Very Few People Realize How Much Power China Has Over US
The U.S. Dollar
(Part - I & II)
"The world is governed by very different personages
from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." 
Speculation runs rampant that China may use its $1.33 trillion dollars of foreign currency reserves as a political weapon of mass destruction. This massive hoard of currency reserves is the largest single holding of any nation on earth, and thus represents a potent force.
Reports in the media have suggested that if the United States gets too pushy regarding the valuation of the yuan versus the U.S. dollar that Beijing could threaten to start selling the U.S. currency en masse, causing a panic flight out of the dollar. This could easily result in a crashing dollar, as it presently hangs precariously above the abyss - trying desperately to keep from falling in.
The following paper will examine the merits of what has been referred to as the "nuclear option" or threat of a premeditated crashing of the U.S. dollar, precipitated from the other side of the world - Beijing, China to be precise.
The study will be broken down into four parts. First, an examination of the two central issues from which the "dollar question" arises will be offered. This will provide some insight into two important topics that are at the heart of the controversy: the trade deficit and the recycling of trade payments.
The second part discusses the possible and most probable motivation and intent that could be behind such world shaking policies and actions. Who would benefit the most by what actions and events?
In the third section we will look at a most improbable scenario, but it does exist so it will be mentioned - to bury our heads in the sand in ignorance would be remiss.
In the fourth and final part, we will provide the conclusions that the examination of the issues have revealed and led us to.
Trade Deficit & Recycling Credit
A large part of this controversy revolves around the trade deficit between the United States and China, at least in part. But the trade deficit is just one of the issues; there are other factors at play as well.
Weighing in as the favored heavy weight contender is the recycling of foreign trade payments in a ponzi-like scheme of musical chairs. U.S. currency credits leave New York and travel to Beijing to pay for U.S. imports. Upon reaching China, the money is almost immediately sent back to New York, employed by Beijing to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds with.
This is analogous to robbing Peter to pay Paul, and robbing Paul to pay Peter. The only one that makes out is the broker in the middle of the deal, he who stands between Peter and Paul - the moneychanger.
In today's computer age, some say the money never even leaves New York. A couple of clicks here, and a couple of clicks over there, and before you know it the wonders of double-entry bookkeeping does the rest. The New World Order working its magic - what could be finer?
Since January 1, 2007 China has accumulated a positive trade imbalance with the U.S. of $123 billion. In May the deficit was 20 billion, in April it was $19.34 billion, and recently in June it was $26.9 billion, so it's averaging about $20 billion a month, but it is expanding - it is growing. Only things that are alive expand and grow.
There are those in Congress, those in the administration, and those looking to lead the next administration, who are all convinced that the undervaluation of the yuan versus the U.S. dollar gives China an unfair trade advantage; hence the large trade deficit. However, perhaps they run too hard - too fast; and in the wrong direction. Too often man thinks it is easier to run away from his problems then to face them head on, which can lead to trying to run away from oneself - a very difficult task, if not impossible.
Calls for protectionism were sounded months ago from voices within Congress - voices who should know better, as protectionism never promotes free trade, it is the stuff of market intervention that stifles and restricts markets by alienation and isolation.
Tariff restrictions on certain Chinese imports have been suggested as the iron fist needed to come down hard on the Chinese government and its central bank's monetary policy. Even Secretary Paulson has questioned the validity of such restraints, knowing full well the possible repercussions and subsequent fall out.
One Democratic Presidential candidate believes that the U.S. is being held hostage to monetary and economic decisions made in China and Japan. The reason given is that because foreign entities hold almost 44% of all outstanding Treasury paper (debt), they carry and can thus wield a big stick.
The statistics are correct, China and Japan hold over 40% of U.S. Treasury debt; and such holdings do constitute a large stick that can exert great force. However, just having the capability of doing something is not the same as being able to do that something, and to know and control all of the repercussions and results there from. Some may not be discernible, while others may simply be too formidable to handle without incurring significant risk and loss.
Motivation & Intent
China is reported to have $1.33 trillion dollars of foreign currency reserves. Such an amount is quite formidable and could easily be used as a catalyst to start a selling panic in the U.S dollar, which in turn would cause interest rates to go up, and Treasury bond prices to go down.
It is estimated that China holds about $900 billion in various types of U.S. bonds. Once again this is a significant amount. Certain individuals in China have recently made statements to the media indicating that Beijing might play hard ball with their massive amounts of U.S. dollar denominated holdings, especially if the U.S. backs them into a financial corner. Perhaps the issue is not so much could they, but would they?
Could or Would
Some of these comments came from minor cabinet level officials; however, none have been made by officials sanctioned with the power of enforcement behind them. It would set off a financial nuclear bomb if China starting an en masse withdrawal from the dollar, especially if precipitated by officials in high government positions.
Why would any sane person make such a decision? As noted, China has huge sums in both U.S. government bonds and U.S. currency. To wantonly destroy the American dollar would also destroy China's huge positions denominated in those very same U.S. dollars.
Beijing would be sealing their own political and financial fate by precipitating a wholesale flight out of the dollar. It makes no sense for them to do so. It would be self-defeating. Such a move would be the proverbial biting the hand that feeds you. Although China could pursue such a course, why would they - especially if political and financial suicide was the most likely end result?
Real or Unreal
So what might be going on that has led to the public display of threats of self-destructive and insane monetary policy?
The first possibility is that China means what it says: it is willing to use the power and force of its huge holdings in U.S. dollars as a weapon of mass destruction. For the reasons given above, this is most improbable; possible, yes - likely, no.
If this political position and resulting scenario is real, it should be taken and viewed as a direct threat. Unless one is prepared to act to back up a threat, it is meaningless and without consequence, as if it never occurred - very much like laws not in pursuance of the Constitution.
Which then brings us to the posturing alternatives, where what is being said is not considered to be a viable course of action that would ever be taken, but is presented as such to gain the upper hand in the global geo-political poker game: an unreal bluff if you will.
Political and financial posturing between world class players at the world championship poker table: with all the attendant checks, raises, calls, and bluffs is what is going on. It is the art of the game on display. Once again, however, for what purpose and towards what design? Cui Bono?
Is China simply straight out bluffing that it would consider such dollar selling, when behind closed doors they admit to themselves they wouldn't? If this is the case what is China trying to gain?
One possibility is they want their bluff to cause the other player to throw their hand into the pot and give up - that other player being the United States. This is definitely high stakes poker playing, as do they really think the U.S. will fall for that ploy, or are they just testing the waters to see what pops up? The only other viable and meaningful reason for such a bluff would be to gain time - to reposition and redeploy.
National, International, or Supranational
Or might this be a larger bluff made in concert by all the players involved, or at least the majority? Is it possible that most central banks are working together, regardless of what is done or said in public and reported by the press?
But what could the possible reason be for such political intrigue and financial posturing? The easiest way to answer that question is by asking another question: who is in a position to gain from such a policy; and to gain how - politically or financially?
The BIS (bank for international settlements) records over $450 trillion in derivative positions on the books of the various entities that report to them (and not all entities report to them). The gross product of the entire world is about $55 trillion, which means there are paper derivative obligations equal to more than 8 years of total world production. Perhaps Archimedes was right; with enough leverage the earth can be moved.
That's a whole lot of leveraging going on, and it best be maintained because if it isn't there are going to be some serious problems when the bill comes due. Consequently, the system has a very vested interest in seeing that it maintains, at whatever the cost - cost is not the issue anymore, the issue is survival.
All of life is about survival - make no mistake about this, as it is going to become more and more self-evident as time goes on. Man needs the basic necessities of life to survive: food, water, shelter, etc. Life's necessities can only be had by two means: one employs his labor in exchange either directly or indirectly to satisfy his needs; or one takes what they need from others. History is replete with countless renditions of this same theme sung out in a full ensemble of keys.
When an individual takes from another it is called stealing and is punished by the body politic within which it occurs, usually by incarceration. If the body politic in power collectively sanctions the taking from others, they do so by organized conquest - war, the means by which one nation state confiscates the wealth of another.
The first is considered taboo and results in crime and punishment; the second is deemed to be brave and noble action, rewarded by medals of honor and distinction; and the prizes and bounties of war: loot. Perhaps organized crime and organized conquest have more in common than just being organized?
The powers that be or the established system knows what's what and they construct a survival plan accordingly. Obviously it is important for the Fed to protect the U.S. Treasury market. Just as obvious is that it is in the best interest of any country that holds a large amount of U.S. Treasury bonds to see the Fed is successful in its endeavors.
Not only does China not want to see U.S. bond prices go down because of rising interest rates, they would love to see bond prices go up due to falling interest rates. If China were to sell dollars en masse they would lose not only on their dollar holdings, they will also give up a huge profit potential in their massive holdings of U.S. Treasuries, as well as possibly losing a lot of money if Treasuries go down in price.
None of the central banks are stupid, they know which side their bread is buttered on; and it is in none of their best interests to see the dollar or Treasury bonds falter. Has China and Japan unknowingly bought almost half the U.S. Treasury market without being aware of the risks involved? I think not. Things are not as they so often appear to be. One is reminded of the Catholic saying: black is white and white is black - or was it the Jesuits?
Instead, they both have acted in an almost unbelievably cooperative manner in buying up hordes of U.S. Treasuries, thereby supporting the U.S. and world financial markets. Perhaps the payoff for such assistance will be a windfall of profits in the very same Treasury market.
The two biggest financial items in the news these days are the global down turn in most major markets, and the supposed cause thereof - the subprime mortgage debacle, which grows worse by the day. The white's of all central bankers' eyes say it is imperative that the U.S. Treasury bond market not implode, as it is the backbone of the system; some say the guts of the system.
The U.S. bond market is to be protected at all costs, as there is enough debt denominated in U.S. dollars to take down the entire global system. The dollar is still the reserve currency of the world, and still dominates percentage-wise bar none. Any slashing of the U.S. dollar or U.S. Treasury market will also slash all those who have significant holdings in either asset, which pretty much covers the entire world.
There is little doubt that either China or Japan, or any other major world power wants to see the U.S. dollar or Treasury market go down the tubes, there is just too much at risk to lose for any and all players concerned.
(Part III in a few days)
There is one last scenario that is a possibility, and I would be remiss to not at least mention it, although it seems to be a bit bizarre and remote. Nevertheless, stranger things have happened, as the annals of history show.
When going over the bluff scenarios it was mentioned that it was important to see who would benefit by the various acts under review - Cui Bono as I like to say. Two scenarios were offered: one was a bluff by China; and the other was a bluff by a cabal of central bankers. Here is a third.
Once again Cui Bono is tantamount. Who could possibly benefit by a different scenario, and what is that scenario and how would it lend itself to someone else benefiting thereby?
Return to the scene of the crime - the threat to lay waste to the U.S. dollar by selling it en masse. The value of the dollar would collapse, and along with it bond prices would be destroyed. The credit/debt markets would be in shambles. Cui Bono?
Obviously, neither dollar holders nor U.S. bond holders would profit - just the opposite, they would get hammered. So that eliminates all such holders. The possibility does exist, however, that at first a deflationary scenario could unfold. During this time bonds would most likely perform strongly, but for a limited amount of time.
The central banks, especially the Fed, know how to do one thing and one thing only - inflate or die. It is an inherent genetic flaw within the structure of paper fiat debt-money - it must inflate or it self-destructs. Once any kind of serious deflation appears to be taking hold, the central banks will throw more and more credit/money/debt at the problem. The result will be hyperinflation, which once it rears its ugly head does not go away. Chaos theory takes over once the bifurcation point is breached. The runaway vibration then runs itself out - destroying everything in its path, including itself.
Remember this well, paper fiat debt-money runs on one thing and one thing only - FAITH - once faith in it holding purchasing power fades people start spending it faster and faster calling for more of it and more of it in a self-perpetuating cycle that destroys itself as it feeds upon itself.
Hyperinflation destroys currencies - deflation does not. History is replete with many occasions of currencies self-destructing - it's the killer of all empires - past, present and to come. For a detailed study of deflation versus hyperinflation see: Scylla & Charybdis: The Scourge of Mankind.
Most nations of the world own both U.S. dollars, U.S. bonds, and other assets priced in U.S. dollars. The U.S. dollar is the reserve currency of the world. As such, it is hard to contemplate how any nation or central bank could profit from the dollar's demise, unless they were more heavily invested in whatever asset(s) go up, while the dollar goes down. This is possible but highly unlikely.
So, is there any entity that has been overlooked that could gain to benefit from the dollars demise? Whatever or whomever it is would of necessity be a very large world class player. One must either be a nation or wield the power, influence, and money that nation states do. The list is not long.
We have now gnarled our way down to the bone. It said that the giver of a gift is greater than the gift he gives, or that a teacher never gives all their secrets out to the student, even when the student is studying to become a teacher.
So we are left with very few choices, other than those who started nation states, or those who created central banking, as being the only possible suitors. Those that started nation states are known as royal families; there are many still existent, both in a position of actively ruling and not ruling.
As discussed above, it would be hard for any present day nation state to benefit from the collapse of the dollar. All countries have become so intricately wound up in the use of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency that to unravel the Gordian knot would be near impossible, especially to profit thereby. This leaves but one player left standing: they who created central banking.
So who created central banking? Well, I guess that would depend on exactly what one considers central banking to be. Are we talking about just the U.S. central bank, or Japan's central bank, or England's central bank?
Some say it started with England's central bank in 1694, but Sweden had established one earlier, dating back to the founding of the Riksbank in 1668. Others say it goes back further in time to Italy and the Medici and other elite international banking houses, which can be traced to the House of Piso and others. And there are those that claim it dates back even further in time to ancient Egypt, Sumeria, and Babylon.
Is it possible that the descendents of the families that have always been at the helm of international banking and the global economy dependent thereon still dominate today's modern banking system? As the Sundance Kid said - "who are those guys?" Maybe we should nickname them the Babylonian Brotherhood.
International or global trade has taken place for over 5000 years, when the old world trade routes were first being established. Ancient cities like Carthage, Tyre, Sidon, Thebes, Luxor, Rhodes, Memphis, Ashur, Ur, Erech, Basra, Sumer, Nippur, Byblos, Phoenicia, Babylon, Nineveh, Troy, Mari, Damascus, Carchemish, Jericho, and Haran have all recorded huge amounts of international trade of goods from across the world. And these are only a few of the ancient cities in one major geographical location of global trade - then and now.
Ancient Trade Routes
As was explained earlier by the difference between the would/could depiction of China's possible intent behind the en masse selling of the U.S. dollar, perhaps here the question as to whether the same lineal lines of descent are involved in elite banking today as back in the time of Babylon is unimportant, notwithstanding the role the Whore of Babylon plays in the last chapter of the Bible - Revelations: a big part, a very big part.
Perhaps the lines of descent of the bloodlines of modern day banking, including central banking, going back to the start of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe, suffices to provide sound enough evidence to establish that an elite banking cabal does exist - perhaps not. It is left for the reader to decide for themselves by the evidence provided or the lack thereof.
Be that as it may, modern day banking can easily be traced back to their European connections via the House of Rothschild, the House of Warburg, the House of Baring, the House of Morgan, the House of Schiff, and the House of Belmont, etc. One statement sums up the extent of the reach of the elite international bankers: Paul Warburg wrote the Federal Reserve Act that was the basis for the founding of The Federal Reserve. This one fact clearly and undeniably establishes that today's modern day central banks and especially the largest and most powerful such central bank - The Federal Reserve, has its roots of descent spreading out from European International Banking; of that there is no doubt. The question as to who invented modern day central banking has been answered - European elite international banking dynasties - family dynasties.
We have been searching for the creators of central banking to establish what player on the world stage is powerful enough to warrant being in a position to one, be able to play with the big boys of central banking; two, to be able to influence central banking, yet remain at arms length and out of the public eye; and three, still to be in a position to profit from whatever happens to central banking and the system it has implemented as the global financial and monetary system that spans the land. There is only one entity that can fill such elite shoes: the family dynasties of European international bankers and their offspring.
Bigger & Badder
We now return to the question: is their an entity that could possibly profit by the demise of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world? We have seen that any known central bank is a most unlikely candidate for reasons earlier explained, including a rogue central bank, which is almost a given impossibility. We have shown that any royal family of ruler class status is a most unlikely candidate as well; which leaves the only one left standing the creator of central banking - the elite international bankers.
But it still remains to be seen as to how anyone or any thing could possibly profit by the demise of the U.S. dollar, and the subsequent collapse of the global financial and monetary system. All we have shown so far is that there is a possible candidate for the role, but how would the roll be fulfilled?
If the U.S. currency was to fall precipitously below the all-time low of 79, it could possibly go into a freefall, with technical analysis providing a possible target of 60. Just recently the dollar fell below 80 and came to the edge of the abyss once more.
There are those that scoff at such a proposition, believing that only interventional analysis prevails, which does indeed exist, and to a very large degree, playing a most powerful role; but no one entity or group of entities can retain control of the world market, it is against the laws of physics and metaphysics. For a time yes - for good - no.
The collapse of the U.S. dollar in such a manner would be bordering on the Apocalyptic, the U.S. Treasury market would soon follow suit, becoming as Dr. Franz Pick has always referred to them as - notes of confiscation.
Truth or Consequence
For all the naysayers that don't think anything like that is possible, please recall that in 1933-34 President Roosevelt confiscated all the people's gold coin, which at that time was the circulating currency of the nation - the private property of We the People.
It became illegal to hold gold coin, punishable by $10,000.00 fines and or jail time, not to mention you were not behaving as a patriotic subjectin the eyes of your masters who were supposed to be the servants of the people, but hey, everybody steps a little over bounds once in awhile. It's not like it was an act of Tyranny or anything.
In 1971, President Nixon did the same thing to our foreign trade partners: he reneged on his contractual obligation to pay all foreign trade accounts in gold. He said enough is enough, we will no longer give you our gold in payment, take these little green coupon stickers or revert to the law of nations - organized conquest - WAR. For complete details see: Letter to Congress.
Bankruptcy or Default
This was no different than the U.S. declaring national bankruptcy twice: the first time to the people in 1933 by the confiscation of their personal property of the circulating currency mandated by the U.S. Constitution; and the second when Nixon defaulted on contractually signed, sealed, and delivered written obligations to make gold payments to foreign trade partners. Some call it default, others the breaking of your word or bond, not to mention the treaties that were signed.
Do you remember spending much time in school learning about the above two acts that precipitated the entire New Deal and the socialism that came with it? I don't. For a complete series of articles on the subject see: Social Security: The Whole Truth Part 1.
Obviously, the collapse of the U.S. dollar and the U.S. Treasury bond market would be quite the blow to the U.S. monetary and financial system; quickly spreading into the stock market, if not already there. The real estate market would be completely decimated, once again - if not already there prior to such catastrophic events.
China and Japan, who are holding almost half of all U.S. Treasury debt, would take huge blows and resulting losses, holdings of U.S. dollars or Treasury Bills would also be affected in a similar manner. The carnage from such a financial nuclear blast would be strewn across the globe - all markets everywhere would feel the blast and suffer varying degrees of toxic waste from the fallout.
This would essentially be the demise of paper debt as money, and money as paper debt, which is now the exact reality in the global marketplace: all paper fiat debt-money is just that - debt.
Bond markets are paper markets - they would succumb; stock markets are paper markets - they would succumb; all world currencies are paper fiat debt-money - they would succumb. Now the question remains: is there anything that would not succumb?
The only possible standing survivor from such a financial Armageddon would be gold and silver - Honest Money if you will - the system of Honest Weights and Measures mandated by the United States Constitution.
How ironic and bizarre that the form of Honest Money that has been taken from the people as their circulating currency would profit from the destruction of the presently existing paper currency. It is a debased form of poetic justice of an odd sort, but nonetheless it would be, or would it?
To Have or To Have Not
Gold and silver would be the only possible asset classes that would become dear by such catastrophic events, along with life's necessities of food, shelter, water, etc. Society would not be worried about investments at this time, at least not the return on investment; they would be focused on the return of their investment, or even more importantly, the return and quality of their purchasing power to procure life's basic necessities for survival with. It is times such as this when gold and silver shine brightest - it is a most unfortunate situation that this is what has been fostered upon the people as a possible occurrence.
As mentioned at the beginning of the section, this is a very remote possibility, but it does exist, so I thought it better to include it then not, as to leave out a possibility of such grave consequences would be remiss. Now you are free to dismiss it yourself for the nonsense it probably is, but if you have made it this far you might not think its all nonsense.
Back to the scene of the crime: all paper assets are being decimated: currencies, bonds, stocks, and even real estate as they are tied at the hip to the debt markets. So, the precious metals would be under huge accumulation and demand. Who or what entity would be in the best position to accumulate at the best prices the largest quantities of precious metals - the answer: the elite international bankers who started central banking: le crиme de le crиme - the elite of the elite, they would have the wherewithal to be collecting hoards of precious metals and other sundry items.
The collapse of paper debt-money will cause them no pain, as they have little holdings in paper debt, just enough to dismiss any dispersion of culpability on their part. They would gain wealth in four main ways, although the subsets to the main ways are vast and varied: one, they would not lose much if anything in their holdings of paper debt, which would be sold at manageable levels. Not to lose is a huge gain, especially when all others are losing. Second, their real estate holdings may fall for awhile, but they have little if any debt on their real estate, most if not all is completely paid off and held in trust and non-profit foundations set up in various locations known as tax havens, so they will be well insulated. Third, they would make out like bandits (I wonder why) in the rise of the precious metals in the face of the collapse of paper fiat-debt money. Fourth, they would be in a position to go around and collect stuff for pennies on the dollar, you know - stuff like businesses and corporations, industrial complexes, large pieces of prime real estate, anything and everything that is up for sale.
There exists statements by Chinese officials (although not at the highest levels, but at lower levels) that Beijing is aware that it could precipitate a global sell off of the U.S. dollar - if they wanted to, and chose to accept all the consequences of their actions; or if they mistakenly think they are powerful enough not to be held accountable for their actions.
The consequences are titanic in proportion and would wreak financial havoc on the world's financial and monetary markets, including China's markets, as they are the largest holder of U.S. dollar denominated holdings in the world. For China to choose such a nightmarish scenario would be sealing their own fate to the same outcome - they would suffer huge financial and monetary losses along with the rest of the world. Because of this it is most unlikely that China would pursue such a policy.
Which raises the validity of the statements coming out of China into the media regarding playing the wild card of selling the dollar en masse in the high stakes game of geo-political posturing? This in turn suggests that such statements are more of a political bluff than actual planned and intended actions. The question then becomes: is it China's bluff, or is it a concerted effort of a conglomeration of major central banks that are doing the bluffing? At this point it is hard to tell. If I had to bet - I would bet on the latter.
Lastly, there is a highly improbable scenario that is most unlikely, but possible, so it was included: the option that none of the central banks, alone or in unison are actually in control of global monetary and financial policy. Regarding the day to day, year to year implementation of monetary policy - yes, but if and when the Lord Liege determines otherwise, so shall it be. The consequences border on the Apocalyptic.
The only thing known for sure is that it is a sad state of affairs when the world's financial and monetary systems have been debased to such debauchery and chicanery that is not only irreverent, but sinister as well. It is a cold, cold altar that Lucre offers to rest one's weary head on. If ever there was a time for change - that time is now upon us, before, as time has a habit of doing, it disappears into the night.
Some will counter that the central bank system under the guidance of the Bank for International Settlements is under complete control of the system, as they are said to be the system. It is a point well made and so taken, and deserves serious consideration and response. But just what is the best response, even if true?
If the system is under complete control and domination, it is the quintessential antithesis of a free market; it is a fixed and rigged market. It is wise to make a profit by any honest means, and to take whatever is offered and can be had without injury to others. Edmund Burke once said that "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Previously it was stated that there are two means by which subsistence is had: man exchanges his labor for the necessities of life (the way of economics and honest living); or man takes by force and conquest the necessities of life from others (the political way of war or dishonest living).
If a stand is not taken against the latter - the latter will prevail. Taking a stand does not preclude that change is going to occur forthwith, change takes time; we must not expect or desire the benefit of such change for ourselves, but for our children and their children - for those that come after. The future is theirs - the present ours. We must simply stand up for what is right, for the eventually coming of the day when the reckoning occurs and right triumphs as only it can.
Outsourcing Alibi - French Company Offers Alibis For Adulterers
10 Google Video Documentaries You Have To Watch