Saving the world economy from Gaddafi

[themessenger]

Some believe it is about protecting civilians, others say it is about oil, but some are convinced intervention in Libya is all about Gaddafi’s plan to introduce the gold dinar, a single African currency made from gold, a true sharing of the wealth.

*“It’s one of these things that you have to plan almost in secret, because as soon as you say you’re going to change over from the dollar to something else, you’re going to be targeted,” says Ministry of Peace founder Dr James Thring. “There were two conferences on this, in 1986 and 2000, organized by Gaddafi. Everybody was interested, most countries in Africa were keen.”

Gaddafi did not give up. In the months leading up to the military intervention, he called on African and Muslim nations to join together to create this new currency that would rival the dollar and euro. They would sell oil and other resources around the world only for gold dinars.

It is an idea that would shift the economic balance of the world.

A country’s wealth would depend on how much gold it had and not how many dollars it traded. And Libya has 144 tons of gold. The UK, for example, has twice as much, but ten times the population.

“If Gaddafi had an intent to try to re-price his oil or whatever else the country was selling on the global market and accept something else as a currency or maybe launch a gold dinar currency, any move such as that would certainly not be welcomed by the power elite today, who are responsible for controlling the world’s central banks,” says Anthony Wile, founder and chief editor of the Daily Bell.

“So yes, that would certainly be something that would cause his immediate dismissal and the need for other reasons to be brought forward from moving him from power.”

And it has happened before.

In 2000, Saddam Hussein announced Iraqi oil would be traded in euros, not dollars. Some say sanctions and an invasion followed because the Americans were desperate to prevent OPEC from transferring oil trading in all its member countries to the euro.

A gold dinar would have had serious consequences for the world financial system, but may also have empowered the people of Africa, something black activists say the US wants to avoid at all costs.

“The US have denied self-determination to Africans inside the US, so we are not surprised by anything the US would do to hinder the self-determination of Africans on the continent,” says Cynthia Ann McKinney, a former US Congresswoman.

The UK’s gold is kept in a secure vault somewhere in the depths of the Bank of England. As in most developed countries, there is not enough to go around.

But that is not the case in countries like Libya and many of the Gulf States.
A gold dinar would have given oil-rich African and Middle Eastern countries the power to turn around to their energy-hungry customers and say: “Sorry, the price has gone up, and we want gold.”

Some say the US and its NATO allies literally could not afford to let that happen.

http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

Pretty interesting, no doubt.

[J-KO]

I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for the information. It really seems investing in a currency other than the dollar will be a good long term plan. I can't say I blame those in power for wanting to stay on the top. The world sure would be a different place with Africa on the rise to that extent.

[marketgarden]

tis should be spamd all over the internet

[themessenger]

Interestingly, conflicting with the argument in the article, the US was rather hesitant to commit to Libya and the main push was coming from the UK and France. Notice the US left as quickly as possible.

That does go against the argument of the article.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by themessenger

The US was rather hesitant to commit to Libya and the main push was coming from the UK and France. Notice the US left as quickly as possible.

I believe this is because President Obama doesn't have the political capital to get the US too deeply involved in Lybia in the conventional sense.

[Star Wars Fan]

I remember that RT article, its also in video format. It's also not surprising to see the UK and France more pro intervention especially given the French have a history on shitting on Africa and still do now (see: Rwanda). Then again the people DID ask for international intervention. Though ive heard rumors stated that other people smuggled in weapons into those countries (Libya) and that the snipers in Syria shooting random people now are not government snipers. Anyone heard those rumors. I know units of the Egyptian military have sent aid to the libyan rebels and units have sided with the rebels, as welll as aid from Gulf states but what else?

[Vargus]

Gold standard is %100 USDA Grade A Fail.

[constantinople]

Originally Posted by Vargus

Gold standard is %100 USDA Grade A Fail.

I don't think Gaddaffi thinks he can change the world over to the gold standard, I think he just wants to try and stick it to the rest of the world by fucking with our oil supply in a crafty way. The thing about it is, when you are king of a shit-ass third-world country on the Dark Continent, you shouldn't try and stir the global pot too much, else you might end up getting burned.

[Bikey Mike]

Originally Posted by themessenger

Interestingly, conflicting with the argument in the article, the US was rather hesitant to commit to Libya and the main push was coming from the UK and France. Notice the US left as quickly as possible.

That does go against the argument of the article.

No it doesn't, the ruling class inside of America is/was unilaterally for the intervention, Obama just had to look like he wasn't gung-ho about plunging America into another war. It worked, I saw boatloads of gullible morons shouting "WHY ISN'T HE DOING SOMETHING?!"

Well, the good news is that now, thanks to the concerned, responsible humanitarians in government/the media and their finance oligarch backers, the people of Libya are safe and free...

[themessenger]

Originally Posted by Bikey Mike

No it doesn't, the ruling class inside of America is/was unilaterally for the intervention, Obama just had to look like he wasn't gung-ho about plunging America into another war. It worked, I saw boatloads of gullible morons shouting "WHY ISN'T HE DOING SOMETHING?!"

Well, the good news is that now, thanks to the concerned, responsible humanitarians in government/the media and their finance oligarch backers, the people of Libya are safe and free...

The conspiracy was that America went to war with Iraq over economic means which is the same as why the Libyan intervention happened.

However the USA was not quick to want to get involved with this one, the pressure came from France and Britain.

Mentioning the wishes of the protestors has nothing to do with countering that claim, as the will of the majority is far removed from the hidden hand that is alleged to rule America.

[Bikey Mike]

Originally Posted by themessenger

The conspiracy was that America went to war with Iraq over economic means which is the same as why the Libyan intervention happened.

However the USA was not quick to want to get involved with this one, the pressure came from France and Britain.

Mentioning the wishes of the protestors has nothing to do with countering that claim, as the will of the majority is far removed from the hidden hand that is alleged to rule America.

The styles of leadership are completely different between Bush/the neocons and Obama/Brzezinski/soft power advocates, and the wars already raging have a lot to do with how much hesitation was shown.

With Iraq, America was not yet bogged down with a decade of pointless, ridiculous wars, and America had an overt war monger, Obama treads much more lightly and uses humanitarianism as a guise and soft power/fomented people power coups as a method, in contrast to the more in your face, direct military confrontation that characterized the neocons.

Also, when I mentioned people supporting it, I meant American dupes, not the Libyans themselves, which means he'd done his job in appearing reluctant to intervene and gauging the reaction of Americans.

[Really Awesome Nickname]

Originally Posted by themessenger

http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

Pretty interesting, no doubt.

Be it the true reason or not, it still is not convenient for us, so its is better for us that he is taken down.

Also, gold is not an infinite resource, while dollars or euros are, as they are both more of a fictitious concept and not an actual physical object. What will happen then is, when the currency for trading oil is gold, Gadaffi and the other African tyrants will be taking the gold from other countries and keeping it to themselves. Now, only THEY would have it and they would request to be payed in gold for whatever service the people could need, but since gold isnt never-ending and would run out quickly thered be no more of it for the people to own and pay, then he would refuse such services from people and just watch them starve. Shit would simply go back to the middle ages, which is why this cant be allowed to happen.

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by Vargus

Gold standard is %100 USDA Grade A Fail.

Really? You abandoned the gold standard in 1971.

$1.00 in 1971 had the same buying power as $5.43 in 2010.
Annual inflation over this period was 4.43%.

http://www.dollartimes.com/calculators/inflation.htm

But i'm sure it's unrelated, right?

[Vargus]

Buying power doesn't mean anything unless you intend on stuffing your mattress with dollar bills. And if inflation means that such useless and childish endeavors are punitive, then I am all for it.

And it's also stupid in another sense because average prices may well inflate to a factor of 5 over 40 years, but a consequence of price increases means there is an associated pressure to inflate wages, which means that in the long run non-fixed-income household buying power remains constant.

This is basic market economics, and you should really feel bad being lectured on such basic concepts by a person who believes in communism. If you want to go into the street-level effects of inflation, as opposed to theoretical, we can do that, but real world data doesn't have high praise for liberal economic policy so I can understand any hesitation you might have.

[Shrike]

I mean notwithstanding the fact that wages have been rising far slower than inflation for years, the fact is that the dollar has been losing value against other currencies as well for ages. If the dollar is worth less, you need more of it to buy things.

People with the means have been racing to get out of dollar-denominated assets and into stuff that is actually going to hold any value by the time the next crash rolls around.

[themessenger]

“It’s actually very much the UK and France that have been in the lead – both politically and militarily, and the US has been a reluctant partner, I would say, rather than calling the shots,” Gardiner added.

http://rt.com/news/us-partner-libya-policy/

[themessenger]

Originally Posted by Bikey Mike

The styles of leadership are completely different between Bush/the neocons and Obama/Brzezinski/soft power advocates, and the wars already raging have a lot to do with how much hesitation was shown.

With Iraq, America was not yet bogged down with a decade of pointless, ridiculous wars, and America had an overt war monger, Obama treads much more lightly and uses humanitarianism as a guise and soft power/fomented people power coups as a method, in contrast to the more in your face, direct military confrontation that characterized the neocons.

Also, when I mentioned people supporting it, I meant American dupes, not the Libyans themselves, which means he'd done his job in appearing reluctant to intervene and gauging the reaction of Americans.

I was also referring to Americans when I referenced protesters.