central banks around the world hold more U.S. dollars and dollar securities than they do assets denominated in any other individual foreign currency. Such reserves can be used to stabilize the value of the central banks' domestic currencies” (“China Takes Aim at Dollar,” March 24, 2009).

Will the dollar's reign soon end?

Before the dollar, the British pound sterling formed the underpinning of the global economy. It took two world wars and several decades for the world standard to shift from the pound to the dollar. Since the end of World War II, the dollar has been king.
Although the current financial problems ignited in America have led to a global meltdown, it will take more than what we've experienced so far to topple America from its current role. That is not to say this could not or will not happen.
Creating another world currency requires several factors to be in place. Research analysts at the private intelligence agency Stratfor outlined what those factors would be:
“As to a world beyond the dollar, the issue is that a reserve currency is not decided upon; it creates itself. Two things are needed to create a reserve currency. First, there must be sufficient liquidity to support a global system. That requires a central bank with an enormous amount of autonomy from a state government, and the U.S. Federal Reserve is unparalleled on this count. Not even the European Central Bank can compete.
“Second, the economy upon which the currency is based must be large enough to withstand fluctuations caused by other economies buying and selling its assets in massive amounts. Again, the United States is the only economy that potentially could qualify.
“Part and parcel of any replacement of the U.S. dollar would be a large-scale abandonment of U.S. T-bills as the core of Chinese currency reserves, which—as the conventional wisdom holds—would force intractable economic problems upon the United States. But a closer look reveals that this is not the case.
“First, selling U.S. T-bills en masse simply is not possible. Every seller requires a buyer, and the volumes at hand cannot be exchanged quickly. Second, starting down that road would cause the value of the securities in question to plummet, destroying the savings the Chinese have been building up for years. The so-called 'nuclear option' really is not an option at all” (“China's Calculated Currency Rhetoric,” March 25, 2009).
China has its own problems. The huge middle class created by their recent boom is beginning to experience layoffs and financial setbacks. The ruling Communist Party cannot afford discontent from this segment of its society. Once people have tasted materialism, they won't go back. For now it's in China's interest to blame a foreign power (America). It deflects attention from the home front.
Yet clearly, China is playing a very dangerous geopolitical game with calls for a new reserve currency.

What would it mean for Americans?

Since the end of World War II, the dollar has been the dominant world currency. For most living Americans, this is the world into which they were born. This is all they have known. Americans enjoy one of the world's highest living standards due to the stability and wealth created by America's dominant economic role.
So what would it mean for the American consumer if the dollar were no longer the world's reserve currency?
Everything Americans import would cost more— everything. Americans would have to buy the new currency in order to trade in world markets. Last year's $4-per-gallon gasoline would quickly look like a bargain.
The credit market would collapse. Investors would flee toxic assets, further locking up the economy.
The U.S. Federal Reserve would print more money to combat the credit squeeze, with the likely result being hyperinflation, meaning higher prices for available goods. Remember the stories of Weimar Germany after World War I when it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread? Not pretty.
American power and influence in the world would seriously decline. Little understood today is the role of the economy in shaping and controlling world events. The dollar's place in the world adds incalculable weight to American influence. With the dollar diminished, that influence would be reduced substantially. Russia and China are waiting for their turn to assume that power, but they would certainly meet with competition from the European Union.
Big losers from the fall of the dollar would include Japan and Latin America. Because they hold much of America's debt, China and the oil-rich Persian Gulf states would also see huge losses. Israel and Egypt would suffer as well because of massive amounts of American aid they would lose. What this would mean to the Middle East calculus is unknown, but Egypt could be destabilized as a result.
World politics would be altered. The vacuum of power created would be contested. The EU, which stands to gain from the fall of the dollar, would be among the chief contenders. China would no doubt make a play as well, but a number of factors would hinder its bid. Stability would arise from the potential period of chaos with another power becoming the global economy's main engine. America's time in the sun would be over.
American lifestyles would change radically. The end of cheap oil, low interest rates and deficit spending would mean a lower quality of life and higher taxes. What this would mean to the social fabric of the nation is unknown. But Americans' way of life would dramatically change.
This last point speaks to the character of the American people. Do they have the same qualities that helped a prior generation survive the upheaval of a Great Depression and World War II?

America losing the pride of her power?

Those pushing to create a different world are no doubt working hard to bring about the demise of the dollar and the end of America's dominant role in the world. In The Good News we have spoken before of America's prophesied loss of “the pride of [its] power” (Leviticus 26:19). While military might is what we think of first in this regard, economic factors are also important here. The dollar losing its reserve currency status would radically change America's leading role in the world.
For one, America's crippling foreign debt would get worse with decreased ability to finance the burden. In time the country would be at the mercy of those holding its obligations, with little room to maneuver. Economic enslavement to other nations would be on the horizon.
However, it's unlikely that this will happen immediately. China and several Arab states hold too many dollar-denominated instruments to see this change. As mentioned, they would lose too much. Right now the United States is too big, too rich and too powerful for them to allow it to fail. There is too much at stake on the global scene.
That does not mean things couldn't change—and change quickly—but the proper circumstances have to be in place.
It will not happen until the God of heaven allows it to happen. God has blessed America with its wealth, power and resulting prestige. He will move to change that when it fits His timing for His great plan for all the nations.
Until then we have days to live and many lives to touch. We have character to develop and mistakes to correct. We have days to love those close to us and, above all, time to discover God and His attention to the details of eternity, history and our lives. Make the most of the time while you can. GN

You might also be interested in...

Friday, October 7, 2016

NEW YORK TIMES Subtly Warns Pro-Black Race War Film BIRTH OF A NATION Has Potential to Incite Violence Toward Whites

A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about the movie "Birth of a Nation." This follows this post about the TV show "Designated Survivor." This follows this post about the "Mothers of the Movement." This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.


NY Times warns BIRTH OF A NATION walks fine line between inspiring black people and inciting black people to violence against blacks...NY Times warns BIRTH OF A NATION walks fine line between inspiring black people and inciting black people to violence against blacks...

NEW YORK TIMES Subtly Warns Pro-Black Race War Film BIRTH OF A NATION Has Potential to Incite Violence Toward Whites


Back in 1988, a movie called Mississippi Burning was released.
Why? The goal was obviously to induce white guilt in those white people who saw it and black rage in those black people who viewed the film.
Both worked.
A New York Times review of Mississippi Burning—a movie that the screenwriters admitted was mostly the work of fiction— wrote it “literally crackles with racial hate.”
Why is this important to note? Because a number of black people who saw the film acted on that racial hate.
This group of black people, enraged from seeing Mississippi Burning – remember, a work of fiction—  said “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?’ “`You all want to f*ck somebody up? There goes a white boy; go get him”, and   chased down 14-year-old Gregory Reddick (after counting to three, a macabre timer for racial revenge) and “beat him severely, and stole his tennis shoes. The boy was rendered unconscious and remained in a coma for four days.” [Wisconsin v. Mitchell (92-515), 508 U.S. 47 (1993).]
Why is this important to even bring up?
This is why.
Tricky Goal for ‘Birth of a Nation’: Inspire but Don’t Incite, by Brooks Barnes, New York Times, October 2, 2016. Emphases added.
turnerlivesThe coming film “The Birth of a Nation,” which recounts a violent 1831 slave rebellion and includes scenes that evoke present-day outrage over fatal police shootings of black men, has been marketed as an urgent call to action.
In publicity materials, Nate Parker, the film’s director, writer, producer and star, says audiences should leave theaters asking, “When injustice knocks at our own front door, are we going to counter it with everything we have?” The distributor of the historical drama, Fox Searchlight, has promoted it with provocative posters depicting Mr. Parker’s character with his head in a noose made from an American flag and with trailers that feature Andra Day’s stirring rhythm-and-blues song “Rise Up.”
But when “The Birth of a Nation” arrives in roughly 2,000 theaters on Friday, Fox Searchlight is hoping that a parallel and largely invisible marketing effort — one intended to contain and frame Mr. Parker’s message — will ease the film into communities already on edge. As the nation struggles to deal with the issue of race after a number of episodes in which unarmed black men have been killed by the police, prompting protests in cities across the country, the studio wants “The Birth of a Nation” to inspire but not incite.
Whether Fox Searchlight can have it both ways will depend on the effectiveness of a grass-roots campaign aimed at churches, schools and pockets of political influence.
As it has publicly dealt with new attention on a rape case from 1999 involving Mr. Parker, the studio has quietly hosted an unusually expansive series of private screenings of the film for groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and the Conference of National Black Churches. Aja Brown, the mayor of Compton, Calif., will be a co-host of an advance screening at a local theater on Monday. Studio operatives have also distributed guides to roughly 80,000 churches that contain suggestions for weaving the film and its themes into sermons. Classroom study materials were made available to more than 30,000 teachers.
“We can’t control how the film is ultimately read, what actions people may take, but one message has been that there are very viable and practical steps,” said the Rev. Marshall Mitchell, a pastor and movie consultant who since April has been among those working to build interest in Mr. Parker’s film while also reducing its volatility. “Rise up by voting. Rise up to build affordable housing. Rise up in a constructive way.”
In conjunction with the film, Fox Searchlight helped organize a voter enrollment effort in multiplex lobbies. Actors from “The Birth of a Nation” also recorded a video to raise voting awareness, which has run in participating theaters. “This fall, we will all have the opportunity to put our differences aside and celebrate the rights that unite us as Americans,” says Colman Domingo, who plays a slave named Hark in the movie.
“The Birth of a Nation” recounts the true story of Nat Turner, a slave who gained a following as a preacher. But repugnant events — atrocities by slave owners, the gang rape of his wife by white men — turn Turner into the leader of a murderous rebellion. He hopes the killings will be the first shots in a war for equality and justice, but whites slay him and his followers as retribution.
The film is direct in its effort to connect America’s racist past to the present. In one jarring scene that echoes contemporary accounts of police shootings, slave hunters stop Turner’s innocent father on a road and try to kill him. Mr. Parker declined an interview request, but studio publicity materials quote him as explaining, “If you look at history — if you look at the history, say, of how Southern police departments developed out of slave patrols — then you can better analyze where we are now.”
Fox Searchlight, which also declined to comment, paid a hefty $17.5 million in January to acquire distribution rights to “The Birth of a Nation,” which takes its title from the 1915 D. W. Griffith silent movie, which is considered a landmark for its innovative filmmaking technique but is derided as racist for its stereotypical depiction of blacks and its sympathetic portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan. At the time, the studio was confident it could turn the well-reviewed movie into a hit.
The subject matter of Mr. Parker’s film is timely and relevant, dovetailing with the Black Lives Matter movement. Mr. Parker, who spent seven years struggling to get “The Birth of a Nation” made, had a compelling story to tell. And there was a shortage of prestige-minded films with diverse casts. The shutout of black actors by Academy Awards voters (for a second year in a row) and subsequent #OscarsSoWhite outcry made that clear.
But the marketing plan grew complicated in a hurry.
Police shootings of black men — many of them captured on video — continued to set off protests around the country. Then, in July, a demonstration in Dallas turned violent when a gunman killed five police officers. He set out to kill as many white officers as possible, Texas officials said.
Fox Searchlight had conducted focus group research to see if “The Birth of a Nation” might be viewed as a call to aggression and concluded there was no risk. Even so, the studio leaned into its effort to position the film as a specific type of provocation — a peaceful one.
“Part of our work has been to distill that ‘rise up’ message down,” said Mr. Mitchell, who is the pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Jenkintown, Pa., and a founder of Wit PR, a firm that specializes in outreach to spiritually minded moviegoers.
Then, in late August, news reports brought renewed attention to a case in which Mr. Parker was accused and later acquitted of raping a fellow student while at Penn State. It was revealed that Mr. Parker’s accuser later committed suicide in 2012 at the age of 30.
That disclosure prompted a backlash against the filmmaker. Some called to boycott the film.
The movie’s awards prospects dimmed dramatically. On Sunday, “60 Minutes” dedicated part of a segment to the controversy, with an unapologetic Mr. Parker saying he was “falsely accused” and “vindicated.”
All of that means the financial prospects for “The Birth of a Nation” are now murky.
Some movie marketing experts say the question at this point, in fact, is not how the masses will receive the film but whether there will be any masses at all. Will women shun “The Birth of a Nation” because of the controversy about Mr. Parker’s past? Do black audiences want to see another movie with slavery at its center? Will the potential lack of awards season buzz depress ticket sales, particularly overseas?
So the New York Times has just published a story basically washing their hands of any racial hate the movie Birth of a Nation creates among blacks, and whatever racial violence the movie motivates against white people.
The United States of America is basically ceasing to exist as a nation before our eyes, and it would be foolish at this point for any white person to believe it can be salvaged.
In fact, it’s important to note our Federal Government, media, entertainment industry, academia, and private sector now view Nat Turner as the hero—and not the villain.
We’re all just potential Gregory Reddicks now.