美元危机与伊朗战争

　　本文由Alastair Chan翻译自＜The Proposed Iranian Oil Burse＞，原文是Dr.Krassimir Petrov，标题是所加

　　

　　
1）帝国经济学

　　

　　一个国家向它的国民征税，而一个帝国向其它国家征税。从希腊到罗马，从奥斯曼土耳其到大不列颠，这些帝国的历史告诉我们，每一个帝国的经济都是建立在向其它国家征税的基础之上。帝国征税的能力往往以更好、更强的经济作为支撑，同时互为因果的，是更佳和更强大的军事实力。

　　

　　这些上缴的税的一部分用来改善帝国的生活水准，另一部分用来增强必要的军事支配能力并以此使征税得以强制执行。

　　

　　在历史上，存在许多向属国征税的形式，通常是黄金和白银，它们通常被认为是钱，但也有奴隶、士兵、谷物、棉花，或其它的农业和自然资源——无论是帝国需要的经济物品或者是属国所能够提供的。历史上的征税通常是直接的，即属国直接将经济实物上缴宗主国。

　　

　　20世纪，美国成为历史上第一个能够通过以通货膨胀的方式，向全世界间接征税的国家。它并没有像前任帝国那样强制性的要求直接缴税，而是用它不景气的货币，美圆，向其他国家散发，以交换实物。这种刻意制造的后果就是美圆的贬值，同时返还的单位美圆对应着更少的实物价值——这就是从美帝国的征税中捕捉到的特别之处。

　　

　　这一切是如何发生的呢？

　　

　　20世纪初期，美国经济开始支配世界经济。因为美圆与黄金挂钩，所以它的价值既不增加，也不减少，而与黄金等值。

　　

　　美国经济的大萧条加上之前从1921年到1929年的通胀和随后膨胀的政府赤子，实际上增加了流通的货币数量，致使用黄金换回美圆成为不可能。

　　

　　这使罗斯福在1932年宣布将美圆与黄金脱钩，从这点看，美国也许此前已经很好地支配了世界经济，但是从经济学的方面来看，美国那时还不是一个经济帝国。因为美圆的固定价值并不允许美国人通过向其它国家供给美圆这一方式来榨取经济利益。

　　

　　纯粹从经济角度看，美帝国是伴随1945年的布雷顿森林体系而诞生的。此后美圆不能自由兑换黄金，但对于外国政府而言，其本币仍能与黄金挂钩。从而导致美圆成为全世界的货币储备。这一切的原因是二战中美国向盟国提供了大量给养并要求盟国以黄金支付，结果积累了全球大部分的黄金。

　　

　　如果按照布雷顿森林体系协议，美圆供给保持一定的限度并保持与黄金的可兑换性，即能完全用美圆换回黄金的话，那么一个帝国是不可能诚实地做到这一点的。真实的做法是，在1960年的大炮与黄油政策中，使美圆的供给无情地增加来支付越南战争的开销和用于约翰逊总统的“伟大社会”运动。这些新增美圆的大部分用来交换实物，最后都转移到了外国人的手中，却并不指望等价地将它们回购。

　　

　　外国人持有的美圆通过美国持续的贸易赤子而不断增加，这相当于征税——一个国家施加在它的国民身上的典型的通货膨胀税，而这一次美国将其施加在世界的其它地方。

　　

　　结果在1970年—1971年间外国人要求将手中的美圆换回黄金时，美国政府终于在1971年8月15日这天无法履行它的承诺。实际上这意味着美国政府的破产。

　　

　　本质上，美国证明了自己是一个帝国。它从世界其他地方榨取了极其大量的实物而没有打算或能力来返还这些东西。我们的世界无力回应——全世界被征税而对此无能为力。

　　

　　为了维持美帝国的利益而继续向它国征税，美国必须强迫世界继续接受大幅贬值的美圆，造成美圆的泛滥成灾。因此，它必须给世界一个经济理由来持有美圆，这个理由就是石油。

　　

　　1971年，美国政府明显变得不能再用黄金换回美圆，于是在1972—1973年间美国与沙特之间达成了幕后协议，即支持沙特阿拉伯议院的权力以此换取沙特石油仅能用美圆支付。OPEC的其余成员也紧跟其后。因为世界的石油必须从阿拉伯国家购买，所以持有美圆的理由就是用以购买石油。

　　

　　世界对石油需求的不断增长带来不断增长的石油价格，所以对美圆的需求也只升不降。即便是美圆不能再与黄金兑换，它仍能与石油挂钩。

　　

　　前面提到的幕后协议的本质，是美圆背后以石油作为支撑。只要处在这一情形下，为了购买石油，全世界就不得不积攒数量不断增加的美圆。只要美圆是唯一的支付手段，它就支配了世界，美帝国就能继续向世界的其它地方征税。

　　

　　如果出现了某种情况，使美圆失去了石油的支撑，美帝国将不复存在。

　　

　　因此，帝国的生存取决于石油仅能以美圆标价，它也取决于全世界的石油生产国缺乏足够强的政治与军事实力来要求用其它币种结算石油。如果有人打算这么做，那他将面对巨大的政治或军事压力来迫使他改变想法。

　　

　　2000年，有一个人确实要求他的石油必须用欧元结算，他就是萨达姆。起初，他的要求受到了嘲笑，后来是被忽视，但是当最后人们真正意识到的时候，政治上的压力随之而来。当其它国家，例如伊朗打算用欧元或者日圆来结算石油时，美圆所面临的危险既明显又现实。因此帝国的惩罚行动蓄势待发。

　　

　　小布什的伊拉克战争不是为了萨达姆的核能力，不是为了保护人权，不是为了传播民主，甚至也不是为了占领油田，而是为了捍卫美圆，捍卫美帝国。美国人是在杀鸡给猴看。

　　

　　许多人批评小布什为了占领伊拉克的石油而发动战争，然而这些批评并不能解释占领油田背后的真正动机——他只需开动印钞机并用新钞票来向全世界购买所需的石油，为什么不呢？他一定有些其他的原因来攻打伊拉克。

　　

　　历史告诉我们一个帝国将为以下其中一个原因而发动战争:
1、保护自己，或者
2、从中获利

　　

　　如果不这么做的话，如保罗 肯尼迪在他的权威著作《大国的兴衰》中所说的，军事的过度扩张必将耗尽帝国的资源并使其陷入崩溃。（换言之，领先的军事优势必须有一部分转化成经济优势，以达到帝国实力结构的最优化，译者注）

　　

　　从经济上看，为了发动并实施一场战争，它的收益必须超过军事和社会的成本。从伊拉克油田得到的好处很难抵得上长期的、多年的军费开支。

　　

　　实际的情况是：美国入侵伊拉克的两个月后，萨达姆的“石油换食品”计划随即被终止，伊拉克的欧元帐户换回了美圆，石油再一次用美圆标价。全世界再也不能用欧元购买伊拉克的石油。

　　

　　于是，美圆霸权再一次得以捍卫。小布什在那天迈着胜利的步伐从战斗机上走下，宣告任务完成——成功地捍卫了美圆，也因此捍卫了美帝国。

2）伊朗石油交易所

　　

　　伊朗政府已经研制出最终的“核武器”可以立即摧毁支撑美帝国的金融体系，这个武器就是在2006年3月开张的伊朗石油交易所，它将以欧元—石油作为交易机制，很自然地意味着石油以欧元标价。在经济层面，对美圆的霸权而言，它标志着一个比萨达姆更大的危险，因为它将允许任何人自愿地用欧元买卖交易石油，因此完全地避开美圆。如果是这样的话，那么很可能几乎所有人都热切地希望采用这个欧元石油交易系统：

　　

　　首先是欧洲人，他们不必再购入或持有美圆以此来保证他们的石油交易，取而代之的是他们自己的货币。石油交易采用欧元将使欧元处于储蓄货币的地位，这将有利于欧洲人而不利于美国人。

　　

　　中国人和日本人尤其渴望采用新的交易货币，因为这样会允许他们大幅度地降低巨额美圆贮备同时欧元的加入使外汇贮备变得多样化，从而保证他们在面对美圆贬值时降低风险。我们假设他们的美圆贮备中中分为三部分：第一部分的美圆他们将继续持有，第二部分可能直接向外汇市场倾倒，第三部分的美圆用于未来的交易，直到用完而不作补充，逐渐用欧元将它取代。

　　

　　俄罗斯人在接纳欧元的问题上有着内在的经济利益——他们的贸易国的大都是欧洲国家和石油输出国，以及中国、日本。接纳欧元将首先照顾到前两个集团的利益，同时逐渐推动与中国和日本的贸易。还有，俄罗斯人看起来非常厌恶继续持有贬值中的美圆，他们最近找回了对于黄金的信仰。俄罗斯的民族主义已经开始苏醒，如果投向欧洲怀抱的同时将刺痛美国，他们将眉飞色舞地看着美国人被人放血。

　　

　　阿拉伯石油输出国将强烈地期望接纳欧元，以此作为一种多元化的手段来对冲美圆不可抗拒的贬值。如同俄罗斯人一样，他们大部分的贸易是与欧洲国家进行，因此更偏向欧元的稳定性来避免货币风险。除经济方面的因素外，更不用提他们对基督教异教徒发动的穆斯林圣战了。
只有英国人将发现自己骑虎难下，他们一直与美国保持着战略性的伙伴关系，但也自然地受到来自欧洲大陆的影响。迄今为止，他们坚守着自己的理由来依附强者。

　　

　　但是，当他们眼看着一个多世纪的伙伴步入黄昏时，英国人将坚定地站在美国身后还是由他们来给予昔日盟友以致命一击呢？

　　

　　尽管如此，我们不应该忘记当今最主要的石油交易市场分别是纽约商业期货交易所（NYMEX）和伦敦国际石油交易所(IPE)，美国人均有效地控制了这两者。现在看起来英国人将把自己绑在一艘正在下沉的船上，不这么做的话，他们将损害自己伦敦石油交易市场的利益。

　　

　　在这里引人注目的，是在所有天花乱坠的看法中，关于英镑继续存在的原因:英国人不接受欧元正是因为美国人必须说服他们不要这么做，否则伦敦国际石油交易所将转用欧元，从而给美圆以及他们的战略伙伴以致命伤害。

　　

　　至少不论英国人如何决定，伊朗人的石油交易所应该加速建设，欧洲人、中国、日本人、俄罗斯人还有阿拉伯人，这些利益相关者将热切地盼望着采纳欧元，从而扼住美圆的咽喉。美国人不会允许这样的事情发生，如果必要的话，他们将采取一系列的策略手段来制止或者延滞交易的运作。

　　

　　为了破坏这一交易机制，可能的做法有：网络通信的电脑病毒，服务器攻击、渗透，或者是类似911式的针对主要设施的攻击。

　　

　　或者，军事政变——这是美国人迄今为止最有效的长期战略。

　　

　　美国人另一个出色的解决方案是与对方谈判可接受的条款与限制。当然，发动政变推翻政府显然是首选策略，它将保证根本无须政治交易的同时不损害美国的利益。然而一旦破坏或者军事政变的企图失败，那么谈判自然是次要的方案。

　　

　　拉拢联合国提出战争动议，毫无疑问，这将难以保证所有安理会其他成员国的特定利益。梦呓状态下关于伊朗发展核武器的天花乱坠的说法无疑是为了达到这一目的。

　　

　　单方面的核打击—这是一个恐怖的策略选择尽管它将与下一个策略，单边的全面核战争相关联。美国人将很可能利用以色列来进行肮脏的核打击行动。

　　

　　单边核战争，显然这是最糟糕的策略。首先，美国军事资源已经在同时的两场战争中不断被耗尽。其次，美国将被其他大国进一步地疏远。再次，主要的美圆持有国或许会决定倾泻他们大量的美圆来进行平静的复，从而制止美国进一步地利用金融手段实现其军事雄心。最后，伊朗所拥有大国盟友可能卷入战争；据说伊朗的盟友是中国，印度和俄罗斯，和被称为上海合作组织的以及有单独协议的叙利亚。

　　

　　不论是何种策略选择，从纯粹的经济观点看，伊朗石油交易的运作应该被推动，主要的几个经济大国将向它张开怀抱，同时将促成美圆的坠落。

　　

　　3) 美圆的坠落

　　

　　崩溃中的美圆将戏剧性地加速美国的通货膨胀同时迫使美国长期利益上调。

　　

　　从这点看，美联储将进退两难，在通缩和恶性通货膨胀之间徘徊——形势将紧紧地逼迫美联储采用结束通缩的“传统药方”，如此利率上升，经济衰退，房地产的崩溃，债券、股票和金融衍生市场的内出血带来的全面金融崩溃。

　　

　　美国的货币、信用与商业循环周期理论告诉我们从来没有介于两难处境之间的选择。或早或晚，货币制度必然在两者之间摇摆，这迫使美联储作出抉择。

　　

　　毫无疑问，美国经济的总指挥本伯南克，一位研究大萧条的知名经济学家，理所当然地会选择通货膨胀。显然伯南克从罗斯巴特的《美国大萧条》中掌握了大萧条的经验教训和如何消除通缩的方法。当中他学会了针对所有单一的金融问题的万能药——使之通货膨胀。他甚至教导日本人使用他独创性的非传统方法来与通货紧缩作战。

　　

　　只要能够避免通缩，他要么会求助于开动印钞机，要么会召唤美国在全球的军事力量，要么会将所有进入他视野的东西铸成货币。他的最终的成就便是制造出超级通货膨胀，毁灭美国的货币，结局是美圆的废墟中诞生了下一个世界储蓄货币——黄金。

　　

　　然而，超级通胀不会在一瞬间发生，通常在最终的崩溃前挣扎上好几年。德国魏玛共和国的灾难是从1920左右开始，在1923年演变成了货币制度的毁灭。同样的命运在一些前共产国家上演：俄罗斯和保加利亚在最后摧毁他们的货币之前，花上了7、8年的时间不断地贬值他们的货币。

　　

　　但是因为美圆作为世界性的储蓄货币，吹大美圆泡沫将完全不同于所有以前的恶性通货膨胀。首先，这里有数十万亿以美圆为名义的债务和数百万亿的美圆衍生资产。假定现在货币与债务和衍生资产之间的比率很小，那么即将到来的恶性通胀这一比率将必然地达到一个大规模的水平。另一方面来讲，各国的央行将竭尽全力地支持美圆，因此世界金融体系并不会马上崩溃，他们的储备也不会瞬间蒸发。在这一过程中，许多国家的央行将瞻前顾后，通过贬值本国的货币来支持美圆。结果，上述两种因素将强力推动美圆走向反向，它不可避免的坠落也许会是突然性的，但也有可能是迟缓的和痛苦的。

　　

　　不管通胀的速度有多快，在危机面前普通的美国人可以选择的余地不多，老百姓本能的反应是寻求更为稳定的邻国法币，比如加元和墨西哥比索，但是人们将发现这一可兑换性在政府强加的资本管制面前是多么的有限和难缠。接下来，大众会本能地用贬值货币购买土地和房产这些硬通货，但是卖主们会拒绝接受一文不值的美圆，从而美圆迅速地在市场上消失。人们在使用完有意义的选项后，余下的手段不多了，所以只有把手中的美圆换成黄金白银这些硬通货，造成它们的价格一路上涨。另一方面，除了黄金外，各国央行别无选择。在危机期间，各国都担心他们法币的内在风险。此外，并没有一个最强势的货币能够容纳他们转换本币的需求。还有，对各国央行而言，持有土地和房产也不现实。结果是，大家都走投无路，只能将本币投入黄金的怀抱。

　　

　　从历史上看，大危机期间，黄金是唯一的避风港，促使其价格达到令人咋舌的地步。当然，这一次也不例外。

　　THE PROPOSED IRANIAN OIL BOURSE
by Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.
Austrian Macro Economist/Investment Strategist
Commissioned by: J. Douglas Bowey and Associates
January 20, 2006

　　

　　Reprinted with permission. Originally published on

　　

　　Abstract
The American Empire depends on the U.S. dollar. The proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
will accelerate the fall of the U.S. dollar and hence the fall of the American Empire.

　　

　　
I. Economics of Empires
A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations or of their subjects. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military that peacefully or militarily enforced the tax. One part of those taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire and the other part went to reinforce the military dominance necessary to enforce those taxes.

　　

　　Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms, usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, the taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the money (gold/silver) or the economic goods directly to the empire.

　　

　　For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly—not by enforcing the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but by distributing its own currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of devaluing over time those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods. The difference between the value of the dollar during the initial purchase and the devalued dollar during the repayment was the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

　　

　　Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. At the time the U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the dollar neither increased, nor decreased its value, but was always convertible into the same amount of gold. The Great Depression with its the preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 substantially increased the amount of paper money in circulation without the correspondent increase in gold. This rendered the effective backing of the U.S. dollar by gold impossible. As a consequence, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt decoupled the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not technically an empire. The fixed value of the dollar for gold did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with gold-backed dollars.

　　

　　Economically, the American Empire was born with the establishment of the Bretton Woods system in 1945. The dollar was made only partially convertible to gold—convertibility to gold was available to foreign governments only, but not to private institutions. At this time the US dollar was established as the international reserve currency. This was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with food and military provisions, accepting gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world’s gold.

　　

　　An economic Empire would not have been possible if the dollar remained fully backed by gold, i.e., if the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to exchange back dollars for gold at the pre-agreed exchange ratio. However, the dollar supply was actually increased far beyond its gold backing and handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods. There was no prospect of buying back those dollars at the same value—the amount of gold was not sufficient to redeem those dollars, while the quantity of dollars continually increased, so that those dollars constantly depreciated. The constant depreciation of the increasing dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax—an inflation tax.

　　

　　When in 1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payments on August 15. The popular spin of this default was that “the link between the dollar and gold was severed”. The proper interpretation is that the U.S. Government went bankrupt, just like any commercial bank is declared bankrupt.

　　

　　However, by doing so, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods. The world was effectively taxed and it could not do anything about it: it could not force the U.S. in bankruptcy proceedings and take possession of its gold and other assets for payment, nor could it take forcefully what it was owed by declaring war and winning it. Essentially, the U.S. imposed on the world an inflation tax and collected an imperial seigniorage!

　　

　　From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world via inflation, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those dollars, while those dollars depreciated. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold dollars, and that reason was oil.

　　

　　In 1971, as it became clear that the U.S. Government would not be able to buy back its dollars for gold, it prepared an alternative arrangement to hold the world hostage to its fiat dollar: during 1972-1973 it struck an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia—to support the rule of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only dollars as a payment for Saudi oil. By imposing the dollar on the OPEC’s leader, the dollar was effectively imposed on all OPEC members. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at an ever increasing oil prices, the world’s demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars were no longer exchangeable for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

　　

　　The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because those dollars were needed to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist, because it would no longer be able to tax the world by making them accumulate ever more dollars. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also implied that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that none was strong enough, economically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something other than dollars. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political or by military means, to change his mind.

　　

　　The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in late 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant his demand and even converted his $10 billion reserve fund at the U.N. into Euro, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. Other countries, like Iran, also wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen. The danger to the dollar was clear and present, so a punitive action was in order. Bush’s war in Iraq was not about existing weapons of mass destruction, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields. It was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire; it was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.

　　

　　Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can’t explain why Bush would need to seize those fields—he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq.

　　

　　History teaches that an empire goes to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Bush went into Iraq to defend the American Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was ended, the country’s accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil began to be sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended from a fighter jet and declared himself the victor: the mission was indeed accomplished—Bush successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

　　

　　
II. Iranian Oil Bourse
The Iranian government has recently proposed to open in March 2006 an Iranian Oil Bourse that will be based on an euro-based oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that much of the world will eagerly adopt this euro-denominated oil system:

　　

　　The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead use with their own currency.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange. It will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify them with Euros. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; another portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their hoards they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing their dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
The Russians have economic interest in adopting the Euro – the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold: their central bank is diversifying out of dollars and accumulating gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism; if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversification against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York’s NYMEX and the London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

　　

　　At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum and accelerate, the interests that matter—those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs—will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the exchange’s operations:

　　

　　Sabotaging the Exchange—this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
Coup d’état—this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations—this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d’etat fail, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
Joint U.N. War Resolution—this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other members of the Security Council. Recent rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
Unilateral Nuclear Strike—this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The American will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
Unilateral Total War—this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will alienate other powerful nations. Third, major reserve countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop.
Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar.

　　

　　
III. The Demise of the Dollar
The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure short-term and long-term interest rates much higher. At this point, the Fed will find itself between two equally disastrous options—deflation or hyperinflation. The first option, deflation, known in the international finance literature as the “classical medicine”, requires stopping the monetary expansion and raising interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate prices, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, most likely precipitating a total financial collapse. The alternative option is to take the easy way out by inflating, whereby the Fed pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

　　

　　The Austrian theory of money, credit, and the business cycle teaches us that ultimately there is no in-between the mythological Scylla and Charybdis scenario—between deflation and hyperinflation. Sooner or later, as pressure on the dollar rises and inflation rears its ugly head, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. There is no doubt that the newly-appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, an renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept helicopter pilot, will choose the latter course of action—hyperinflation. Bernanke has learnt well the lessons of the Great Depression and the destructiveness of deflations. He has also learnt well from the Maestro the panacea of every financial problem—to inflate his way out, come hell or high water. He has even devised ingenious unconventional ways around the deflationary liquidity trap and teaches the Japanese how to apply them. To avoid deflation, he has publicly stated that he will accelerate the printing presses and “drop money from helicopters”. If necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. He will ultimately destroy the American currency in Hyperinflation.

　　

　　Hyperinflations, however, do not happen in an instant. It usually takes years before the final collapse. The Weimar hyperinflation began around 1920 and ended in 1923 with the total destruction of the currency. Similar was the fate of some post-communist countries: it took Russia and Bulgaria 7-8 years to hyperinflate their currencies before they ultimately destroyed them.

　　

　　However, because the dollar is the reserve currency of the world, hyperinflating the dollar will be fundamentally different in two ways from all hyperinflations in history. On the one hand, there are tens of trillions of dollar-denominated debt and hundreds of trillions of dollar-denominated derivatives. Given that the ratio of currency to debts and derivatives is tiny, the coming hyperinflation must be necessarily of epic proportions. On the other hand, central banks around the world will fight tooth and nail to support the dollar, so that world financial system does not collapse and that their reserves do not evaporate into the nothingness. Many central banks will choose willy-nilly to support the dollar by inflating their own currencies. Thus, these two powerful forces will drive the dollar in opposite directions. Its inevitable demise may be swift and sudden, or it may be protracted and painful.

　　

　　Whatever the speed of hyperinflation, ordinary Americans will have few available options to protect themselves—during crises, peoples’ first instinct is to resort to more “stable” fiat currencies of neighboring countries, like the Canadian Dollar and the Mexican Peso, but their availability will prove limited and complicated as people will most likely have to cope with governmentally-imposed capital controls. Next, people instinctively convert hyperinflating currencies to hard assets like land and real estate, but sellers refuse to accept the hyperinflating currency and quickly disappear from the market. Having run out of meaningful options to protect themselves, ordinary people will have little choice, but to convert their dollars to hard currencies like gold and silver, thus driving their prices much higher. On the other hand, central banks have no other options but gold. First, in times of crises, central banks fear the risk inherent in all fiat currencies. Moreover, not even the largest fiat currencies will accommodate their need to convert their reserves. Also, it is not practical for central banks to hold real estate and land. Thus, central banks will have no alternative, but to scramble to convert their reserves to the only hard currency known to man—gold. Historically, in times of crises, gold has always been the ultimate safe haven. When people and central banks flee en masse to gold, its value has always skyrocketed. This time, it will be no different.

　　

　　© 2006 Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

相关文章 乔姆斯基：关于伊朗威胁论美国CNN名嘴拉里•金为何“语塞”？--霸权主义逻辑终将彻底失语美国中东战略大转身--石油即将暴涨警：美伊年内将战，全世界将迎来大通胀清真寺与霍梅尼革命及其影响:伊朗核问题新解西班牙《起义》：中国令人愕然地支持对伊朗的制裁不能只盯着经济贸易--从中国同意制裁伊朗说起安理会对伊1929号决议案将使伊朗“坐以待毙”美国推动联合国制裁伊朗的背后玄机？制裁伊朗是西亚外交战略的大臭棋卡斯特罗看天安舰问题和伊朗核问题