The following Pravda article clearly spells out why our Republocrats and media are more worried about Donald Trump than protecting the power of the US Dollar.
he United States has declared a war of sanctions on Russia and continues putting trade pressure on China. It is not ruled out that the USA will restrict supplies of steel products from China. In return, Moscow and Beijing intend to abolish the US dollar in mutual settlements within the scope of the BRICS organization. The move will mark the end of the era of the undivided financial domination of the United States of America in the world.
As soon as the US Congress adopted a package of new sanctions against Russia, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Ryabkov issued a formidable warning to Washington. "US sanctions against Russia will only encourage Russia to create an alternative economic system, in which dollars will not be needed," the Russian diplomat said.
Interestingly, the statement was made on the eve of the two-day summit of BRICS trade ministers, which opened on August 1, 2017 in Shanghai. This organization, which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, becomes a powerful counterweight to the Group of Seven. Today, the BRICS countries account for 26% of the Earth's territory, 42% of the world's population (almost three billion people) and 27% of world GDP. According to experts' forecasts, the share of BRICS countries will account for more than 40% of world GDP by 2050.
However, BRICS trade ministers chose not to put the horse before the cart.
Russia's Minister for Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin stated that BRICS countries, in particular Russia and China, may switch to settlements in national currencies already in the near future. The minister also said that the trade turnover between Russia and China may reach $200 billion by 2020.
Meanwhile, on the sidelines of the Shanghai summit, the ministers discussed opportunities for the creation of a new monetary system to exclude the use of the US dollar. In 2015, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was opting for settlements in national currencies and created currency pools with several countries.
Today, not only does Russia need to abjure the dollar - the country needs to ensure financial independence from the West. The BRICS countries have coordinated basic principles of the work of the New Development Bank, which is seen as a counterbalance to the World Bank, in which it is the Americans who set the rules of the game.
In addition, Russia considers a possibility to set up a separate payment system similar to SWIFT.
More than 300 Russian banks have switched to an alternative to SWIFT - the system known as SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages). Elvira Nabiullina, Chairwoman of the Central Bank of Russia, said: "Threats were voiced that Russia could be cut off from SWIFT. We have completed the work on our own payment system, and if something happens, all operations in SWIFT format will work inside the country."
One of the main conditions for switching to settlements in national currencies is the stability of the national currencies of the BRICS members. The Russian ruble exchange rate may decrease due to relatively low world oil prices (within $52 per barrel).
Unstable exchange rates of national currencies is not the only obstacle to abjure the US dollar in mutual settlements. BRICS countries account for only 10% of global trade. Therefore, the alliance needs to increase indicators of mutual trade.
Moscow and Beijing have already introduced mutual settlements in yuans. Russia's Central Bank has opened its first foreign office in Beijing. Thus, the war of sanctions against Russia consolidates and boosts relations between Russia, China and other BRICS members.
DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. No. 16–1436 (16A1190) v. INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT, ET AL.
582 U. S. ____ (2017) (Per Curiam)
Trump-Internation al Refugee Assistance Project
Donald Trump was vindicated by the Supreme Court regarding the dispute over the provisional entry ban for citizens from six countries. The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the provisional injunctions of subordinate authorities. Of course mainstream media is once again misrepresenting the decision. The New York Times wrote: “On Monday, the justices agreed to review both appellate decisions, but their unsigned opinion did not address the merits of those cases. “
The “unsigned opinion” was Per Curiam meaning it was the UNANIMOUS decision of the entire court and this did not requite an opinion written by one Justice. This is a STAY to allow Trump to do what the travel ban was all about – a review. Such stays are typically Per Curiam when granted for the Supreme Court rarely grants such a stay. Here we have two lower courts interfering with the Executive Powers, for which there was absolutely NO historical precedent. If ISIS openly sent in 1,000 people to be terrorists, they would be able to freely enter all because the lower courts were playing politics rather than law.
Of course there is the famous Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) where the constitutionality of the Presidential Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship was upheld. There the Supreme Court upheld held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Fred Korematsu’s individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. So even American born Japanese were locked up just because they were Japanese.
There is even a statue specifying who may not receive a entry visa: 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens. This even bans people with physical disease or mental disorder with the exception of adopting children under the age of 10. Criminals are barred if their crime was involving moral turpitude (sex crime) or a drug dealers. Those convicted otherwise of two or more crimes are banned or women who have been convicted of prostitution within 10 years. Moreover, the Attorney General may ban anyone he reasonably has grounds to believe is seeking to enter the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in the violation of U.S. law.
So why has the media called Trump racist and treated him with such hatred over a 90 day ban? It is just politics. There is absolutely no legal ground whatsoever to deny the order. The Supreme Court noted the exceptions that Trump himself acknowledge needed some qualification. The court provided general guidelines — say, a family member of someone living in the country, a student admitted to a university or a worker with an employment offer in hand.
The Fourth Circuit had struck down the ban using the First Amendment claiming it was religious focused saying Trump’s ban “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.” That was really a very bad decision since they were bans on six countries not Muslims and that would include even Christians. I have Muslim employees and they come and go with no problem. Clearly, it is not a ban on all Muslims and thus their narrowly focused decision was political, not legally sound. It was a 90 day ban while a review was to be taken. The ban would have been long over by now. In fact, the Supreme Court pointed that out: “We fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments” within 90 days, the court said.
The legal grounds for granting a stay by the Supreme Count is straight forward. It must meet a two-prong test (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits and (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured. The mere fact that the Supreme Court issued the stay proves that Trump acted constitutionally and the President has that power.
Had there been only one lower court decision, then the Circuit Justice overseeing that circuit could have issued a stay by himself. In this case, we had two separate decisions from two separate circuits and thus it went to the whole court. That is why the decision a unanimous and thus Per Curiam.
Let’s give deflation an official definition. Deflation is a decrease in the average price of goods and services or an increase in the purchasing power of the standard unit of currency. Put more simply, deflation results in consumers able to buy more than they could before with the same amount of money.
Cheaper prices may seem like good news for consumers. Most economists, however, would disagree. Prolonged periods of deflation can result in a recession and can devastate an economy.
If prices mark sustained deflationary levels that strike below the cost to produce goods and services, economic turmoil can ensue with production cuts, payroll reductions and lay-offs.
Deflation is power behind what struck the financial crisis and real estate market in 2008, prices went down. Although prices have recovered a bit in the US housing market, many areas still have not and once again we may see deflation. Oil has dropped substantially with deflationary forces. And now, with Amazon purchasing whole foods, deflation is going to rear its ugly head again in the retail food industry. That added to the fact our real government debt situation is worse than in 2008, we have the potential for serious consequences.
When deflation strikes, the stock market usually follows . . . remember 2008? When will this happen? Who knows, but right before or right after it starts, InterAnalyst will protect our members. We monitor the markets 24 hours a day to keep investors 401k, IRA and other accounts protected against the coming crash. Our protect and preserve alerts helps members lock-in the massive growth our they have earned since 2009.
Member Login Hi, (First Name) | Log Out
Livio S. Nespoli has been a broker, registered investment advisor, and financial publisher since 1985.