Just When You Thought It Couldn’t Get Worse–It Looks As If It Could Get Worser

The world oil market still basically functions in Dollars, which allows the Dollar domination of the global financial system

Column By Joel Goodman

The actions of the Biden administration and the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress have the potential of fulfilling the Globalists’ plan to sideline America.

The combination of Biden suspending the sale of F-35s to Saudi Arabia, and the reintroduction of  H. R. 2393 (NOPEC – No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act)  spell great danger for Americans.

These two actions, as they relate to the Petro Dollars, and an under-reported deal that Saudi Arabia just signed with Russia, may just spell the collapse of the U.S. Dollar and the official end of American hegemony in the world.

A fracking well in Colorado, pictured in 2012

 

From 1944 until 1971, under  the Bretton Woods Agreement, the demand for Dollars had been supported by the gold that backed them. But, by the end of the 1960s America’s irresponsible Guns & Butter spending on the Vietnam War and the Great Society, spawned a rush by nervous countries to cash in their Dollars for gold. In 1971, rather than ending post Vietnam conflagrate spending and putting the U.S. financial house in order, President Nixon ended the Bretton Woods Agreement, and unhinged the Dollars from gold –  letting it float. 

The unsupported Dollars faced possible collapse, as evidenced by “oil shocks”  and considerable economic instability and inflation. In dire need to stabilize the Dollars in 1973, the U.S. used its tremendous military capabilities to create an “oil for Dollars” deal with Saudi Arabia. Saudi oil was to be denominated in U.S. Dollars. Countries would need to exchange their own currency for Dollars to buy Saudi oil. As consideration for this deal, Saudi Arabia would be sold weapons and given protection from other Middle East nations, including Israel. Ultimately all OPEC nations agreed to sell their oil in U.S. Dollars.

The result of this Petro Dollars system, in conjunction with an increased oil demand, created an artificial basis for U.S. Dollars. Simply translated, OPEC countries  purchased American goods with U.S. Dollars they received for their oil. This allowed the Fed to continue to print Dollars in spite of there being no intrinsic monetary value to support the (fiat) currency expansion.

If the Petro Dollars were to fail, there is a distinct possibility that the U.S. economy would fail, and today’s so called transitory inflation might become unrelenting hyperinflation.

The U.S.  economy might collapse under the weight of a debt service (interest payments) approaching 100% of GDP, which hasn’t happened since WW2, when the U.S. had the single strongest economy on Earth, and an unlimited potential for growth.

America’s status as a  Superpower would end, changing the world as we know it. 

America’s global influence

The world oil market still basically functions in Dollars, which allows the Dollar domination of the global financial system. If other currencies supplanted the Dollar in oil trading, it would  reduce the demand for the Dollars, which, as mentioned, allows the Fed to print Dollars in spite of the currency having no backing in gold or a sustainable relationship to GDP. 

America’s global influence would diminish as U.S. sanctions would be without force.

While many Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was over Oil, it was over the Petro Dollars related to oil. A couple of years before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Saddam joined with several other countries and announced that they would begin accepting Euros for oil.  

There is some credible thought about the Petro Dollar being the basis for our antagonism towards Libya, Venezuela, Bolivia, Burma and Iran, among others. Albeit geopolitical reasons can intertwine to cause events, the above nations are all oil exporters that have threatened to discontinue or actually have discontinued selling in Petro Dollars.

The intentionally disastrous  manner of the pullout in Afghanistan may just have been the last

Joel Goodman — Bio and ArchivesJoel Goodman (JoelGoodman.us), Your Fellow American .


Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

4.7 3 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mac Aodha

Worser? Not the correct usage of the word.

Worser
Although it may seem a logical step to move from ‘worse’ to ‘worser’, the Oxford English Dictionary does not list ‘worser’ as a modern English word. The Collins English Dictionary defines ‘worser’ as an archaic or nonstandard word for ‘worse’. The word ‘worser’ first appeared in the 15th century and was common in the 16th and 17th centuries. Shakespeare used the word in several plays and sonnets. For example, in Sonnet 144 (Two loves I have of comfort and despair) he wrote: ‘The worser spirit a woman coloured ill.’ The word ‘worser’ is now found only in some regional dialects, and is considered non-standard. 

https://www.concisewriting.com.au/blog/worse-worser-and-worst-and-other-blunders/