Showing posts with label fracking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fracking. 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...

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Energy Costs, the Mideast and Illegals Are Americans' Biggest Concerns

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about U.S. energy problems caused by its foreign policies. This follows this post about the historical character Simon Magus. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.




Energy Costs, the Mideast and Illegals Are Americans' Biggest Concerns

Printer-friendly version


A recent poll on NBC's Meet the Press showed Americans are primarily concerned about the price of gas, Iran, illegal immigrants and Iraq. All four concerns are interconnected.

Gasoline has been gradually increasing in price for some months now, reaching almost $3 a gallon by the end of April, an increase of over 50 cents in two months. That's still less than 80 U.S. cents a liter. In the United Kingdom, the same gas was selling for just over one British pound per liter, roughly the equivalent of $2—or two and a half times the American price.
But Americans are more dependent on gas than other nations are. This is because the United States is so spread out. The local grocery store in England is often within walking distance, while in America it is more likely to be miles away. The same goes for the workplace, school, medical facilities and places of entertainment—everything is miles away, an impossible distance to walk or even to cycle. Public transport is very limited and nonexistent in some areas.
Not only are the American people dependent on gas, they are dependent on cheap gas! Any increase in the cost of gas will inevitably have a greater effect on the U.S. economy than a similar increase would have elsewhere. In fact, since World War II a recession has followed every significant increase in the U.S. price of gas.
So it's understandable that the price of gas is the number one concern of most Americans.
What I found particularly interesting in this survey is that all four major concerns are interconnected, but none of the panel on Meet the Press mentioned this. It's as if the price of gas is somehow not connected to events in the real world.
As if to emphasize this, a letter to our local newspaper a few days later said that Washington should simply order suppliers to sell gas at $1 a gallon and then enforce the price! Clearly, not everybody is aware of the law of supply and demand.
Among the causes of the gas price increase are uncertainty over Iran and the continuing war in Iraq, numbers two and four of the primary concerns of the U.S. electorate. What happens in the Mideast largely determines the price of oil. If there are any jitters in and around the Persian Gulf, the price will inevitably go up.
Just as serious weather problems in California can push up the price of strawberries and other fruits, so problems in the Persian Gulf push up the world price of oil. The American president has no control over this. Washington can't suspend the law of supply and demand!
Mideast oil supply at risk
Before the current war in Iraq, Iraq produced 3.5 million barrels of oil a day. Now, it produces only 2 million, creating a 1.5 million barrel per day shortfall. This alone pushed up the world price of oil.
The fear of another conflict in the region, this time with Iran, is enough to send oil futures skyrocketing as buyers look to secure oil for their clients. Also in the Persian Gulf, terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals in Saudi Arabia are on the increase, causing further instability over oil futures.
There's also uncertainty in Nigeria, where local rebels disrupt oil production by frequently kidnapping oil workers. Venezuela, the fourth biggest producer in the world, keeps making anti-American noises, which only add to the uncertainty of supplies from that country. There are also refining problems in the United States, which further erodes supply.
Americans account for less than 5 percent of the world's population, but consume 25 percent of the world's oil. These disparities are unlikely to change in the near future, particularly when you consider that every year the United States adds a few more million people to its population.
Illegal immigration has become an issue recently. Estimates of the number of illegals run as high as 12 million. Whether illegal or not, immigrants are also energy consumers. Moreover, they send home tens of millions of dollars, adding to America's growing trade deficit, a major factor in the current fall in value of the U.S. dollar. This is yet another factor that could add to the price of gas.
It's understandable that people who are suffering economically should want to move to the United States, but it seems that American politicians are unwilling to consider the negative consequences of this massive movement of people.
The spreading urban sprawl is another factor, as people live further and further from their places of work, consuming increasing amounts of fuel in their daily commute.
Problems show a lack of vision
The Bible says "a prudent man foresees evil and hides himself" (Proverbs 22:3). "Hides himself" means that he takes steps to avoid it. Proverbs 27:12 repeats the principle, adding another thought: "A prudent man foresees evil and hides himself; the simple pass on and are punished."
The book of Proverbs contrasts the "simple" with the "wise" throughout. A simple person is one who is immature and perhaps irresponsible. Failing to anticipate the future, the shortsighted will reap the unpleasant consequences.
America should learn a lesson from the example of its ancestor, the Old Testament patriarch Joseph. With God's help, he was able to interpret the Egyptian pharaoh's two dreams, which revealed that seven years of plenty would be followed by seven years of scarcity. You can read all about this in the book of Genesis, chapter 41.
Taking full advantage of the seven years of warning, Joseph led the nation to prepare itself for massive food shortages that lay ahead. The principle to note here is the need to plan ahead, to prepare for times of scarcity, whether it be fuel or food, or both.
Remember that even food production today is heavily dependent on cheap oil. The United States has had 30 years of warning of possible fuel shortages but is still unprepared. In an emergency, the strategic oil reserve would only provide fuel for a few months. Politicians are calling for the use of the oil reserve to bring the price down now, which defeats the purpose of a strategic reserve, for emergencies only.
The first warning of problems ahead for U.S. fuel supplies came in the aftermath of the October War of 1973, during which Arab OPEC members, angry at U.S. support for Israel, nearly quadrupled the price of oil and reduced the supply. There were long lines of cars at pumps around the world.
Over 30 years later, Americans are even more dependent on cheap gas, and additionally, the population has risen dramatically, adding to the pressures. Growth is still the nation's top economic priority, but perhaps it's time to do a rethink, to ask if the country has reached the limits to growth, at least in some areas.
It's not only fuel that is likely to be a major issue in the future. Food supplies may be also. Last year was the first year in which the United States imported more food than it exported, at least in dollar terms.
CNN's Lou Dobbs has frequently highlighted the fact that by 2020, the United States will be heavily dependent on food imports. This could happen sooner if there is a problem with the oil supply, since oil is needed in the production of fertilizers. Mr. Dobbs has been emphasizing the need to do something about immigration, because it only exacerbates the problem.
The price of fuel is a major priority for Americans. An increase in the gas price will inevitably give a spurt to inflation as the price of gas affects the price of just about everything else. Inflation will also be boosted by the falling value of the dollar, down 7 percent in April, a move likely intended to reduce America's international debt burden and make U.S. manufacturers more competitive. An added threat is the Iranian move to start pricing oil in euros. Other oil producers are likely to follow. This would also push up the price of fuel in the United States.
This world needs leaders with clear vision about how to resolve the mounting problems that face it, not the typical politicians who busy themselves with getting votes and by pointing fingers of accusation at their opponents.
Both major U.S. political parties are quick to accuse the other of being guilty of "a culture of corruption." They may be right. God foretells of our leaders, "…your princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves; everyone loves bribes, and follows after rewards. They do not defend the fatherless, nor does the cause of the widow come before them" (Isaiah 1:23).
The United States is still within a time frame for action, but the clock is ticking. WNP

Friday, August 9, 2013

Calls to Action: Get Involved for Energy Independene and Lower Energy Prices!

A timely post about from www.ConsumerEnergyAlliance.com about energy independence items you can participate in now. This follows this post about Texas being in the crosshairs of the President. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.


CEA Issues Call to Action to Michigan Residents in Support of Hydraulic Fracturing



In response to recently proposed legislation to place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in Michigan, CEA issued a Call to Action to its supporters in the Michigan area, urging them to show their support for hydraulic fracturing and counter opposition groups’ efforts to generate support for a ballot measure for a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing. Stay up-to-date on our Calls to Action to participate in future events nationwide!



CEA Queries PA Legislators on Hydraulic Fracturing Moratorium



Consumer Energy Alliance is asking Pennsylvania state legislators if they agree or disagree with a proposal made in June by the Pennsylvania Democratic Party to impose a ban on natural gas exploration. In a letter sent to legislators from CEA-Mid Atlantic executive director Mike Butler, CEA invited legislators to share their support or opposition to the party’s proposed ban.



Live in Pennsylvania? Send legislators a letter urging them to oppose the moratorium in the PA Democratic party platform! Click here to send a letter!




Friday, June 28, 2013

“President Embraces Flat Earth Science… and Economics” by Clark Judge

Here is an interesting article from www.hughhewitt.com about the President's energy policy, including the coal policy. This follows this post about the Trayvon Martin case.  In the meantime, you can read an interesting take on society's problems HERE and an interesting book HERE.

“President Embraces Flat Earth Science… and Economics” by Clark Judge



posted by Hugh Hewitt

The weekly column from Clark Judge:



President Embraces Flat Earth Science… and Economics

By Clark S. Judge: managing director, White House Writers Group, Inc.; chairman, Pacific Research Institute



Yesterday President Obama joined the Flat Earth Society.



That’s not how he put it, of course. Just the opposite. He said, “We don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society,” i.e. those not prepared to join him in embracing radical anti-fossil fuel policies.



Put another way, he meant forget about Congress. Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation to authorize what Mr. Obama announced yesterday he would do anyway, essentially by decree. For example, the administration backed a cap and trade bill in 2010. Designed to limit the use of coal and oil, it was so unpopular in that year’s overwhelmingly Democratic Congress that Majority Leader Harry Reid ultimately withdrew it. The issue was not overcoming a filibuster. Reid knew that the bill would have lost an up and down vote on the Senate floor.



Of course, the president was also saying that opponents of anti-climate change legislation are so ignorant of science that they aren’t worth talking to. Who is the truly ignorant one?



Hasn’t anyone told the president that the average global temperature has not increased in fifteen years? As Pacific Research Institute senior fellow Steven Hayward reported recently in The Weekly Standard:







After two decades of steady and substantial global temperature increase from 1980 to 1998, the pause in warming is causing a crisis for the climate crusade. It wasn’t supposed to happen like this. The recent temperature record is falling distinctly to the very low end of the range predicted by the climate models and may soon fall out of it, which means the models are wrong, or, at the very least, something is going on that supposedly “settled” science hasn’t been able to settle. (full article at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/climate-circus-leaves-town_718070.html )







Just last week, Germany’s Spiegle Online International posted an interview with Hans von Storch, professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Hamburg and among Germany’s most renowned climate scientist. Storch said:







If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. (full interview here: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.htm l)







Recently I reviewed a new book on climate change (see here: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/06/13/overheated-frauds-and-fools ). Titled The Age of Global Warming: A History, it was written by British policy intellectual Rupert Darwall. Darwall helped found the major British think tank Reform. He is also affiliated with the firm I head. Reading him it is clear that the scientific underpinnings of the global warming theory were always shaky.



The critical “evidence” of catastrophic trends turns out to have been neither repeatable experiments nor hard data but computer models. As noted by one University of Cambridge physicist and investigator of the notorious University of East Anglia “climategate” scandal, the characterization of computer runs as experiments – the norm in the climate change community — “does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data…a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that ‘real data’ might be wrong because it disagrees with models!” He added, “That is turning centuries of science on its head.”



The president alluded yesterday to economic damage that had resulted from not taking drastic actions against climate change already. Perhaps he was referring to the British government’s 2006 Stern Report. The report concluded that failure to act against global warming “could create economic and social disruption on a scale associated with the First and Second World Wars and the Great Depression of the 1930s.”



But that globally influential report turns out to have been perhaps the most inept – or disingenuous — policy study by a major government in modern history. As I noted in the review, to reach its conclusion, the bureaucrats involved had simply ignored basic rules of economic analysis, counting costs in the nearly infinite future as if they were being faced today. So more than half the damages it attributed to global warming came after… 2050? (No). 2100? (No). 2200? (No). Try after 2800.



All of this wouldn’t be so bad — politicians, like children, will play – except for the consequences. Fracking, the Keystone pipeline and coal technology are promising North America true net energy independence within the decade, arguably the single greatest step we could take to ensuring long-term global peace and domestic prosperity. Apparently all that is to be thrown out the window, assuming the president has his way.



Which just goes to show, in this administration flat earth thinking doesn’t stop at science.