fox files

The World Is Ganging up Against the Dollar

The U.S. has been highly successful at pursuing financial warfare, including sanctions. But for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

As the U.S. wields the dollar as a weapon more frequently, the rest of the world works harder to shun the dollar completely.

There have been warnings for years about efforts of nations like Russia and China to escape what they call “dollar hegemony” and create a new financial system that does not depend on the dollar and helps them get out from under dollar-based economic sanctions.

These efforts are only increasing.

In the past four months, Russia has reduced its ownership of U.S. Treasury securities by 84% and has acquired enough gold to surpass China on the list of major holders of gold as official reserves.

Russia has almost 2,000 tons of gold, having more than tripled its gold reserves in the past 10 years. This combination of fewer Treasuries and more gold puts Russia on a path to full insulation from U.S. financial sanctions.

Russia can settle its balance of payments obligations with gold shipments or gold sales and avoid U.S. asset freezes by not holding assets the U.S. can reach.

Leading by Example

Of course, Russia is not the only country engaged in financial warfare with the United States. China and Iran are leading examples, but we can also add Turkey to the list after its latest currency crisis.

Russia is providing these and other nations with a model to achieve similar distance from U.S. efforts to use the dollar to enforce its foreign policy priorities.

Take a look at China and Iran. China is the second-largest economy in the world and the fastest-growing major emerging market.

China has a voracious appetite for energy but has little oil of its own. Iran is a major oil producer, and China is Iran’s biggest customer.

But oil is priced in dollars and dollars flow through the U.S. banking system.

Trump’s Iran sanctions make it impossible for China to pay Iran in dollars.

If U.S. sanctions prohibit dollar payments for Iranian oil, then Iran and China have no choice but to transact in yuan.

Allied Support Dwindles

Meanwhile, Europe has remained a faithful partner to the U.S. and has gone along with sanctions against Iran, for example.

That’s because European companies and countries that violate U.S. sanctions can be punished with denied access to U.S. dollar payment channels.

But now Europe is also showing signs it wants to escape dollar hegemony.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas recently called for a new EU-based payments system independent of the U.S. and SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) that would not involve dollar payments.

SWIFT is the nerve center of the global financial network. All major banks transfer all major currencies using the SWIFT message system. Cutting a nation off from SWIFT is like taking away its oxygen.

The U.S. had previously banned Iran from the dollar payments system (FedWire), which it controls, but Iran turned to SWIFT to transfer euros and yen in order to maintain its receipt of hard currency for oil exports.

In 2013, the U.S. successfully kicked Iran out of SWIFT. This was a crushing blow to Iran because it could not receive payment in hard currencies for its oil.

This pushed Iran to the bargaining table, which resulted in the Iran nuclear deal with the U.S. and its allies in 2015.

Now Trump has negated that U.S.-Iran deal and is putting pressure on its allies to once again refuse to do business with Iran. And Congress is again pushing to exclude Iran from SWIFT as part of a sanctions program.

The difficulty this time is that our European allies are not on board and are seeking ways to keep the nuclear deal alive and work around U.S. sanctions.

Europe’s solution is to therefore create new nondollar payment channels.

In the short run, the U.S. is likely to enforce its sanctions rigorously. European businesses will probably go along with the U.S. because they don’t want to lose business in the U.S. itself or be banned from the U.S. dollar payments system.

But in the longer run, this is just one more development pushing the world at large away from dollars and toward alternatives of all kinds, including new payment systems and cryptocurrencies.

It’s also one more sign that dollar dominance in global finance may end sooner than most expect.

We are getting dangerously close to that point right now.

JUST A REMINDER.

THAT CINCINNATI BANK SHOOTING WHERE FOUR PEOPLE WERE KILLED AND THREE CRITICALLY WOUNDED………WELL……

ONE WAS A WOMAN WALKING INTO THE BANK WITH HEADPHONES ON OBLIVIOUS TO THE FRANTIC CALLS OF OTHERS TELLING HER TO STOP GOING INTO THE BANK.

Passing a severe traffic accident on the highway last Friday got to me.

I share this story because this tragic incident got me thinking (again) about the comments I hear regarding the dangers of firearms and carry permit holders. People say they are concerned about everyday people walking around our everyday lives with guns. People are afraid firearms will go off by themselves or that people will suddenly go Wild West (which is not true, but rather Hollyrot created) on everyone (basically any time they get scared or angry) and use their firearms to settle price checks, road rage, rude comments or other random disagreements.

David Hemenway, who led a Harvard University analysis of figures from the National Crime Victimization Survey, alleged that “the average person … has basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense. But … every day, they have a chance to use the gun inappropriately.” The responsibly armed detest those comments. We understand that firearms are for self-defense and protection and are a last resort if avoidance and escape are not options.

All that said, I would be more inclined to be concerned about vehicles in the hands of distracted drivers than firearms in the hands of permit holders. Every year, car accidents cause more injuries and deaths than any other type of personal injury incident.

Get ready for this. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), an estimated 5,808,272 car accidents occur every year in the United States. That amounts to nearly 16,000 accidents per day. Additionally, national averages report that 2.35 million people suffer injuries or disabilities annually (that’s 6,438 per day) due to vehicular accidents, and about 37,000 fatalities every year are vehicle-related, which breaks down to more than 100 deaths per day.

In 2016, the NHTSA data showed that:

Drunk-driving deaths (10,497 fatalities) increased by 1.7 per­cent.
Speeding-related deaths (10,111 fatalities) increased by 4 percent.

Unbelted deaths (10,428 fatalities) increased by 4.6 percent.
Motorcyclist deaths (5,286 fatalities — the largest number of motorcyclist fatalities since 2008) increased by 5.1 percent.

Pedestrian deaths (5,987 fatalities — the highest number since 1990) increased by 9 percent.

All in all, this NHTSA data indicates that two out of three motorists will be involved in an injurious accident during their lifetimes. By car insurance industry estimates, you can expect to be involved in an accident once every 10 years. So, once every decade or so, expect to be involved in a traffic crash. With that, there is a 1 in 20 chance that the crash you have will involve a serious injury.

If you have not been in a car accident, consider yourself lucky (or overdue). Just think about how often we are in and around vehicles. Americans typically drive a lot for road trips, vacations, errands, school drop-offs, grocery store visits and work travel. According to data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the average American driver puts in 13,474 miles behind the wheel each year. And that doesn’t include passenger time!

I may have a firearm with me at all times, but I use it only on the shooting ranges or training classes or at home dry-firing, dry practicing or cleaning it. I certainly do not spend as much daily time using it as I do using my car. With hundreds of thousands of vehicles on the road, the odds of getting into a collision are frighteningly high. Even the most prudent drivers cannot always avoid crashes with reckless people on the roadways. (By the way, it is difficult to calculate, but the estimated number of firearms nationwide is around 500 million, and the number of registered vehicles in 2016 was 268.8 million.)

So many people are afraid of so many things, and they are often quick to assign blame to firearms and firearm owners. But when it comes to driving, no problem! The normalcy and the repetition of using vehicles for transportation makes us comfortable and even complacent with driving. We are all guilty of letting our guards down.

Just something to ponder.

I KEEP CONFIRMING OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT LIBERALS CAN DISH IT OUT BUT CAN’T TAKE THE REBUFF.

NOTHING, NOT EVEN FRIENDSHIP, COMES BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR BELIEFS.

IN OTHER WORDS, DEALING WITH A LIBERAL IS NO DIFFERENT THAN DEALING WITH A LIE.

It’s been 18 years since that fateful September day when life changed, quite literally, for an entire nation.

With the past anniversary of 9/11, a day that shook this country to the core, I have a simple thought I’d like to share with you:

It is how we respond to an event, not the event itself, that defines us.

Raising Kids With Religion Or Spirituality May Protect Their Mental Health: Study

A new study from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health finds that kids and teens who are raised with religious or spiritual practices tend to have better health and mental health as they age. But not to worry if you’re not a service-attender. The research, published last week in the American Journal of Epidemiology, finds that people who prayed or meditated on their own time also reaped similar benefits, including lower risk of substance abuse and depression later on.

The practice of law is a complete hypocritical sham and scam, because everyone in the system belongs to the same club. The DA, your own lawyer and the judge. On top of that, the police departments work WITH the state, so the ENTIRE system is a 100% contradiction and conflict of interests.  PERIOD!

INTELLIGENT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF SOCIALISM IS TO CONTROL THE CITIZENS BY MAKING THE GOVERNMENT LORD AND MASTER OF SOCIETY’S AFFAIRS.

IN OTHER WORDS, A FEW HUNDRED INDIVIDUALS RULE AS SUPERIORS AND NOT AS PUBLIC SERVANTS FOR THE PEOPLES.

Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power.

The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Sexual assault allegations dating from the 1980’s against Judge Brett Kavanaugh invite an easy conclusion that’s hard to follow – and a hard conclusion that’s easy to follow. Clearly, the issue involves sex, not just sexual assault. Demanding consent for every sexual interaction is easy to endorse; hard to enforce. The harder conclusion involves applying some statute of limitations to accusations. Beyond leaving some innocents unfairly accused, unable to prove their innocence, too many outdated allegations risk making the #MeToo movement seem unfair and unjust.

Prevention is more important than punishment. So far, the discussion has been too mechanistic, as if potential sex partners must wave red or green flags for stop and go. But this sexual abuse epidemic reflects a deeper, unfashionable, truth: the problem here is missing ethics more than misusing power. If everyone followed Hillel, refusing to do that which is hateful to us onto our neighbors, even demeaning wisecracks, despicable pawing, manipulative relationships, would stop.

The post-1960’s hook ups and bed-hopping made matters worse. Without romanticizing the “good old days,” the if-it-feels-good-do-it sexual revolution freed too many (overwhelmingly male) predators to hurt too many (mostly female) victims. Again, the easy part is declaring “Be good.” Living it is harder.

As sexual accusations mount, we must ask: how old an allegation is too old?

Both courts of public opinion and courts of law need statutes of limitations. Kavanaugh’s critics should remember: the test of our commitment to justice doesn’t come when innocent friends are falsely accused, but when guilty – or unpopular – people might be treated unfairly. Juanita Broderick’s rape accusations against Bill Clinton and Karen Monahan’s complaints of “emotional and physical abuse” by Congressman Keith Ellison are more credible than the two hazy, decades-old, alcohol-blurred accusations lodged so far against Judge Kavanaugh. #MeToo cannot just target Republicans while absolving Democrats.

The older accusation, the more authoritative the evidence must be, even regarding sex crimes.

The statute of limitations is a bedrock of Western justice. In 1540, the English Parliament mandated the ancient notion that imposing varying time limits on prosecuting particular crimes guaranteed social order and treated individuals fairly. Over time, evidence deteriorates, the guilty sometimes repent and punishment’s preventative dimension diminishes. Since 1879, America’s Supreme Court has explained that Statutes of Limitations “promote justice by preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost.” Such rules – “vital to the welfare of society” and “enlightened jurisprudence” – provide “security and stability to human affairs,” because “even wrongdoers are entitled to assume that their sins may be forgotten.”

Philosophically, let’s debate how much time must pass before assuming a now-blameless, one-time criminal has changed enough to make reporting the crimes unfair. In Betraying Spinoza, Rebecca Goldstein identifies the “philosophical dilemmas” stemming from “bodily persistence over time.” Examining a photo of her younger self, Goldstein considers this live stranger she sees who is her: “the very atoms that composed her body, no longer compose mine. And if our bodies are dissimilar, our points of view are even more so.”

The less serious the crime, the shorter the statute of limitations – with no limits for murder. Beyond the law, long-ago cases of sexual predation involving a Bill Cosby or a Harvey Weinstein remain relevant because their behavior continued. But the Kavanaugh claims are murkier and mustier.

Modern politicians, Left and Right, have resisted rivals’ attempts to define them by past sins. Bill Clinton insisted in 1992 that “character is a journey.” Many Democrats eager to win the election then backed him for the next decade, betraying their commitments to believing women in sexual assault cases and to opposing hostile work environments.

Following Clinton, Republicans suddenly appreciated statutes of limitations. George W. Bush dismissed allegations stemming from his partying days by saying, “When I was young and stupid… I was young and stupid.”

Today, Western society has become sensitized to the lifelong damage sexual abuse frequently causes. We remember wrongdoers’ sins because many victims cannot forget the wrong done to them. Israeli law mostly keeps statutes of limitations of five and 10 years, depending on the severity of the crimes. Some American states are considering abolishing the statute of limitations for rape, following California in 2016. Many states now run the clock on recovered memories of sexual abuse from the moment of the restored recollection, not from when the crime occurred. This accommodation parallels the “discovery rule” in fraud cases, which starts the clock once the injury is exposed – or reasonably could have been found.

While respecting every victim’s anguish, the older the attack, the more egregious or systematic a crime should have to be to justify a public airing today. We need some limits, even on this sensitive subject.

Without some boundaries, the fury usually ends up escalating until it undermines the movement’s legitimacy. In the 1950’s, Communists infiltrated American institutions, but the purge surged so aggressively that today most condemn McCarthyism without remembering its original, legitimate, rationale.

This current housecleaning of sexual bullies is long overdue. Our legal tradition must target those most guilty – and those still alive who can defend themselves. Let’s protect the innocent from unfair accusations while protecting the less innocent from stale or unfair charges. Admittedly, such restraint risks shielding some harassers, but it will preserve the credibility of a movement that has more bad apples to expose – and many more despicable habits to reform, through a broader, more thorough moral awakening.

It just occurred to me that many school teachers responding to the idea of arming teachers in order to harden and making a more physical security presence and stance in our school systems, especially in light of the ‘wait outside’ universal condemnation of police policy during the Parkland, Florida shooting have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Their response:

“I’d rather take a bullet and die for my students than kill someone”