CDZ Top Goal of Next Administration Must be to End the PetroDollar

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Sep 25, 2011
63,590
16,753
2,220
The Saudis have us by the proverbial short hairs. If they end OPECs restriction to buy oil only with US dollars, then hyperinflation would destroy our economy. The Saudis are the main reason that hyperinflation has not hit us yet, and with the entire world dropping the USD reserves, hyperinflation is a certainty if the Saudis drop us.

Non-Dollar Trading Is Killing the Petrodollar -- And the Foundation of U.S.-Saudi Policy in the Middle East

The dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency was first established in 1944 with the Bretton Woods agreement. The U.S. was able assume this role by virtue of it then having the largest gold reserves in the world. The dollar was pegged at $35 an ounce — and freely exchangeable into gold at that rate. But by 1971, convertibility into gold was no longer viable as America’s gold resources drained away. Instead, the dollar became a pure fiat currency (decoupled from any physical store of value), until the petrodollar agreement was concluded by President Nixon in 1973.

The essence of the deal was that the U.S. would agree to military sales and defense of Saudi Arabia in return for all oil trade being denominated in U.S. dollars.

As a result of this agreement, the dollar then became the only medium in which energy exchange could be transacted. This underpinned its reserve currency status through the need for foreign governments to hold dollars; recirculated the dollar costs of oil back into the U.S. financial system and — crucially — made the dollar effectively convertible into barrels of oil. The dollar was moved from a gold standard onto a crude oil standard.

U.S. interest rates were then managed so that oil exporters (who formerly looked to gold as the basis of their reserves) would be indifferent to whether they stored their currency reserves, earned from oil exports, in U.S. treasuries, or in gold. The value was equivalent.....

The Fed consistently managed Fed funds rates to keep oil prices steady, even when it required mid-teens interest rates and back-to-back recessions in 1980-1982. Since U.S. Fed funds rates were managed to preserve U.S. creditors’ and oil exporters’ purchasing power in oil terms, the system proved acceptable to most nations.

While the petrodollar arrangement worked well for nearly 30 years, the arrangement began to wobble around 2002-2004. . . Oil prices began steadily rising in 2002 and 2003 while Fed funds rates remained low to mitigate the fallout from the 2001 U.S. recession/tech bubble.

As a result, the number of barrels of oil that could be purchased for a face value U.S. Treasury bond declined sharply. . . After maintaining a range of 55-60 barrels of oil per U.S. Treasury from 1986-1999, a $1,000 face value U.S. Treasury went from buying 60 barrels of oil in 1999 to under 30 by early 2004.

....
But what may ultimately be seen to have proved fateful to the petrodollar system has been the policy of zero interest rate policy and “quantitative easing” pursued so unrestrainedly since 2008. Effectively, energy producers saw that the U.S. economy had now become so dependent on low interest rates that it could never again manage to keep oil prices steady relative to U.S. treasuries without blowing up the global financial system. The U.S. economy had now become too “financialized” to withstand anything more than a token interest rate hike.

The petrodollar system, which had allowed the U.S. dollar to supplant gold as the backing for the oil trade from 1973-2002, was broken.

Energy producers began to accumulate real assets (such as real estate), and returned to purchasing physical gold in lieu of U.S. treasuries. Finally this year, the long established re-circulation of petrodollars back into the U.S. financial system came to an end — according to BNP....

This then, is the backdrop to Putin’s remarks about the dollar monopoly and against which he is likely to craft his response to Saudi Arabia’s decision to message the market into accepting that the Kingdom would not defend $100 oil, but will be content to see the price drop 30 percent. (And whatever the market circumstances — and other Saudi objectives — that may have contributed to the fall in price, there is little doubt that”‘oil price war” is the interpretation that President Putin will place on it).

This new oil price drop simply is crushing producers’ currencies in foreign exchange markets. The combination of the petrodollar losing its ability to act as a store of value, combined now with exchange rate blues, may be the straw that breaks the producer “camel’s back” in respect to OPEC and dollar denomination.

http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2016/05/30/u-s-saudi-arabia-petrodollar/

There are, perhaps, fewer more important– or more delicate – relationships between countries than the one between the United States and Saudi Arabia.

The very reason the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency dates back to a deal struck in 1971 between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Saudis, during which the petrodollar was brought into existence.

The U.S. promised to always protect the House of Saud – militarily. In exchange, the Saudis would only accept dollars for their oil. Under Saudi pressure, all of OPEC soon followed suit.

This meant every nation on the planet needed dollars if they wanted oil.

Currently, however, this crucial relationship is arguably at its least stable since the birth of the petrodollar.

This discontent was blatantly obvious during President Obama’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia.

Despite tradition dictating that government leaders show their respect for visiting foreign diplomats – with the U.S. President being the most revered in the world – Obama was not greeted at the airport by Saudi Arabia’s King Salman.

Further, Saudi TV and media pretty much ignored his visit which would, anywhere else, have been great cause for publicity and excitement.

This diplomatic slight was likely the result of the President having referred to the Saudis as “free-riders” in an interview with The Atlanticin March.

Dangerous Politics
The tension between the two countries further increased recently, thanks to the passing of a bill by the Senate – the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA) – which would allows the families of the victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia, pending the verdict as to whether any of the country’s officials were involved in the 2001 terrorist attacks.

This means, if even a single low-ranking government clerk is found to have been involved, Saudi Arabia could be sued by each and every American family that lost someone that day.

While there is a loophole that the Secretary of State may only engage “in good faith discussions” with the defendant concerning the resolution of claims to satisfy the law, Saudi Arabia stands to lose a significant sum of money in compensation for pain and suffering – not to mention the stain on the country’s reputation on an international scale.

The Saudis are fuming hotter than the sands in the Arabian Desert on a sultry summer day.

Between Obama’s remarks and the potential legal trouble, Saudi Arabia is losing its faith in its bond with the U.S.A.

Another key part of that distrust stems from the U.S. lifting sanctions against its rival, Iran.

Further, Saudi Arabian bigwigs feel that the U.S. did virtually nothing to save its long-time Sunni partner, Hosni Mubarak – the former President of Egypt who was forcibly removed from office and subsequently convicted of corruption in 2015. This has given the Saudis cause to wonder whether they’re the next Sunni regime to be dumped by the U.S.

It is, however, the 9/11 bill that has been causing the most turmoil lately.

As soon as it became international news, the Saudi media had a field day. One daily Saudi newspaper, Okaz, blared the headline: “Congress’ Satanic Deed Opens the Gates of Hell for the World’s Largest Country.” You don’t even have to read between the lines to see how the nation feels about the United States.



If the Saudis abandon the USD, it is a one time kick in the balls that they can never repeat, but why wait until it is too late to stop them from doing it?

Let us return the USD to being the value of a commodity, in this case a basket of commodities that we get to decide which is used at the time the USD is redeemed. We could use a combination of precious metals (gold silver, platinum, palladium, copper, nickel) along with along with every other metal mined.

So if France pulls some nonsense demanding redemption, we shop them 2,000 barges loaded with lead, etc.

We must do something to prevent the Saudis from destroying our economy by destroying the US dollar.
 
Okay...but in IMO, the top goal should be to reduce the size and power of the federal government. The regulatory state has run amok and will destroy what little free market capitalism we have left.
 
The article is bunk. It dramatically overstates the role of oil in currency markets, and it feeds conspiracy theories you see on the loopier parts of the internet.

It grossly misunderstands the nature of economics. The article implied that oil going down in dollars was a problem. It doesn't matter if oil is priced in dollars because dollars can be converted into euros or any other currency. And oil was going down in all currencies. It wasn't going down because of anything to do with the dollar. In fact, oil was going down because the Saudis wanted it to go down.

Interest rates have never been managed around the price of oil other than as an input into inflationary measures.

There is no other alternative to the dollar as the primary reserve currency, so Saudi Arabia isn't going to drop it. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter because most of the dollar reserves are in Asia, not the Middle East.

Anyways, it's nice conspiracy fodder but it isn't a serious article.
 
This is why the US has a new enemy, China.
BRICS is a massive threat to the US economy, and it's already taken about 20% of world trade.
The Dollar value is held up by the Petrodollar, so you're buggered if it loses ground.
Saudi now exports more oil to China using BRICS than it does to the US.
Using the Dollar for transactions leaves both seller and buyer prone to US law and US sanctions, but using BRICS (Basically anything but the Dollar) means neither are a problem and the traders don't have to engage in double currency conversion, so saving a lot of money.

The US has to destroy BRICS in order to survive, so Russia and China are evil.
 
This is why the US has a new enemy, China.
BRICS is a massive threat to the US economy, and it's already taken about 20% of world trade.
The Dollar value is held up by the Petrodollar, so you're buggered if it loses ground.
Saudi now exports more oil to China using BRICS than it does to the US.
Using the Dollar for transactions leaves both seller and buyer prone to US law and US sanctions, but using BRICS (Basically anything but the Dollar) means neither are a problem and the traders don't have to engage in double currency conversion, so saving a lot of money.

The US has to destroy BRICS in order to survive, so Russia and China are evil.
Some truth to that...remember all wars are banker wars.

Why is the US and NATO causing trouble around Russia and China? Your reasoning may be why.
 
Okay...but in IMO, the top goal should be to reduce the size and power of the federal government. The regulatory state has run amok and will destroy what little free market capitalism we have left.
While reducing the scope and size of Federali power is a laudable and desirable goal, this issue of having our national "family jewels" firmly in the Saudi nutcracker is of higher importance for the next thirty years, but I dont want to argue that point. It just seems to me that destroying the retirement savings of Americans with hyperinflation is more destabilizing to the US domestic tranquility than the continued slow creep of Federali graspage.

We simply must find a way to firm up demand for the USD that is independent of Saudi oil production.
 
The article is bunk. It dramatically overstates the role of oil in currency markets, and it feeds conspiracy theories you see on the loopier parts of the internet.

Yeah, the petrodollar is just a conspiracy theory, lol.
 
This is why the US has a new enemy, China.
BRICS is a massive threat to the US economy, and it's already taken about 20% of world trade.
The Dollar value is held up by the Petrodollar, so you're buggered if it loses ground.
Saudi now exports more oil to China using BRICS than it does to the US.
Using the Dollar for transactions leaves both seller and buyer prone to US law and US sanctions, but using BRICS (Basically anything but the Dollar) means neither are a problem and the traders don't have to engage in double currency conversion, so saving a lot of money.

The US has to destroy BRICS in order to survive, so Russia and China are evil.
I dont know if we have to destroy the BRICs arrangement (Brazil, Russia, India, China) so much as simply decouple the US dollar from the control of Saudi market policies.

We need independence from the Saudi royal family as right now they have a financial nuke that can severely damage US monetary policies.
 
Okay...but in IMO, the top goal should be to reduce the size and power of the federal government. The regulatory state has run amok and will destroy what little free market capitalism we have left.

Isn't the federal government decentralized through state government, following Constitutional principles?
What is the purpose of reducing the size and power of federal government once it has already attained the status of decentralized government through state government?
It doesn't seem constructive to reduce the size and power of a long planned achievement with continuing processes.
Could you clarify your opinion?

According to the article, it seems that since the beginning of the Bretton Woods agreement (and before), state regulation has succeeded even when consumers and producers of oil experienced increase and decrease in oil prices.

How can any agency intervene in free market capitalism, except by consensual participation? Why would they attempt to misconstrue a yet possible alliance by risking the maintenance of their own structure?
 
The article is bunk. It dramatically overstates the role of oil in currency markets, and it feeds conspiracy theories you see on the loopier parts of the internet.

Yeah, the petrodollar is just a conspiracy theory, lol.

That's not what Toro was reporting. Toro observed how the complexities referred to in the article are only roughly rounded up without providing the necessary skills to comprehend it, therefore resulting in misinterpretation and expectancy deferral at other distributive information sources (the initiating cause for conspiracy theories, since an article with so much information and advertised by a group with so many articles also being referred to provide with the assumption of catering ideally their precise, but complex data gathering to anyone whatsoever who may only happen to search for or know keywords without making the disclaimer that it actually is very advanced data-strings).
 
The article is bunk. It dramatically overstates the role of oil in currency markets, and it feeds conspiracy theories you see on the loopier parts of the internet.

It grossly misunderstands the nature of economics. The article implied that oil going down in dollars was a problem. It doesn't matter if oil is priced in dollars because dollars can be converted into euros or any other currency. And oil was going down in all currencies. It wasn't going down because of anything to do with the dollar. In fact, oil was going down because the Saudis wanted it to go down.

Interest rates have never been managed around the price of oil other than as an input into inflationary measures.

There is no other alternative to the dollar as the primary reserve currency, so Saudi Arabia isn't going to drop it. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter because most of the dollar reserves are in Asia, not the Middle East.

Anyways, it's nice conspiracy fodder but it isn't a serious article.

I thought the article was difficult to comprehend because of its emphasis on the dollar, and not on the oil.

How did you get to the conclusion that oil going down in dollars was a problem? The article only stated that the number of barrels was going down for the same amount of dollars. The implication there seems to be the devaluing of US Treasury, but actually it is only in fact the increasing value on oil - a pretty good outcome considering gold used to be way more valuable.

It does matter that the oil is priced in dollars worldwide, because the plan is to support worldwide exchange advancement, which could only be accomplished with the agreements and procedures accounted in the article after gold reserves could be effectively transferred into dollar reserves, considering gold alone could not be used by the whole world population as currency and ensuring the worldwide population would have equal opportunity to enter the exchange market by knowledge of expendable resources and the greatest efficiency in converting them to renewable resources.

So the oil was indeed going down because of the dollar, since the dollar is an actual renewable resource to be exchanged with more flexibility than oil and definitely more useful than gold which is not renewable.
 
Why is the US and NATO causing trouble around Russia and China? Your reasoning may be why.

Probably, but it also explains other aspects of US foreign policy.
The US is trying to cozy up to Malaysia and Indonesia, commonly by giving away weapons and totally ignoring US allies on contentious issues regarding those countries.

Malaysia and Indonesia control the straits of Malacca, the route all Chinese oil supplies use to get from the gulf states and South America to the Chinese mainland.
If that were to be closed to them, the ships would be forced to use the long way or brave the narrow strip of international waters between Indonesia and Australia, an area in easy range of US aircraft based in the north of Australia.

Now check what caused Japan to attack Pearl when it did, mainly the US blockade of oil supplies to Japan.

The US is complaining of Chinese military 'expansionism' in the region, but neglects to mention all the new bases are on China's oil supply route and all were built AFTER the US military build up in the area.
 
Off Topic:
This diplomatic slight was likely the result of the President having referred to the Saudis as “free-riders” in an interview with The Atlantic in March.

....

Saudi Arabian bigwigs feel that the U.S. did virtually nothing to save its long-time Sunni partner, Hosni Mubarak – the former President of Egypt who was forcibly removed from office and subsequently convicted of corruption in 2015.

While Mr. Obama's words may have irke the Saudis, the questions in my mind are these:
  • What did the Saudis expect the U.S. to do that they could not have done on their own? Isn't their failure to "do something" that abated Mubarak's fall the very definition of "free riding?"
  • Did/does the U.S. have a "protection pact" with Egypt similar materially to that which we have with Saudi Arabia?

On Topic:
The opening article you posted was written in December 2014. (The other article basically being diplomatic in nature rather than economic.) How have the hard economic facts changed since then? We know the sanctions against Iran are gone. What else has changed and what is the impact of the those changes such that dissolution of the petrodollar model is still militated for? Such that the dissolution for the petrodollar model is no longer militated for?
 
Okay...but in IMO, the top goal should be to reduce the size and power of the federal government. The regulatory state has run amok and will destroy what little free market capitalism we have left.

Isn't the federal government decentralized through state government, following Constitutional principles?
What is the purpose of reducing the size and power of federal government once it has already attained the status of decentralized government through state government?
It doesn't seem constructive to reduce the size and power of a long planned achievement with continuing processes.
Could you clarify your opinion?

According to the article, it seems that since the beginning of the Bretton Woods agreement (and before), state regulation has succeeded even when consumers and producers of oil experienced increase and decrease in oil prices.

How can any agency intervene in free market capitalism, except by consensual participation? Why would they attempt to misconstrue a yet possible alliance by risking the maintenance of their own structure?
If you think our central government is decentralized, we can't debate any further. If you also think the government is limited by the constitution, we can't debate any further...because you are not thinking clearly.

Regulations by the federal government are killing small business nationwide, which I suspect is the goal. Big government and big business are colluding in a big way.
 
Off Topic:
This diplomatic slight was likely the result of the President having referred to the Saudis as “free-riders” in an interview with The Atlantic in March.

....

Saudi Arabian bigwigs feel that the U.S. did virtually nothing to save its long-time Sunni partner, Hosni Mubarak – the former President of Egypt who was forcibly removed from office and subsequently convicted of corruption in 2015.

While Mr. Obama's words may have irke the Saudis, the questions in my mind are these:
  • What did the Saudis expect the U.S. to do that they could not have done on their own? Isn't their failure to "do something" that abated Mubarak's fall the very definition of "free riding?"
  • Did/does the U.S. have a "protection pact" with Egypt similar materially to that which we have with Saudi Arabia?

On Topic:
The opening article you posted was written in December 2014. (The other article basically being diplomatic in nature rather than economic.) How have the hard economic facts changed since then? We know the sanctions against Iran are gone. What else has changed and what is the impact of the those changes such that dissolution of the petrodollar model is still militated for? Such that the dissolution for the petrodollar model is no longer militated for?
The Saudis are crippling the BRIC nations ability to set up their own markets by driving down the price of oil, which also benefits the American consumers, but I wouldnt be exactly thankful to the Saudis for it.

BTW, they expect us to fight their battles because that is the deeal; they prop up the USD with petroleum demand and we defend their interest vrs Iran in the Mid East. as I understand it.
 
BTW, they expect us to fight their battles because that is the deeal; they prop up the USD with petroleum demand and we defend their interest vrs Iran in the Mid East. as I understand it.
Right. That was in the articles you noted. I should have been clearer....

The fall of Mubarak wasn't a Saudi event; it was an Egyptian one. I believe we agreed to militarily defend Saudi Arabia, not every Sunni leader who may fall because his people overthrow him. According to the reference material you posted, the Saudis were ticked that we allowed Mubarak to fall.
 
Right. That was in the articles you noted. I should have been clearer....

The fall of Mubarak wasn't a Saudi event; it was an Egyptian one. I believe we agreed to militarily defend Saudi Arabia, not every Sunni leader who may fall because his people overthrow him. According to the reference material you posted, the Saudis were ticked that we allowed Mubarak to fall.
I agree with you and this set of facts seems to bolster my assertion that we need to extricate ourselves from this arrangement and let the Saudis be content with our good will, mostly and support against Iran. If I am missing your point, I apologize. I am not trying to be obtuse, it is completely natural on my part.

Saudi Arabia is the greatest source of Wahhabi Jihadism in the world and we need to be able to push them to curtail these murderous cretins without worrying about what the Saudis may do in return to our currency in retaliation.

Backing the US$ temporarily with a 'basket' of precious commodities might be one way of decoupling the US$ from petroleum.

What am I missing in your two posts?
 

Forum List

Back
Top