Not Oil, But Dollars Vs. Euros

[spillmind]

Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros Part 1
By Geoffrey Heard

March, 2003

Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq? Why does his administration reject every positive Iraqi move? It all makes sense when you consider the economic implications for the USA of not going to war with Iraq. The war in Iraq is actually the US and Europe going head to head on economic leadership of the world.

America's Bush administration has been caught in outright lies, gross exaggerations and incredible inaccuracies as it trotted out its litany of paper thin excuses for making war on Iraq. Along with its two supporters, Britain and Australia, it has shifted its ground and reversed its position with a barefaced contempt for its audience. It has manipulated information, deceived by commission and omission and frantically "bought" UN votes with billion dollar bribes.

Faced with the failure of gaining UN Security Council support for invading Iraq, the USA has threatened to invade without authorisation. It would act in breach of the UN's very constitution to allegedly enforced UN resolutions.

It is plain bizarre. Where does this desperation for war come from?

There are many things driving President Bush and his administration to invade Iraq, unseat Saddam Hussein and take over the country. But the biggest one is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union.

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

It is the biggest grab for world power in modern times. America's allies in the invasion, Britain and Australia, are betting America will win and that they will get some trickle-down benefits for jumping on to the US bandwagon. France and Germany are the spearhead of the European force -- Russia would like to go European but possibly can still be bought off. Presumably, China would like to see the Europeans build a share of international trade currency ownership at this point while it continues to grow its international trading presence to the point where it, too, can share the leadership rewards.

DEBATE BUILDING ON THE INTERNET

Oddly, little or nothing is appearing in the general media about this issue, although key people are becoming aware of it -- note the recent slide in the value of the US dollar. Are traders afraid of war? They are more likely to be afraid there will not be war.

But despite the silence in the general media, a major world discussion is developing around this issue, particularly on the internet. Among the many articles: Henry Liu, in the 'Asia Times' last June, it has been a hot topic on the Feasta forum, an Irish-based group exploring sustainable economics, and W. Clark's "The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War with Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth" has been published by the 'Sierra Times', 'Indymedia.org', and 'ratical.org'.

This debate is not about whether America would suffer from losing the US dollar monopoly on oil trading -- that is a given -- rather it is about exactly how hard the USA would be hit. The smart money seems to be saying the impact would be in the range from severe to catastrophic. The USA could collapse economically.

OIL DOLLARS

The key to it all is the fiat currency for trading oil. Under an OPEC agreement, all oil has been traded in US dollars since 1971 (after the dropping of the gold standard) which makes the US dollar the de facto major international trading currency. If other nations have to hoard dollars to buy oil, then they want to use that hoard for other trading too. This fact gives America a huge trading advantage and helps make it the dominant economy in the world.

As an economic bloc, the European Union is the only challenger to the USA's economic position, and it created the euro to challenge the dollar in international markets. However, the EU is not yet united behind the euro -- there is a lot of jingoistic national politics involved, not least in Britain -- and in any case, so long as nations throughout the world must hoard dollars to buy oil, the euro can make only very limited inroads into the dollar's dominance.

In 1999, Iraq, with the world's second largest oil reserves, switched to trading its oil in euros. American analysts fell about laughing; Iraq had just made a mistake that was going to beggar the nation. But two years on, alarm bells were sounding; the euro was rising against the dollar, Iraq had given itself a huge economic free kick by switching.

Iran started thinking about switching too; Venezuela, the 4th largest oil producer, began looking at it and has been cutting out the dollar by bartering oil with several nations including America's bete noir, Cuba. Russia is seeking to ramp up oil production with Europe (trading in euros) an obvious market.

The greenback's grip on oil trading and consequently on world trade in general, was under serious threat. If America did not stamp on this immediately, this economic brushfire could rapidly be fanned into a wildfire capable of consuming the US's economy and its dominance of world trade.

HOW DOES THE US GET ITS DOLLAR ADVANTAGE?

Imagine this: you are deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have -- another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.

Your cheques should be worthless but they keep buying stuff because those cheques you write never reach the bank! You have an agreement with the owners of one thing everyone wants, call it petrol/gas, that they will accept only your cheques as payment. This means everyone must hoard your cheques so they can buy petrol/gas. Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round -- but never back to the bank.

You have a debt on your books, but so long as your cheque never reaches the bank, you don't have to pay. In effect, you have received your TV free.

This is the position the USA has enjoyed for 30 years -- it has been getting a free world trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge subsidy from everyone else in the world. As it debt has been growing, it has printed more money (written more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!

Then one day, one petrol seller says he is going to accept another person's cheques, a couple of others think that might be a good idea. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank. Since you don't have enough in the bank to cover all the cheques, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!

But you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, but given a 'legitimate' excuse, you can beat the tripes out of the lone gas seller and scare him and his mates into submission.

And that, in a nutshell, is what the USA is doing right now with Iraq.

AMERICA'S PRECARIOUS ECONOMIC POSITION

America is so eager to attack Iraq now because of the speed with which the euro fire could spread. If Iran, Venezuela and Russia join Iraq and sell large quantities of oil for euros, the euro would have the leverage it needs to become a powerful force in general international trade. Other nations would have to start swapping some of their dollars for euros.

The dollars the USA has printed, the 'cheques' it has written, would start to fly home, stripping away the illusion of value behind them. The USA's real economic condition is about as bad as it could be; it is the most debt-ridden nation on earth, owing about US$12,000 for every single one of it's 280 million men, women and children. It is worse than the position of Indonesia when it imploded economically a few years ago, or more recently, that of Argentina.

Even if OPEC did not switch to euros wholesale (and that would make a very nice non-oil profit for the OPEC countries, including minimising the various contrived debts America has forced on some of them), the US's difficulties would build. Even if only a small part of the oil trade went euro, that would do two things immediately:

* Increase the attractiveness to EU members of joining the 'eurozone', which in turn would make the euro stronger and make it more attractive to oil nations as a trading currency and to other nations as a general trading currency.

* Start the US dollars flying home demanding value when there isn't enough in the bank to cover them.

* The markets would over-react as usual and in no time, the US dollar's value would be spiralling down.

THE US SOLUTION

America's response to the euro threat was predictable. It has come out fighting.

It aims to achieve four primary things by going to war with Iraq:

* Safeguard the American economy by returning Iraq to trading oil in US dollars, so the greenback is once again the exclusive oil currency.

* Send a very clear message to any other oil producers just what will happen to them if they do not stay in the dollar circle. Iran has already received one message -- remember how puzzled you were that in the midst of moderation and secularization, Iran was named as a member of the axis of evil?

* Place the second largest reserves of oil in the world under direct American control.

* Provide a secular, subject state where the US can maintain a huge force (perhaps with nominal elements from allies such as Britain and Australia) to dominate the Middle East and its vital oil. This would enable the US to avoid using what it sees as the unreliable Turkey, the politically impossible Israel and surely the next state in its sights, Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of al Qaeda and a hotbed of anti-American sentiment.

* Severe setback the European Union and its euro, the only trading bloc and currency strong enough to attack the USA's dominance of world trade through the dollar.

* Provide cover for the US to run a covert operation to overturn the democratically elected government of Venezuela and replace it with an America-friendly military supported junta -- and put Venezuala's oil into American hands.

Locking the world back into dollar oil trading would consolidate America's current position and make it all but impregnable as the dominant world power -- economically and militarily. A splintered Europe (the US is working hard to split Europe; Britain was easy, but other Europeans have offered support in terms of UN votes) and its euro would suffer a serious setback and might take decades to recover.

It is the boldest grab for absolute power the world has seen in modern times. America is hardly likely to allow the possible slaughter of a few hundred thousand Iraqis stand between it and world domination. President Bush did promise to protect the American way of life. This is what he meant.

 

[spillmind]

Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros Part 2

JUSTIFYING WAR

Obviously, the US could not simply invade Iraq, so it began casting around for a 'legitimate' reason to attack. That search has been one of increasing desperation as each rationalization has crumbled. First Iraq was a threat because of alleged links to al Qaeda; then it was proposed Iraq might supply al Qaeda with weapons; then Iraq's military threat to its neighbours was raised; then the need to deliver Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's horrendously inhumane rule; finally there is the question of compliance with UN weapons inspection.

The USA's justifications for invading Iraq are looking less impressive by the day. The US's statements that it would invade Iraq unilaterally without UN support and in defiance of the UN make a total nonsense of any American claim that it is concerned about the world body's strength and standing.

The UN weapons inspectors have come up with minimal infringements of the UN weapons limitations -- the final one being low tech rockets which exceed the range allowed by about 20 percent. But there is no sign of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD) the US has so confidently asserted are to be found. Colin Powell named a certain north Iraqi village as a threat. It was not. He later admitted it was the wrong village.

'Newsweek' (24/2) has reported that while Bush officials have been trumpeting the fact that key Iraqi defector, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, told the US in 1995 that Iraq had manufactured tonnes of nerve gas and anthrax (Colin Powell's 5 February presentation to the UN was just one example) they neglected to mention that Kamel had also told the US that these weapons had been destroyed. Parts of the US and particularly the British secret 'evidence' have been shown to come from a student's masters thesis.

America's expressed concern about the Iraqi people's human rights and the country's lack of democracy are simply not supported by the USA's history of intervention in other states nor by its current actions. Think Guatemala, the Congo, Chile and Nicaragua as examples of a much larger pool of US actions to tear down legitimate, democratically elected governments and replace them with war, disruption, starvation, poverty, corruption, dictatorships, torture, rape and murder for its own economic ends. The most recent, Afghanistan, is not looking good; in fact that reinstalled a murderous group of warlords which America had earlier installed, then deposed, in favour of the now hated Taliban.

Saddam Hussein was just as repressive, corrupt and murderous 15 years ago when he used chemical weapons, supplied by the US, against the Kurds. The current US Secretary for Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, so vehement against Iraq now, was on hand personally to turn aside condemnation of Iraq and blame Iran. At that time, of course, the US thought Saddam Hussein was their man -- they were using him against the perceived threat of Iran's Islamic fundamentalism.

Right now, as 'The Independent' writer, Robert Fisk, has noted, the US's efforts to buy Algeria's UN vote includes promises of re-arming the military which has a decade long history of repression, torture, rape and murder Saddam Hussein himself would envy. It is estimated 200,000 people have died, and countless others been left maimed by the activities of these monsters. What price the US's humanitarian concerns for Iraqis? (Of course, the French are also wooing Algeria, their former north African territory, for all they are worth, but at least they are not pretending to be driven by humanitarian concerns.)

Indonesia is another nation with a vote and influence as the largest Muslim nation in the world. Its repressive, murderous military is regaining strength on the back of the US's so-called anti-terror campaign and is receiving promises of open and covert support -- including intelligence sharing.

AND VENEZUELA

While the world's attention is focused on Iraq, America is both openly and covertly supporting the "coup of the rich" in Venezuela, which grabbed power briefly in April last year before being intimidated by massive public displays of support by the poor for democratically-elected President Chavez Frias. The coup leaders continue to use their control of the private media, much of industry and the ear of the American Government and its oily intimates to cause disruption and disturbance.

Venezuela's state-owned oil resources would make rich pickings for American oil companies and provide the US with an important oil source in its own backyard.

Many writers have noted the contradiction between America's alleged desire to establish democracy in Iraq while at the same time, actively undermining the democratically-elected government in Venezuela. Above the line, America rushed to recognise the coup last April; more recently, President Bush has called for "early elections", ignoring the fact that President Chavez Frias has won three elections and two referendums and, in any case, early elections would be unconstitutional.

One element of the USA's covert action against Venezuela is the behaviour of American transnational businesses, which have locked out employees in support of "national strike" action. Imagine them doing that in the USA! There is no question that a covert operation is in process to overturn the legitimate Venezuelan government. Uruguayan congressman, Jose Nayardi, made it public when he revealed that the Bush administration had asked for Uruguay's support for Venezuelan white collar executives and trade union activists "to break down levels of intransigence within the Chavez Frias administration". The process, he noted, was a shocking reminder of the CIA's 1973 intervention in Chile which saw General Pinochet lead his military coup to take over President Allende's democratically elected government in a bloodbath.

President Chavez Frias is desperately clinging to government, but with the might of the USA aligned with his opponents, how long can he last?

THE COST OF WAR

Some have claimed that an American invasion of Iraq would cost so many billions of dollars that oil returns would never justify such an action. But when the invasion is placed in the context of the protection of the entire US economy for now and into the future, the balance of the argument changes.

Further, there are three other vital factors:

First, America will be asking others to help pay for the war because it is protecting their interests. Japan and Saudi Arabia made serious contributions to the cost of the 1991 Gulf war.

Second -- in reality, war will cost the USA very little -- or at least, very little over and above normal expenditure. This war is already paid for! All the munitions and equipment have been bought and paid for. The USA would have to spend hardly a cent on new hardware to prosecute this war -- the expenditure will come later when munitions and equipment have to be replaced after the war. But munitions, hardware and so on are being replaced all the time -- contracts are out. Some contracts will simply be brought forward and some others will be ramped up a bit, but spread over a few years, the cost will not be great. And what is the real extra cost of an army at war compared with maintaining the standing army around the world, running exercises and so on? It is there, but it is a relatively small sum.

Third -- lots of the extra costs involved in the war are dollars spent outside America, not least in the purchase of fuel. Guess how America will pay for these? By printing dollars it is going to war to protect. The same happens when production begins to replace hardware. components, minerals, etc. are bought in with dollars that go overseas and exploit America's trading advantage.

The cost of war is not nearly as big as it is made out to be. The cost of not going to war would be horrendous for the USA -- unless there were another way of protecting the greenback's world trade dominance.

AMERICA'S TWO ACTIVE ALLIES

Why are Australia and Britain supporting America in its transparent Iraqi war ploy?

Australia, of course, has significant US dollar reserves and trades widely in dollars and extensively with America. A fall in the US dollar would reduce Australia's debt, perhaps, but would do nothing for the Australian dollar's value against other currencies. John Howard, the Prime Minister, has long cherished the dream of a free trade agreement with the USA in the hope that Australia can jump on the back of the free ride America gets in trade through the dollar's position as the major trading medium. That would look much less attractive if the euro took over a significant part of the oil trade.

Britain has yet to adopt the euro. If the US takes over Iraq and blocks the euro's incursion into oil trading, Tony Blair will have given his French and German counterparts a bloody nose, and gained more room to manouevre on the issue -- perhaps years more room. Britain would be in a position to demand a better deal from its EU partners for entering the "eurozone" if the new currency could not make the huge value gains guaranteed by a significant role in world oil trading. It might even be in a position to withdraw from Europe and link with America against continental Europe.

On the other hand, if the US cannot maintain the oil trade dollar monopoly, the euro will rapidly go from strength to strength, and Britain could be left begging to be allowed into the club.

THE OPPOSITION

Some of the reasons for opposition to the American plan are obvious -- America is already the strongest nation on earth and dominates world trade through its dollar. If it had control of the Iraqi oil and a base for its forces in the Middle East, it would not add to, but would multiply its power.

The oil-producing nations, particularly the Arab ones, can see the writing on the wall and are quaking in their boots.

France and Germany are the EU leaders with the vision of a resurgent, united Europe taking its rightful place in the world and using its euro currency as a world trading reserve currency and thus gaining some of the free ride the United States enjoys now. They are the ones who initiated the euro oil trade with Iraq.

Russia is in deep economic trouble and knows it will get worse the day America starts exploiting its take-over of Afghanistan by running a pipeline southwards via Afghanistan from the giant southern Caspian oil fields. Currently, that oil is piped northwards -- where Russia has control.

Russia is in the process of ramping up oil production with the possibility of trading some of it for euros and selling some to the US itself. Russia already has enough problems with the fact that oil is traded in US dollars; if the US has control of Iraqi oil, it could distort the market to Russia's enormous disadvantage. In addition, Russia has interests in Iraqi oil; an American take over could see them lost. Already on its knees, Russia could be beggared before a mile of the Afghanistan pipeline is laid.

ANOTHER SOLUTION?

The scenario clarifies the seriousness of America's position and explains its frantic drive for war. It also suggests that solutions other than war are possible.

Could America agree to share the trading goodies by allowing Europe to have a negotiated part of it? Not very likely, but it is just possible Europe can stare down the USA and force such an outcome. Time will tell. What about Europe taking the statesmanlike, humanitarian and long view, and withdrawing, leaving the oil to the US, with appropriate safeguards for ordinary Iraqis and democracy in Venezuela?

Europe might then be forced to adopt a smarter approach -- perhaps accelerating the development of alternative energy technologies which would reduce the EU's reliance on oil for energy and produce goods it could trade for euros -- shifting the world trade balance.

Now that would be a very positive outcome for everyone.

Geoffrey Heard is a Melbourne, Australia, writer on the environment, sustainability and human rights.

Geoffrey Heard (c) 2003

 

[SLClemens]

What a fascinating read. Thanks a bunch for posting it.

I wonder what an informed, democratic Arab public would like OPEC members to do if they were to consider all this? Would they want to sell in Euros or Dollars? Convenient for us they don't have democracy and do have much state control of information, isn't it?

The war could still backfire. It has cost, in terms of projections for the next few years, far more than anyone thought and exports of Iraqi war have been greatly restricted by sabatoge. Russia, in the time since this article was written, has also moved more seriously toward trading oil in Euros.

 

[eric]

Would they want to sell in Euros or Dollars? Convenient for us they don't have democracy and do have much state control of information, isn't it?

Don't worry if they want this information it is not hard to find, it is spewed all over the internet.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
Don't worry if they want this information it is not hard to find, it is spewed all over the internet.

I enjoyed the article, though the problem I have with this argument is that derives strength from the coincidence of it's goals with another argument. That of insuring "free" access to the worlds oil through force. If you consider the slipping of the dollar against the Euro in trading, approximately 8% since march 1st of this year it also doesn't seem to have achieved the authors stated goal. In light of this I think it an unlikely over-arching reason for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

[spillmind]

though it is only a theory, and possibly flawed-

i particularly liked the way it summated the points in venezeula and in algeria, and the glaring hypocrisy that exists in our agenda.

the bushies here have ZERO to say on those matters, i'll bet.

 

[SLClemens]

Here is another fascinating and succint article on this matter:




http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

Cóilín Nunan: Oil, Currency and the War on Iraq

It will not come as news to anyone that the US dominates the world economically and militarily. But the exact mechanisms by which American hegemony has been established and maintained are perhaps less well understood than they might be. One tool used to great effect has been the dollar, but its efficacy has recently been under threat since Europe introduced the euro.

The dollar is the de facto world reserve currency: the US currency accounts for approximately two thirds of all official exchange reserves. More than four-fifths of all foreign exchange transactions and half of all world exports are denominated in dollars. In addition, all IMF loans are denominated in dollars.

But the more dollars there are circulating outside the US, or invested by foreign owners in American assets, the more the rest of the world has had to provide the US with goods and services in exchange for these dollars. The dollars cost the US next to nothing to produce, so the fact that the world uses the currency in this way means that the US is importing vast quantities of goods and services virtually for free.

Since so many foreign-owned dollars are not spent on American goods and services, the US is able to run a huge trade deficit year after year without apparently any major economic consequences. The most recently published figures, for example, show that in November of last year US imports were worth 48% more than US exports1. No other country can run such a large trade deficit with impunity. The financial media tell us the US is acting as the 'consumer of last resort' and the implication is that we should be thankful, but a more enlightening description of this state of affairs would be to say that it is getting a massive interest-free loan from the rest of the world.

While the US' position may seem inviolable, one should remember that the more you have, the more you have to lose. And recently there have been signs of how, for the first time in a long time, the US may be beginning to lose.

One of the stated economic objectives, and perhaps the primary objective, when setting up the euro was to turn it into a reserve currency to challenge the dollar so that Europe too could get something for nothing.

This however would be a disaster for the US. Not only would they lose a large part of their annual subsidy of effectively free goods and services, but countries switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves would bring down the value of the US currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more and as increasing numbers of those holding dollars began to spend them, the US would have to start paying its debts by supplying in goods and services to foreign countries, thus reducing American living standards. As countries and businesses converted their dollar assets into euro assets, the US property and stock market bubbles would, without doubt, burst. The Federal Reserve would no longer be able to print more money to reflate the bubble, as it is currently openly considering doing, because, without lots of eager foreigners prepared to mop them up, a serious inflation would result which, in turn, would make foreigners even more reluctant to hold the US currency and thus heighten the crisis.

There is though one major obstacle to this happening: oil. Oil is not just by far the most important commodity traded internationally, it is the lifeblood of all modern industrialised economies. If you don't have oil, you have to buy it. And if you want to buy oil on the international markets, you usually have to have dollars. Until recently all OPEC countries agreed to sell their oil for dollars only. So long as this remained the case, the euro was unlikely to become the major reserve currency: there is not a lot of point in stockpiling euros if every time you need to buy oil you have to change them into dollars. This arrangement also meant that the US effectively part-controlled the entire world oil market: you could only buy oil if you had dollars, and only one country had the right to print dollars - the US.

If on the other hand OPEC were to decide to accept euros only for its oil (assuming for a moment it were allowed to make this decision), then American economic dominance would be over. Not only would Europe not need as many dollars anymore, but Japan which imports over 80% of its oil from the Middle East would think it wise to convert a large portion of its dollar assets to euro assets (Japan is the major subsidiser of the US because it holds so many dollar investments). The US on the other hand, being the world's largest oil importer would have to run a trade surplus to acquire euros. The conversion from trade deficit to trade surplus would have to be achieved at a time when its property and stock market prices were collapsing and its domestic supplies of oil and gas were contracting. It would be a very painful conversion.

The purely economic arguments for OPEC converting to the euro, at least for a while, seem very strong. The Euro-zone does not run a huge trade deficit nor is it heavily endebted to the rest of the world like the US and interest rates in the Euro-zone are also significantly higher. The Euro-zone has a larger share of world trade than the US and is the Middle East's main trading partner. And nearly everything you can buy for dollars you can also buy for euros - apart, of course, from oil. Furthermore, if OPEC were to convert their dollar assets to euro assets and then require payment for oil in Euros, their assets would immediately increase in value, since oil importing countries would be forced to also convert part of their assets, driving the prices up. For OPEC, backing the euro would be a self-fulfilling prophesy. They could then at some later date move to some other currency, perhaps back to the dollar, and again make huge profits.

But of course it is not a purely economic decision.

So far only one OPEC country has dared switch to the euro: Iraq, in November 2002,3. There is little doubt that this was a deliberate attempt by Saddam to strike back at the US, but in economic terms it has also turned out to have been a huge success: at the time of Iraq's conversion the euro was worth around 83 US cents but it is now worth over $1.05. There may however be other consequences to this decision.

One other OPEC country has been talking publicly about possible conversion to the euro since 1999: Iran2,4, a country which has since been included in the George W. Bush's 'axis of evil'.

A third OPEC country which has recently fallen out with the US government is Venezuela and it too has been showing disloyalty to the dollar. Under Hugo Chavez's rule, Venezuela has established barter deals for trading its oil with 12 Latin American countries as well as Cuba. This means that the US is missing out on its usual subsidy and might help explain the American wish to see the back of Chavez. At the OPEC summit in September 2000, Chavez delivered to the OPEC heads of state the report of the 'International Seminar on the Future of Energy', a conference called by Chavez earlier that year to examine the future supplies of both fossil and renewable energies. One of the two key recommendations of the report was that 'OPEC take advantage of high-tech electronic barter and bi-lateral exchanges of its oil with its developing country customers'5, i.e. OPEC should avoid using both the dollar and the euro for many transactions.

And last April, a senior OPEC representative gave a public speech in Spain during Spain's presidency of the EU during which he made clear that though OPEC had as yet no plans to make oil available for euros, it was an option that was being considered and which could well be of economic benefit to many OPEC countries, particularly those of the Middle East6.

As oil production is now in decline in most oil producing countries, the importance of the remaining large oil producers, particularly those of the Middle East, is going to grow and grow in years to come7.

Iraq, whose oil production has been severely curtailed by sanctions, is one of a very small number of countries which can help ease this looming oil shortage. Europe, like most of the rest of the world, wishes to see a peaceful resolution of the current US-Iraqi tensions and a gradual lifting of the sanctions - this would certainly serve its interests best. But as Iraqi oil is denominated in euros, allowing it to become more widely available at present could loosen the dollar stranglehold and possibly do more damage than good to US economic health.

All of this is bad news for the US economy and the dollar. The fear for Washington will be that not only will the future price of oil not be right, but the currency might not be right either. Which perhaps helps explain why the US is increasingly turning to its second major tool for dominating world affairs: military force.

REFERENCES

Anon., 'Trade Deficit Surges to a Record High', Reuters, (January 17, 2003), http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4970891.htm.
Recknagel, Charles, 'Iraq: Baghdad Moves to Euro', Radio Free Europe (November 1, 2000), http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2000/11/01112000160846.asp.
Anon., 'A Look At The World's Economy', CBS Worldwide Inc., (December 22, 2000), http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/22/2000/main259203.shtml.
Anon., 'Iran may switch to euro for crude sale payments', Alexander Oil and Gas, (September 5, 2002), http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntm23638.htm.
Hazel Henderson, 'Globocop v. Venezuela's Chavez: Oil, Globalization and Competing Visions of Development', InterPress Service, (April 2002), http://www.hazelhenderson.com/Globocop v. Chavez.htm.
Javad Yarjani, 'The Choice of Currency for the Denomination of the Oil Bill', (April 14, 2002), http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/Speeches/sp2002/spAraqueSpainApr14.htm.
The Association for the Study of Peak Oil, Newsletter 26, (February 2003), http://www.asponews.org.
FURTHER READING
William Clark, 'The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth', (January 2003), http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html.

 

[dijetlo]

Thanks SLC, your post helped bring the argument into better focus. In the linked report, Mr.Javad Yarjani, Opecs' Head of Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, makes a balanced argument as well. Still, I am bothered by the trends in the exchange rate, which should have shifted in our favor once Iraq was occupied (the linch pin state that was supporting the rival currency was removed, I assume). I checked at the World Bank but their arguments tie the exchange rate to real or projected drops in GDP
"According to Mr. Prati, the results confirm the theoretical predictions that both the mean and variance of GDP forecasts contribute to explaining exchange rate pressures".
One would think that since the 10/30 announcement of the 7.3% GDP bump the currency slide would have reversed, however over the period the dollar slid 2.39% on the interbank rate. So much for Mr. Prati....
The only thing I'm convinved of so far is that I should probably diversify further into european stock but I am yet to hear an explanation for the precipitous slide of the Dollar, it seems to fly in the face of your argument?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by dijetlo
Thanks SLC, your post helped bring the argument into better focus. In the linked report, Mr.Javad Yarjani, Opecs' Head of Petroleum Market Analysis Dept, makes a balanced argument as well. Still, I am bothered by the trends in the exchange rate, which should have shifted in our favor once Iraq was occupied (the linch pin state that was supporting the rival currency was removed, I assume). I checked at the World Bank but their arguments tie the exchange rate to real or projected drops in GDP
"According to Mr. Prati, the results confirm the theoretical predictions that both the mean and variance of GDP forecasts contribute to explaining exchange rate pressures".
One would think that since the 10/30 announcement of the 7.3% GDP bump the currency slide would have reversed, however over the period the dollar slid 2.39% on the interbank rate. So much for Mr. Prati....
The only thing I'm convinved of so far is that I should probably diversify further into european stock but I am yet to hear an explanation for the precipitous slide of the Dollar, it seems to fly in the face of your argument?

A low dollar always help GNP growth in the short term, but hurts it long-term. In the short term, American goods cost less and are more desireable. In the long term, all American assest are worth less.

A huge deficit also helps GNP growth short-term. Any business can grow an additional 4% by borrowing an additional 4%. But some day, we'll have to pay it back, and when we do we'll likely blame a Democratic administration for our misfortunes.

Still, the dollar's drop is a bit surprising, and is likely to a small part the result of the failure rapidly to increase Iraq's oil exports. It is probably to a larger part a result of the dollar having been a bit artificially high to begin with.

 

[dijetlo]

I wouldn't dispute your post, but I'm looking for a specific circumstance that confirms your theory, specifically an indicator that money is indeed leaving dollars and going to euros, which is at the heart of the argument.
One indicator that what your proposing is occuring (besides the falling dollar) would be the stock market staying relatively flat on the announcement of 7.5% GDP. This could be explained by the movement of currency out of US companies($) and into euro corps, but is more likely the markets reaction to news from Iraq and around the world. You could argue that it is a combination of the two that is suppressing capital creation, but that would be greedy, wouldn't it? :cof:

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by dijetlo
I wouldn't dispute your post, but I'm looking for a specific circumstance that confirms your theory, specifically an indicator that money is indeed leaving dollars and going to euros, which is at the heart of the argument.
One indicator that what your proposing is occuring (besides the falling dollar) would be the stock market staying relatively flat on the announcement of 7.5% GDP. This could be explained by the movement of currency out of US companies($) and into euro corps, but is more likely the markets reaction to news from Iraq and around the world. You could argue that it is a combination of the two that is suppressing capital creation, but that would be greedy, wouldn't it? :cof:

I think one of the more tangible examples ahs been with Japan. Japan has been running huge trade surpluses and as a result the Yen has grown. Logically, they don't want the yen to grow too fast or suddenly or Japanese exports will become too expensive. As a result Japanese banks buy up huge amounts of foreign currency to off-set this, selling them to buy yen should the yen start to tumble. Until recently, the dollar has been the logical choice, but lately more yen have been used to purchase euros that would not have been used to buy former European currencies. With the dollar's latest drop, Japanese banks have bought up a lot of dollars to stop it from dropping to much, lest it hurt their US market. However, if the dollar grows suddenly too strong again, Japanese banks will be inclined to sell their some dollars to purchase euros to make US investment more affordable and enhance the longterm value of Japanese assests. Now, they are limited in what they can spend these on. One thing they can't spend them on is oil. This could change if Russia, Venezuala, Iran, or even OPEC started selling their oil in dollars. If they could, the only disinsentive to buy euros would be a collapsing US market for their goods; but this would be ultimately off-set by a larger European market.

This is an example of why it's very important that we keep oil trading in dollars, especially when we can regulate more of its supply. This is a driving reason why our soldiers are sweating and bleeding over in Iraq.

 

[dijetlo]

Ok, let's look at the Yen and see if we see evidence of what your you're talking about..
2003 - Japanese Yens to 1 USD

January 118.813 JPY (21 days average)
February 119.338 JPY (19 days average)
March 118.687 JPY (21 days average)
April 119.895 JPY (22 days average)
May 117.368 JPY (21 days average)
June 118.329 JPY (21 days average)
July 118.696 JPY (22 days average)
August-118.662 JPY (21 days average)
September-114.8 JPY (21 days average)
October-109.509 JPY (22 days average)
November-109.099 JPY (14 days average)

 

[dijetlo]

Sorry, I posted by accident, if you will allow me to continue...
If Japan is buying dollars to buttress their investments in the US than the $ should be climbing against the yen, and your seeing the opposite (to the tune of approximately 8% so far this year).
I think the central thesis of this argument is in fact correct, the US dollar is loosing ground to world currencies via deficits in the trade balance as well as physcal deficits. Our foriegn policy is problematic from the point of view of the rest of the world as well.The Euro is supplanting the dollar in many places and it appears the days of the all mighty dollar are numbered. This is both good and bad news for us.
As far as it being one of the overarching arguments for the Iraqi invasion though I have to disagree. The invasion has at best shored up a single pillar that holds up the dollars supremecy as many other pillars, in some cases more important pillars (Japans failure to support the dollar for example) have crumbled.
Have you noticed Bush slapping trade sanctions around and grumbling about currency reform?
One major reason that the USSR collapsed was it's inability to get its' currency used outside its' direct sphere of influence. This left the communists in a severe currency crunch which crippled their domestic economies.
Charley Rose has the chairman of Citigroup on today 11/20/03, catch it if you get a chance. The gentlemen made several interesting points that are germaine to this discussion.

 

[SLClemens]

I believe I had read it was only in the past few days that Japanese banks had started to buy dollars heavily to off-set the yen growing too strong. We'll see if the trends change much because of this.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I believe I had read it was only in the past few days that Japanese banks had started to buy dollars heavily to off-set the yen growing too strong.

Not a good day for the dollar today either, from Reuters
"Late Thursday afternoon in New York, the euro was at $1.1915, up from $1.879 at the close of Wednesday's U.S. trading. Against the yen, the dollar fell to 108.95 yen from 109.26 yen late Wednesday."
Japan just aint got the horses to reverse this trend. What's causing it? Among other things, this little factoid comes to mind.
Chinas' currency is largely set by government fiat. It is the only dollar heavy country where market forces don't totaly control these relationships, so they can sell dollars for euros and nones the wiser. China and the US have been tiffing over hegemony in Asia. Perhaps the Chinese have hit upon an effective strategy for resolving this issue peacefully over the next twenty years. As our economic muscle contracts in favor of the militarily neutered European Union chinese influence will expand as our domestic rescources are diverted from defense spending. They learned a valuable lesson in the collapse of the USSR. The phrase "more than one way to skin a cat" translates well in Quong-Jiou.

 

[dijetlo]

The EU threatens trade war with US

DUBLIN (Reuters) - European Union (news - web sites) trade chief Pascal Lamy said on Friday the EU is determined to take steps against the United States if it fails to comply with WTO rules, but retaliation would be a last resort...The European Commission approved a plan earlier this month to launch sanctions on up to $4.0 billion of U.S. goods

Here's the problem

The World Trade Organization (WTO) highest court ruled on November 10 that tariffs imposed by President Bush in March 2002 to protect the ailing U.S. steel industry violated international trade laws...The U.S. steel industry is largely concentrated in states key for the 2004 U.S. election..."The multilateral trading system is an important guardian against disorder, protectionism and the right of the strongest," the Norwegian Foreign Ministry said. Bush, who is on a visit to Britain, has yet to announce whether Washington will comply with the WTO ruling.

GWB 41 is probably on oxygen at this point....

 

[SLClemens]

I wonder if this has any connection at all to the sanctions we just imposed on China? I know they cover some of the same sorts of goods. $4bn isn't really a lot, but I'm sure they'll cover key areas - fruit and textile produces have the steel industry to thank for this.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I wonder if this has any connection at all to the sanctions we just imposed on China? I know they cover some of the same sorts of goods. $4bn isn't really a lot, but I'm sure they'll cover key areas - fruit and textile produces have the steel industry to thank for this.

It's a domestic political game, it just doesn't play well at the WTO. It is especially ironic considering he is the son of one of the leading Internationalists. From that point of view, I think Pres. A. Hamilton might consider Pres. GWB to be the worst case of "nepotism run amok" since Calligula.
The dollar's under assault and Bush has spent all the US political capitol getting Hussein (well, trying to get Hussein anyway.)
Price of a euro =1.1708 USD 10/1/03
Price of a euro = 1.1913 USD today
That's a 1.75% drop over 51 days. Total that up at the end of the fourth quarter and subtract it from GDP growth. That's what a foriegn investor is making. If we get sanctioned by the WTO, it will likely have a further negative effect on our currency, without the sanctions, the democrats will probably be able to bring those states into play in '04. I think shrubs painted himself into the corner on this one...

 

[SLClemens]

I also wonder, how much of this year's astounding deficit will be paid in euros or non-US currency?

 

[eric]

Ah, but gentlemen lest we forget Germany and their 2.3 trillion dollar economy,Europes largest, which just emerged from recession in the third quater. What caused this emergence was an increase in exports, which compensated for a slump in domestic demand. Keep in mind that the euro's increase may stifle export sales and the economic recovery. Gerhard Schroeder was cognizant of this reality and made his opinion known. This seemed to have an effect already as the euro fell to $1.1860 late yesterday in New York, buy later rose to $1.1929 in Frandfurt.

It would seem to me as well as leading European economists, and more important, policy makers, that the euro would not be served well to grow to fast against the dollar. It does not appear to be in anyone's best interest.

In the meantime many US companies can take advantage of the situation, especially our exporters. While this is not good long term, national currency strength is a general indicator of economic health, the short term might bring some welcomed extra profits.

Just my two cents.

P.S. Sorry I have not been too active in the last week or so, business has kept my attention, as we have been negotiating some fairly sweet deals.