The End Of Pax Americana?

[Eighthman]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-13/chinas-official-press-agency-calls-new-reserve-currency

Potentially, this is huge.  I also believe it could change the politics that obstruct Disclosure.

[Pimander]

Some of China's (which as a reminder is the single largest offshore holder of US Treasury paper, and the second largest of all only second naturally to the Federal Reserve whose $85 billion in monthly monetizing "flow" is what is keeping rates from exploding higher) thoughts as captured in the Xinhua Op-ed:

Reform of the world's financial system should include the introduction of a new internatonal reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar
   
The international community could thus permanently stay away from the spillover of intensifying domestic political turmoil in the U.S.
   
Fiscal impasse in the U.S. is a good time for "befuddled world" to start considering building a "de-Americanized world"  Impasse has left many nations' dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community agonized

Other cornerstones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world, including respect for sovereignty, recognizing authority of UN in handling global hotspot issues and giving developing and emerging market economies more say in major international financial institutions

Purpose of such changes is not to "completely toss the United States aside," rather to encourage Washington to play a much more constructive role in addressing global affairs

Of course, if and when the day comes that the USD is no longer the reserve currency, kiss America's superpower, or any power, status, which is now based purely on the USD's reserve currency status, and the ability to fund half the US budget deficit with debt promptly monetized by the Fed, goodbye.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-13/chinas-official-press-agency-calls-new-reserve-currency

Just thought I would highlight parts that are relevant to recent discussions on PRC Forum.

[petrus4]

Fiscal impasse in the U.S. is a good time for "befuddled world" to start considering building a "de-Americanized world"  Impasse has left many nations' dollar assets in jeopardy and the international community agonized

Other cornerstones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world, including respect for sovereignty, recognizing authority of UN in handling global hotspot issues and giving developing and emerging market economies more say in major international financial institutions.

This could potentially be an extremely positive thing.

Purpose of such changes is not to "completely toss the United States aside," rather to encourage Washington to play a much more constructive role in addressing global affairs

I think the American government does need to be marginalised, until the American public are no longer willing to allow their country to be governed by a collective of fascist psychopaths.

[Pimander]

I think the American government does need to be marginalised,

Caution is needed too before the world jumps aboard.  The US Constitution is better than most.  China do not have the Universe best human rights record and I see nothing about promoting democracy there.

I did think it was an interesting coincidence that we have been discussing some of these issues.

I personally think that this is a dangerous time.  Yes, power shifts can be welcome, but power shifting to what entity?

[Eighthman]

If NASA photographs are airbrushed or censored as some claim, will China be submissive to US desires to conceal such images in the future?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/asia/china-space/index.html

For example, suppose they mapped the Moon?  Or actually went there?

[deuem]

Caution is needed too before the world jumps aboard.  The US Constitution is better than most.  China do not have the Universe best human rights record and I see nothing about promoting democracy there.
snip

We look at rights that the news presents us. They are owned and will write what they want. Look around at other countries and their past also. This place is passive. The country is passive.

They are working very hard to get the people fed and kept alive and have money. They have now made education a law You get a free education through 9th grade. In the future maybe High school.

I still don't see any forced child labor factories. It is against the law for a child to work untill 16 in some jobs, 18 in most. They have an inforced minimum wage and a 44 hour week before overtime must be paid. All workers now are getting a Social Security payment taken out of their check. They pay about 1/3rd. The boss 2/3rds.

They can use this account if they wish to pay doctor bills. I make more money than most doctors do. at home they are millionairs. My last office visit at home was 150usd. wow. 15 minutes in all. 600 an hour to the office for talking. Here it is a couple of bucks no matter which one you see. I prefer to find a military doctor here, they are better trained and speak some English.

There is now a very large middle class of highly educated people that respect life. All childred must learn Engish, Are your kids learning Chinese?

The current China is changing so fast it is nothing like you think it is. Take a real trip and see. In another 20 years it will be the number one place in the world if they keep going.

What human rights are you talking about, Voting? I see how well that is working at home. Here they have real plans, they call them 5 year plans. And they stick to them. Things get done very fast.The 5 year plans have other 5 year plans staacked up in the rears. They work on the next one while in one. They are thinking ahead with many plans, Maybe 5 or 6 are outlinned. 30 Years ahead.
With that many plans, you can make a budget and stick to it.

Our DC guys look at the next under the table paycheck and vote where the money is. People in the states are without a lot of things. Jobs, food, money yet the DC group tosses it around to other countries like candy. They took the bread out of the basket. But I need to see it first hand, the human rights problem everyone talks about.

D

[Pimander]

Hey, I didn't say China has the worst human rights record either.

Just because democracy is currently dominated by greedy corporations doesn't mean it has to be.  Babies should never be thrown out with the bathwater.

We have a minumum wage in the UK too you know.

[deuem]

Hey, I didn't say China has the worst human rights record either. [agree]
Just because democracy is currently dominated by greedy corporations doesn't mean it has to be.  Babies should never be thrown out with the bathwater.

[In a way I don' know what Democracy is in the states anymore. According to the bill of rights the fed has limits. The DC group is tossing that aside with their own rules. Some (all) of the laws I read that get passed are without consent of the people. The pres seems to do what they want. It is a mix now. I think the founding fathers are not happy. Most Americans are not happy either.]

We have a minumum wage in the UK too you know.   [agree, How much is it now?]

[petrus4]

Caution is needed too before the world jumps aboard.  The US Constitution is better than most.  China do not have the Universe best human rights record and I see nothing about promoting democracy there.

I did think it was an interesting coincidence that we have been discussing some of these issues.

I personally think that this is a dangerous time.  Yes, power shifts can be welcome, but power shifting to what entity?

This has always been America's customary justification for its' depravity, yes; the idea that as bad as it is, someone else is worse.  Up until recently, this was almost an argument that I was willing to accept.  Given the fact that the country is currently experiencing a re-enactment of Weimar Germany, however, said false rationalisation no longer really holds a pretense of plausibility.

As for the American Constitution being better than most; perhaps it is, in some respects.  Yet we can do better still.  The Jeffersonian system is modelled on that of Rome, and its' primary weakness is therefore the same as Rome's was; the perpetual corruption of the legislative branch.  There has never been a Senate that was not a bribed, necrotic gerontocracy.

The problem, to be more specific, however, is not legislature itself, but federalism.  We must have a scenario where no legislature is able to make law, which is binding on anyone who is not physically present within the room.  The only people who are bound by a law, must be those who directly, personally sign it.  That will put an end to government existing in opposition to, rather than with, the consent and interests of the governed.

We do not have democracy, at the current time.  What we have is a scenario, where a corrupt, authoritarian legislature, consisting of the elderly, pass laws which often concern issues that said geriatrics know precious little about; laws in relation to which, the consent of those bound by them is considered entirely irrelevant.  If the public, once they have had such legislation imposed from on high, attempt to protest, then the police are dispatched to inflict injury and make arrests.  The Americans in particular have the gall to refer to such a condition, as a free society.

Yet it is not, in truth, entirely the government's responsibility; and this must be acknowledged.  My time with Reddit has shown me, that large numbers of my own generation and younger, willingly allow themselves to be bound by a particularly serpentine, unspoken form of tyranny which can be referred to as Repressive Tolerance.

When the Marxist Left began their campaign to destroy the previously stable American society, they were initially faced with a dilemma.  The American Constitution explicitly guaranteed freedom of speech; and apparently there was no way around that.  Yet in time, a solution to the problem was found, and as has often been the case, with the help of the gay movement.

What the gay movement did, was to invent the term, "hate speech."  Once this was done, they then declared that hate speech was an exception to the Constitution's guarantee of free expression.  At first, the range of exception was limited; but its' initial range was irrelevant.  The vital point was that the concept of an exception could be introduced.

As a result of this, in time, many other things came to be considered exceptions to the Constitution's guarantees.  Hitler's rationalisation was adopted, concerning child pornography being an excuse for any kind of repressive legislation that the government wished to pass.  Terrorism was invented, and it was said that any form of speech which might assist terrorists, had to be considered an exception to the guarantee of freedom of expression.

So what we have before us, is a situation where precisely that type of speech, which Franklin observed that the Constitution was most intended to protect, (that being unpopular speech) is the very type which the government and the culturally Marxist Left tell us, must not, and can not be permitted.

Inevitably, my raising of this issue, is met with the objection that surely I can not be advocating the free circulation of child pornography, or the defense of the terrorists, or the repression of homosexuals.  My response is that while I do not advocate any of these, the truth is that they are entirely irrelevant.  The only point to the existence of any of them, has been to create a scenario in which liberty not only no longer exists, but in which the population actually feel a sense of moral justification in ensuring the destruction of liberty.  As a strategy, it has been as ingenious, as it is insidious.

So the problem is not entirely with the government.  The problem, is that we have a scenario where the public have been deceived into actively seeking the abolition of liberty, ironically in the name of civil rights.  There is, of course, the other perpetual problem where the American public also worship their military to a far greater degree than is healthy for them, as well.

The interests of those who advocate federalism, usually center around unity and the ability to field large armies.  My own primary interest, on the other hand, is liberty; and liberty is not to be found in states with large populations.  If we are to choose between perceived stability, and freedom, then I will always encourage the latter; because if a people are free, they are generally able to devise solutions to problems of instability, which are more in their own, genuine best interests anyway, than when solutions are arbitrarily and externally imposed upon them, by a giant, centralised bureaucracy.

I must confess to a particular kind of arrogance where this subject is concerned; and if those Americans here, wonder why I, a foreigner, have invested so much of my time and passion into the subject of American politics, then this is your answer.  My own ideological profile, to a large degree at least, matches that of the authors of the Jeffersonian system; and it does so not merely intellectually, but emotionally as well.

This does not, however, mean that I consider the Republic perfect, or truly the last word in just government; it can still be improved, if only incrementally, and I think experience has shown us the ways in which that can occur.

[petrus4]

What human rights are you talking about, Voting?

The concept of human rights, as the United Nations refers to it, can actually be considered deceptive.  This is because a fundamental, and implicit assumption on the part of the U.N., is that whatever rights any individuals may have, require a centralised, global government to act as arbiter of them.

So it is not, in reality, a case where said rights exist beyond the ability of a government to declare or rescind them.  You already have a scenario in America, where police now routinely speak of scenarios where any Constitutional protections may be considered forfeit. 

Any centralised body which considers itself a herald or proclaimer of rights, is a body which also considers itself empowered to confiscate said rights whenever it pleases.  According to said definition, all rights in fact also are, are exceptions to what is otherwise considered unlimited power on the part of the governing body.  In other words, said rights represent the least amount of freedom that said governing body has decided that you are entitled to.

This is the fundamental reason why, despite the positive intentions of those concerned, any federalised state, and particularly a global state, can never be a recipe for anything other than tyranny.  Those who live in largely stateless places like the Congo or Somalia, where in practice there is virtually no law, if they are able to defend themselves physically, will experience an immeasurably greater degree of personal freedom, than will those who are forced against their will, to endure world federalism.

[Amaterasu]

Petrus, You astound Me with the clarity of Your thought and the depth of Your understanding of things on this planet!

I agree with You all down the line.  I may be residing in this arbitrary area called "America," but I am a sovereign Individual on this planet Humanity calls "home."

Thank You!  GFY.

[thorfourwinds]

OUTSTANDING !

Welcome back, friend petrus4.   

That is an excellently-written dissertation,
or as we say here in the North Georgia mountains - an 'atta-boy'.   

Thank you for all you share.   



tfw
Peace Love Light
Liberty & Equality or Revolution

[deuem]

Petrus is back and cooking !

Glad, very glad...........Deuem

You got some Gold coming.

[Pimander]

We have a minumum wage in the UK too you know.   [agree, How much is it now?]

UK National minimum wage, hourly rates are:-

21 & over: £6.31 ($10.09)     

18 to 20:  £5.03 ($8.04)

Under 18:  £3.72 ($5.95)

Apprentice:  £2.68 ($4.29)

[Pimander]

So the problem is not entirely with the government.  The problem, is that we have a scenario where the public have been deceived into actively seeking the abolition of liberty, ironically in the name of civil rights. 

I'm not even sure whether the paradoxical nature of this situation is entirely by design.  Yes, it has been encouraged to cement the position of the elite, but I suspect it is also inevitable in any society where citizens look outside for their freedom to be protected.  To offer protection something or someone is perceived to need power over the the perceived threat to liberty.  Ultimately that always leads to some entity having power over the rest of whatever society it is.  Even in a tribal society this is still the case.

Anyone care to resolve the riddle?