Symptom vs. Cause
- Why the 2nd US-Iraq war is not directly a war over currencies
(but may well be over US hegemony)
by Arno Mong Daastoel, (15 May 1997 to 7 April 2003).
The following is an edited version of a discussion within gang8 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gang8 ) over the interests involved concerning the position of the dollar vs. the euro as prime international currency, in relation to 2nd US-Iraq war.
Some argue that the basis of US world hegemony is that oil and other commodities are denominated in US dollars.
Iraq: Baghdad Moves To Euro , by Charles Recknagel, Radio Free Europe January 11, 2000
Killing the Euro - Afghanistan Slash-and-Burn hides attack on EUROPE , by Wendell Solomons, Sri Lanka, 18 Oct. 2001 - On the true commercial purpose of the war in Afghanistan
US dollar hegemony has got to go by Henry C K Liu , Asia Times, April 11, 2002
The European Challenge to America, by William R. Hawkins, January 17, 2003
Bush's Deep Reasons For War on Iraq: Oil, Petrodollars, and the OPEC Euro Question, by Peter Dale Scott, updated 2/15/03 - author of The War Conspiracy, 1970
The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War , by William Clarke, 9:54am Sun February 2, 2003, wrc92@aol.com - Mirror : Ratical , MediaMonitor
Oil-for-Food Plan Strikes at French, Russian Interests, Stratfor, March 22, 2003
AILING DOLLAR STRIKES AT EURO IN IRAQ WAR, By Geoffrey Heard, Australia, 23rd March, 2003
THE PETRO-DOLLAR AND THE EURO MONEY IS THE ROOT OF WAR, by SARTRE April 4, 2003 issue of Ether Zone - Mirror : ZDnet
Defending the dollar by DUNCAN DU BOIS The Natal Witness , April 4th 2003 - Mirror : Antville
Discussion
E.g. Henry Liu writes (in a gang8 message 4 April 2003) that "basic commodities" must be "denominated in that currency in order the enjoy as perpetual trade deficit." Nevertheless, he has not given any proof of this, and I would rather see this as a symptom rather than a cause.
Therefore, I would rather agree with Geoffrey (25 March 2003) as will be seen below and try to carry the logic further. The issue at question is the ability to create debt, and there are many way of doing this, especially with an advanced financial system like in the US.
In 1998, an editorial in Business Week (USA) calculated the sum of dollar abroad to 5 trillion dollars.
As Michael Hudson pointed out (gang8 message below), this includes so-called Eurodollars (and “Asiadollars”) created abroad, i.e. not US notes. (Prof. Michael Hudson, director ISLET - Institute for the Studies of Long-term Economic Trends, USA, former Balance of Payments analyst with Chase Manhattan Bank, author of Super Imperialism, 1968, 2003, The Myth of Aid, 1971, Global Fracture, 1977 etc.)
Encyclopedia Britannica states: “Eurodollar. A United States dollar that has been deposited outside the United States, especially in Europe. … By accepting a Eurodollar deposit, a bank actually receives a balance with a United States bank.”
Boudewijn Wegerif brought to attention (31 March 2003), according to the US Federal Reserve only $370 billion out of the total 620 bill. US dollars, circulate abroad (around 100 billion in Russia alone): http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/docs/counterfeit.pdf (Boudewijn Wegerif is the initiator of the project www.whatmatters.org )
James Cumes pointed out (7 April 2003) that that the slide of dollar has going on for a long time, was temporarily stopped by the Clinton boom and the fast slide happened to coinside with the (consolidation) of the Euro (- and might we add, with the burst of the bubble and the US-Asian wars). James Cumes pointed out that what still counts in the real world is the underlying US balance of trade and -payments. The effects of the deplorable economic policies of the past decades will therefore most likely see some desperate actions in the near future (such as the US steel tariff). (Dr. James Cumes is the author of several books and was the Australian representative to the EU, OECD, IEA, UNCTAD etc. He is also the initiator of the project www.VictoryOverWant.org )
Gunnar Tomasson pointed out (7 April 2003), oil accounts for only 10,3 % of world trade, and diminishing. This is part of the background why the assertion that the Iraq war should be about petro-euros strikes him “as prima facie implausible”. (Gunnar Tomasson is a financial consultant and spent 25 years in the IMF, of which some 10 years on location in the Middle East department and 10 years in the South-East Asian department)
There is e.g. no reason why drugs should have the same role here as oil, or arms etc. The point is that although the US does enjoy a free lunch through its deficits, this debt is less connected to dollars than to sale of financial instruments in general, as will be argued below.
Geoffrey Gardiner pointed out (25 March 2003) that it does not matter so much in which currency the oil (goods in general) is sold, as it can be exchanged to any other currency. (Geoffrey Gardiner, UK, is the retired director of Barclays Bank's international division, and the author of Towards True Monetarism, 1993)
Therefore, if I may attempt to carry Geoffrey's logic further, what matters is in what financial instruments the revenue is "stored".
The revenue from the sale of oil (or any other goods) are transformed into Treasury notes, US bonds, -stocks and -real estate, and the revenue may also be placed in financial instruments in other countries.
The issue at question is the ability to create debt, and there are many way of doing this, especially with an advanced financial system like in the US:
1. In today's world 370 billion dollars is much but not enough to uphold world hegemony, and live on this free lunch by exporting green paper to pay for the import of oil, Sony TVs and what not. In comparison the TOTAL 3. world debt is 3 trillion US dollars.....
This is surely a considerable free lunch for the US, but still far too little to give the US world hegemony and e.g. pay her military adventures and extravagant consumption spree in general. Therefore, most of the free lunch regarding currency (not the other US debt) consists of the around 5 trillion “Eurodollars” (non-notes, dollar accounts abroad), but this sum is reduced to the degree that these accounts are US owned. I do not know the degree of this.
2. Since revenue is transformed into financial instruments, the nation that has developed the most "advanced" financial system, i.e. incorporating the most extensive amount of financial instruments, will also be the country that will be able to suck up more of the available world credit - and possibly use it for its own advantage. However, this debt reduces to the degree that US agents such as the multinationals, own foreign assets.
3. Since privatisation will add to this sum of available instruments, the US is in a relatively better position than China, in this regard. The US is in a better position to get in debt so to speak.
4. The amount of debt due to such sale of US assets is not directly due to the dominance of the dollar, but rather due to the dominance of the US economy as such.
5. Privatisation may therefore be used as a strategy for development by getting one's nation into debt, and this does not exclude controlling and channelling the private credit into A) armament or into B) productive purposes .
6. At some time the debt may have to be paid back, but according to 4 above this will be postponed according to the degree strategy 5 B is used. However, the US has rather used 5 A, which is obvious by the deterioration of its infrastructure (in a wide sense), and the US' ability to postpone the "payback time" is limited. There is also few signs of political will to turn to a productive 5 B strategy in these last moments of truth.
7. This debt may be paid indirectly through A) inflation; B) a sliding value of the currency, or C) through bursting bubbles in the stock and real estate markets.
8. If the debt is to be paid inn a "normal" way through the export of goods and services, this will be made much easier through 6 B, above, or if as in 5 B above by having invested wisely.
9. As Michael points out, the deflationary policy of the EU (limited STRUCTURAL deficits through the Maastricht Agreement 1992, for instance to pension or armament) rules out that the Euro can take over the role of the US dollar in the forseeable future.
10. As Henry points out, the Chinese currency will neither have this option of becoming an international currency as long as it is pegged to the dollar (8.2) and not being freely convertible.
11. If one does not want to utilise this option for using debt as a strategy to wealth, then the option seems to be some degree of balanced trade and balanced payments, autarchy, and protectionism :
- in short some kind of balanced and regulated development for the benefit of stable long term common well-being ....
gang8- Messages discussing the subject:
----- Original Message -----
From: Hudsonmi@aol.com
To: gang8@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Background: The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War
Dear Gang,
A number of us have long argued that the issue of an alternative to the dollar will not become pressing and politically viable until Europe or Asia develops an alternative VEHICLE in which non-dollar denominated assets of central banks can be kept.
The Euro's Washington-Consensus managers have blockied such an alternative by opposing European budget deficits and by taking a violently, passionately, narrow-mindedly pro-American position blocking public Treasury creation of credit.
Until the concept of money and credit is moved from the 12th at least into the 13th century, I don't see much threat to the dollar. Europe is 8 centuries behind in this game. How long is its catch-up period going to be?
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: G W Gardiner
To: gang8@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:41 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Background: The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War
Michael,
Strange how differently I look at things. I regard the use by a European country of the dollar as its reserve currency as an act of economic warfare against the US, the best way of destroying the REAL US economy in the long term.
Building up a debt to foreigners is just a bad as building up a debt to to anyone else.
Are Americans really as daft as you portray them? If your answer is, "Yes" I promise to believe you.
Geoff
----- Original Message -----
From: Hudsonmi@aol.com
To: gang8@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Background: The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War
Dear Geoffrey,
Maybe not exactly daft. The US view is that it never intends to pay its debts to foreign central banks. My Global Fracture deals with some proposals made at the time. The US has no intention whatsoever of letting foreign countries really DO anything with their dollars. So as far as they're concerned, they're getting a free ride.
Is this daft? Or merely super-cynical, with a sense of humor mixed in, perhaps?
----- Original Message -----
From: "G W Gardiner" <geoffrey.gardiner@btopenworld.com>
To: <gang8@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Background: The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War
Henry,
It raises the value of the dollar well above PPP, and leaves all the unsheltered industries of the US vulnerable to external competition.
The thinking is that of Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill," which I am sure you know. For a modern version see chapter seven of "America's Soluble Problems", 1999, by John Mills, available in US from St. Martins Press.
Geoffrey
----- Original Message -----
From: G W Gardiner
To: gang8@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Background: The Real but Unspoken Reasons for the Upcoming Iraq War
Michael
It does not matter. The depositing countries can spend their dollar balances with each other. The US has no objection to them doing that. It would be a disaster for them if the US made repayment, because to do that it would have to undercut their industries. So now I reference Keynes' other book, "The Economic Consequences of the Peace."
A non-repayable currency which is nevertheless accepted by others in payment for goods is identical in nature to gold. God is not going to repay the value of gold. We all know it is useless, but we treat it as having a value.
The value of dollars and the value of gold are both concepts of the human mind. They have no reality in nature.
Economics is a branch of psychology, which makes Stephen our best qualified economist as he holds a degree in that subject.
The US is not evil because it does not expect to pay its debts, any more than Britain was when sterling was the reserve currency of the world. It is merely living in a fool's paradise, as we were. We devious, hypocrytical Brits did not welsh openly on our vast debts to the rest of the world. Our trade unionists ensured that we had inflation to wipe out the debt, and the adoption of the monetarist policy of high interest rates made sure the unions did not relax their efforts.
It looks to me that the Americans have not really wakened up yet to the fact that we Brits conned them out of billions of dollars without a murmur of protest. You think the US is being brilliantly clever. I think the children have still to learn the facts of life properly from mummy.
Jacque Chirac's behaviour began to make sense this morning when France Inter reported discussions among the French as to the contracts they will get for rebuilding Baghdad's public services, and improving the infrastructure of Iraq. Does that make Britain stupid to be helping the US? No, the French company which masterminds major construction contracts was recently bought by AMEC, a British company.
Geoffrey
----- Original Message -----
From: Arno Mong Daastoel
Cc: Charleston Voice ; gang8@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: [gang8] Re: FINDINGS REGARDING US CURRENCY ABROAD
Boudewijn,
$370 billion is not that much.
An editorial in Business Week 1998 calculated this to 5 trillion dollars.
I am still looking for that article....
The large "money" would have been probably transformed into Treasury notes, US bonds, -stocks and -real estate.
The matter rather seems to be:
1. The nation that has developed the most "advanced" financial system, i.e. incorporating the largest sum of financial instruments, will also be the country that will be able to suck up more of the available world credit and possibly use it for its own advantage.
2. Since privatisation will add to this sum of available instruments, the US is in a relatively better position than China.
3. If one does not want to utilise such a privatisation strategy for a nation, e.g. by controlling and channeling the private credit , autharchy seems to be the option....
Arno
I am including an exchange over this dollar issue from 2001 :
----- Original Message -----
From: "Arno Mong Daastoel" <am@daastol.com>
To: <gang8@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2001 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Re: Fred Bergsten on US seigniorage
Relax Randy, Bergsten is not my guru.
Nevertheless, he might be right sometimes, and the statement in the House is
interesting because it shows that the House is informed about the matter.
Another mainstreamer, Mundell, similarly, writes the following:
"Global dollarization would involve a transfer of seigniorage to the United
States, greater than the already
substantial seigniorage gained from the use of the dollar as an
international reserve asset and money."
In section 9. Towards a World Currency
he writes, quite desciptive of the post-1971 situation:
"dollarizing the world economy. That would be the quickest and most
effective way to produce a world currency. The political limitations of that
solution, however, would make it difficult if not impossible to negotiate.
It would greatly increase the power of the United States and leave the world
at the mercy of potentially aggressive unilateralism. The temptation to
exploit its monopolistic position and raise the inflation rate to maximize
off-shore seigniorage would be too tempting."
In: "Currency Areas, Exchange Rate Systems and International Monetary
Reform", April 17, 2000 :
http://www.cema.edu.ar/cea/pdf/mundellatcema.pdf.
According to the Norwegian Industrial Daily (Dagens Næringsliv, in August,
1999) the US earns $ 20 billions yearly on this export of green paper.
Business Week in 1998 calculated the accumulated seigniorage of the US
abroad to be NOT $ 300 bill. like Bergsten claims, but rather $ 5 trillions.
(Russia alone has some $ 100 billiions, that they are noe re-exporting). (In
addition the US is some $ 5.5 trillions to abroad countries, measured in net
assets etc balances).
In comparison the TOTAL 3.World debt is 3 trillions......
The dangerous thing here is not how much the US owes but that it hardly is
likely to be able to pay back, sinice the US productive ability has
deteriorated tremendously the past decades. One backbone of any country,
physical infrastructure, is one core issue here.
Arno
----- Original Message -----
From: Hudsonmi@aol.com
To: gang8@yahoogroups.com ; wegerif@connectit.co.za
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Re: FINDINGS REGARDING US CURRENCY ABROAD
The Federal Reserve Board and the comptroller of the Currency have produced reports estimating the volume of U.S. currency held abroad.
More money notes are held abroad than in the US. Russia is the largest single holder.
When the currency was being redesigned, there were discussions as to whether to declare all currency not exchanged obsaolete. This was overruled because the government wanted to continue to get the free seignorage ride that the dollar notes enjoy.
The $5 trillion refers to Eurodollar and Asiadollar holdings, not notes.
Michael Hudson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@mindspring.com>
To: <gang8@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] China to take over USA's world role as "demander of last resort"...
Not if the RMB continues to be pegged to the dollar at 8.2 to 1. and not
freely ocnvertable. If the RMB free floats, and is freely convertable,
then there is a chance of yuan hegemony replacing dollar hegemony, but
then China will need to increase its defense budget 100 folds and move
toward an offensive posture to capture some oil states in Asia. Yuan
hegemony is no better than dollar hegemony.
As in the 19th century, the Chinese economy had not need for foreign
trade, neither will be future Chinese economy. The British used opium to
force China to trade. At this moment, China still needs to trade for
technology transfer, but within 2 or 3 dacades, the need for Western
technology will disappear as one in five sicentists and engineers will
be Chinese.
Hopefully, an Asian version of the euro will be in force way before then
and development will replace trade as the driving force.
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@mindspring.com>
To: <gang8@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] China to take over USA's world role as "demander of last resort"...
Because currency hegemony is based on having basic commodities, such as
oil, denominated in that currency in order the enjoy as perpetual trade
deficit. An economy that depends on a trade surplus cannot be a
"demander of last resort". Control of oil is not base consumption
needs, but monetary needs.
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: James Cumes
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Re: FINDINGS REGARDING US CURRENCY ABROAD
"...the US productive ability has
deteriorated tremendously the past decades.One backbone of any country,
physical infrastructure, is one core issue here."
Arno,
This is one feature to which most people, however bright and knowledgeable in other affairs, never give any or, at best, enough attention.
The United States is a fundamentally different economy - and society - from what it was 30 years ago.
Now - with the Iraq war and so on - American policies are adding to the problems - economic, social, political, strategic - that it faces not only in the period immediately ahead but way into the future.
Thirty years ago, it was by no means impossible to believe that the United States would be the major source of strength giving us a reasonable degree of world security and prosperity. The United States might cooperate and work effectively in practical ways with the other large powers and adopt such enlightened policies that the fragmented world of the post-colonial period - and later the post-Soviet period - might be kept in some sort of order.
The prospect of that has all disappeared and the war in Iraq and its consequences could prove to be a dramatic turning-point. No matter how it turns out on the battlefield, we have to wonder whether the American people's own reaction will be to revert to isolationism - and, while the US goes hang itself - lets the rest of the world go hang too.
A sobering reflection.
James Cumes
----- Original Message -----
From: James Cumes
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros (an Australian article)
Arno,
Heard is right that the US has a hidden agenda for waging war in Iraq.
Blair must know it.
Whether Howard does, I just don't know. An Australian Prime Minister - and
an Australian Foreign Minister as we've seen quite recently - get so
ecstatic about being allowed a half-hour's chat with the President - or even
the Vice-President or even the Secretary of State - of the most powerful
country on earth, that they lose all capacity for analysis or to make just
everyday sensible judgements.
They leave the presence just dazzled with the joy of being able to say what
one or other of the great men has told them - no matter how nonsensical and
unbelievable it may be.
Heard is right too that the American economic position is unsustainable and
that a substantial and perhaps catastrophic collapse of the US dollar will
be extremely hard to avoid.
Criticism of Heard's analysis would seem to lie in the detail and in the
emphasis he puts on payment for oil in US dollars and not in Euros or other
currencies.
Of course, the US would prefer to have its dollar remain the dominant and
the reserve currency. That is a key part of the struggle it must make to put
off the almost inevitable day of brutal truth. But the slide has now been
going on over decades and a temporary recovery was managed only with the
great and deceptive Clinton boom of the later nineties. That happened to
coincide with the launch of the Euro but the Euro was almost certain to
strengthen and resume its upward trend against the US dollar.
Domination of the ME by the United States, through domination and occupation
of Iraq, will of course please US oil interests and help satisfy the
ambitions of some US right-wingers and imperialists; but how far it will
improve the US trade, economic and payments position is something that needs
much closer analysis than Heard has attempted - or, I suspect, is capable of
giving us.
We must also bear in mind that the hidden agenda to take over Iraq dates
back to before the threat to supplant the dollar by the Euro for oil
payments became an issue - at least one obvious to people like Heard.
We must also probe - as we in the Gang have already in the recent past -
just how far the switch from oil payments in dollars to Euros is in a
freely-convertible currency world and in which, as I understand it, the US
is the biggest oil importer.
Much the more important issue is the strength of the underlying US trade and
payments position.
Down the road, and irrespective of talk about oil and dollar payments, we
must look to the desperate measures that the US might indeed have to take to
preserve its position.
It is not inconceivable that this Administration might be compelled to take
defensive measures which involve abandonment or modification of its policy
of freely convertible dollars, on a non-discriminatory basis, and might even
be forced to resort to the reintroduction of Hawley-Smoot type of tariffs.
That is no more than speculation of course at the moment; but desperate
situations bring forth desperate remedies and the Bush Administration has
shown little talent for skilful economic and financial management so far.
The wizard of earlier years, Greenspan, would now seem also to have shot
whatever bolt he had.
In brief, we can only agree with Heard that US policies are deplorable in a
variety of ways and that disaster looms, not only for the Americans but also
for those around the world who look like being dragged down with them. In
that context, it is perhaps not so crucial to identify what is or has been
the detail in the gathering shemozzle.
We must keep in mind the prospect that I have identified before that,
through unsustainable policies over a long period and intolerable defence
burdens, the US may shortly be a superpower that is "facing shipwreck." We
have had a powerful tendency to think that, although it was almost a natural
fate for the communist Soviet Union, it could never happen to the
free-enterprise, liberal democratic United States.
Were we wrong?
James Cumes
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Tomasson
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros (an Australian article)
James:
Re. the following:
We must keep in mind the prospect that I have identified before that, through unsustainable policies over a long period and intolerable defence burdens, the US may shortly be a superpower that is "facing shipwreck." We have had a powerful tendency to think that, although it was almost a natural
fate for the communist Soviet Union, it could never happen to the free-enterprise, liberal democratic United States.
Were we wrong?
Comment:
When the Soviet Empire collapsed, I suggested to friends that we should thank heaven that it did so before the forthcoming Free World economic and social deluge.
Gunnar
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Tomasson
To: Gang8
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 5:28 PM
Subject: [gang8] Oil, World Trade, and US Dollar
Dear Arno:
I just downloaded the following table on World Trade statistics on the Internet:
Table IV.1
World merchandise exports by product, 2001
(Billion dollars and percentage)
Value
Share
Annual percentage change
2001
1990
2001
1990-01
2000
2001
5984
100.0
100.0
5
13
-4
Agricultural products
547
12.2
9.1
3
1
-1
Food
437
9.3
7.3
3
-2
1
Raw materials
110
2.9
1.8
1
10
-9
Mining products
790
14.4
13.2
4
46
-8
Ores and other minerals
63
1.6
1.1
2
14
-1
Fuels
616
10.7
10.3
5
57
-8
Non-ferrous metals
111
2.1
1.9
4
20
-9
Manufactures
4477
70.4
74.8
6
10
-4
Iron and steel
130
3.1
2.2
2
14
-8
Chemicals
595
8.7
9.9
7
9
2
Other semi-manufactures
432
7.8
7.2
5
7
-3
Machinery and transport equipment
2453
35.7
41.0
7
12
-6
Automotive products
565
9.4
9.4
5
4
-2
Office and telecom equipment
828
8.8
13.8
10
22
-14
Other machinery and transport equipmen
1061
17.5
17.7
5
8
-2
Textiles
147
3.1
2.5
3
6
-5
Clothing
195
3.2
3.3
6
7
-1
Other consumer goods
525
8.8
8.8
5
8
-3
a Includes unspecified products. They accounted for 3 per cent of world merchandise exports in 2001.
In view of the relatively modest (10.3%) share of "fuels" in total world trade in 2001, Heard's answer to the question "Why is George Bush so hell bent on war with Iraq?" - "the biggest [reason] is hidden and very, very simple. It is about the currency used to trade oil and consequently, who will dominate the world economically, in the foreseeable future -- the USA or the European Union" - strikes me as prima facie implausible.
Gunnar
----- Original Message -----
From: Gunnar Tomasson
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: [gang8] Defending the dollar (against the euro) - another article, now from South Africa
Arno:
Re. the following:
I am forwarding these articles because the matter seems to gain interest globally, and I think we should engange further in this discussion to clear out some misunderstanding.
Comment:
Agree.
World monetary issues in general, and the issue of the US dollar's role in world oil trade in particular, raise many highly technical questions - questions which cannot in principle be addressed in rigorous analytical fashion within the conceptual framework of mainstream monetary theory.
In my view, these technical questions are of the essence.
It is counter-productive for clear-headed thinking on (and the cause of) world monetary reform to transform the debate into a political donnybrook up front.
Gunnar