Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Iran Bourse myth, demystified

Posted by Jan Frel at 12:00 AM on March 10, 2006.


I know there's a bunch of you Bourse catastrophists out there
bourse-above
bourse

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Echo Chamber in your
mailbox!

 

The scenario goes something like this: Iran starts its new oil bourse, "openly trading oil to other nations or buyers in euros, Tehran would set into motion a chain of events in which nation after nation, buyer after buyer, would line up to buy oil no longer in US dollars but in euros. That, in turn, goes the argument, would lead to a panic selling of dollars on world foreign-exchange markets and a collapse of the role of the dollar as reserve currency..." And then no more USA right?

I've read that argument in a thousand places... in comments on AlterNet stories, on blogs about Peak Oil, in the e-mail alerts of the 30 or so yahoo! groups I spy on. And I've been waiting, hoping for someone to shred it to pieces. My prayers have been answered. Thanks to the network of former CIA guys and outsider shady intelligence analysts* at the Asia Times for the handy work. The Iran Bourse myth killer is F. William Engdahl.

In some beautifully stark and concise prose Engdahl explains in two paragraphs that what keeps the US Dollar pre-eminent ain't about what currency countries trade their oil in:

"Since 1979 the US power establishment, from Wall Street to Washington, has maintained the status of the dollar as unchallenged global reserve currency. That role, however, is not a purely economic one. Reserve-currency status is an adjunct of global power, of the US determination to dominate other nations and the global economic process. The United States didn't get reserve-currency status by a democratic vote of world central banks, nor did the British Empire in the 19th century. They fought wars for it.

"For that reason, the status of the dollar as reserve currency depends on the status of the United States as the world's unchallenged military superpower. In a sense, since August 1971 the dollar is no longer backed by gold. Instead, it is backed by F-16s and Abrams battle tanks, operating in some 130 US bases around the world, defending liberty and the dollar."

Get it? The world uses the dollar at gunpoint. And have you noticed, the USA spends more on guns than anybody else?

"Since the shocks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing declaration of a US 'global war on terror,' including a unilateral decision to ignore the United Nations and the community of nations and go to war against a defenseless Iraq, few countries have even dared to challenge dollar hegemony. The combined defense spending of all nations of the EU today pales by comparison with the total of current US budgeted and unbudgeted military spending. US defense outlays will reach an official, staggering level of US$663 billion in the 2007 fiscal year. The combined annual EU spending amounts to a mere $75 billion, and is tending to decline, in part because of ECB Maastricht deficit pressures on its governments.

"So today, at least for the present, there are no signs of Japanese, EU or other dollar holders engaging in dollar-asset liquidation. Even China, unhappy as it is with Washington's bully politics, seems reluctant to rouse the American dragon to fury."

Slam the door on the Bourse myth would you Engdahl?

"A full challenge to the domination of the US dollar as the world central-bank reserve currency entails a de facto declaration of war on the "full-spectrum dominance" of the United States today. The mighty members of the European Central Bank Council well know this. The heads of state of every EU country know this. The Chinese leadership as well as the Japanese and Indians know this. So does Russian President Vladimir Putin.

"Until some combination of those Eurasian powers congeal in a cohesive challenge to the unbridled domination of the United States as sole superpower, there will be no euro or yen or even Chinese yuan challenging the role of the dollar. The issue is of enormous importance, as it is vital to understand the true dynamics bringing the world to the brink of possible nuclear catastrophe today."

We can save the "brink" talk for another entry, which is a paranoid fantasy of Mr. Engdahl's.

*A friend of mine pointed out that the Asia Times offices in Hong Kong, Thailand and Lahore all take vacations on American holidays. If the writing didn't give it away, that simple fact most certainly does.

Digg!

Jan Frel is an AlterNet staff writer.


Peace in Lebanon -- now!
The USA has a moral obligation to resolve the conflict raging in Lebanon and rest of the Middle East -- and it can.
Post by Rep. Dennis Kucinich. July 24, 2006.
President Bush sent me an internet
Democrat v. Democratic and the Iraq War
Post by Evan Derkacz. July 24, 2006.
A new kind of money
Today's money is based on the belief that it's worth something. Crazy, no? Why not back your dollar in sustainable energy produced in your hometown?
Post by Julian Darley. July 20, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Military power doesn't answer the "why?" question
Posted by: CounterCorp on Mar 10, 2006 1:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jan Frel may be impressed with Engdahl's arguments, but we're not. The real reason that the dollar remains the world's reserve currency seems to be two-fold: First, a lot of central banks (and other financial institutions) hold a lot of dollars (and U.S. Treasury bills denominated in dollars), so abandoning the dollar (or just allowing it to weaken) would diminish their own wealth.

Second, the U.S. economy remains the largest and most dynamic in the world (though this is based largely on domestic spending using money borrowed from foreign investors), so other countries rely on the U.S. as the "engine" that keeps the world economy going, and are thus unlikely to induce a world recession by abandoning dollars.

The fact that the U.S. remains the world's predominant military power (again, based on deficit spending enabled by foreign debt) seems unrelated to either of those things. If Europe, Japan, or China were to sell dollars or decide not to roll over their T-bills, what good would U.S. mililtary power do? Would Washington threaten or invade its primary economic partners?

In this regard, the U.S. is a lot like the Microsoft of world powers: nobody particularly likes it or supports it, or thinks of it as an ideal industry leader, but its sheer size alone gives it so-called "market power" -- no one can afford to ignore it for too long, as it undergirds the whole system. But we see Microsoft's once unassailable dominance slipping away at the hands of competitors and its own incompetence, and what was once considered unthinkable -- Microsoft as merely one (still large) player among many -- is now accepted as quite possible.

Similarly, there's no reason why U.S. economic allies couldn't let the Euro eat away at the dollar's marketshare a bit -- the U.S. Treasury Department routinely depreciates the dollar as a matter of policy when it finds the U.S. slipping into a recession; they let the dollar weaken a bit so that U.S. exports suddenly get cheaper, while foreign imports cost more. It's worked under Reagan, Bush Sr., and now Bush Jr. Why couldn't the world's other financial powers just let the process go a little farther than the U.S. itself would like?

Sure, it would hurt their exports and the value of the dollars they hold, but they might decide that those things were worth it if it meant taking the U.S. down a notch or two. The difficulty would be maintaining the political (and economic) will to continue the policy after the U.S. began howling and their own economies started to suffer. But as in many things, short-term sacrifice could lead to long-term gain, as Washington's ability to dictate the terms of the world economy would somewhat lessened, and arrogant U.S. officials might be a little more willing to listen...

The U.S. economy is going to start slipping and eventually be eclipsed anyway, as its current structure is unsustainable over the long term, so why not encourage/induce a controlled fall and so-called "soft landing" now instead of waiting for a more abrupt and disruptive decline further down the road?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cowboy
Posted by: Belter on Mar 10, 2006 5:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To look at the dominance of the US dollar as the worlds reserve currency in the context of only one element, either military dominance or oil purchases, is fundamentally flawed. Yes the military dominance has an affect, but more important to most countries (ie the ones even the US couldn't find a way to invade) is the economic dominance and their own requirements to purchase regular supplies of oil. Remove this economic power, as the government appears perfectly happy to do, and the requirement to purchase oil in dollars and the military power matters little.
In short many factors will influence the decision to purchase dollars, please don't play single issue politics with complex real world situations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hard to see the future is……
Posted by: AlienSlave on Mar 10, 2006 8:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frivolous speculation is when patience reveals all.
AlienSlave

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paranoid fantasy
Posted by: oregoncharles on Mar 10, 2006 9:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Mr. Engdahl's other theory is a "paranoid fantasy", why do you think this one is so authoritative? I'm with those who see a weak connection between military & economic power - we're not going to invade Europe or China, are we? & the heavy military spending undercuts our economy, which is the real underpinning of ECONOMIC dominance.
Case not made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This threat is real, and it is serious
Posted by: allblue on Mar 11, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article, and others of it's ilk hat have recently appeared, looks like a carefully crafted piece of disinformation to me. Under the present system, as every country needs to buy oil every day every country needs to buy dollars every day. All the Fed has to do is print dollars (at a cost of $23 per 10,000 bills) to meet this contrived demand, and in effect they are swapping those bits of paper for the flood of goods and commodities provided by other countries, hence the US trade deficit of $68.5 bn dollars in January alone ($762 bn for 2005). If the Iranian Bourse opens any buyer will be able to purchase oil from any producer in a non-dollar currency, probably euros. As a considerable proportion of their non-oil related trade will be with Eurozone countries it makes sense for producers to get euros for their oil rather than go through commission-charging money-changers.
If this happened, the demand for dollars on the currency markets would decrease, hence it's value relative to others currencies would fall. This would increase the cost of US imports, bringing rising inflation, forcing the Fed to raise interest rates to try and attract some of the 'hot money' on the markets looking for the best return in the short term to try and stem the decline in dollar value. Millions of American homeowners would be unable to meet mortgage payments on loans taken out when Greenspan reduced interest rates to virtually zero a few years ago, causing a collapse of the housing market. As 70% of the US economy is consumer spending, the twin horns of increased prices for goods in the shops, at the same time as unaffordable credit (and an elimination of 'equity leakage' as a source of disposable funds) would set in train a sequence leading to a deep recession at best, a depression at worst.
At this stage the gaping financial maw that is 'defence' (a euphemism if there ever was one) becomes an unbearable financial burden - the rent on all 764 of those US military bases outside the US would go up for a start! The Soviet military collapsed along with their economy remember.
The other factor to consider here is the level of indebtedness of the US. Although on the one hand a declining dollar will mean a declining debt in real terms (as it is valued in dollars) what sort of interest rate would the Fed have to offer on their Treasury Bonds to make them attractive? The US already owes 80% of all the world's savings, and the steady upward gradient of the gold price indicates that some of the big US creditors are already readying for their full-scale move away from dollars. With no-one willing to lend who will finance the deficit? Since Nixon cut the link between dollar value and US gold reserves in 1971 the amount of dollars in circulation has increased 2,500%, and if you think the announcement from the Fed that as from this month the M3 figure (i.e. the amount of dollars in circulation globally) will no longer be released is unrelated to the above I would say you are a fool.
When Bush says Iran is a threat he is right, but the threat is not some nuclear device that they may have in five to ten years time, but that their proposed Bourse will end dollar hegemony, and the vampiric days of the US economy will quickly come to a messy end.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ou have got to be kidding
Posted by: christiaan on Mar 11, 2006 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"bringing the world to the brink of possible nuclear catastrophe today" is a paranoid fantasy?? You have got to be kidding.

We are in year 2006 right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Non-Sequitor
Posted by: lessbread on Mar 11, 2006 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The world uses the dollar at gunpoint. Therefore the US won't go to war against Iran to prevent it from dropping the dollar. Does anyone really think that makes sense?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't buy it
Posted by: MyKillK on Mar 11, 2006 1:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with several of the other commentators regarding this article and others of its ilk. I am very much confused at these attempts to diffuse the threat of an oil market trading in something other than the U.S. Dollar, because it is vitally important to the U.S. Economy.

The Federal Reserve has been expanding the money supply at an extraordinary 45 degree angle since 1995, as evident by the M3. The M3 has been growing significantly faster than both the M1 and M2, which means that the largest portion of this money expansion is being held by foreign entities.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the price of oil has risen 500-700% over this same time period? Not at all. The oil market is the main vaccuum for this rediculous inflation that the Fed is perpetrating. It's a match made in heaven: oil demand is basically inelastic, and all of it is traded in U.S. Dollars.

You can see how a new oil market trading in Euros poses such a grave threat to our economy. There is some 3 to 4 trillion dollars held by foreign entities, mostly central banks who hold so many dollars to buy expensive oil. If they could dump a lot of these depreciating dollars for Euros instead, they would be extremely pleased to do so. That's a lot of depreciated dollars returning home here in America. The rate of inflation could double or triple.

The other main argument that I've seen for "Iran's Oil Bourse is not a threat" is that it doesn't matter what currency is used for trade, because money can always be traded in the exchange markets. So what? Whether dollars are used directly, or whether other currencies are exchanged for Dollars to purchase oil, that's still dollar demand. A new oil market trading in Euros means that the dollar will be bypassed entirely.

And if the oil market wasn't a real concern, why is the Fed cancelling the M3 statistic, which just happens to be the statistic showing how many dollars are held by foreign entities? Why is action against Iran being pursued right now at this moment, when we've been concerned about their regime since the 1970s?

Arguments like these just don't add up. The Iranian Oil Bourse is the true issue at hand, and the U.S. will do whatever necessary to stop it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please explain the logic
Posted by: dkm on Mar 11, 2006 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I was reading this post, almost all of the objections mentioned in the previous responses occurred to me. To see a temporal correlation between militarism and dollar dominance is most definitely not the same as saying militarism is the cause for dollar dominance. And the article never actually tried to demonstrate a causal mechanism.

While it is true that there is more than one factor that could bring the dollar down, some are more important than others and pricing oil in Euros is a very major factor and could, along with others, bring the dollar down. As mentioned above, countries have dollar reserves because of the economic might of the US and to do something to depreciate those dollars would only hurt themselves. But if some major factor, e.g., oil going for Euros, were to occur, then it is conceivable that some country will decide to unload its dollars while the unloading is good, the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. Depending on the amount of dollars unloaded, other countries may decide to follow suit before they lose everything. Then there would be a causal mechanism linking oil in Euros and the decline of the dollar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please explain the logic Posted by: AlienSlave
» RE: Please explain the logic Posted by: kelly.nickell
boiling point
Posted by: brodix on Mar 12, 2006 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The irony is that if Al Gore won, the system would be good for a few more decades. Who says Ralph Nader didn't know what he was doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Numbers Behind the Lies
Posted by: Boronia on Mar 12, 2006 11:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
March 12, 2006
The Numbers Behind the Lies
Fun with Numbers
by Bill Fleckenstein
http://www.opednews.com

Economist John Williams says ‘real’ unemployment and inflation numbers -- figured the old-fashioned way -- may be two or three times what the government admits. Here’s why, and what it means for Social Security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Threat is VERY real
Posted by: asdfjkl; on Mar 13, 2006 4:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with many other commenters that this blog is disinformation. The Pentagon has a healthy budget for producing media like this which distracts from the facts. The following article explains just how serious the Iran situation and why the Oil Bourse is at the heart of it:

US Dollar Crisis on the Horizon

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm amazed
Posted by: esactun on Mar 14, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that lately, whenever someone finds a posting on Alternet that they personally disagree with, they launch charges of disinformation campaigns.

It is beyond my expertise to knowingly comment on the true/falseness of the information in this piece. it may be wrong, it may be right, it may be half of each. But i do know that I'm much less inclined to believe information posited by people who see disinformation, propaganda and conspiracies at every turn. A "you are wrong because (list reasons)" works *much* better.

Another thing many people seem to forget these days is that not everyone with whom you fail to agree is an evildoer, a tool, a Republican in disguise, etc. Sometimes, they're just people with whom you disagree.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

oil trading in Euros WOULD desimate the US economy
Posted by: mothertucker on Mar 25, 2006 1:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author of this piece may not believe oil trading in Euros would bring the US economy to it's knees, but many others do - including the Bush regime. That is why they started the Iraq war.
Contrary to what you hear and see via America's corporate (right wing) controlled media, evidence was AMPLY that Iraq had no Weapons of Mass destruction before our invasion. UN weapons inspectors - who Bush claimed falsely had been forced out of Iraq by Saddam Hussein - were writing articles from INSIDE Iraq claiming there were NO WMDs - even as they went about the job of destroying those now famous Iraqi missiles which might fly 15 miles beyond what UN resolutions had stipulated. Scott Ritter, founder of the UN weapons program, a decorated marine, AND A REPUBLICAN, was running round the country before Bush's lil massacre screaming to anyone who would listen that there were no WMDs in Iraq. This of course before the America's first propaganda minister Karl Rove, got his friends at fox to accuse Ritter of being a "child molester". And foreign governments like Germany and France were in on the act too - making claims of no Iraqi WMDs on the floor of the UN.
The fact is Bush knew there were no WMDs, and that meant that within six months Iraq would be able to start trading oil. No WMDs meant the UN restraints had to be lifted.
And Hussein planned to do this using Euro's.
So the Bush regime created the nightmare - which could be called a war crime since thousands died needlessly... That is of course unless in the end we were to find out that Saddam's real plan was to decimate the US economy.
But of course, we will never know. The Bush regime, in it's zeal (as many dictatorships do) to create a secret society, has enforced secrecy to unparalleled extremes.
The good news is that their moves for total control of the media, have begun to disintegrate - as evidenced by raising Air America stock and studios.
Support I M P E A C H B U S H movements if you want your country back

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]