by After the Pentagon, operating through NATO, succeeded in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. official and their allies seized 0 billion in Russian assets. The seizers are now talking about giving the loot to Ukrainian officials, who would then use it to buy armaments and ammunition from U.S. “defense” contractors. Meanwhile, the news media is reporting that central banks are purchasing gold in record amounts. Is that a coincidence or correlation? If you were in charge of a foreign regime that was not a lackey of the U.S. government, would you keep your reserves in places where the U.S. government could seize it whenever it wanted? If you wished to retain your nation’s independence, it seems to me that you would want to keep your reserves at
Topics:
Jacob G. Hornberger considers the following as important: 6b.) The Future of Freedom Foundation, Featured, Hornberger's Blog, newsletter
This could be interesting, too:
Vibhu Vikramaditya writes Navigating the Slippery Slope: How Hoover’s Interventions Paved the Way for the Great Depression
Ryan McMaken writes Frédéric Bastiat Was a Radical Opponent of War and Militarism
Douglas French writes Millennials: In Costco We Trust
Joseph T. Salerno writes What Fed “Independence” Really Means
After the Pentagon, operating through NATO, succeeded in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, U.S. official and their allies seized $300 billion in Russian assets. The seizers are now talking about giving the loot to Ukrainian officials, who would then use it to buy armaments and ammunition from U.S. “defense” contractors.
Meanwhile, the news media is reporting that central banks are purchasing gold in record amounts. Is that a coincidence or correlation?
If you were in charge of a foreign regime that was not a lackey of the U.S. government, would you keep your reserves in places where the U.S. government could seize it whenever it wanted? If you wished to retain your nation’s independence, it seems to me that you would want to keep your reserves at home or in nations that could be trusted to return it to you on demand rather than accede to seizure dictates from the U.S. government.
Licensed under Creative Commons Zero.
In fact, I can’t figure out why Russian officials would leave their money in places where U.S. officials and their lackeys could seize it. I’ll bet the Chinese regime is not making that mistake.
My hunch is that one reason that many foreign governments who don’t toe the line set by U.S. officials are investing in gold — and storing it in places that are beyond the reach of U.S. officials — is to protect themselves from what the U.S. government has done to Russia.
Another reason they might be investing in gold is because they don’t trust the Federal Reserve to rein in inflation, especially given that this is an election year. Incumbent public officials don’t like recessions during election years because voters tend to get upset. Thus, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Fed is now signaling that it will begin reducing interest rates within the next few months.
Thus, why should foreign regimes invest in U.S. debt instruments if the Fed is simply going to print the money to pay off the U.S. government’s rapidly increasing debt load? Better to invest in gold, which historically has served as a store of value against government debasement of money, especially paper money.
Among the biggest risks arising from the U.S. government’s seizure schemes and inflation schemes is that foreign regimes begin dumping U.S. debt instruments and that private people overseas begin using the trillions of dollars that have been exported overseas to purchase gold. The Fed would have an interesting problem to confront if those trillions of dollars overseas were to begin returning to the United States.
Of course, it’s just one more example of how the U.S. government’s interventionist foreign policy serves as a boomerang that returns to cause monetary and financial chaos, havoc, and harm to the American people.
Tags: Featured,Hornberger's Blog,newsletter