Mission Impossible: Rescuing the dollar
In Dubai last week, actor Tom Cruise ran around the outside of the world’s tallest building suspended by a cable 2,700 feet in the air while shooting a scene for his fourth Mission Impossible film. The stunt was Cruise’s “most dangerous yet,” reported London’s Daily Mail. Also last week, the Federal Reserve announced it would create another $600 billion dollars out of thin air to stimulate the economy. Another dangerous stunt. Talking with a former Fed official last week, I speculated that the U.S. dollar has 24 months until it crashes, unless Congress acts quickly. He thinks it may take just six months. This isn’t a job for Ethan Hunt (Cruise). Call the Tea Party for this mission impossible.
Prognosticating when the dollar will crash is like trying to predict when the world will end. Nobody really knows when it will happen. But it is highly likely to happen as long as the dollar is backed by . . . itself. President Nixon ended the days of the gold-backed dollar in 1971. Without gold as a financial restraint, the Federal Reserve has grossly devalued the dollar by printing massive amounts of currency to stimulate the economy and to finance our deficit.
The Tea Party’s mission—if it chooses to accept it—is to rescue the dollar before it becomes a financial pariah. We can find a plan recommended by my college economics professor Hans Sennholz in his book Age of Inflation.
First, as Dr. Sennholz wrote in 1979, we must embark on a “giant educational task.” With the advent of the internet, this task is more realistic today than it was 30 years ago. By educating the public, the Tea Party movement will be empowered to pressure Congress to do what is needed.
Congress will have to make massive cuts in spending (including entitlements). This will lead to higher unemployment and an economic depression. People will need private sector jobs to get back to work. Therefore, Congress will have to cut business taxes significantly to create jobs.
And, because there will be massive shifts in labor markets, Congress will need to cut red tape. Specifically, Congress should weaken or repeal the Davis-Bacon, Norris-LaGuardia, and National Labor Relations acts from the 1930s, get out of the business of setting a minimum wage, and make unemployment compensation less appealing.
With the budget under control and the economy poised for success, the Tea Partiers should encourage Congress to gradually move toward a gold standard to restore monetary freedom and slow the Federal Reserve’s printing press.
Congress should give citizens and financial institutions total freedom to make contracts payable in either gold or dollars (without suffering taxation on gold gains). In other words, as Sennholz recommended, create a “parallel standard” between dollars and gold. He also encouraged further monetary freedom by allowing citizens to mint coins. If people would choose not to use these coins in financial exchanges, they could use Federal Reserve money. If these things were to happen, Sennholz speculated that an enlightened Federal Reserve would possibly make dollars convertible to gold again. We’d then be back on a gold standard, and the Federal Reserve would have restraints established on printing money. Once again, there would be a fixed ratio between dollars and gold.
Sound impossible? Tom Cruise ran around the outside of the world’s tallest building last week and the Tea Party overhauled Congress. We can rescue the dollar with the help of the Tea Party movement. If we ignore this message, America will self-destruct in . . .

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top34 Comments to “Mission Impossible: Rescuing the dollar”
Sobering.
Our nation is too risk adverse. Our “leaders” would rather destroy us all than do the hard work of fixing the problems.
And who can blame them? The scenario described above is apocalyptic–but that was a different movie.
Report comment to moderator
“Paper money eventually reverts to it’s intrinsic value.”
Report comment to moderator
Anyone think the new wave of Republicans is gonna do anything serious to salvage the American economy? There’s probably some play on the Mission Impossible title that could serve as an answer.
Report comment to moderator
#3
We’ll have a majority in the House as soon as we can get them in place. But the Senate is still fiscally liberal, while the WH is doing everything possible to redefine over-the-top profligacy. My guess is that if we could somehow convince the latter two that they have set us on a path of certain bancruptcy, that the U.S. cannot continue to live off of other countries’ credit and that the bleeding must stop or the patient is a goner, the new wave of Republicans might have a chance at saving our economy. But it’s a little like one man trying to stop a room full of crazed crack junkies from smoking the rest of what’s in their pipes.
Report comment to moderator
The gold standard won’t work unless we also end the fractional banking system. Both must be done to not only prevent the eventual crash of the dollar but also to reduce the negative effects of the boom and bust cycle.
Report comment to moderator
The Rs have to try even if they fail, because if they don’t try, this is it for them. The mistake the Dems made was believing that the change the people wanted when they vote in Obama was to go so far left. They didn’t. They wanted a change from the spending Congress was doing to LESS spending, not MORE, and they didn’t get it. If they don’t get it this time, they will blame whoever gets in the way.
Report comment to moderator
MACRUTABAGA (3): Anyone think the new wave of Republicans is gonna do anything serious to salvage the American economy?
Frank: Not with “leadership” like this making arguments like this. “Vote for this bad bill! The American people expect Congress to do something!”
When you’re headed in the wrong direction, nobody expects you to step on the gas.
Report comment to moderator
That speech says it ALL, Frank in Spokane.
Report comment to moderator
I have my doubts about the Tea Party addressing America’s mondo deficit in any meaningful way.
The only way they might accomplish this is if they swear off foreign economic aid and military adventurism — i.e., demand an end to American imperialism.
The Tea Party says it wants the feddle gubmint to live within it’s means. They also claim to want liberty and small government at home.
But I have heard few (if any?) Tea Party spokesmen or candidates make the connection between our gargantuan debt, big gubmint, and lost liberty at home, and printing money like fiends to expand the security State and prop up and expand the empire abroad.
Report comment to moderator
Lee: Congress will have to make massive cuts in spending (including entitlements).
Frank: Should read: “Congress will have to make massive cuts in spending (including the military-industrial complex).”
But then, military spending has long been the new third rail of American politics … utterly off the table.
Report comment to moderator
… but since we’re talking about the dollar and commodities:
Gold is up 88% — that’s almost double — in the last two years.
Silver, OTOH, is up 159%.
(Dang, I’m so glad I listened to the people who said there was more upside potential in the latter!)
Report comment to moderator
The luster of this whole Tea Party election sweep
lasted about 5 secondswas tarnished months ago when it was co-opted by the likes of Sarah Palin and Republican opportunists who talk a lot but never say anything…anything different, that is.Report comment to moderator
Why gold? Why not several natural resources like gold, silver, oil, etc? It would seem a dollar based upon more than one resource allows less volatility and would only increase its actual value.
And I think I’m more with Frank, pull back on the foreign spending including military. Spending away from home is like spending on a new set of chrome rims when you need to buy milk and clothes first…
I honestly think the crash comes again around Jan/Feb…esp if taxes are raised.
Report comment to moderator
“(Dang, I’m so glad I listened to the people who said there was more upside potential in the latter!)”
And I’m so hacked I let a drone at Fidelity talk me out of placing at least half my retirement into gold…
Report comment to moderator
As for our politicians rescuing the dollar?
Hell will freeze over first.
Report comment to moderator
MiM,
My sources say there’s still plenty of potential ahead …
There’s much more out there, so do your homework. But I sure wouldn’t dilly dally.
Even if you don’t have a lot of money with which to buy, at least check into “junk” silver (circulated pre-1965 dimes, quarters and halves) or silver rounds. Beats holding paper promises-to-pay.
Report comment to moderator
THORN (13): Why gold? Why not several natural resources like gold, silver, oil, etc?
Frank: Why not, indeed?
(Didn’t we have this conversation already?!)
Report comment to moderator
Even more chilling, I read an article hidden in the back pages of our paper today that noted China hold rights to 97% of the heavy metals in the world and just halted Japan’s ability to purchase any. (China’s been buying up rights throughout Africa the last couple years).
If the US didn’t owe them so much money, I bet the same ban would be used against the US.
Double
Report comment to moderator
#11: Gold is up 88% — that’s almost double — in the last two years.
I’m treading on the limits of my knowledge of macroeconomics, but this is a perfect example of why not to base the dollar’s value on gold.
The large 2-year increase in the dollar value of gold is not entirely due to a weakening dollar; gold’s value has also increased relative to foreign currencies against which the dollar has remained (mostly) constant.
So there are two possibilities (which may each be partially true):
1. The current value of gold (and other related metals) is fueled to some degree by raw speculation, and
2. all major world currencies have devalued at the same time thereby increasing gold’s value vs. each of these currencies.
Here’s the problem. Suppose the dollar were tied to the value of gold and over the next two years the price of gold in euros doubles. Maybe caused by speculation, maybe by a reassessment of the available supply of gold, maybe because some new industrial use for gold was discovered that made it more valuable. This means the dollar’s value in euros doubled over this same period. Bye bye U.S. exports to Europe, hello European imports.
Now if every country’s currency were tied to gold then we’d be okay. Except in that case you’re basically working with a one-world currency, and there’s no way to make other nations get back on the gold bandwagon.
Report comment to moderator
#19 Buddy A “one-world currency” is precisely where we are headed as part of the New World Order. It will probably be tied to a new “green economy” like the one pushed at the Copenhagen summit and by some in the Obama administration.
Report comment to moderator
Actually a devalued American dollar would be a good incentive to return manufacturing jobs to the US. It would also increase exports and might even help alleviate the massive trade deficit.
As for protecting the value of the dollar and putting it back on the gold standard — who benefits from this? The bondholders and the rich. By maintaining a high American dollar, they will get a return on their investments beyond the rate of inflation.
Thus you have the choice between a lower dollar leading ti manufacturing jobs, lower unemployment, greater exports and lowering of the deficit OR protecting the wealth of the elite.
About 12 years ago the Cdn dollar sank from 85 cents US to 65 cents. Immediately people stopped taking day trips to the US — money stayed in the country. Manufacturing jobs stayed in the country and more were created. Now the Cdn dollar is par with the US dollar — and industrial unions worry our cost advantage has disappeared and border towns are once again worried about cross-border shopping. Meanwhile Upstate New York is looking forward to Buffalo Sabres and Bills sellouts and a great ski season.
Report comment to moderator
Actually, HRW, this Buffalonian is looking forward to the Bills moving to Toronto, the way they’ve been playing lately. Rogers Cable can take them off our hands, please! Then we can quit subsidizing
themRalph Wilson’s profits, and Erie County can use my tax monies for things like – oh – libraries.Now, try stealing our Sabres, and that’s another story!!
Report comment to moderator
HRW: Actually a devalued American dollar would be a good incentive to return manufacturing jobs to the US. It would also increase exports and might even help alleviate the massive trade deficit.
A few months ago, Democrats introduced a bill that would have ended the incentives American companies have to outsource jobs. It would have provided payroll tax relief to employers who brought jobs from overseas back to the U.S., and close loopholes that provide companies with tax breaks for outsourcing manufacturing jobs.
Every single Republican (and three Democrats) voted to filibuster it, and it went away.
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2010/09/28/some-dems-join-gop-outsourcing-filibuster/
You all have been duped into thinking the Republicans fight for the common man. They don’t — they fight for big business.
Wishing’s article suggests that the virus is widespread — yes, lower corporate taxes, repeal of regulations, no minimum wage — use the brains God gave you, people! Who does that benefit other than the corporations? It certainly doesn’t help ordinary working people. And it won’t make much difference in the valuation of the dollar, either. But it does serve the profit motive of big businesses.
Report comment to moderator
Do you think, Conan, some of that is the result of NAFTA? I remember the arguments over NAFTA–that jobs would disappear to over countries and overseas and we were all told it would be for the good. Well, we got cheaper goods, but lost our engine.
Rather than fining companies for moving their plants overseas (done because of financial reasons, let me tell you from listening to a relative try to figure out financially how to keep jobs in the US), why not give them incentives to stay? Here in CA electricity costs something like 4 times as much as it costs in China, yet the carbon footprint is so much higher in China, that if you’re truly looking for green jobs, California–hard to believe–would be a better choice.
But the folks in power and just elected to power appear to believe businesses are cash cows to be milked at their convenience. P,G and E and other utilities, looking to make profit, agree. It’s just not financially viable to stay in the state. And it will only get worse under the next administration.
The tipping point has been reached with China. A few incentives to stay home and most companies would. It’s difficult to do business overseas.
Of course China, thinking ahead, realizes this. A company I’m familiar with had to build a plant in China because the government wouldn’t let them do business in the country otherwise, but that’s another story.
Those who are beholden financially ultimately become slaves.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking of China, its worth mentioning that China has been criticized for keeping the value of its currency [i]artificially low[/i] in order to keep its exports attractive.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle: Do you think, Conan, some of that is the result of NAFTA? I remember the arguments over NAFTA–that jobs would disappear to over countries and overseas and we were all told it would be for the good. Well, we got cheaper goods, but lost our engine
Absolutely. NAFTA was a very bad idea and the people who opposed it were right. It was one of Clinton’s biggest mistakes.
And now we have Democrats in Congress trying to incrementally improve the situation, and guess who is stopping them?
Rather than fining companies for moving their plants overseas (done because of financial reasons, let me tell you from listening to a relative try to figure out financially how to keep jobs in the US), why not give them incentives to stay?
The bill that was filibustered would have provided payroll tax relief for jobs brought back to the U.S., and closed loopholes that allowed tax breaks for outsourcing overseas. Carrot and stick. And sure it’s not a comprehensive reform, but it would have led to some improvements and probably paved the way for more.
But the folks in power and just elected to power appear to believe businesses are cash cows to be milked at their convenience. P,G and E and other utilities, looking to make profit, agree. It’s just not financially viable to stay in the state. And it will only get worse under the next administration.
The problem with that argument is that it is the regulations and the taxes that businesses complain about that help keep our standard of living high. The environmental regulations that went into effect in the 1970s cost businesses more and probably cost jobs, but our air and water are much cleaner now than they were 40 years ago because of them.
How far down the road do we want to go to lowering the cost of business at the expense of clean air and water, good wages for workers and other things we take for granted here? The reason it is cheaper for businesses to outsource is because foreign workers earn pennies an hour and the countries are squalid.
I don’t believe we should compete by lowering our own standards to match. Do you? Really?
Report comment to moderator
I grew up in Los Angeles, I’m not complaining about the improvement in air quality.
But I wonder when the compromise starts–the trade offs. Here in Sonoma County a local business trying to put in solar cells was denied access because there might be lizards on the property. The solar cell configuration was done in such a way–on a no longer used airport runway–that the tiger salamander would never know it was there. (Not to mention the critter is nocturnal). So, our county threw away a two-fer, reduced carbon footprint, reduced energy cost, more stable business, for a hypothetical lizard no one has ever seen on the property before.
I’ve been recycling for 40 years, even I thought that ridiculous.
The latest shot over the bow on energy here in CA, was the CPU just agreed to require all energy companies that are not P,G, and E to use alternate energy sources in CA. (30 % of all energy in CA is supposed to come from alternate energy sources, e.g. solar and wind, by next year I think. An impossible goal, and so the energy companies will be fined–another source of revenue for our fiscally irresponsible government here in CA. They, of course, will pass the fines on to the consumer). They’ve made this law retroactive, and so my friend’s company’s electric bill just jumped a million dollars for this year. You know, the year they’ve already paid the electric bill.
That’s why it gets cheaper to go overseas, though again, only marginally given the cost of doing business in China. It was at the tipping point, a little more help in CA and the companies would stay here. Given the proposals by Jerry Brown and crew, business will be fleeing like rats off a sinking ship.
And who can blame them? I’d go, too.
Report comment to moderator
The Defense Budget could be cut if congress permits the execution of the base rationalization plans that are periodically offered.
Report comment to moderator
Our loss of competitive advantage leads to job loss. Relative tax and regulation exceeds most other markets. We have compensated for lower wages elsewhere through productivity and output. But the cost-productivity continuum iss slipping away from us through higher overall wage costs.
Report comment to moderator
The Chineese peg the Yen to the Dollar. Do you expect them to join in the inflationary induced erosion of the US debt they are holding?
Report comment to moderator
I am an optimistic realist by nature, but I am not optimistic regarding the dollar, our role in the world, etc. There is a long established, well entrenched, global agenda to, at a minimum, cripple the dollar- happening. Some seek it’s destruction, and many of these autocrats have the very same animus for America that the Radical In Chief appears to have for whites, Christianity, America, the Founders, etc. As elections always reveal, political will CANNOT overcome economic/fiscal realities- hence the Fed’s ability to manipulate markets and elections. The country is indeed divided, there has been an awakening, but time is not on our side. Our Achilles Heel is and always has been our debt/monetary-fiscal policies. The markets are fragile, rocked at times by mere whims, and there are billionaires who have already shown what they are capable of in England and other places, manipulating the currency futures markets. This process has been going on for sometime, but we now have a psychological/emotional/intellectual gimp in power, surrounded by master manipulators (czars) with serious axes to grind, and who are chums with said billionaires. Factor in the overt and not-so-overt resentment of America in so many countries. Only a miracle can save this Republic. I just hope that “the one” does not use Executive Orders and Presidential Decision Directives- already happening- to bring about our worst fears.
Report comment to moderator
Obamanomics ignores the basic principles of sound economic growth. The first principle of sound economic growth states, “You must take in more money than you spend.” The second basic principle states, “You can’t borrow yourself out of debt”, and the third principle states, “Excessive spending and debt will create insolvency not prosperity.”
Their plan to Print more dollars will further devalue your monetary investments including your retirement, which will become worthless. We will have to pay more for everything from food and gas to clothes and housing. We will face runaway inflation like no American has ever experienced.
The stagflation days of the Carter administration will become a fond memory. The gas lines will return and expect $7.00 a gallon gas and $10.00 a gallon milk. Businesses will have to charge more to cover the increased costs, and more small businesses will fail as a result. But wait, that’s not all!
In reality, printing more money will not only devalue the dollar it will create more poverty and government dependence – exactly what Obama and his cronies want.
Report comment to moderator
I am tired of hearing Obama and the Democrats falsely blame our current economic condition on the Bush administration. The road to economic failure actually started during the Clinton administration with the passing of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
That started our industries on the road to failure because they could not compete with countries with huge numbers of peasants willing to work for pennies a day. Our industry had to close their doors, move to countries with an abundance of cheap labor, or just go out of business altogether.
All of our industries including General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler moved production and jobs to these countries leaving Americans to find lower wage jobs wherever and whenever they could. We are experiencing the fruits of our politicians’ labor today by being unemployed. When passing trade agreements, the politicians failed to take into consideration that unemployed people can not afford to pay mortgages or taxes.
The next bungle came in 1995 when Bill Clinton’s HUD agreed to let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income and unqualified borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many low-income borrowers who could not qualify for a conventional loan.
As a result, the agency failed to take into consideration whether or not borrowers could make the payments on the loans – loans that Freddie and Fannie classified as affordable. The failure to qualify borrowers escalated the number of unqualified borrowers with subprime loans, and that is still wreaking havoc on the US economy with thousands of foreclosures.
Clinton and the Democrats played a much greater role in the financial collapse that followed the housing bust although Obama and his cronies keep blaming Bush for it. The housing bust was just one part of the economic collapse that was started by NAFTA and GATT.
In 1999, Congress enacted and Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the “Financial Services Modernization Act”. This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investments, commercial banking and insurance services. It actually prohibited banks from engaging in high-risk debt with depositors’ money.
The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to engage in high risk debt again – like before the Great Depression. The potential to make enormous profits by trading mortgage backed securities encouraged banks to take on “high risk” debt in the form of bad housing loans.
Moreover, Clintons’ affordable housing act led to an artificial housing boom. The lax qualifications to obtain a loan and the ease in getting a home loan by those who did not qualify created the bad debt bubble that was destined to burst. The housing bubble burst was exacerbated further by millions of job losses – the direct result of the passage of NAFTA and the GATT agreements.
NAFTA and GATT combined with the repeal of the Glass – Steagall Act caused the economic problems we are experiencing today. The repeal of the Glass – Steagall Act removed the separation that had existed between Wall Street Investment banks and depository banks, and that caused the collapse of the subprime mortgage market – which led to the financial crisis that started in 2007. The loss of jobs and industry from unfair trade agreements created the high unemployment we have today.
Our current economic condition is the results of our Democratic government under Clinton.
Report comment to moderator
“The bill that was filibustered would have provided payroll tax relief for jobs brought back to the U.S., and closed loopholes that allowed tax breaks for outsourcing overseas.”
So why not just drop taxes to being with then and make it simple where there arent any loopholes to have to close?
This would have been a reason for me to veto, because the whole tax system needs an overhaul to something simpler. Incremental changes have a tendency to just favor someone else, rather than favor everyone, esp the consumer.
All that extra cost associated with a high convoluted tax system would get funneled instead into pay roll or offsetting outsourcing.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!