The Imperial Dollar
January 3, 2007 – 2:43 amSomewhere in my combing of the blogosphere yesterday, I read some comments about how the British empire has faded and the United States has a defacto empire. I believe the commenter was pointing out how the policy of the United States since World War II has indeed been one of influence. We have indeed peddled our warriors into towns and villages across the globe from North Vietnam to modern day Tikrit.
But the U.S. Empire is not a territorial empire. In fact, territory is limiting. The Greek Empire under Alexander could only extend so far before they collapsed from overextension. It was said that the sun never set on the British empire, yet over the century spanning the end of the East India Company in the mid-1800s to World War II, British colonial interests in the world shrank dramatically.
Territory was the old black. Economy is the new black.
I don’t claim to be an economist, but I venture to guess that most economists will vouch for the power and influence of the U.S. Dollar. Most of the worlds currencies are tied to the U.S. Dollar and some countries (Ecuador, East Timor and El Salvador) don’t even have a currency of their own, choosing instead to deal in the Dollar.
Is it a surprise that foreign economies shudder when Wall Street has a bad day? Is it surprising that the world held it’s breath awaiting the economic fall out on 9/11?
German economic magazine, Spiegel, wonders how dangerous the decline in the dollar is?
Again, I’m not an economist. But I wonder at the wisdom of continuing on the weak dollar policy adopted by the Bush administration. The theory is, the less the dollar is worth, the more will come back into the country. The weaker the dollar is, the more we can spend on the global market. The weaker the dollar is, the more you and I have to pay for groceries and bus fares. Inflation grows when there is too weak a dollar. Of course, the flip side is that deflation occurs with a stronger dollar. Less foreign investment can be made which leads to fewer US products sold abroad.
It’s a quandry. But it’s food for thought.
10 Responses to “The Imperial Dollar”
I agree that territory is limiting for an empire. All the more reason why the U.S. should shed its world policeman role and concentrate on finding ways to unleash the creative energy of its people to generate wealth by more efficient means than “…achieving affluence on credit”. Look where that cultural meme has got us.
I think that some of the citizens of nation-states under the economic dominion of the U.S. in the western hemisphere might argue that they feel like vassals to U.S. foreign policy.
The European Central Bank is right to consider the consequences of a re-alignment in the international financial system, in a brave new world where the U.S. may no longer be its engine of economic growth.
In that new world, the U.S. may be forced to divest itself of its globe-encircling military bases.
By Vince Williams on Jan 3, 2007
The Imperial Dollar? It’s more like the Imperiled dollar these days. The American dollar was the most stable standard because the American government can continue to sell our bonds to China et al (while they exploit our “free trade markets without tariffs or reciprocation), print phony money (notes uncoupled from the gold/silver standard) while our complicit congress, has steadily barrowed and mortgaged the American Dream to the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, so they can keep up appearances and buy more pork, guns, and incumbency.
Concommmitanly the two income family American middle class has borrowed away their economic and constitutional freedom. Yea, it all looked legit, for a long time. Now ya dolla is worth about four cents and falling fast.
Economic and military imperialism isn’t free is it? I don’t think we need to be economists to see we need to prepare for an economic implosion. At the very least, then, we can stop trying to buy our so called “friends” and let them assume the reponsiblity for their backyard and pay their own way for some welcome change in our foreing policy (pun intended).
The national curtain is being drawn and I don’t think the world is going to like what they see. Mostly a wad full of American cash in their hand, if it isn’t counterfeit, that isn’t worth the value of the paper it’s printed on.
Oh, the owners of the Fed (a private corporation), they don’t have any allegiance to this country; only their money (our gold). The can spend it anywhere and blend into the global markets while they look for another putz to bribe and exploit for the next hundred years.
�If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency…the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.�
by Thomas Jefferson
Check it out: Msg. Dec. 15, 2006; “Brutha, can you spare a few thousand?�
http://www.deadmessenger.wordpress.com
By DeadMessenger on Jan 3, 2007
And….there’s always NAFTA
By Dad on Jan 3, 2007
In response to that Thomas Jefferson quote:
My Native American relatives might say,”So the children of the conquerors wake up homeless on the continent?
Hah! Now they know how our forebears felt.”
By Vince Williams on Jan 3, 2007
In response to the reponse to that Thomas Jefferson quote:
And you think that would be a good thing? Maybe the respondent doesn’t have any children or stake in American national soverignty? I have to assume he does live here, but I could be wrong.
By DeadMessenger on Jan 4, 2007
I didn’t say I thought it would be a good thing. I was trying to represent how my relatives might feel.
After all, I think they see a certain irony there.
By Vince Williams on Jan 5, 2007
Aaron:
After having read your autobio I will be interested in following your points of view in these columns.
By Dad on Jan 6, 2007
Thanks, Dad.
By Aaron Brazell on Jan 6, 2007
Your welcome. I suppose I should have added, in commentary, that I find myself in agreement with your general philosphies in the areas you delineated and commented on in that piece.
By Dad on Jan 6, 2007
Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective in the Middle East Conflict also scored high in all categories it was nominated. Google earlier banned advertising of that blog for unacceptable content.
Samson Blinded’s author advocates religious state of Judea at the border with Israel and expulsion of Arabs. Obadiah Shoher denies democracy dominated by liberals and Muslims and calls Israelis to oppose police efforts at removing the settlements. His other point is dismanlting economically unbearable Israeli army and relying on nuclear weapons. However, he decried Lebanese and Iraq invasions.
Public opinion seems to strongly shift the the right in Middle East issues. Any thoughts on that?
By OSfllwrb on Jan 23, 2007