Russia Is Actually Abandoning The Dollar

[LETHALFORCE]

Russia is in a difficult dilemma, with oil prices tumbling it needs to increase production to cover the shortfall in revenues due to reduction in prices. However, keeping its current production level also means that the over-supply of oil and gas will continue which will further drive prices down. It's a Catch 22 for Russia. It needs to coordinate with OPEC members and Mexico for a coordinated action on supply reduction. BUt the key here is Saudi Arabia. Will Saudi Arabia roll down production? I suspect it will but only for lip service. The Saudis may be eyeing something different than American frackers by continuing its level of production (which adds to the downward pressure of oil prices).

On a matter in line with the thread, the US Dollar just hit 4-year high while gold prices keep on sliding (they are opposite poles): Gold Prices Weaker as U.S. Dollar Index Hits 4-Year High Overnight - Forbes

Opposite is happening .

UPDATE 1-Russia may suggest oil output cuts, eyes state oil reserve creation

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Many nations like Saudi Arabia have bet their economies on oil prices above 80.
Russia abandoning the dollar might be a bad move especially when ruble is declining
And dollar is getting stronger.

 

[asianobserve]

Europe will be main market for American oil exports

Exclusive: U.S. opens taps, a bit, on re-exporting oil to Europe | Reuters

Interesting. All along I was thinking that any American export of oil to Europe will be sourced from their domestic fracking operations. It turned out that American oil companies will actually only be "re-exporting" to European buyers oil supplies that they bought from foreign sources. Of course, US companies are able to do this since domestic fracking operations are significantly helping in coping with their massive domestic demand.

 

[asianobserve]

Many nations like Saudi Arabia have bet their economies on oil prices above 80.
Russia abandoning the dollar might be a bad move especially when ruble is declining
And dollar is getting stronger.

Meanwhile, Putin's gold holdings is also under pressure as gold price is also declining.

 

[asianobserve]

Why the US Dollar is Still King of the Currency World

In our last lesson we had a review of the basics of fundamental analysis which we have learned up to this point with a 10 question quiz on monetary policy, trade and capital flows, and the US Economy. In today's lesson we are going to begin our discussion on the fundamentals of the main currencies of the world, starting with an overview of the US Dollar.

As we discussed briefly in our lesson on the main currencies of the world in module 1 of this course, although there is lots of news lately about the US Dollar losing some of its status, as of this lesson there is no doubt that the US Dollar is still the king of the currency world. There are several primary reasons for this which we will cover in today's lesson, and which are behind the fact that no matter what currency a trader trades, pretty much everyone in the forex market follows the US Dollar.

The first reason why the US Dollar is the king of the currency world is the fact that it is a part of each of the world's most actively traded currency pairs. According to the Bank of International Settlements and as outlined here, these currency pairs account for 67% of the daily turnover in the forex market. When you add the US Dollar Swidish Krona currency pair and all of the currencies categorized as "other" traded against the US Dollar, that total rises to 89%

EUR/USD 27%
USD/JPY 13%
USD/GBP 12%
USD/AUD 6%
USD/CHF 5%
USD/CAD 4%
USD/SEK 2%
USD/Other 19%

A second reason why the US Dollar is still the king of the currency world is because it is the world's primary reserve currency, accounting for over 63% of the world's currency reserves. A reserve currency is a currency held by the governments/central banks of other countries in large quantities. Countries do this so they can purchase goods which are priced in the reserve currency at a cheaper rate than if they had to convert, and to borrow money at a cheaper rate, since lenders will be more likely to lend knowing they hold large quantities of what is considered a more credible currency.

Perhaps most importantly for traders, many countries and especially countries in Asia (the most talked about example being china) maintain large reserves of US Dollars so they can either peg the value of their currency to the US Dollar, or maintain a loose peg. The goal here is to either stabilize their own currencies and therefore their economies and/or to hold the value of their currencies artificially low in order to make their goods more competitive overseas, something which we will examine further in our next lesson.

Thirdly, many private businesses and individuals located outside the United States hold US Dollars for trade reasons, because they consider the currency more stable than their home country's currency, or for a multitude of other reasons. This, combined with what we just covered on the US Dollar being the world's primary reserve currency, means that over 2/3rds of all US Dollars in circulation are held outside of the United States.

The last major reason why the US Dollar is still king of the currency world is because many major commodities such as oil, gold, and silver are priced in US Dollars, making access to US Dollars essential for anyone in the world who wants to purchase these products.

More than simple interesting facts, these factors can have huge affects on the value of the US Dollar, and are therefore extremely important to us as traders. Exactly how these things affect the US Dollar, and therefore exactly what we should watch out for as traders will be the topic of our next lesson so I hope to see you then.

Why the US Dollar is Still King of the Currency World

 

[sob]

Russia has taken almost US $ 100 Billion hit due to the falling oil prices. This is the only viable export commodity that they have. The industry and the agriculture sector is in doldrums.

They have signed an agreement for supplying to China from the Siberian fields but that is years away as they first have to build a pipeline and for that they need financing which is not coming through smoothly.
On top of that KSA is offering a further discount to big customers like the US and China. Even India is renegotiating contracts with Middle Eastern suppliers.

Meanwhile the Russian Rouble has fallen almost 25% against the Greenback this year. Interest rates are at 9.5% and the Russian central bank has decided to cut back the support to Rouble.
Moreover the Russian oil companies have to pay off huge amounts in December/January for the repayment of their Dollar loans. Be prepared for the Rouble hitting new lows.

 

[amoy]

Interesting. All along I was thinking that any American export of oil to Europe will be sourced from their domestic fracking operations. It turned out that American oil companies will actually only be "re-exporting" to European buyers oil supplies that they bought from foreign sources. Of course, US companies are able to do this since domestic fracking operations are significantly helping in coping with their massive domestic demand.

Or do American companies export from their overseas blocks / shares, like Exxon Mobil in Iraq?

Saudi is reportedly reluctant to agree to a production cut in the 166th OPEC meeting scheduled on 27 Nov.

 

[asianobserve]

Or do American companies export from their overseas blocks / shares, like Exxon Mobil in Iraq?

Saudi is reportedly reluctant to agree to a production cut in the 166th OPEC meeting scheduled on 27 Nov.

I read before that Exxon Mobil's production in Iraq was sold to the Chinese. I think majority of oil produced by American oil companies outside the US are sold to US market. I cannot find resources about that.

 

[skumar7777]

Saudi Arabia will agree to production cuts and oil will rebound to 90+ levels.

The purpose of the production glut was to threaten the Russian economy. This has been partially achieved but the stance of the Russian state has not changed much. Hence there is no point in continuing the glut, especially when it is making the domestic US fracking uneconomical as well. Fracking itself is going through a tough phase and the cost of production is continuing to rise - the fracking bubble may well burst if oil does not rebound.

 

[pmaitra]

The Latest Anti-Russia Fantasy: Strengthen the Dollar to Bankrupt Russia
Forbes commentator thinks Russia cannot survive low oil prices.

[SOURCE - Also includes original article after the preface.]

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently said that the purpose of sanctions is to engineer regime change in Russia.

This article in Forbes says the same and proposes how it should be done: by strengthening the US dollar to crash the oil price and with it Russia's budget so as to make the whole country bankrupt.

The article does not say it expressly, but this is clearly a demand for a significant increase in US interest rates justified not on so much on economic but on geopolitical grounds. If only for that reason this proposal is unlikely to find much support within the US Federal Reserve.

The whole premise of the article is anyway totally wrong. As we have said previously, the story the USSR was brought down by low oil prices rather than profound structural and political problems is a myth.

As for the idea that low prices can somehow drive Russia into bankruptcy, Russia is currently running a budget and trade surplus, has $400 billion of reserves, has minimal public debt, a floating exchange rate and is a net creditor.

The idea that Russia can be forced into bankruptcy is absurd.

(Preface written by Alexander Mercouris)

[HR][/HR]

From the Forbes article:

Facing a situation where dollar appreciation of gold would no longer be possible, but holding costs would continue, gold investors would run for the exits, and gold prices would plummet, taking oil prices with them. The resulting reduction in Russian oil revenues would quickly put an end to Russia's foreign adventures, and possibly to the Putin regime itself.

Putin is actually buying more Gold as the Gold prices have fallen. Does Forbes have an explanation why he is doing that?

 

[asianobserve]

Forbes does seem to have a reply to your question:

Russia's Central Bank Buying Gold Isn't Quite What You Think It Is - Forbes

To be fair, increased Russian gold buying could be due to various reasons chief among them is diversification away from US Dollar and absorption of domestic production that has no foreign buyers at the moment due to sanctions.

 

[pmaitra]

Forbes does seem to have a reply to your question:

Russia's Central Bank Buying Gold Isn't Quite What You Think It Is - Forbes

To be fair, increased Russian gold buying could be due to various reasons chief among them is diversification away from US Dollar and absorption of domestic production that has no foreign buyers at the moment due to sanctions.

You are correct, and there is more to it, but I don't want to go too much into detail.

Fiat Currencies come and go. So will the Dollar. Gold is always gold, the eternal metric of real currency.

 

[asianobserve]

You are correct, and there is more to it, but I don't want to go too much into detail.

Fiat Currencies come and go. So will the Dollar. Gold is always gold, the eternal metric of real currency.

There is no noticeable shift in attitude on this matter on the part of a lot of the major central banks. There's no intention to return to the gold standard. That era is long gone.

"The Dollar is Unstable!"

One of the core aspects of gold standard insanity is the idea that, without backing by gold specie, our currency is worthless. Makes sense, right? It's just a piece of paper. It only has value because we agree that it does, and, without something more concrete, it can rapidly devalue. So the dollar is basically perched precariously on the precipice of total disaster, right?

In a word: no. There's a reason why the price of gold is quoted in dollars and not the other way around. The dollar is extremely stable. Much more stable than gold. The dollar is the most stable measure of value on the planet. In fact, the dollar is, at the moment, arguably the most stable financial instrument in human history.

Currencies work because we all agree that they're worth something. When you walk into a store with a twenty, you can exchange it for goods. Then the store-owner can take that same bill and exchange it for other goods. Multiply such transactions by millions and millions of times across millions of places and thousands of different types of transactions and that value becomes unshakable.

Those people advocating for the gold standard would insist that a free-floating currency also means we can all, at some point, stop agreeing that it's worth something. Which is technically true, we absolutely could. But it's not unlike observing that if you released a herd of African elephants in Manhattan they would probably smash a lot of cars. True or not, it's not an outcome that warrants serious discussion.

The simple fact of the matter is that the very real, very tangible value created by 300 million Americans using dollars every day to fuel our $15.5 trillion economy gives them an unprecedented level of stability. Gold bugs can't wrap their heads around the sheer scale of our economy and what that level of liquidity really means. Those simple and complex transactions, multiplied over and over and over again, have a cumulative effect that is staggeringly vast in a way the market for gold has never experienced.

And that's not even taking into consideration the fact that the dollar is used as a reserve currency the world over. In addition to Americans using dollars, central bankers, whose entire professional lives are dedicated to understanding currencies, have to come to rely on them. The collective endorsement of the most educated currency experts the world over means a lot. Not just because they understand currency better than almost anyone else, but because it means that they acquire and hold trillions and trillions of dollars, only further bolstering the dollar's already rock-solid stability.

And of course, simply comparing the price of gold and the value of the dollar over the last 40 years should make it painfully obvious whether gold or the dollar is more "stable."

Since August of 1971, when Nixon permanently took the country off of the gold standard, the dollar has typically shown very predictable and marginal rates of inflation with a few exceptions. Inflation was high from 1973 to 1981, with double-digit inflation in four of those years. However, since the start of 1983 that rate has crept over 5 percent for the year only once (5.4 percent in 1990), and has dipped below zero percent only once (deflation of 0.4 percent in 2009). That's 29 years of the last 31 years that it's had inflation between 0 and 5 percent.

Compare that to gold, which averaged $41 an ounce in 1971, spiked hard to $604 an ounce for 1980 (that's a 1,400 percent increase, in case you're keeping track), was down to $458 by 1981 (a 24 percent decline in one year), and down to $378 for 1982 (37 percent over two years). And while it remained relatively stable over the next 20 years with annual averages between $446 and $271 an ounce ("relatively" being the operative word here, as it was still fluctuating in value a lot more than the dollar), it went on another wild run at the start of the 21st century, from $271 an ounce for 2001 to $1630 for 2011, an increase of over 500 percent in just over a decade. And, since its peak value of $1,921 on September 6, 2011, it proceeded to plunge 37.5 percent before finding a support level at $1,200 in 2013.

While these sort of wild swings in value are cat nip to an investor, they are disastrous for a currency and do not in any way, shape, or form represent stability. The take away should be pretty clear: the gold standard didn't make money stable by tacking it to gold, it made gold stable by tacking it to money.


"But Gold is Inherently Stable Due to Its Intrinsic Value!"

Except that gold doesn't have intrinsic value. Certainly no more than the dollar.

Gold's a great metal. It's one of the best conductors of electricity out there, and it's astonishingly malleable. But this isn't an intrinsic value. The fact that there's no such thing as gold wiring should make that pretty clear.

No, the "intrinsic value" that is so often referred to is just the willingness of people to exchange it for money. People will probably always agree that gold is worth something just because we always have and that gives people confidence they can continue getting money for gold.

Which, if you're keeping track, is essentially the exact same reason the dollar has value.


"No, the 4,000 Years of History Give Gold Stability the Dollar Can't Match!"

So the idea is that people collectively agreeing that something has value works for gold but not paper money? Why? The classic argument is that gold's lengthy history makes it more stable. Gold coins are almost as old as civilization, after all.

But this is a specious argument at best.

Sure, a long history of anything can add an air of legitimacy, but no amount of history makes something immune from obsolescence. One could have easily walked around American cities in 1900 pointing out that, while these new "automobiles" are sure popular for now, the 4,000-year history of horses being used for transportation is a sign that the automobiles are just a fad and horses are really where it's at in the long run.


"Central Banks Are Going to Destroy Currencies by Printing Money!"

The inflationary policies of central banks are usually chief among complaints for those who favor a return to the gold standard. And the reasons for this are rooted in basic supply and demand. When the supply of something increases, it generally results in that thing decreasing in value.

Bumper crop for corn this year? Corn's going to be cheaper because there's more of it to go around. Apple (AAPL) holds a public offering with 1 million new shares? The share price is probably going to decrease proportionally to the increase in the company's float.

So when the Federal Reserve starts increasing the money supply through its bond-buying program known as quantitative easing, it gets a lot of people up in arms. "Appalling! This would be criminal if anyone else did it! It's just counterfeiting masquerading as monetary policy," came the cry from the policy's harshest critics. When the policy was first announced, it prompted doomsday predictions of massive inflation from some circles.

And this really strikes at the root of what truly appeals to proponents of the gold standard really believe in: limited supply. Gold is a rare metal that has a finite supply. If gold has to back every dollar out there, the total number of dollars can't be increased.

Except that the hysteria sparked by any adjustment to the money supply is entirely overblown. Certainly, expanding the money supply too much would be (and at times in history has been) disastrous. But the idea that quantitative easing is coming anywhere close to that is pretty preposterous.

In short, the amounts of currency being injected into the system aren't nearly large enough to create any sort of crisis. Central bankers, who, again, spend their entire professional career building an understanding of the factors that influence currency and money, are well aware of the threats of inflation. And as such, it's unlikely they would ever pursue a policy drastic enough to unmoor the world's most stable currency.

And, once again, the actual inflation rates should make this as plain as day. The Fed started their program in November of 2008, a year that had monthly rates of inflation over 4 percent every month except two and hit 5.6 percent for July, the highest monthly average since 1982. With inflation this high, increasing the money supply would had to have been suicide right?

Except that November saw inflation plunge to 1.1 percent and December saw it decline to 0.1 percent. Then, over the course of 2009, the dollar deflated for eight-straight months from March to October and increased in real value for the full year by 0.4 percent, the first full-year deflationary rate since 1955.

And if QE 2 or QE 3 were what was going to spark the rapid destabilization that would rapidly inflate the dollar, they sure had a funny way of showing it. While 2011 showed moderate inflation that reached 3.2 percent, 2010, 2012, and 2013 had annual inflation rates of 1.6 percent, 2.1 percent, and 1.5 percent respectively.

So, while much of economics remains a mysterious, amorphous, undefined blob, this is one case where the proof is really in the pudding. For all of the doom and gloom predictions, the terrifyingly high rates of inflation never really materialized. Almost as if the people planning out the policy knew what they were doing the whole time. Weird.


"Central Banks CANNOT be Trusted!"

Ah, so now we're talking turkey. Because here's the reality of the pro-Gold Standard argument: it has nothing to do with economics.

The ideological position that governments should be smaller and wield less power is not at all uncommon, and it's what's really behind those people fighting to push the country back to the gold standard. If you're a libertarian, a model for controlling the money supply that takes it out of the hands of the government is very appealing as it means less influence for the government.

Which is, of course, perfectly fine. But suggesting that it would be anything less than an economic disaster is just being foolish.

And, also, it's difficult to understand the motivation behind it. The Fed actually has a pretty solid track record at maintaining a steady, reliable inflationary state since the beginning of the 1980s. And, by leaving control of the money supply in the hands of a central authority, it provides the opportunity to respond to economic shocks. In the event of a deflationary state or a severe economic downturn, the state operating under the gold standard is handcuffed in its response. That's why most European nations abandoned the gold standard in the early 1930s to give them the opportunity to respond to the Great Depression.


"You Would Say That, You're Obviously a Tool of the Establishment!"

At the end of the day, the arguments in favor of the gold standard start to resemble those of your classic conspiracy theory. If you're opposed to centralized power for governments, that's fine. And it's understandable how that position might push you to want to remove the critical task of managing our money supply from the federal government.

However, those are ideological arguments, not economic ones. If you're willing to accept the consequences of a gold standard and still feel like it's better than handing the power to change the money supply to government bureaucrats, fine.

But suggesting that changing the nation back to the gold standard would be anything less than a total disaster from an economic standpoint is, well, you read the title.

OPINION: Here's Why a Return to the Gold Standard Would be Completely Insane - Equities.com Global Financial Community


BTW, no matter how much gold Russia buys with its present economic capacity it cannot match America's gold holdings:

 

[asianobserve]

@pmaitra, I think the financial advisers of the ISIS Caliph heard you:

Isis to mint own Islamic dinar coins in gold, silver and copper | World news | The Guardian

:thumb:

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Interesting. All along I was thinking that any American export of oil to Europe will be sourced from their domestic fracking operations. It turned out that American oil companies will actually only be "re-exporting" to European buyers oil supplies that they bought from foreign sources. Of course, US companies are able to do this since domestic fracking operations are significantly helping in coping with their massive domestic demand.

Fracking is only viable if oil is over 80. Costs are too high.

 

[pmaitra]

More Nails in Dollar's Coffin: Russian Deals with Turkey, India

Russia and its friends keep trying to undermine the dollar as a world currency...

Lets yank their chain a little...

(Red Pill Times) [SOURCE]

This nail courtesy of Turkey and Russia, (via Sputnik news agency):

Russia and Turkey are set to work on increasing payments between the countries in their national currencies, the Russian-Turkish Intergovernmental Commission said Wednesday.

"The working group on financial and banking cooperation, taking into account information about detected barriers, is to continue its work to eliminate them and increase the volume of payments in the national currencies of Turkey and Russia," the commission said.

Both sides noted the absence of legal and infrastructural constraints for conducting payments in their national currencies and agreed to work alongside representatives of the business communities to identify possible obstacles.​

This nail courtesy of India and Russia, (via Sputnik news agency):

Transition to national currencies, the rupee and ruble, in trade between India and Russia will significantly increase bilateral trade, P.S. Ragahvan, the Indian Ambassador to Moscow told Rossiya Segodnya news agency on Tuesday.

"I would like to mention actually three specific ways in which we are looking to see a significant increase in trade exchanges between our two countries.

The first is as mentioned, trade in national currencies," Ragahvan stated. "It is obviously advantageous, because trade between Russia and India is now through the currency of a third country which means that business people have to hedge against two different currencies – between the rupee and the dollar and then the dollar to the ruble and vice versa," the ambassador stated in an interview ahead of the Indian Trade and Industry exhibition in Moscow.

Besides the transition to national currencies, the ambassador proposed another two elements that could "have a huge impact on trade between the two countries."

The second and the third elements are discussions between customs authorities and the active use of the North South Corridor, going "from ports in India to ports in Iran, up by the overland route and then into Russia, either across the Caspian Sea or through Azerbaijan."

According to the ambassador, this could reduce "the total length traversed by goods between India and Russia by half."​

While Obama tries to hammer Russia into submission via Ukraine and sanctions with the support of the "international community", Putin is hammering away at the petrodollar with an all to enthusiastic and willing group of participats known to many of us as the "rest of the world."

 

[sgarg]

India is very keen on Ruble-Rupee swaps. Swaps are nothing new. India already has swaps with several countries. Swaps shields companies from excessive fx volatility by ensuring adequate availability of fx.

Japan has a big swap agreement with India.

Russian trade with India is too low. There were a lot of issues with Indo-Russian trade. These issues need to be sorted out. There is a feeling in Delhi that Indo-Russian trade can increase by 3-4 times rather quickly.

 

[pmaitra]

India is very keen on Ruble-Rupee swaps. Swaps are nothing new. India already has swaps with several countries. Swaps shields companies from excessive fx volatility by ensuring adequate availability of fx.

Japan has a big swap agreement with India.

Russian trade with India is too low. There were a lot of issues with Indo-Russian trade. These issues need to be sorted out. There is a feeling in Delhi that Indo-Russian trade can increase by 3-4 times rather quickly.

Yes, in deed.

Indian car makers and truck makers can make inroads into Russia. Tata is already in Russia (and in Ukraine as well ).

I think Tata and Mahindra can set up assembly units in Russia, especially Russian Far East. Indian vehicles are rugged, and can do a pretty good job in the cold (heck, we send our trucks and jeeps into the Tibetan Plateau, and across the Rohtang Pass). This is a good opportunity to capture the Russian market. That way, we can pay off our Soviet era debts that we still owe to the Russians. BHEL is already planning to do that.

 

[pmaitra]

How One Woman Tried—and Failed—to Stop the Fed From Driving the US Into Recession

William Greider on November 24, 2014

The death of Nancy Teeters was properly noted last week (November 17), since she was the very first woman to serve as a governor on the Federal Reserve Board in Washington. But I remember Teeters for more poignant and powerful reasons—her personal courage in stubbornly resisting the harsh and devastating recession the Fed imposed on Americans.

This was thirty years ago in the early 1980s when Paul Volcker was the formidable Fed chairman and his conservative convictions triumphed. Volcker is remembered reverently in the annals of finance for saving the country from inflation. Nancy Teeters, the lonely dissenter, was soon forgotten but she understood some things about human society and arrogant power that her male colleagues failed to appreciate.

Those long-ago events during the Reagan presidency were at the dawn of the conservative era and—due especially to the Federal Reserve—began the triumph of finance capital over the broader economy. I wrote a book in 1987 that described the historic watershed, called Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. Teeters was right. If other Fed governors had listened, this country might have been saved from a lot of pointless pain.

This is what I said about her unique role:

Nancy Teeters, almost alone, resisted. Month after month, as the economy spiraled downward, she repeatedly urged her colleagues to back off. The largest corporations were shutting down more and more of their production. As loan failures accumulated, the financial sector was threatened with crisis. The Fed's single-mindedness, she warned, was inflicting deep wounds that would not soon be healed.

"I gave the Federal Open Market Committee a lecture." Teeters said. "I told them: You are pulling the financial fabric of this country so tight that it's going to rip. You should understand that once you tear a piece of fabric, it's very difficult, almost impossible, to put it back together again."

Her metaphor, she pointed out to me, was understood by women. "None of these guys has ever sewn anything in his life," Teeters said. [page 465]​

The objections she expressed thirty years ago in the closed-door meetings of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors are still highly relevant to our current national condition. The "social fabric" has been torn asunder, first by Volcker's deep recession, then by deregulation and Wall Street's high-risk adventures, and then by globalization and finance capital's hegemony over labor and production. These destabilizing forces led eventually to the collapse. They are driving the grinding deterioration that continues to afflict the society.

Contemporary politics is still blind to the gravity of our situation. Even the Democratic president is still resisting the kind of big, bold actions that Keynesian economists like Nancy Teeters might have proposed in these circumstances. Defending the "social fabric" remains an inadmissible argument in the mechanistic logic of conventional economics. As Teeters argued then, innocent people are being sacrificed to crude abstractions. Meanwhile, some people are still getting richer and most other people are still getting poorer.

There is one great change in the landscape, however. The Federal Reserve Board is now chaired by a woman. Janet Yellen is perhaps not so upfront in her social concerns as Nancy Teeters was, but she is clearly trying to move the boys in that direction. Yellen met recently with a network of activist community organizations who are pushing for concrete action on work and wages. If the very masculine Federal Reserve can break free of the reactionary past, maybe there is hope for the country.

 

[sgarg]

Found a very interesting video by accident. I think it is very watchable.

Two Big Boys: China and NATO | Global Research TV