I read this article on Politico.com that references the Drudge Report's recent streak of articles about the weakening of the dollar. The flood of cash in the market together with out-of-control deficit spending is seriously devaluing our currency. What is the White House or Congress doing about it? Well, in short, nothing. A new stimulus package is being touted. Health care reform is being sold as deficit-neutral, but studies show that is not the case and even the Congressional Budget Office has admitted that its figures did not consider certain factors that would change their estimates considerably. The Federal Reserve Bank has done nothing to tighten cash flow.
Many experts believe that the Obama Administration actually wants to devalue the dollar? Why in the world would they want to do that? I found the following explanation on www.senseoncents.com:
"Going back to the G20 in London last Spring, the Obama administration has attempted to curry political favor with emerging economies, especially the BRIC nations, by ceding dollar sovereigncy as the preeminent international reserve currency in return for support of global economic stimulus programs. Why does Washington believe a weak currency serves our economic interests? A weak currency generates and supports the following:
1. Promotes inflation as imports decline. Washington would like some inflation, given the massive deflationary pressures presented by falling wages and declines in the value of commercial and residential real estate.
2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.
3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas."
If we give the President the benefit of the doubt, then his plan is a potentially extremely costly gamble. Maybe it works out, but history is against it. I have read archived articles from Time Magazine that were written in 1971 where the author is promoting devaluing the dollar to decrease the trade deficit, for example. This theory was played out devastatingly during the years of the Carter administration.
I have learned that, with this administration, there are always multiple layers of agendas for everything they do or say. There is always the public reason which is what the President says he is attempting to accomplish. Then, there is the "real" reason - the agenda that the network news or CNN commentators "uncover." Then, there is the actual reason why he is doing something - the reason that you will only find on the Glenn Beck Show, Breitbart TV, or some other more inquisitive source of information.
So let's look at the reasons given on senseoncents.com, line by line:
1. Reverse the decrease in wages and real estate values.
Let's take this on its face value. Why would we want to artificially bump up real estate prices? Isn't that one of the reasons why we are in the current financial crisis? With regards to wages, sure, we would like to keep wages high, but it has to be done naturally. What good is it to keep wages high if there are no jobs? Why not focus on creating jobs and then let the demand for labor increase wages.
The second-level agenda, CNN will eventually tell you, is that artificially inflating wages will appease Obama's union support structure by getting their members higher pay.
The third-level agenda is that Valerie Jarrett and many of Obama's cronies have a lot of their money tied up in real estate, especially Jarrett the Slumlord. Anybody remember Tony Rezko?
2. Promotes exports for corporations with a multi-national presence.
We need to reduce the trade deficit. I have been saying for years that our economy is too service-based. A strong manufacturing-based economy creates value, and jobs, at all stages of the process: research and development, design, manufacturing, wholesale sales and marketing, retail sales and marketing, resales, etc.
Level 2: a greater demand for US exports means more jobs in the manufacturing sector which means more jobs go to union workers.
Level 3: GE and US car companies benefit extraordinarily which makes Obama a candidate for CEO of the year and creates even more jobs for union workers (and for Chrysler workers this means that their stock in the company - the stock the administration gave them - increases in value).
3. Supports labor by making it more attractive for companies to keep jobs here as opposed to opening factories or sending work overseas."
I think the first two words say it all. Hey, what do know? We finally see some transparency.
Now, at the risk of branding myself a complete conspiracy theorist, let me tell you about a 4th level agenda. I am reading a book called Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank. The book, which was written in 1959, tells a tale of life in a small Florida town after a nuclear holocaust. One of the minor characters, Edgar Quissenberry, is the head of the local bank. Once the nukes start falling and the major financial mechanisms of the country and, indeed, of the world have been completely destroyed, Edgar realizes that all of the wealth he has accumulated - all of the cash, stocks, bonds, everything - is worth absolutely nothing. He laments: "How could life go on if dollars were worthless? How could anybody live without dollars, or credit, or both?" Frank was a Democrat and perhaps a little left-leaning, so this may have been a jab at capitalism, but what puts shivers down my spine is found on the next page (p. 122 in the HarperPerennial version if you want to check it out):
"He thought of all the notes outstanding that now would never be paid, and how his debtors must be chuckling. He scorned the improvident, and now the improvident would be just as good as the careful, the sound, the thrifty."
Quissenberry then puts a revolver to his temple and blows his brains out.
My friends, that is the redistribution of wealth. Once the currency became worthless, the "improvident," those who have according to Webster's online are "thoughtless, careless, imprudent, heedless, shiftless, thriftless, unthrifty, wasteful, or prodigal," were the equals of the wealthy, who had planned ahead, spent their money wisely, and saved for the future. I am reminded again of that lady saying that now she doesn't have to worry about her mortgage and Obama is going to make her car payment.
Now doesn't that sound like someone who "just wants to spread the wealth around" would want to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment