J. D. Swampfox

Prelude to April's G-20 Meeting: Showdown at the London Corral

The writer says "...a new American President is expected to be more willing to construct a more tightly regulated banking environment." Heck, the US government owns the US banks de facto and soon, de juris (up to 80%, anyway). Controlling the banks means lending to whomever, however-much the government tells them to lend. So it will be "tightly regulated" alright...

The idea that Bretton Woods "paved the way for a half century of prosperity for the world economy is not sound. In fact, Bretton Woods never was given much of a chance. It lasted about 17 years. Quoting from Wikipedia (I added the Caps), it called for "each country to adopt a monetary policy that maintained the exchange rate of its currency within a fixed value—plus or minus one percent—IN TERMS OF GOLD". The United States unilaterally terminated convertibility of dollars to gold, which caused "considerable financial stress in the world economy and created the unique situation whereby the United States dollar became the "reserve currency" for the states which had signed the agreement."

The US government was highly disposed toward inflation in 1971 and removed the last obstacle gold. If it had not abrogated Bretton Woods, we probably would not be in the mess we are in now. The old order that the writer says has broken down is based on monetary and debt inflation and the US was and is the leader of that order. If there is a new order agreed upon, will it involve a return to the original intent of Bretton Woods? If so, the new American President will not lead it, since he will will never give up that much control. It would limit his ability to facilitate monetary and debt inflation to pay for social programs.

(see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)