Money is important in a multipolar world, Part 13

Earlier this month, Edward made his point on how Western media covered the BRICS stance on the dollar. To better understand the intention, he suggested rethinking the vocabulary we and the media have been using.

“It is important to note that the narrative ‘BRICS targets the dollar’ seems to be just a propaganda topic, the so-called mainstream media is pushing. It has nothing to do with reality, but in terms of propaganda, it works well because few people seem to understand the real narrative. Why:

The part that everyone seems to misunderstand: BRICS+ bankers are not trying to overthrow or attack the dollar. They have been forced to stand out from the dollar because some have locked in dollar trade through Western banks and frozen their assets at Western banks. Others can logically expect the same treatment at some time in the future. Meanwhile, they are happy to trade at dollar prices when they can or need it, but still hold trillions of dollars worth of US Treasury and other papers worth USD, although the preference for holding T-Bills is changing.

So, as I mentioned earlier, they are not cost (diversified from trade with only USD), but not entirely propaganda, they do it out of necessity, rather than some strategic evil plan designed by their own will. Brics Bridge is designed to trade in any currency, including the US dollar – the fact alone goes against many of the general statements under the narrative of “the BRICS is the enemy of the US dollar”.

The clever propaganda technique is to flip the causality so that it looks like the BRICS+ states deliberately undermine the dollar when in fact, they are reacting to being forced to exit the dollar system. It’s like blaming someone for leaving the burning building when they have no choice but to escape. In this regard, no one does more than the United States has done in the world far away from the dollar.

Another particularity that no one reported: at least two European banks that have been used or tested Mbridge/Brics Bridge (Quiet) are Rothschild & Co and the Institute of Religious Works. This leads me to think that explains why the Bank for International Settlement (BIS) finds itself between rocks and hard places:

• Bureaucrats on both sides think they may have leverage on Mbridge
• There may be nothing in BIS. I want to hear what you think about this.

However, Bloomberg and similar media appear to be pushing for narratives lacking any real analysis or investigation, instead working to push someone’s divisive geopolitical agenda. The question is why and who pays for music? ”

It was Edward’s question that prompted Alex to present our answer in Money Matters a week ago in Part 12.

“Who is paying for music? $1.6 billion ($325 million per person in five years) is allocated by the U.S. Congress and distributed to journalists to “oppose the malicious influence of the People’s Republic of China”, and “the vicious influence of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese Communist Party government and the Chinese people and the physical government.”

Is anyone surprised that the U.S. Congress is ready to use the “hard-earned” taxes from many of its citizens to “correct” vocabulary, subject matter and memes to allow the use of journalists? This $1.6 billion payment gives us an idea of ​​the cost of managing news. “Undollar” has no aggressive meaning, and “Dedollar” sounds like not only an attack on the dollar, but also implicitly “rules-based orders” associated with it.

If “Dedollar” and “Undollar” exist, we might wonder if there should be another verb “to Dollar”. Although such a verb would accurately describe what happened to the global economy after World War II, this is not the case. It was a crucial moment in history when the U.S. economy had all the cards, not just because of its industrial development, especially because it took on the debt of war spending for everyone else. We sometimes forget that the world order achieved its initial powers after World War II and was based on the value of the golden convertible dollar.

Today’s dollar sees its psychological status as a serious reduction in the general solvent for international trade. This has happened over time, but now it seems to have surfaced. The money was tied to gold in 1971 when President Richard Nixon waved his hegemony wand, effectively floating in green. But soon, by 1975, it had gained a new stable platform, thanks to the clever design of the oil company monopoly by Henry Kissinger and Saudi Arabia. But, in the past two years, this connection has not completely broken down, it has radiated.

The basic advantage of the US dollar lies in its perception of the performance of the US economy. But, most importantly, the economy flourishes in the special status of the US dollar. Giscard d’Estaing famously calls it the “high privilege” of the US dollar. Gold, then oil becomes the equivalent of the collateral needed by banks to obtain loans. But the link with both was compromised. Now, the world has entered unknown waters. The risk of pandemic instability is real for a currency that quickly moves towards an uncontrollable $36 trillion in accumulated debt. And, like the debt itself, this risk grows every day.

This political transition period after the election this month provides a new twist. During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump promised to punish countries that “leave the dollar.” His choice for Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently introduced a bill in Congress to “punish countries that depreciate money violations.” Asian time “Rubio’s bill, ominously known as the Prevention of Sanctions and Mitigation Act, will require our president to sanction financial institutions using China’s CIPS payment system, Russia’s financial messaging service SPFS and the US dollar-centric Swift system.”

Is such a campaign of sanctions and punishments feasible? Does the Trump team seriously believe that it can succeed without causing greater damage to the United States itself, rather than harassing the culprit? The same article reminds readers of Edward’s point of view in the opening paragraph. “Economic and financial sanctions often backfire. The most famous example is the weaponization of the dollar in Russia.” Of course, this is putting the violet-like incident in the headlines and making it a permanent point of conversation.

With Trump’s arrival, his precious taste of the trade war is producing something else: a currency war. Given that we already have several ongoing hot wars that seem to be escalating, we may soon lack the vocabulary to describe other wars that may be whistling around.

On this score, Alex shared with us this week a video file revealing another aspect of the war-infected mindset of today’s political and geopolitical culture. This is a new war that can have catastrophic consequences. Let’s call it “quantum warfare.” British mathematician and author Professor Hannah Fry interviewed some of the major players in developing quantum computing. They all agreed that the stakes were high. The potential significance of quantum computing has impressed people, and Alex asked an interesting question:

“Can you imagine if China built a quantum computer before the United States? It would be a ‘game’, at least for the geopolitical game that the United States likes in other countries. China can destroy DTCC (deposit trusts and clearing companies), the backbone of the U.S. financial markets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_gjp2uajo0

At one point in the video (19:19), Fry interviewed Alexander Ling, a professor at the University of Singapore and head of the Center for Quantum Technology. Fry noted that Ling’s group “want to build an unacceptable network so that anyone can use it.” She added the surprising observation: “They also work with us and Chinese companies.”

Ling evoked the period when quantum technology was first developed: the 1980s and 1990s. “Everyone was willing to communicate people and ideas at the time.” Noting that in her earlier interview with American and British experts, everyone seemed to focus on the risks of security and proliferation, Fry called for questioning “the conception of a quantum race between two huge superpowers who abandoned everything they had.” Then, she asked a real question: “Does the duel for supremacy really define the future of global power?”

Whether considering reserve currencies or scientific research, for some, every issue boils down to a duel against supremacy.

Join the debate

Money is important…committed to developing this discussion and participating in all relevant aspects.

We invite all contributors to send us your reflections via dialoge@fairobserver.com. We will incorporate your insights into the ongoing debate. We will post them as part of an article or ongoing conversation.

* (The “collaborative crucible” of Fair Observers is a space where multiple sounds can be heard to deepen and expand our understanding of complex topics, thus comparing and comparing their views and insights.)

((Lee Thompson-Kolar Edited this. )

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.