カジノと送金（マネーロンダリング）

最近カジノ合法化が再度聞こえてきたが、どんな背景があるのかは知らない。

ただ、このカジノが合法化すればこんな資金移譲が合法的に可能である。

金融業の場合、銀行間取引や各種商品の売買のよって、違法取得金が合法的利回り配当金や売買益という形で口座間の資金移動を可能とする。

また、租税回避地を利用（無税及び極端な低率税）し、資金減額を避けた移動もよく使われている。

これは、現在フィルタを全世界的に行われるようになった。

またカジノではそういった背景を受け、自主規制を課すところが出てきた。

その代表例が米国ネバダ州の独自基準の採用である。

しかし、カジノではそういった基準を合法的にかいくぐることがいとも簡単にできるのである。

それが「ゲームを介しての顧客同士による資金移譲」である。

つまりゲームに負ければ、合法的に移動したい相手に資金を移動（つまり所有権の移譲がほぼ無税で）できるのだ。

カジノであれば、顧客間のゲーム収益に対しては感知出来ない。

たまたまいる人同士が、それぞれ勝手に負けて勝手に勝っている結果としてお互いの資金量に変化がつくだけのことであるからだ。

時間軸の極端に短い取引みたいなものである。

実はもう一つ重要なことがある。

それは銀行もカジノ内に存在しているということだ。

多額の現金移動には、コストと監視がかかる。強盗にあうかもしれない。

ではどのようにカジノへ（もしくはカジノから）現金を移動するのかということである。

銀行（多くはプライベートバンクの担当員（移動銀行）だろう・・・）がなければ安全に資金移動をすることは不可能であり、合法的にカジノで利用する、もしくは合法的にカジノで得た資金を持ち出しすることについては、カジノが合法化されればなんら違法性もなく、堂々と政府に申告（本人確認が必要だが）もできるのだ。


ここでピーンと来る人は頭がいい人だ。


日本で大王製紙の会長がカジノで100億円負けたそうだが、本当にカジノでゲームするためだけにそこへ大金を送金するのかという疑問が、どうしても出てしまうのだ。

たまたまゲームして、たまたま勝ち負けして、100億円という大金がたまたまそこにいた顧客たちへ移動したといわれても、、、というわけだ。

貼り付け開始ーーーー

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/national/news/20111027-OYT1T00665.htm
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/zoom/20111027-OYT9I00666.htm
大王製紙の井川意高(もとたか)前会長（４７）による巨額借り入れ問題で、井川前会長が連結子会社から借り入れた計約１０６億円のうち約９０億円が、海外のカジノ関連会社の口座に前会長名義で入金されていたことが２７日、関係者の話でわかった。

大王製紙の特別調査委員会の調べで、このほか十数億円が米国のカジノ運営会社の口座に直接振り込まれていたことが判明しており、借入金のほぼ全額の１００億円超が海外でのカジノに使われていた疑いが出てきた。

大王製紙は２８日にも調査委の調査結果を公表し、近く会社法違反（特別背任）容疑で井川前会長を東京地検特捜部に告発する方針。特捜部は調査結果の分析などを経て、前会長本人から事情聴取するなど本格捜査に乗り出すとみられる。

貼り付け終了ーーーー

できすぎた茶番だと思う人もいるのかもしれない。

捜査当局はあらかたわかっているのだろう。

今後、カジノ合法化議論が活発になってくると思うが、今まで述べた視点が一番重要なのを知っておいても問題はなかろう。

貧困への道程４～ラダックを見よ～

懐かしい未来　ラダックから学ぶ この先我々はどうなるのでしょうか？

誰かに勝手に決められている世の中なんて私は嫌ですね。

金のコントロールを明け渡すと、あらゆるものが奪われる。

その金を人はまた、幻想のために惜しみなく使う。

地球上で絶滅した種は、このおかげで、ある意味幻想を追い求める人間のおかげで、数え切れなくなっている。

因みに、 アメリカにあったリンゴ7000種のうち、今残っているのは1000種のみである。

中国に1万種あった小麦は、現在1000種である。

人という種も・・・。

日本の内需は停滞中

在野のアナリスト http://blog.livedoor.jp/analyst_zaiya777/ 2007年10月09日 経済の話。日米の中央銀行の動きを考える 三連休前、米国労働省から発表された9月の非農業部門の雇用統計が11万人増え、更に8月4000人減とされていた数値も89000人増に改定され、米国の雇用状況は多少の緩みは見られるものの、堅調な推移を見せていることが判明しました。9月にFRBは0.5%の金利引下げを決定しましたが、その根拠がこの改定で崩れたことになります。 これを受け、年1.5回の利下げを織り込んでいた市場は、年1回利下げがあるかどうか、という範囲まで期待が萎みました。しかしマクロ経済環境の急速な鈍化、という根拠は崩れたのであり、しかもFRBとしては9月の引き下げ後の影響を確認したいところからも、今後利下げに関する支援材料がないと利下げは難しいところになったのが、本当のところでしょう。 そんな中、明日から日銀の政策決定会合ですが、今回も利上げ見送りの推測がされています。世界経済からはインフレ圧力の波が日本にもかかっていますが、9月の街角景気ウォッチャー調査でも、前月より1.2pt低下の42.9ptと、判断の分かれ目となる50を6ヶ月連続で下回り、内需は一向に上昇の兆しを見せません。これにより、内閣府は基調判断を、「回復に弱い動きが見られる」と据え置きました。 日銀は金利据え置きの判断を賛成8、反対1で継続していますが、いつでも利上げする布石として反対票を置いています。ですが内需だけを判断材料とすれば、利上げはできず、また利上げに積極的だった欧州中銀も、インフレ警戒姿勢を解き、利上げ、利下げ両睨みとなった今、日銀は更に難しい舵取りを迫られることにもなりました。世界と逆行する流れになることを恐れる、日本の悪い癖が出ることは必至です。 更に日本の事情として、今回の建築基準法改正による混乱で、GDPが1%近く下押しされるという試算もあります。住宅建設が進まないこともそうですし、建材の在庫積みあがり、家電の買い替えなどの消費が停滞すること、それらが複合的に絡むと今年度の日本はマイナス成長まで減速する懸念もあります。 OECDの景気見通しでも、日本の成長力には疑問が呈されています。実質増税、物価の高騰など、日本の内需には期待をもてない部分もあり、結果的にそれが日銀の政策を縛る形になっています。日銀の政策決定会合への足枷は、様々な形で今顕在化しているとも言えるでしょう。 最後に、米メリルリンチ証券が55億ドルなど、米国では金融機関から次々にサブプライム関連の損失が発表されていますが、これらが全て評価損であり、未だに金融機関は資産としてサブプライムを組み込んだ債務担保証券を保有している、ということが今回明らかになりました。 売却もできずに保有し続けなければならないのですから、これで膿を出し尽した、と語られる金融機関の損失計上も、実はまだ序の口なのでしょう。米国楽観論にはまだまだ裏がありますが、FRBの動きには今後も振り回されそうですね。 引用終わり 日本の内需は停滞したままであり、増税と給与低下で資金は押さえ気味である。 このまま年末を迎えるようだが、何か対策をしないと経済は停滞したままである。 とはいっても、間違いなく雇用は増えても正社員は減るけれどね。 これで、景気が上がれば企業は大万歳！！ デフレで儲かれば、インフレならさらに儲かる。 固定費は決して変動させない。 させるなら1人あたり年間数十円だろうな。 これから人口が減るが、そのときはもっと安い外人を雇うのが決まっている。 日本企業にとって日本人こそ「いらないごみ」である。 今後、これら「ごみ」からは金を搾り取れるだけ搾り取った後は、雑巾のように捨てて、自分らは国外に逃げていくやつらばかりが多くなることが目に見えている。 残った日本人は兵隊という公務員になるのだろう。 日本は幸せを恨む国。他人の幸せほど憎いものは無い。 893は幸せ三昧だけど、そういうのは見ないようにして、矛先を無害な公務員に向ける。

『Monopoly Men』～Federal Reserve Fraud～日本語字幕版

動画の紹介２ 『Monopoly Men』～Federal Reserve Fraud～日本語字幕版

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-845461387975920288&hl=en

この動画も見ると面白いでしょう。

内容はさほど難しくありません。

むしろ前回のほうが中身は濃いでしょう。

ただ、ビルダーバーグ会議、ジキル島の会議を扱っているのが新鮮味があります。

いくつか動画を見ていくだけで、今の紙幣は虚構の塊であるのが理解できるでしょう。

ただし、世界のほとんどすべたの人々が今の紙幣を信じる以上、何も変わりません。

なぜ私が、為替取引をするのか、商品取引をするのか疑問に思うでしょう。

相手の思考プロセスに入ってみたのです。 彼らの見る世界を見るために。 なぜ彼らは金持ちになり、権力を手に入れてきたのか。

やつらのやるように私もしてみるだけで、世界の出来事がどれほど欺瞞に満ち溢れ、虚構を作り出しているのか良くわかります。

言い換えれば、存在と解釈の狭間に身をおいているのです。

Money As Debt（日本語字幕版）

Money As Debt（日本語字幕版）反ロス同盟オリジナル翻訳 第一弾

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-446781510928242771&hl=en

この動画には、私が以前からおかしいと思ってきたことが凝縮されています。

逃れられない恐怖というものは確実に存在しており、その恐怖の奴隷となるよう、我々は「知らされない」という教育を受けてきたのだと実感しています。

借金をし続ける人生が「（彼らの言う）すばらしい人生」であることは明白であります。

つまり、「借金としてのお金」つまり「お金は誰かの借金」であるのが現代経済の本質であり、借金の利息返済のために時間を切り売りして馬車馬のように働かざるを得ない状況が、彼らを肥え太らしているのです。

でも、知ったからといってどうなるのでしょう？ このシステムはきっと変わることは無いでしょう。 すでに300年間続いており、歴史上反対を挙げた有力者は口を封じられているのです。

こういった事実を「知った」上で、泣く泣く奴隷家業を続けなければなら無いのは、「知らない」より格段に苦しい思いをすることになります（管理者の実感）。

私もお金の奴隷なんです（泣）。

英国での取り付け騒ぎ

国家破産52 http://www.asyura2.com/07/hasan52/msg/383.html より引用 イギリスのノーザン・ロック銀行・・・　多額の預金が流出している　　【日経ネット】 http://www.asyura2.com/07/hasan52/msg/383.html 投稿者 hou 日時 2007 年 9 月 17 日 06:59:34: HWYlsG4gs5FRk ペイオフ制度とは？ 中央銀行の役割とは？ NORTHERN ROCK 株価 http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=NRK.L&t=my ホームページ http://www.northernrock.co.uk/ http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/kaigai/20070916AT2M1600J16092007.html 英中堅銀、預金流出続く・当局が沈静化促す声明 　【ロンドン＝吉田ありさ】イングランド銀行（英中銀）が救済融資実施を発表した英中堅銀ノーザン・ロックから多額の預金が流出している問題について、英国の金融監督当局である金融サービス機構（ＦＳＡ）は15日、「（ノーザン・ロックの）預金者は預け入れや引き出しを続けられる」と沈静化を促す声明を発表した。 　ノーザン・ロックはサブプライム問題に端を発した市場の信用収縮で資金の調達難に直面。イングランド銀行などが14日、救済のため融資することを発表した。これを受けてノーザン・ロックに預金者が殺到。週末の15日も一部の店舗を開き、前日からの流出額は全預金の5―10％に達したとの見方が出ている。(01:51) 引用終わり 以下コメント やはり出てきました。 金融の混乱はまだ続いています。 これからＧ７、ＦＯＭＣと続きますので米の金利政策がどうなるのか見なければいけません。 市場は利下げを予想しています。 私も利下げ予想で、円買いを続けています。 110円を下抜けるようでしたら、えん

FFレート

NEVADA
http://diary.jp.aol.com/fcybbrnndg/
より引用↓
2007/9/10 8：42
第二段の下げが始まった？　　分類なし
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

今日の外人売買動向は、売り４８６０万株、買い３０６０万株になり、大幅な売りこしになっていますが、これは金曜日のNY市場を見れば納得出来ることですが、シドニーで
＜緊急声明＞が出されるのではないか？との期待もありましたが、見事に肩透かしを食わされた格好になっています。
即ち、今の首脳にはそこまで危機感はないということになり、市場は失望することになるのです。
中央銀行が何とか片付けてくれるという甘い意識があると市場が読めば、市場は
自壊作用に入ります。

９月２０日に向けて市場は＜第２段の下げ＞に入り、為替も、ドル円で１１０円突破、
ユーロで１４５円突破が視野に入ったと言えます。
そして、＜第２段下げ＞の最終段階では、恐ろしい株価・為替になるでしょうが、それも
金融市場崩壊の＜第３段下げ＞の序の口であったということを大方の個人も機関投資家も今は知る由もありません。

中央銀行はこの市場崩壊の＜恐怖＞を避けることが出来るでしょうか・・・。
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

在野のアナリスト http://blog.livedoor.jp/analyst_zaiya777/
より引用↓

2007年09月09日
経済の話。米国雇用統計の悪化
市場が注目していた、先週末に発表された米国雇用統計で4千人減となり、米国ではダウが250ドルの下落を示しました。米国では景気が減速してもFRBが利下げをして景気は底堅く推移する。その根底にある考え方が覆されたことで、実はすでに景気は後退局面ではないかとする懸念が台頭したことが、今回の大きな下落に繋がっています。

私は、8月は新規失業者保険申請件数は増えると見ていましたが、雇用がここまで下落するとは考えていませんでした。今の米国は経営者の成果報酬主義のため、すぐに雇用を抑えて利益を確保する動きになる、ということなのでしょう。住宅、金融部門は当分厳しい環境のようです。
サブプライム問題は米国の金融システムを複雑化し、その分の雇用を創出してきました。ですが専門性を高めたことで、リスクが『格付け』という紛いものの『信用』に置き換えられ、そのリスクを米国では今改めて思い知らされているのです。サブプライムを整理することになれば、専門性は必要なくなり、金融部門に新たな雇用は生まれなくなります。

今回の問題を受けて、「新興国の成長があるから大丈夫」という意見も聞きます。しかし「新興国の成長」が担保されるには、先進国の『新興国ファンド』が継続して流入超の状態にあることが必要です。今回の問題を受け、日本での『新興国ファンド』は流入超でしたが、米国では流出超となっています。米国では換金売りが急がれたこともありますが、金融市場が混乱すれば今後も流出の方が多くなるでしょう。
投資を難しいという人もいますが、最も簡単な考え方は資金が流入している時、層が拡大している時はどんな世界も強いです。それは新興国も同様、今の成長が先進国からの資金流入である以上、それが流出すれば弱含みます。今の新興国は外貨準備を蓄えていますので、急速に市場の資金量が萎むことはありませんが、外貨準備を手放せば運用先である先進国の更なる痛手となり、これでは負の連鎖になってしまいます。

FRBが利下げする大義はこれで一通り整いましたが、問題はバーナンキ流とグリーンスパン流の違い、という点にあると考えています。輸入大国でもある米国が経済の悪化、ドル安という二つの逆風を浴び、それでも継続した利下げに踏み込めるのか？というところです。
米国内にある利下げ期待以上に、米国外にある利下げされればドル建て資産の縮小を意識せず、本当に大丈夫なのか？世界経済が近付いた結果、米国一国の都合で利下げを断行することにより、新興国がどう動くのかにも注意が必要でしょう。IMFの世界経済見通しの引き下げなど、今後の世界経済の動きは不安定さを増すのでしょうね。

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
以下コメント

過去、円高、日銀金利、倒産など伝えてきましたが、どうやら本格的になりそうです。
日本の年金運用などどこを見ても結果がわかりませんので実態はわかりませんが、多分被害を受けているでしょう。

「在野のアナリスト」さんによれば、米金利低下により、ドル資産の縮小となるという見解ですが、私も同意見です。株に投資している運用会社は軒並み影響を受けると思います。

最近ＴＶでやけに金利の話題が出ていますので、これがサインの一つでしょう。有力者への資産の整理をするべきとのアナウンスに他なりません。米が金利引き下げはほぼ確実視されているようですが、日銀の利上げは年内あるかどうか疑問です。今年の6月がもっとも利上げに適していましたが、それを見送った以上、なかなか好機はやってこないでしょう。

私は株はリスクが高くてやらないのですが、こういった場面で拾いものをする人もいるのでしょうね。

換金する選択

以下引用 債券・株・為替　中年金融マン　ぐっちーさんの金持ちまっしぐら　 http://blog.goo.ne.jp/kitanotakeshi55 遂に出てきた・・・・メガトン級！ マーケット / 2007-08-30 18:21:49 恐れていたことが遂におきたというべきか・・・・ SachsenLB Had EU46 Billion in `Secret' Investments （最初に見たのはブルームバーグ） ドイツ、ザクセン州の州立銀行（もちろんAAA)がサブプライムの「秘密投資」（この後の記事にサブプライムと書いてあったが恐らく、サブプライムを仕込んだCDOだと思われる）でなんと４６０億ユーロの損失！！　約７兆円超・・・・ 恐らくザクセンだけとは思えず、他の州立銀行も同じでしょう・・・ このランデスバンクと呼ばれる州立銀行は州に「保証」されているわけではありません。所謂キープウェル、すなわち、経営状況を詳しく観察する権利を州に与えているということで、なぜかAAAが付いています。 これを利用してリバースフローターですとか、様々な仕組み債を日本で販売しています。その総額はちょっと想像できませんね（多過ぎて）。 リバフロのほかに、リバースデュアル、ファーストツーデフォルトなど。所謂円建て仕組み債券の発行体としてはポピュラーなものばかり。ギャランティーはついていないのでこれらはすべてデフォルトでしょう・・・・ 日本は関係ないと言っていた人々はまたまたボウズ・・・ということですな。 まだ株価は反応していませんが、これはえらいこと・・・だと思われます。 では！ ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー 引用終わり ファンド、外貨投資、ＦＸなどしている方々は戦々恐々かも知れません。 日本の年金、銀行の売る投資信託などに影響がないとは言い切れません。 私は、ほとんどの資金を円安時に売却してますので、影響はほとんどありません。 しかし、日本の銀行が影響を受けているのなら、安心は出来ない状態です。 どうしようもないのですがね。 「ぐっちー」さんの言うとおり、日本に影響が出た場合、タイミング的には非常に悪い。 来年には小渕政権時の大量国債償還、借り換え問題が残っています。 現在の金融危機で、年金資産が吹っ飛んでしまったらどうするのでしょう。 日本は大変なことになるかもしれません。 もしかしたら、日本でも倒産のアラシが起きるかもしれません。 そうなるとＩＭＦという悪魔が現実味を帯び始めるかもしれません。 危惧で終わると

公定歩合引き下げは、効果が消えた模様

この先、米国ＦＦレートは下がるでしょう。

すでに米国ではファンドの閉鎖がおき、解約凍結も出ているようです。

また、今月末、9月、10月とファンドの借換え債の問題が浮上しています。

資金の手当てが出来なければ大変です。


以下引用↓


2007/8/29 6：52
第２段下げの幕開け？　　分類なし
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ニューヨーク株式市場は２８０ドル余りの下げを記録し、１３，０４１ドルとなり、
ぎりぎり１３，０００ドルを守っています。
今回の下げの理由はなんでしょうか？
明確な理由はありません。
中央銀行のカンフル剤が効かなくなってきているのです。

ＦＲＢの『パニックにならないように』との声明も、市場は反対に受け取っています。
『パニック？はやりそれだけ事態は悪いのか・・。逃げておかないといけないかな？』と。

今月末の借換え債の期限が迫ってきていますが、いまだ多くの金融機関・ファンドは
借り換えが出来ない事態に陥っており、このままいけば世界最大の住宅ローン会社で
ある＜カントリーワイド社＞が経営破たんに追い込まれます。
負債総額２４兆円にも上るといわれる＜カントリーワイド社＞ですが、ここが経営破たんすれば他の住宅専門会社が軒並倒れ、まさに＜負の連鎖＞が始まります。
ＦＲＢは果たして救えるでしょうか？

残された時間は余りにも少なく、そして金融破たんの負債総額は２４兆円どころか、
一桁も二桁も違う膨大な金額に上ることをＦＲＢは知っているはずであり、世界の中央銀行が束になっても到底救える金額ではありません。


最悪の事態に進みつつある金融市場ですが、今月末、９月２１日、そして１０月半ばが待ち受けています。


以上ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

以下コメント


利下げをする可能性は捨て切れません。
日銀は金利を上げられないでしょう。（個人的には上げればいいと思いますが、もう無理でしょう）
しかも、今回の金融危機で日本の年金・郵貯の運用は影響を受けたのではないでしょうか？
驚くほど運用損になっていたらどうするのでしょう？

一説によれば、年金資金150兆のうち、その半数以上が行方不明だといわれています。

また郵貯も大部分を米系ファンドに委託しているようで、半数以上が喪失しているかも知れません


10月郵便局は完全に民営化されます。
また、来年から日本では10年物国債の返還が始まります。
借り換えでやり過ごすのでしょうが、借金を借金で返して大丈夫なのでしょうか？

ＩＭＦという機関があります。
ここは世界の貧困国への高利貸しで有名です。
経済が立ち行かなくなると、天使のような笑顔でお金を貸してくれます。
「天使の笑顔を持った悪魔」とでもいえます。
日本の（）＃絡みの闇金と同じです。

ここの力を借りてしまうと「国内のもの全て」で借金返済となります。
文字通り、身包み（どころか内部まで）はがされます。

今後の展望

在野のアナリスト http://blog.livedoor.jp/analyst_zaiya777/ より引用 2007年08月19日 経済の話。市場下落がもたらすもの 昨今の相場下落で、俄かにまた議論の俎上に上り始めた年金基金の運用実績。参院選の前はあれほど騒いでいた年金問題も、近頃では影を潜めていましたが、またしても議論が紛糾するかもしれません。一つには社会保険庁が今月10日に発表した、保険料の納付率があります。 平成18年度の納付率が66.3%となり、前年度と較べて0.8%の下落となりました。最終目標といわれていた19年度の80%も達成の見込みはなく、恐らく国民皆年金の思想、その前提が崩れるのはかなり前倒しになると見られます。国民はすでに年金に対して『不安』ではなく、『不信』に陥っていますし、公的機関の運用そのものに、疑惑の目を向けているのです。 市場が調整すれば、その他の材料もあります。政府系金融機関が今年から始めている、ITバブル崩壊後に市場から買い取った株の市場での売却、日銀もこのタイミングで売却を示唆していますが、その時に試算された売却益も、今回の市場の調整でその試算が大幅に狂う可能性もあります。今まで、市場で売却しても益が出るとされていましたが、調整幅次第では損となる可能性も出てきました。 今回の市場の調整とは、更に重大な点があると思います。それは買収防衛策で企業同士が株式の持合を進めていることです。実は今まで、株式の評価損はさほど大きな問題とはなってきませんでした。それは株とはいずれ戻るもの、一時的な下落を評価損として組み込まなくとも、決算を通すことが出来たからです。しかし昨今の会計検査の厳格化で、今はそれも出来難くなりました。今後調整が長引けば、企業は保有株式の評価損という、かつて聞いた言葉を再び耳にすることになるのです。 今回の下落は、今までの経済の様々な矛盾を暴き出すと思います。米国が公定歩合のみを引き下げましたが、形骸化した公定歩合を調整し、政策金利を動かさなかったのは、ドル急落を引き起こして新興国が保有する外貨準備として積み上げられた、米国債の売りによる市場の混乱を防ぎたかった、そうした思惑もあるのでしょう。8000億ドルを越える経常赤字を垂れ流し続けた米国、その分を投資に回して好転していた時と、循環がきかなくなった社会は全く様相が異なるのです。 米国の信用市場が一体、いつ頃正常化するのかが問題ですが、公定歩合の引き下げは最初だけのアナウンス効果で、継続した影響の行使は難しいでしょう。米国で利下げの期待が強いのは、ヘッジファンドなどが規制の網に引っ掛ることを恐れ、利下げという大枠の市場原理を導入させることで、沈静化させて欲しいという切望です。しかし市場の監督者であるFRBは、株式市場だけではなく米国経済全体を支えなければならない、使命を帯びています。その時どういった手を打つのか、だからこそ私は米国の次の手に、注目しているのです。 引用終わり 以下コメント 今回の相場下落はある程度の予想がついていました。2月の利上げでさえあの程度相場が下落したわけであり、今回は米国サブプライムの発覚と8月利上げ説のくすぶりの中での下落となったわけです。 ですので、当時8月利上げを織り込んでいた市場は、あわてて円決済をしたのだと思います。高値で決済しなければ損をするからです。 一時期相場が少し戻したことがありましたが、多分押し目買いのチャンスと思った方々が市場に入ったのだと思います。そこで欧州のほうで公的資金導入という事態がアナウンスされ、殺到売りが入り円高株安となったのだと思います。 日銀が利上げしないと8月上旬に声明でもだせば、そこまで下がることは無かったのでしょうが、そういったことはしませんでした。やっと、この数日になってのアナウンスです。 日銀が利上げするのであれば、相当なリセッションになると以前からお伝えしておりました。この先、日銀起因によるリセッションは起こらないと思いますが、今回の下落により相当ダメージを負ったファンドが破綻をするかもしれません。損を確定してしまったのと同時に、解約もあるようです。ですので日銀の金利によるリセッションは起こりにくいと思いますが、米国ＦＦレート見直しなどが入るようなら、それが原因となるでしょう。 「在野のアナリスト」さんの言われるように、これからは、米国の今後の政策によることが大きいと思います。

そのうち倒産危機とか言われるでしょう。多分。

以下引用

日本国研究─その人脈と金脈 http://ameblo.jp/nihonkokunokenkyu/
2007年08月11日
サブプライムローン　その２
テーマ：経済

今日はダウも日経も大きく下げました。サブプライムローンに端を発する金融不安が拡大しています。サブプライムローン問題とは、アメリカで低所得者向けの住宅ローンが過剰に与信され、不良債権化している問題のことです。悪いことに、近年の貸し出し債権の証券化進展により、貸し出した商業銀行のみならず、証券を保有するファンドや投資銀行にも信用収縮が連鎖しています。すでにデットファイナンス市場の信用収縮により、LBOファンドの活動やM＆Aマーケットが悪影響を受けているようです。



以下、市場参加者に独自にヒアリングを行った結果をそのまま書きます。



１・米系商業銀行にはかなりの被害が出ている。日本でも有名な、さる外銀がもっとも打撃が大きいらしい。

２・今年の暮れ以降、さらにデフォルトが増える見込み。抜本解決は遠い。

３・日系でも大きくポジションを持っている銀行がある。経営不安説も囁かれる。

４・銀行株は中期ではリバウンドが狙えるが、当面値下がりのリスクが大きい。



とのこと。具体名は書けませんが、ビッグネームがいろいろ出てきて驚きです。




国家破産51 http://www.asyura2.com/07/hasan51/msg/622.html


Nevada経済速報８月１４日（火）１０：２０
...2007/08/14(Tue) 10:29:45...


------------------------------------
日米欧の中央銀行が４２兆円も資金を
投入する本当の理由とは？
------------------------------------

日米欧の中央銀行は４２兆円もの資金を市場に投入していますが、ＮＹ市場はほぼ横ばいで引けており、日本もほぼ横ばいとなり、東証株価指数は続落となり、年初来安値を更新するという有様でした。

これだけ膨大な資金を市場に供給しながら、一向に株価が反発しないのはなぜでしょうか？
そしてなぜこれだけの資金を市場に供給しなくてはいけなかったのでしょうか？

Ｖｏｌ．６５　ワールドレポート（２００７年８月１５日）は、この特集【世界の金融機関が破綻する日】を組ませて頂きますが、世界の金融市場は今、ある『噂』におののいているのです。
その噂は？
この『噂』が本当であれば、世界の金融機関はことごとく破綻することになります。
誰も無傷なままでは済まないことになりますが、果たしてどうなるでしょうか？
結果は、この１０月にも出てきますが、そのときに慌てても遅く、今からでも遅くはありませんので、その準備をされることをお奨めします。

世界の中央銀行が恐れる『噂』が現実化しないことを祈るばかりです。



引用終わり

（コメント）
不安になってくるエントリーが増えてきた今、だれが何を言っているのか考えねばなりません。

給料もらっている自称エコノミストたちが火消しに躍起のなっているのか、そうでないのか。

自営の人たちが不安を煽っているのか、いないのか。

仕事以外で将来の経済について本気で分析している方がいるのか、どうか。

色々、言われていますが、事実42兆円も市場に資金を供給し、日銀は1兆5000億円ほど資金を吸収、
そして円高傾向。
国債も価格が上昇しています。

以下引用
Bloomberg.co.jp ニュース-コラム http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=90002008&sid=agHTqkGKGudM&refer=jp_rates
債券先物９月物が135円台に上昇、中心限月で３月８日以来―株価急落
８月15日（ブルームバーグ）：債券先物相場は大幅上昇（利回りは低下）。９月物は午後２時10分前後に前日比68銭高い135円00銭に上昇した。中心限月の日中ベースでは３月８日以来の135円台乗せ。朝方から買いが先行していたが、午後に入って日経平均株価が300円を超す急落となったことで、８月利上げ観測が一段と後退し、債券買いが活発化している。

記事に関する記者への問い合わせ先：東京　山中英典　hidenori yamanaka

引用終わり


（コメント）
今までと変わって、円買いが起こっているのです。

さて日本の金利は上昇するのでしょうか？

お金って何だろう？

お金って一体なんだろう？ 私たちは一応理解している、「等価交換手段の一つである」と。 つまり「A=B」ではなく「A=お金の量=B」ということである。 お金の量を持っていればAにもBにも交換が出来、それはお金の量によって交換の不可が決められるということを意味する。 であるからして、お金の量をたくさん持っている人は何でも買えてしまう。 また現在は、お金は時間によって増える「金利」制度を伴っている。 お金は金利さえあれば、それによる「自己増殖」を繰り返す。 ということは、お金の量が多いほどその効果は跳ね上がる。 物品には値段がついている。 税金もお金で支払うことになっている。 人身売買は禁止されているが、人の能力と時間は時給・日給・月給という形でお金に返還させられている。 保険によると、被保険者の職業によって保険金支払い時に金額が変わってくるようだ。 医者・弁護士・看護師・薬剤師・役員は高額の保険金が降りるが、フリーター・サービス業従事者・工員は低い金額しか下りない。もちろん若者ほど金額は低い。 社会に重要な役割りを担っており、代替がなかなかいない職種は高値であると謳っているのだろうか？ つまり、普通に学校を卒業し、会社に就職し、家族を作っても、職業によって金銭的価値に置き換えられることを意味し、金額的から言えば安い職業のひとの保険金は安くて済む。 人も家族もお金に換わっている。 お金を得るためには自分を切り売りしなくてはならない。 何も売れなくなれば売血の道もある。 殺人もお金で済む国がある。 お金により、全ての自然のもの（人、もの）が換金されている。 お金を持っている人のだけのユートピアが今現在の社会である。 お金の量を持っている人ほどすみよい世界である。

アラン・グリーンスパン氏が逮捕された模様

以下阿修羅より転載です。
これが本当なら、何が起こっているのか想像すると恐ろしいです。

われわれの貨幣価値がどのようになるのか、非常に恐ろしくあります。
このような事態に対応できるよう対策している人は、皆無に近いのでは？
ＦＲＢ解散後、一体アメリカの金融はどうなるのか？金本位に戻るのか？
月曜日以降チェックしないといけません。何も起こらないのが一番いいのですが。。。


http://www.asyura2.com/07/hasan51/msg/167.html

ＦＲＢの解散について英文で報道があったようなのですが．．．
http://www.asyura2.com/07/hasan51/msg/167.html
投稿者 ワヤクチャ 日時 2007 年 7 月 01 日 18:46:42: YdRawkln5F9XQ

どなたか概略でも訳していただけないでしょうか？
ズウズウしくて済みません。

【安倍は戦争を起こす】
http://ameblo.jp/wayakucha/entry-10038307953.html#c10056023429

■グリーンスパンって

逮捕されちゃったんですね
FRBも解散なんですってね

２７ (2007-06-30 20:41:43) [コメント記入欄を表示]
■FRBの解散ってどのように報道されていますか？

お教えいただけましたら幸いです。

wayakucha (2007-06-30 23:56:26) [コメント記入欄を表示]
■コンピューターが壊れて

あまり良く調べた訳ではないですが、出所はココみたいです↓
http://www.worldreports.org/news/66_greenspan_jailed_as_
例によって日本のマスコミが報道するわけないですね。

２７ (2007-07-01 09:31:10) [コメント記入欄を表示]


http://www.worldreports.org/news/66_greenspan_jailed_as_

CHENEY HIDES OUT AS LEO FILES FOR MANDAMUS WRIT

TEXT OF WANTA'S PETITION FOR RELIEF IN FEDERAL COURT

Sunday 24 June 2007 04:19
UPDATE 28 June 2008: Three top crooks out: Blair, Wolfowitz, Greenspan. More to follow.

UPDATE: 27 June 2007: The Editor has now received written confirmation that
TWO Group of Eight intelligence sources have CONFIRMED the previously reported incarceration of Dr Greenspan. The original sources of this information were Gold Badges who are in contact with the Ambassador and Michael C. Cottrell, M.S. By definition, Gold Badge information cannot be elaborated upon. Be it known, therefore, that the Editor holds TWO written statements concerning the accuracy of our report on the jailing of Dr Greenspan being confirmed by these TWO SEPARATE G-8 intelligence agencies. The second intelligence source confirmation was received by the Editor this morning. We cannot elaborate any further BECAUSE WE HAVE REPORTED ALL THAT WE KNOW.

We have also received information that Cheney 'is not hiding out'. When we first reported what is posted below, Mr Cheney WAS OR HAD BEEN hiding out. Are we expected to have a camera in his bedroom? What we report is accurate to the best of our information and belief AT THE TIME OF POSTING. But just as it is currently the afternoon in London, whereas a few hours ago it was the morning, so can we not be held responsible for circumstances in this dynamic situation when they change, AS THEY ARE APT TO DO, after we have reported.

The Editor reserves the right, at the appropriate time, to publish all emails on this coverage which contain 'whacky' assertions, distortions, lies, convoluted and diversionary argumentation, libels or other verbal aberrations from people who, instead of taking direct action to assist in the process of preventing the United States from destroying itself, and the Rest of the World with it – which is what we are being obliged BY DEFAULT to do – are content instead with attempting to shoot the poor messenger. Such people have no guts, no first-hand special knowledge, no integrity, no patience, no common sense, and no clue.

PLEASE READ the Ambassador's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus if you haven't already done so.


Further:

WILL ANYONE WHO WISHES TO EMAIL THE EDITOR ON WANTAGATE PLEASE DO HIM THE COURTESY OF READING THE WANTAGATE REPORTS IN OUR ARCHIVE FIRST, SO AS TO FAMILIARISE HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITH THE FACTS, BEFORE VENTURING ANY COMMENTS, INTERPRETATIONS, PREJUDICES OR OTHER 'TAKES' ON THE DEVELOPING WANTAGATE CRISIS AND ITS RAMIFICATIONS. THIS SIMPLE MEASURE WOULD SAVE US ALL A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND WOULD ALSO SERVE THE PURPOSE OF GENERAL ENLIGHTENMENT, WHICH SEEMS TO BE VITALLY NECESSARY ALL ROUND.


UPDATE: 26 June 2007: We have just been informed that the Cheney-controlled disinformation specialists may have placed the Greenspan jailing (which is CONFIRMED) 'out there' in order to divert attention from (a) Ambassador Wanta's Petition for a Writ of Mandamus [see below] and (b) from the Number One official culprit who is raping the United States and bringing it to its knees, namely the notorious former MK-ULTRA controller, the Nazi-style Vice President of the United States, Richard B Cheney, himself, who is also George H. W. Bush Sr.'s handler.

He is believed to be 'running' as much as $2 trillion offshore, stolen from the Ambassdor's funds.

Cheney is further understood from many sources to have been 'hiding out' so that subpoenas cannot be served on him, and so that he can continue to perpetrate his routine financial High Crimes and Misdemeanours (allowing American and allied troops to die in Iraq for his own personal enrichment), while stashing his gargantuan fiat money financial accruals in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Brunei. Another reason he is 'hiding out' is that he is believed, on very sound authority, to be concerned for his own safety.

The new 'clean' regime which will follow the Wanta Settlement would deprive him of control and access to these illegally accrued funds, so his main personal preoccupation appears to be to try to preserve his corruptly acquired fiat money assets, an objective in which he will ultimately fail.

We stand by what we have posted on the jailing of Dr Alan Greenspan, but we are not yet further informed as to what has happened to him since that event. What we have now been told is that the jailing of Dr Greenspan has been exploited by Cheney-controlled MK-ULTRA-style disinformation specialists as a diversionary ploy to get people running around crazily looking for the wrong fox.

The fox to concentrate on, we are authoritatively advised, is the Number One controller of this millennial offsensive against the United States ('the Main Enemy'), namely the holder of the office of the Vice Presidency. Whatever has happened to Greenspan in the interim is secondary to the overwhelming necessity for people now to focus on the evils for which Cheney is responsible.

He controls President George W. Bush, who has personal problems and apparently 'doesn't like confrontation'. That 'weakness' is the chink in Mr Bush's armour which Cheney exploits, and has done all along.

It should be understood that in a dynamic crisis of this intensity, things sometimes become clear during the 'unrolling of events', which may not be quite as clear earlier. In any case, the focus should be on Cheney, who is scared for his life, is hiding out, yet continues to block the Settlement.

We are also informed that Mr Cheney is running rings round the likes of Paulson et al, being wholly focused on his own agenda, which represents a grotesque TREASON against the United States.

The Ambassador's petition for a Writ of Mandamus filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, set out below, will open Pandora's Box and will finally ensure that this crisis delivers the necessary reform results. We warned that this would get more and more unpleasant, because we always knew, unfortunately, what depths of evil are having to be confronted.

But there is no turning back and this matter has to be seen through to the end.

MANIFESTLY, THE ENTIRE GIGA-HORNETS' NEST OF OFFICIAL MURDER, CORRUPTION, MONEY-LAUNDERING, BLACKMAIL, FALSE WITNESS, LIES AND ORCHESTRATED DECEPTION WILL ASSUME THE PROPORTIONS OF AN OPEN, ROLLING CRISIS WHICH NO-ONE WILL BE ABLE TO CONTAIN AND WHICH WILL LEAD TO MASS LIFETIME INCARCERATIONS NOT JUST POSSIBLY OF GREENSPAN, BUT OF EACH AND EVERY CORRUPT OPERATIVE WHO MAY HAVE ALLOWED GREED TO DESTABILISE HIS OR HER BETTER JUDGMENT.

As a corollary to this, the Editor, who has been scammed of $35,000*, is entitled as a scammed foreigner with standing to go directly to the US Supreme Court, which he will be doing should the appropriate responses from the Wisconsin Judge and Court not be forthcoming in short order.

The Editor is writing to the Judge with further documents, asking whether he will now issue the necessary Satisfaction of Restitution Order – seeing that it is proven that the Editor's loan funds have been misallocated by the corrupt Wisconsin Department of Revenue to an account of Falls Vending Service, which the recently released documents from the Ronald Reagan Library confirm does not exist but was an FBI 'sting' entity (set up inter alia to provide Leo Wanta with a vehicle for obtaining information needed by law enforcement on Wisconsin-based mobsters concerning their alleged participation in the assassination of President Kennedy).

The Editor will also be asking the Judge whether he will now be vacating the Ambassador's false conviction – in light of the damning documents submitted to him by the Editor proving that the Wisconsin State Department of Revenue's civil tax assessments against the Ambassador were and are based upon serial tax fabrications and repeated felonies committed by that Department.

*See recent Archive reports.


CIVIL ACTION # 1-07 CV 609 IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

By Christopher Story FRSA, Editor and Publisher, International Currency Review, World Reports Limited, London and New York: www.worldreports.org. Press NEWS and the ARCHIVE Button on the www.worldreports.org Home Page for 'Wantagate' reports since April 2006. [Note: The CLICK HERE panel is now: NEWS. A panel giving details of our latest publications has been added.].


FORMER FED CHAIRMAN GREENSPAN IN JAIL WITHOUT BAIL
During the week ending 15th June 2007, ‘unspecified very senior officials’ in the United States were arrested and jailed without bail, in connection with corrupt financial operations exploiting the financial assets belonging to Ambassador Sir Leo Emil Wanta (1) as sole Principal.

The former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Dr Alan Greenspan, who was in office when these illegal and corrupt financial scandals to the severe detriment of the American people, the US Treasury and the Ambassador were embarked upon, is among those in jail, and has likewise been refused bail. This is only the beginning of the belated sensational consequences of Wantagate.

SIR LEO FILES FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN FEDERAL COURT
On 18th June, the Ambassador filed a Writ for Mandamus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The case Number is: Civil Action # 1-07 CV 609. The text of the filing is given below, minus the Exhibits [see notes at foot of the text]. The Judge in this action has the power to compel payment of the illegally diverted and exploited $4.5 trillion Settlement to the Ambassador/AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc..

A Petition for a Writ of Mandamus is not a normal lawsuit, but presupposes a matter of the gravest consequence. The Judge has latitude to proceed in such a manner as he sees fit. For instance, he has power to order the convening of a Grand Jury, to compel each and every Member of the Bush II Cabinet to appear before him, including the President and the Vice President, to order their prompt compliance with the Court’s demands, and to procure whatever remedies, however severe, that he may deem appropriate.

DIVERSION OF WANTA-OWNED FUNDS REMITTED BY CHINESE
The Petition clarifies that the $4.5 trillion was remitted by the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese authorities remitted the funds after they were made aware that Leo Wanta is not dead, as the CIA had maintained, but had 'ceased to be dead' when the Editor’s $35,000 loan procured the reduction of his illegal probation by five years, in 2005. The funds are the property of Leo Wanta, having been accumulated by him in collaboration with his late partner, Howie Kwong Kok, who died suddenly after ingesting rat poison in Singapore shortly after a visit there by George Bush Sr.

Howie, Leo Wanta’s Chinese partner, had had an argument with Sr., who maintained that the funds belonged to him (an illusion that he shares to this day). He has been exposed as the head of the Nazi Continuum ‘Black’ agency based in Dachau, Deutsche Verteidigungs Dienst (so that while Bush Sr. served as Director of Central Intelligence, he was also head of this ‘Black’ covert Nazi Pan-German intelligence organisation, which, unmasked by this service, remains the primary source of the world’s troubles today).

The Chinese authorities and People’s Bank officials specified that the $4.5 trillion was payable to the Ambassador, whom they recognise to be the sole owner and Principal of these funds, which was why the Chinese authorities honourably sanctioned their repatriation.

The Petition reveals that:

“In May of 2006 the People’s Republic of China caused a free and unrestricted transfer of $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars through international bank fund transfer facilities to an account at Bank of America located at Richmond, Virginia. The designated beneficiary of the transferred funds from the People’s Republic of China was Petitioner herein.

This transfer was made by the People’s Republic of China solely and exclusively as a requirement under the mentioned settlement agreement.

Upon best information and belief between the dates of July 31st to August 2nd of 2006 the United States Department of the Treasury, without authorization of either the remitting party or the receiving party removed the People’s Republic of China transferred financial assets from Bank of America Richmond, Virginia to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs at CITIBank New York, New York as the beneficiary holder of the monies transferred by the People’s Republic of China referenced above.

This “Chip” (Clearing House Interbank Payment) transfer was facilitated from Virginia domiciled banks to New York domiciled banks via the Federal Reserve Bank Richmond. The Chip transfer did not remove the name of Petitioner as the intended recipient of the transferred money from the People’s Republic of China. The transfer to the Goldman Sachs et al account at CITIBank put a lawless restriction that the funds were not to be released to Petitioner without the authorization of United States Treasury”.

In layman’s language, Treasury Secretary Paulson adopted the false position that the funds belonged to the Chinese authorities, proceeding effectively to treat them as ‘fair game’ and to confiscate (steal) and exploit them on the basis that they are China’s funds (not Leo Wanta’s) – choosing to overlook the fact that the Chinese, as the remitters of the funds, had specifically designated the assets for the Ambassador as beneficiary (since the Chinese acknowledge that these assets belong to him as exclusive Principal, and have belonged to him throughout the 14 years of his ‘takedown’), and that the funds are designated and tagged in Leo Wanta’s name and that of his Commonwealth of Virginia-based corporation.

Behind Paulson lurks President Bush Jr., who takes his instructions from George Bush Sr., who asserts, to this day, that the funds of which Sir Leo Wanta is the sole owner and Principal, as is universally acknowledged, belong to him [see above].

PROOFS OF WISCONSIN TAX GESTAPO FABRICATIONS SENT TO JUDGE
The posting herewith of the text of this Petition will ensure that Wantagate enters the ‘mainstream’ public domain, whatever the US cleptocracy and its disinformation lackeys may purport to maintain.

Separately, the Editor has delivered into the hands of the relevant Wisconsin Judge and Court documents proving that the Editor has himself been scammed out of $35,000 which was repayable 730 days from 9th June 2005 and that the Ambassador is the clear victim of the Grandfather of all miscarriages of justice, given the fabrications perpetrated by the criminal Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the detail of which the Editor has conclusively proved from their own and associated documents. The texts of the communications to the Judge and the Court will be posted on this website at the appropriate time.

The Editor is necessarily giving these Wisconsin State authorities space to make up their minds what steps the Court may care to consider in order to provide both the Ambassador and this Editor with appropriate and timely remedies.

In the case of the Ambassador, since the Wisconsin State taxation fabrications are proven, any remedy will surely need to include massive financial compensation covering the deprivation of Leo Wanta’s freedom for 14 years, appropriate annulment of the decisions of the kangaroo court which were based upon perjured evidence, and such other severe remedies as the Court may consider appropriate, given the proportions of this millennial scandal.

THE RONALD REAGAN LIBRARY PAPERS
As reported in our posting dated 17th June 2007, the Ronald Reagan Library have released 40 pages of documents that corroborate Ambassador Wanta’s status as an intelligence operative (spy) who advised and worked for President Reagan directly.

These documents, approved for release by the National Security Agency (NSA), are being published by World Reports Limited as a special Supplement to be distributed with the forthcoming massive further Wantagate issue of International Currency Review [Volume 33, #s 1 & 2, ISSN 0020-6490], which is expected to be published in July.

The Supplement is ‘on machine’ in our print factory ‘as we speak’.


SIR LEO WANTA’S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
The text of the Ambassador’s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus follows:


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Civil Action no.: 1-07 CV 609

LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA (Individually and as sole and exclusive shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc., a Commonwealth of Virginia registered corporation)

Petitioner

v.

HENRY M. PAULSON, JR.
SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and

ROBERT M. KIMMITT
DEPUTY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and

JAMES R. WILKINSON
CHIEF OF STAFF
UNITED STATES TREASURY, and

MICHAEL CHERTOFF
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF RICHMOND
DIRECTOR AND/OR MANAGER OF OPERATIONS,
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

Respondents

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND OTHER EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF


A. PARTIES:

1. LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner

2. Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent

3. Robert M. Kimmitt
Deputy Secretary of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20220: Respondent

4. James R. Wilkinson
Chief of Staff
United States Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20220: Respondent

5. Michael Chertoff
Secretary of Homeland Security
Washington, D.C.: respondent

6. Alberto R. Gonzales
Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001: Respondent

7. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond
701 East Byrd Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219: Respondent

B. JURISDICTION:

1. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this cause of action pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1361 (mandamus), Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1331, and Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 85, Section 1332.

C. VENUE:

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Title 28 United States Code, Chapter 87, Section 1391, and Title 28 United States Code Chapter 87, Section 1396.

D. STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

3. Mandamus is regarded as an extraordinary writ reserved for special situations. Among its ordinary preconditions are that the agency or official have acted (or failed to act) in disregard of a clear legal duty and that there be no adequate conventional means for review. In re Bluewater Network & Ocean Advocates, 234 F.3d 1305, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Telecomm. Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 78 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Mandamus will be granted if the Petitioner shows “(1) the presence of novel and significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available remedies; and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice”, see In re United States, 10 F.3d 229 at 931, 933 (2d Cir. 1993).

4. Petitioner has attempted to access monies that were transferred through international bank monetary clearing systems to financial institutions located in the United States of America. The remitting party was the People’s Republic of China, People’s Bank. The remitting party designated that the transferred funds were for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of Petitioner. The foreign entity that originated the inward remittance designated Petitioner as sole and exclusive recipient for the transferred money/financial instruments.

Irrespective of efforts proffered by Petitioner and/or agents and representatives of Petitioner, private and public individuals and entities, prevent Petitioner from exercising Petitioner’s legal right to the use, transfer and unrestricted ability to freely disburse said financial assets. The acts and/or omissions to act by named and unnamed Respondents prevent Petitioner (and others who are ancillary to this cause of action) from paying their respective tax liabilities to both State and Federal taxing authorities.

5. Upon best information and belief the organizations, entities, departments and individuals that prevent and/or restrict Petitioner’s lawful access to said money and securities include but are not necessarily limited to the following:

• Secretary of the Treasury;
• Attorney General of the United States of America;
• Bank of America;
• J.P. Morgan Chase;
• CITIBANK/CITIGROUP/NYC including but not limited to Mr Charles O. Prince, CITIGROUP Chief Executive Officer;
• Goldman Sachs et al including but not limited to past and present management and executive officers and members of the Board of Directors;
• United States Department of the Treasury including but not limited to Secretary
Paulson, Deputy Secretary Kimmitt and other known and/or unknown parties working
directly or under contract with the United States Department of the Treasury;
• Secretary Chertoff, Department of Homeland Security and other known and/or
unknown parties working directly or under contract with the United States
Department of Homeland Security;
• One or more known and/or unknown “compliance officers” that act directly and/or
under contract with private bank and/or security brokerage firms to observe
rules and regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury and/or other
USG investigative and reporting entities;
• Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia.

6. Upon best information and belief Respondent acts and/or failures to act constitute a
violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in 1970), the Bank
Privacy Act and other non-specified banking regulations.

7. Reasonable action has been taken by Petitioner to obtain an explanation and/or under what authority Respondents are not permitting Petitioner to have access to the foreign transferred private business financial assets referenced herein. Despite written notice and request for a response the named parties avoid their legal obligations. In furtherance of this Petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioner directs this Court’s attention to the letters and other communications that have been collectively marked as Exhibits A attached hereto (2) and all of which documents, letters and Memorandum are incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were set out in their entirety in the body of this Petition.

8. The material, substantive and immediate financial loss to the Petitioner resulting from loss of financial benefit can not adequately be addressed in conventional judicial proceedings. In one more instances parties in position of knowledge, that can confirm the representations regarding interference in private business dealings, between Petitioner and third parties, have been placed at risk of physical harm by individuals representing to be fiduciaries of one or more of the Respondents. Additionally, the acts and actions of the Respondents prevent immediate payment of Federal taxes in the amount of $1.575 Trillion dollars into the United States Treasury.

E. BACKGROUND:

9. On or about April 15, 2003 the Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee, in Case Number 02-1363-A filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, issued an Order and Memorandum of Opinion for the referenced numbered case. As part of the Order and Memorandum of the Court (in the referenced case) the Court stated that the Plaintiff (in the referenced case) should pursue liquidation of corporations, recovery of financial assets and pay all required taxes in accordance with the law (3).

10. Petitioner initiated contact with numerous third parties, including United States elected, nominated, appointed and career employees plus foreign countries, for the purpose of recovering financial assets.

11. Upon best information and belief in December 2005 and January 2006, Secretary Snow (Secretary of the Treasury at the time) and Chairman Greenspan (Chairman of the Federal Reserve at the time) traveled to the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese required confirmation of Petitioner’s signature to facilitate cooperation of the Chinese in completing the transfer of financial assets referenced herein.

Upon best information and belief Snow/Greenspan determined that Chinese officials had the ability and willingness to cooperate with petitioner in the recovery and transfer of substantial financial assets that had been in the care, custody and control of the Chinese for an extended period of time.

12. Premised on the representations of Secretary Snow and Chairman Greenspan, the legal services of Troutman Sanders, LLP and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin, LLP (attorneys) were used to complete the preparation and administer the execution of agreements and documents referred to collectively as “settlement documents”. The following is a compilation of the significant parties that are represented as either obligors and/or beneficiaries of the settlement documents:

• Petitioner Wanta identified in this petition.
• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (including but not limited to Land Baron/Xeno).
• National Security Agency (NSA).
• Department of Homeland Security.
• Director of National Intelligence.
• United States State Department.
• United States Department of the Treasury.
• United States Department of Defense.
• The White House, including but not limited to the Offices of the President and Vice President.
• C.B.I.C. Inc. (Mr William Bonney Sr.).
• China (PRC), France, Great Britain, Germany and other foreign nations participating under one or more international “Protocol” including but not limited to the Reagan-Mitterrand Protocol agreements.
• Others of interest not intentionally omitted as part of this petition.

The entirety of the financial assets mentioned in the settlement documents prepared by the above mentioned attorneys concerns approximately $27 Trillion United States Dollars in value. The portion attributable and payable to the petitioner is $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars.

13. In May of 2006 the People’s Republic of China caused a free and unrestricted transfer of $4.5 Trillion United States Dollars through international bank fund transfer facilities to an account at Bank of America located at Richmond, Virginia. The designated beneficiary of the transferred funds from the People’s Republic of China was Petitioner herein. This transfer was made by the People’s Republic of China solely and exclusively as a requirement under the mentioned settlement agreement.

14. Upon best information and belief between the dates of July 31st to August 2nd of 2006 the United States Department of the Treasury, without authorization of either the remitting party or the receiving party removed the People’s Republic of China transferred financial assets from Bank of America Richmond, Virginia to an account in the name of Goldman Sachs at CITIBank New York, New York as the beneficiary holder of the monies transferred by the People’s Republic of China referenced above. This “Chip” (Clearing House Interbank Payment) transfer was facilitated from Virginia domiciled banks to New York domiciled banks via the Federal Reserve Bank Richmond. The Chip transfer did not remove the name of Petitioner as the intended recipient of the transferred money from the People’s Republic of China. The transfer to the Goldman Sachs et al account at CITIBank put a lawless restriction that the funds were not to be released to Petitioner without the authorization of United States Treasury. At or about the time of the unauthorized transfer mentioned in this paragraph 14 Petitioner protested the alleged right of “entitlement” by Secretary Paulson and to facilitate protest of right of ownership under the “Securities Acts” accounts were opened in the name of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. at Morgan Stanley, fiduciary client account at CITIBank/NYC to receive direct deposit transfer of Petitioner funds from Goldman Sachs.

15. The Petitioner has been contacted by “Compliance Officers” that are contract employees of the United States Department of the Treasury that the transfer records of the United States Department of the Treasury and the recipient (past and present holder of the funds transferred to Petitioner by the People’s Republic of China) reflect that the accounts opened to receive the financial assets are tagged and coded for the benefit of the Petitioner. Access to the tagged and coded accounts requires lawless authorization to be provided in writing by Secretary Paulson. To date Secretary Paulson refuses to provide the required written authorization to the compliance officers. In addition one or more compliance officer (referenced herein) has been contacted by Secret Service Agents who have advised the compliance officers that the “White House” ordered that the compliance officers cease and desist from communicating in any manner with Petitioner.

16. Upon best information and belief the compliance officers mentioned in paragraph 15 have been in contact with law enforcement officers representing the Central Intelligence Agency and the United States Department of Defense. These mentioned law enforcement officers confirm that the information provided by the compliance officers is true and correct and that upon best information and belief the “order” preventing Secretary Paulson from releasing the “tagged and coded” funds that are the sole and exclusive property of the Petitioner have been either lawlessly and individually controlled by Secretary Paulson and/or restricted through direct participation by other United States of America elected and/or nominated officials.

17. Upon best information and belief Troutman Sanders LLP and Jenkens & Gilchrist Parker Chapin LLP, seeking legal recourse on behalf of C.B.I.C. Inc. (Mr William Bonney Sr.) and the People’s Republic of China obtained an Order to Show Cause Why a Writ of Mandamus Should Not Be Issued from the United States Supreme Court signed by Justice Ginsberg. The People’s Republic of China, as a foreign government, invoked the original jurisdiction authority of the United States Supreme Court to obtain the document signed by Justice Ginsberg. Upon further best information and belief the responding parties to the action filed in the United States Supreme Court are exercising any and all assumed defenses to ward off the issuance of the Writ of Mandamus.

18. The United States Department of Justice and/or any agency or investigative authority contacted has refused to assist Petitioner in the collection of lawful funds. Said parties refuse such assistance irrespective that there is clear and undisputed evidence that the subject funds are identified in official United States government agency documents as being the sole and exclusive property of Petitioner. As of the date of the filing of this Petition, all requests for payment of lawful funds have been ignored by any and all elected and nominated public officials that have the implied and apparent authority to complete all requirements of the settled documents.

19. Petitioner individually and as sole and exclusive controlling shareholder of AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc. certifies as follows:

• The Petitioner has personally had conversations with one or more officials at the United States Department of the Treasury and said officials confirm the sequence of events concerning inward remittance of subject funds from the People’s Republic of China and inter-bank transfers within the United States.
• Petitioner confirms that he has personal knowledge about the “Claims and Background” set out in this Petition and verifies upon penalty of perjury that the same are true and correct.
• Petitioner has fully and completely reviewed the content of this petition and certifies by sworn affidavit attached hereto that the “Statement of Claim and Background” are true and correct.
• Upon best information and belief “Respondent” individuals, agencies, public, private, nominated and/or elected have knowingly, overtly, covertly and with specific intent conspired together to defraud Petitioner. The individual and/or conspiratorial acts amount to a violation of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 (as amended in 1970), the Bank Privacy Act, the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, specifically R.I.C.O. and applicable international and national money laundering restrictions. In addition it is further the mentioned Respondents’ acting individually and/or “acting in concert” violate Petitioner’s rights under the provisions of H.R. 3723 as the same pertains to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties.

Reasonable action has been taken by the Petitioner in an attempt to obtain explanation and/or under what authority Respondents are not allowing the “Rule of Law” and permitting access by Petitioner to the financial accounts referenced herein. Despite continued written notice and request for a response the named parties continue to avoid their legal obligations and continue to commit covert and/or overt acts in furtherance of their knowing and purposeful violation of the statutory references mentioned hereinabove. In furtherance of this petition for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus Petitioners direct this Court’s attention to the letters and other communications that have been marked as Exhibits A, B and C (4) attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as if the same were set out in their entirety in the body of this petition.

F. CONCLUSION:

21. The “Statement of Claim and Background” demonstrate “(1) the presence of novel and significant questions of law; (2) the inadequacy of other available remedies; and (3) the presence of a legal issue whose resolution will aid in the administration of justice”.

G. REQUEST FOR RELIEF:

1. Emergency consideration of this Petition with an expedited response time for Respondents to respond to this Petition and an expedited time for the Court to hear the merits of this matter.

2. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper to protect the Constitutionally protected rights of the Petitioner.

Executed on this 18th day of June 2007.

[Signed]
LEE E. WANTA, LEO E. WANTA, AMBASSADOR LEO WANTA _Pro_Se
5516 Falmouth Street
Suite 108
Richmond, Virginia 23230: Petitioner
Telephone: 814 455 9218
Telefax: 202 330 5116

AFFIDAVIT

The undersigned, being fully advised by counsel of the seriousness of the claim of making false statements to a Court and being fully apprised of the consequences for committing perjury (and the associated penalties), hereby make the following statements concerning the petition for Writ of Mandamus being filed on my behalf, by my counsel, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia:

1. I am more than twenty-one years of age and I am a citizen of the United States of America.

2. For an extended period of time I am functioning as a representative, investigator, contract employee and/or facilitator of one or more assignments that were either executed and/or performed at the direction and/or under the supervision of one or more persons and/or agencies that were accountable to the Executive Offices of the United States Government

3. During most recent three to five years I have been attempting to coordinate the repatriating of substantive financial resources from foreign locations to the United States and cause the tax payments owed on the patriated funds to be paid to the United States Treasury. I have substantially completed the stated objective task with the assistance of one or more foreign sources.

4. I have read the entirety of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus prepared by my attorneys. I confirm that I have personally directed communications with the banks, security firms, the United States Department of the Treasury (including one or more individual parties associated with the Treasury that are named as Respondents) and other entities mentioned in the Petition.

5. I have personally confirmed that the financial assets sent by the People’s Republic of China were received by Bank of America in Richmond, Virginia and that upon best information and belief the subject financial assets were “tagged” in my name and transmittal instructions by the People’s Republic of China directed that the same be paid to me without offset or delay.

6. I have been personally advised by agents and/or contract regulation compliance workers, that are accountable to the United States Department of the Treasury, that release of funds sent by the People’s Republic of China for payment to me is being restricted and/or blocked by one or more parties.

7. The exact party and/or parties that are restricting and/or blocking payment of financial assets to my designated accounts is not known absolutely.

8. Upon best information and belief the United States Department of the Treasury has the power and authority to direct release of the funds for my unrestricted use.

9. Despite continued demand for release of financial assets (that were transmitted by the People’s Republic of China) for payment to me personally the demands are ignored and are not rebuked by any responsive communication.

10. I have been personally informed by parties, that have the authority to release the block on funds leveraged against recipient banking accounts established in my name, that directives have been received from known and unknown parties that have the effect of negating my ability to have free and unrestricted access to financial assets that are “tagged” solely and exclusively in my name.

IN WITNESS HEREOF I am causing the above set forth affidavit to be notarized and sworn with full recognition of the penalty of perjury this 11th day of June 2007.

[Signed]
Lee E. Wanta, Leo E. Wanta and
Ambassador Leo E. Wanta

County of [omitted here]
State of [omitted here]

On this 11th day of June 2007 the above named individual, being personally known to me, appeared before me and after being first duly sworn signed the above Affidavit.

My commission expires January 5, 2009.

[Notary signature and seal].

References and Notes:
(1) Leo Wanta received an honorary knighthood from Her Majesty The Queen. As a British subject, the Editor is entitled to designate the Ambassador as Sir Leo Wanta, reflecting his exalted status as a recognised benefactor of the United Kingdom.
(2) The Exhibits are omitted from this presentation. They consist inter alia of all the formal letters sent both directly and by the Ambassador’s Attorney Thomas Henry to the President of the United States and other senior office-holders and officials, since June 2006. Also included is the despicable letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation referenced in our report dated 15th May 2007.
(3) The full text of the Memorandum Opinion by Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, United States District Judge, Alexandria, Virginia, dated 15th April 2003, was published by the Editor inter alia in facsimile format in International Currency Review [ISSN 0020-6490], Volume 31, #s 3 & 4, November 2006, on pages 258-267.
(4) Taken together, this Petition and Affidavit plus the Exhibits provide the Court with comprehensive information on the illegal diversion, annexation, exploitation and leveraging of the $4.5 trillion Settlement, with the gravest implications for those involved.


LAWS BREACHED BY CRIMINAL OPERATIVES WHO HAVE HIJACKED AMBASSADOR SIR LEO WANTA’S TAGGED $4.5 TRILLION SETTLEMENT AGREED AT HIGHEST U.S. LEVELS IN BAD FAITH IN MAY 2006, AND HAVE CONTINUED THEIR SERIAL CRIMES EVER SINCE:

The Directors and others listed in Part 1 of the Wantagate Listing of Institution Directors and others posted on 11th June may be Accessories to the Fact of, and/or co-conspirators in, wittingly or unwittingly, the egregious trashing of these US Statutes:

• Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act
• Anti-Drug Abuse Act
• Applicable international money laundering restrictions
• Bank Secrecy Act
• Conspiracy to commit and cover up murder.
• Crimes, General Provisions, Accessory After the Fact [Title 18, USC]
• Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act
• Economic Espionage Act
• Hobbs Act
• Imparting or Conveying False Information [Title 18, USC]
• Maloney Act
• Misprision of Felony [Title 18, USC]
• Money-Laundering Control Act
• Money-Laundering Suppression Act
• Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
• Perpetration of repeated egregious felonies by State and Federal public employees and their Departments and agencies, which are co-responsible with the said employees for ONGOING illegal and criminal actions, to sustain fraudulent operations and crimes in order to cover up criminal activities and High Crimes and Misdemeanours by present and former holders of high office under the United States
• Provisions pertaining to private business transactions being protected under both private and criminal penalties [H.R. 3723]
• Provisions prohibiting the bribing of foreign officials [F.I.S.A.]
• Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [R.I.C.O.]
• Securities Act 1933
• Securities Act 1934
• Terrorism Prevention Act
• Treason legislation, especially in time of war

This list shows to what extent the Bush II Administration condones one Rule of Law for the Rest of Us, and absolute contempt for domestic and international law for the officials and bankers who are illegally diverting and exploiting Sir Leo Wanta’s funds.


Ambassador Leo Emil Wanta: Diplomatic Passport Numbers 04362 & 12535 a.k.a. Frank B. Ingram [FBI] (Sector V) SA32NV; and a.k.a. Rick Reynolds, SA233MS. AmeriTrust Groupe, Inc: Federal EIN Number 20-3866855; Virginia State Corporation Identification Number: 0617454-4; Virginia State Department of Taxation Identification Number: 30203866855F001

• Please be advised that the Editor of International Currency Review [ISSN 0020-6490] cannot enter into email correspondence related to this or the earlier Wantagate reports.

We are a private intelligence publishing house with no connect

最近の為替レートに思うこと

昨日の書けなかった部分です。↓


最近の為替びっっくりするくらいの円安が進行中。

オーストラリアドルは100円を超え、ユーロも164円を超えている。

あまりにも今週急激に円安になったので何が原因なのかなぁと考えた。

以下気になる記事を引用↓


2007/06/05-18:25 長期金利、７カ月半ぶり高水準＝１．８３％に上昇（時事通信社）
　５日の東京債券市場では、日銀の利上げ観測の広がりを受け、長期金利が一段と上昇（債券価格は下落）した。指標となる１０年国債の利回りは前日比０．０４％上昇の年１．８３％となった。これは２００６年１０月２４日以来、約７カ月半ぶりの高水準。　市場では、日銀が今夏にも第３次利上げに踏み切るとの見方が一段と広がった。金融政策の影響を受けやすい期間の短い国債を売却する動きが強まったのが長期金利にも波及した。

http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=eco_30&k=2007060500884



金利上昇続く円債市場、短期金利が新たな波乱材料に　【東京　５日　ロイター】　

軟調地合いが続く円債市場では、新たな売り要因として、短期金利の上昇が警戒されている。夏までは日銀の利上げの可能性は低いと見込んで、短期金融市場のターム物金利は低水準にある。しかし、今後利上げ観測が高まるにつれてターム物金利が上昇してくるようだと、債券市場でも中短期ゾーンから相場が崩れる形で金利全般に一段の上昇圧力がかかる可能性がある。
　＜ターム物金利は低位で推移、利上げまでの時間軸定まらず＞
　無担保コール市場では、資金がひっ迫しがちな５月末を終えて需給が緩み、翌日物の加重平均レートは０．５２％台から低下、５日には４月１３日以来の誘導目標（０．５０％）割れとなった。足元金利が低位で推移を続けているため、ターム物金利も上がりにくくなっている。
　コール市場でのターム物取引は、１─２週間程度の短い期間の出合いが中心で、利回りは０．５％半ばをやや超える水準。期間の長いものになると、一部の外銀が３カ月物などで０．６％半ばから後半で調達希望を示してはいるものの、それに見合うオファーが少なく、出合いがつきづらい。
　ターム物の取引が活発にならないのは、日銀の利上げ時期を読みきれない裏返しでもある。どのタイミングで足元金利の上昇を織り込めばいいのか判断に迷っているため、資金の出し手はより高いレート、取り手はより低いレートでそれぞれ希望を提示し、取引が成立しにくくなっている。
　＜ターム物金利上昇、債券相場下落の引き金になる可能性＞　
　しかし、今後、夏の利上げ見通しが強まった場合、ターム物金利にも上昇圧力がかかりやすくなる。債券市場でも、ターム物金利の上昇を警戒する声は少なくない。ターム物金利の上昇にともない金融機関の調達コストが高くなれば、ある程度、需給の良さに支えられている債券相場も一気に崩れる可能性が否めないからだ。
　ある大手証券の債券担当者は「金融機関にとって、量的緩和解除後、短期金利の上昇による調達コストの上昇がボディブローのように効き始めている」と指摘。調達コストの上昇はすぐに貸し出しコストに反映されず、円債投資に関しても、将来的な逆ザヤを警戒し慎重にならざるを得ないとの見方を示している。
　ＵＢＳ証券・債券本部チーフストラテジストの道家映二氏は「米国の利下げ観測はほぼ消えたが、利上げに踏み切るような状況ではまだないので、日銀の８月利上げは断定できない」としながらも、ターム物金利が上昇すれば２─５年など中期ゾーンの地合いは軟化し、２年債利回りも１％台を超える、との見通しを示している。
　財務省が５日に実施した１０年利付国債の入札は、ほぼ予想通りの結果となったが、応札倍率は３．２０倍と前回の４．０３倍に比べて低く「札が大きく入って１．８％の下値を固めるという雰囲気まではいかなかった」（新光証券・債券ストレテジストの三浦哲也氏）という。三浦氏は「長短金利の動向を見てみると、５年債が１０年債に比べてやや利回りの上昇幅が大きかったが、２─１０年債利回りのスプレッドはほとんど変わっていない。日銀の利上げ観測を織り込む形で２年債が売られた分に合わせて、１０年債も売られているとの見方が可能」とし、中短期ゾーンを軸にした相場の上値の重さを指摘している。　
　入札は無難に終わったものの、午後の債券市場は、現物中期ゾーンにまとまった売りが出たのをきっかけに下げ幅を広げた。新発債の消化を懸念したヘッジ売りや海外勢のまとまった売りを巻き込みながら、先物は下げ幅を拡大。１０年最長期国債利回り（長期金利）は一時１．８３０％と０６年１０月２４日以来約８カ月ぶりの水準に上昇した。
　＜利上げ前倒し観測、ＯＩＳ市場以上に警戒強く＞
　日銀の次回利上げについて、市場では、７月の参議院選挙を終えた後の８月の実施を読み込み始めている。オーバーナイト・インデックス・スワップ（ＯＩＳ）市場では、８月の利上げの織り込みは７０％後半から８０％程度。７月の利上げ織り込みは、２５─３０％程度にとどまっている。
　短期国債市場では、８月の決定会合を挟んで、それ以前に償還を迎える銘柄と会合以降の銘柄とのスプレッドが着実に広がっている。５日に入札が行われた６カ月物ＦＢの落札利回りは、夏場の利上げを一段と織り込む形で最高０．６９６５％、平均０．６９２５％。前回の最高０．１２０％、平均０．６０６２％から大幅に上昇した。
　しかし「ＯＩＳ金利が示すほど７月利上げの警戒感は低くない」（ある大手外銀の短期市場関係者）との声もある。
　きょう午後１時に日銀が実施した共通担保資金供給（本店、６０００億円）オペは、案分レート０．５７０％、平均落札レート０．５８４％となった。案分落札利回りは８月期日の前回オペから変わらなかったが、平均落札レートが０．５８％台に上昇。前出の外銀の関係者は「平均落札利回りが０．５８４％ということは、０．５９％での応札を行った向きがいたということ。市場の次回利上げのメーンシナリオとなっている８月の決定会合を越えないにもかかわらず、ここまで目線が上がっており、７月の利上げの可能性を完全に排除してしまうわけにはいかない」と警戒感を示している。
2007/06/05 19:08

http://www.worldtimes.co.jp/news/bus/kiji/2007-06-05T190845Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_JAPAN-262929-1.html

以下コメント

この記事を見ると、長期国債金利が上がっているようだ。
日本の将来が不安定だから投売りでもしているのだろうか？
また、景気がいいから政策金利が上がると思っているのだろうか？

もし、政策金利が上がると思っているのなら株の資金が国債に向かって流れていくと思います。
株はやはりハイリスクなので低リスク代名詞の国債に資金が流れるはずです。その結果、国債価格は高くなり金利は低下します。
二月を思い出してください。金利を上げるというアナウンスによって株から資金が逃げ円へと流れました。そして円高になったのを記憶しているはずです。去年の六月も、七月に金利が上がるというアナウンスで急激に円高になりましたね？それらのときの国債金利、株価がどうだったのかは忘れてしまいましたが、円は買われ急激な円高が起きたのは事実であります。

政府が言うように景気がいいのなら、金利を上げる要因になっているはずですが、いざあげようとすると政府は反発をする。おかしいですね？
好景気であるなら金利をあげて市場からお金を減らしていかないとインフレを招くのではなかったのかなぁ？あっそうか！政府はわざとインフレを起こそうとしていたのですね、この何年も。確かにインフレ・ターゲッティングがどうのこうの言っていましたものね。そして見事にその数年間デフレになっているというわけですか、なるほど。
で、結果として日本では数年間は「金利を上げない＝デフレ」であったわけで、その代わり日本以外では「金利を上げて＝インフレ」になって好景気を謳歌しているってことですね。なるほど、なるほど。深謀遠慮ですね。世界に対しての、インフレ・ターゲッティングだったのか。日本の税金でねぇ。

円安＝外貨高＝株高＝日本超低金利＝世界金利高＝日本デフレ＝他国インフレ

で、日本の金利が高くなるとこれが真逆になるということかな？過去を見ると。

で、現在は金利が上がるかもって言われているわけね。

つまり、邪推すると「金利上昇前の株高、円安」ということかな？

The End of National Currency

以下、全て引用↓
ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー

日本語はそのうち論座あたりに出るだろうから、原文のみで失礼。
------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86308/benn-steil/the-end-of-national-currency.html
*The End of National Currency*By Benn Steil
>From /Foreign Affairs/,
May/June 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------Summary:
Global financial instability has sparked a surge in "monetarynationalism" -- the
idea that countries must make and control their owncurrencies. But globalization
and monetary nationalism are a dangerouscombination, a cause of financial crises
and geopolitical tension. Theworld needs to abandon unwanted currencies,
replacing them with dollars,euros, and multinational currencies as yet unborn.
/ Benn Steil is Director of International Economics at the Council onForeign
Relations and a co-author of Financial Statecraft. /
THE RISE OF MONETARY
NATIONALISM
Capital flows have become globalization's Achilles' heel. Over
the past25 years, devastating currency crises have hit countries across
LatinAmerica and Asia, as well as countries just beyond the borders ofwestern
Europe -- most notably Russia and Turkey. Even such animpeccably credentialed
pro-globalization economist as U.S. FederalReserve Governor Frederic Mishkin has
acknowledged that "opening up thefinancial system to foreign capital flows has
led to some disastrousfinancial crises causing great pain, suffering, and even
violence."
The economics profession has failed to offer anything resembling
acoherent and compelling response to currency crises. InternationalMonetary Fund
(IMF) analysts have, over the past two decades, endorsed awide variety of
national exchange-rate and monetary policy regimes thathave subsequently
collapsed in failure. They have fingered numerousculprits, from loose fiscal
policy and poor bank regulation to badindustrial policy and official corruption.
The financial-crisisliterature has yielded policy recommendations so exquisitely
hedged andwidely contradicted as to be practically useless.
Antiglobalization economists have turned the problem on its head byabsolving
governments (except the one in Washington) and instead blamingcrises on markets
and their institutional supporters, such as the IMF --"dictatorships of
international finance," in the words of the Nobellaureate Joseph Stiglitz.
"Countries are effectively told that if theydon't follow certain conditions, the
capital markets or the IMF willrefuse to lend them money," writes Stiglitz.
"They are basically forcedto give up part of their sovereignty."
Is this
right? Are markets failing, and will restoring lost sovereigntyto governments
put an end to financial instability? This is a dangerousmisdiagnosis. In fact,
capital flows became destabilizing only aftercountries began asserting
"sovereignty" over money -- detaching it fromgold or anything else considered
real wealth. Moreover, even if themarch of globalization is not inevitable, the
world economy and theinternational financial system have evolved in such a way
that there isno longer a viable model for economic development outside of them.
The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetarysovereignty,
with governments controlling local interest and exchangerates in blissful
ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments mustlet go of the fatal notion
that nationhood requires them to make andcontrol the money used in their
territory. National currencies andglobal markets simply do not mix; together
they make a deadly brew ofcurrency crises and geopolitical tension and create
ready pretexts fordamaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely,
countries shouldabandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies,
the sourceof much of today's instability.
THE GOLDEN AGE
Capital flows
were enormous, even by contemporary standards, during thelast great period of
"globalization," from the late nineteenth centuryto the outbreak of World War I.
Currency crises occurred during thisperiod, but they were generally shallow and
short-lived. That is becausemoney was then -- as it has been throughout most of
the world and mostof human history -- gold, or at least a credible claim on
gold. Fundsflowed quickly back to crisis countries because of confidence that
thegold link would be restored. At the time, monetary nationalism wasconsidered
a sign of backwardness, adherence to a universallyacknowledged standard of value
a mark of civilization. Those nationsthat adhered most reliably (such as
Australia, Canada, and the UnitedStates) were rewarded with the lowest
international borrowing rates.Those that adhered the least (such as Argentina,
Brazil, and Chile) werepunished with the highest.
This bond was fatally
severed during the period between World War I andWorld War II. Most economists
in the 1930s and 1940s considered itobvious that capital flows would become
destabilizing with the end ofreliably fixed exchange rates. Friedrich Hayek
noted in a 1937 lecturethat under a credible gold-standard regime, "short-term
capitalmovements will on the whole tend to relieve the strain set up by
theoriginal cause of a temporarily adverse balance of payments. Ifexchanges,
however, are variable, the capital movements will tend towork in the same
direction as the original cause and thereby tointensify it" -- as they do today.
The belief that globalization required hard money, something foreignerswould
willingly hold, was widespread. The French economist Charles Ristobserved that
"while the theorizers are trying to persuade the publicand the various
governments that a minimum quantity of gold ... wouldsuffice to maintain
monetary confidence, and that anyhow paper currency,even fiat currency, would
amply meet all needs, the public in allcountries is busily hoarding all the
national currencies which aresupposed to be convertible into gold." This view
was hardly limited tofree marketeers. As notable a critic of the gold standard
and globalcapitalism as Karl Polanyi took it as obvious that monetary
nationalismwas incompatible with globalization. Focusing on the United
Kingdom'sinterest in growing world trade in the nineteenth century, he
arguedthat "nothing else but commodity money could serve this end for theobvious
reason that token money, whether bank or fiat, cannot circulateon foreign soil."
Yet what Polanyi considered nonsensical -- globaltrade in goods, services, and
capital intermediated by intrinsicallyworthless national paper (or "fiat")
monies -- is exactly howglobalization is advancing, ever so fitfully, today.
The political mythology associating the creation and control of moneywith
national sovereignty finds its economic counterpart in themetamorphosis of the
famous theory of "optimum currency areas" (OCA).Fathered in 1961 by Robert
Mundell, a Nobel Prize-winning economist whohas long been a prolific advocate of
shrinking the number of nationalcurrencies, it became over the subsequent
decades a quasi-scientificfoundation for monetary nationalism.
Mundell, like
most macroeconomists of the early 1960s, had a now largelydiscredited postwar
Keynesian mindset that put great faith in theability of policymakers to
fine-tune national demand in the face of whateconomists call "shocks" to supply
and demand. His seminal article, "ATheory of Optimum Currency Areas," asks the
question, "What is theappropriate domain of the currency area?" "It might seem
at first thatthe question is purely academic," he observes, "since it hardly
appearswithin the realm of political feasibility that national currencies
wouldever be abandoned in favor of any other arrangement."
Mundell goes on
to argue for flexible exchange rates between regions ofthe world, each with its
own multinational currency, rather than betweennations. The economics
profession, however, latched on to Mundell'sanalysis of the merits of flexible
exchange rates in dealing witheconomic shocks affecting different "regions or
countries" differently;they saw it as a rationale for treating existing nations
as naturalcurrency areas. Monetary nationalism thereby acquired a
rationalscientific mooring. And from then on, much of the mainstream
economicsprofession came to see deviations from "one nation, one currency"
asmisguided, at least in the absence of prior political integration.
The
link between money and nationhood having been established byeconomists (much in
the way that Aristotle and Jesus were reconciled bymedieval scholastics),
governments adopted OCA theory as the primaryintellectual defense of monetary
nationalism. Brazilian central bankershave even defended the country's monetary
independence by publiclyappealing to OCA theory -- against Mundell himself, who
spoke out on theeconomic damage that sky-high interest rates (the result of
maintainingunstable national monies that no one wants to hold) impose on
LatinAmerican countries. Indeed, much of Latin America has alreadyexperienced
"spontaneous dollarization": despite restrictions in manycountries, U.S. dollars
represent over 50 percent of bank deposits. (InUruguay, the figure is 90
percent, reflecting the appeal of Uruguay'slack of currency restrictions and its
famed bank secrecy.) Thisincreasingly global phenomenon of people rejecting
national monies as astore of wealth has no place in OCA theory.
NO TURNING
BACK
Just a few decades ago, vital foreign investment in developing
countrieswas driven by two main motivations: to extract raw materials for
exportand to gain access to local markets heavily protected againstcompetition
from imports. Attracting the first kind of investment wassimple for countries
endowed with the right natural resources.(Companies readily went into war zones
to extract oil, for example.)Governments pulled in the second kind of investment
by erecting tariffand other barriers to competition so as to compensate
foreigners for anotherwise unappealing business climate. Foreign investors
brought moneyand know-how in return for monopolies in the domestic market.
This cozy scenario was undermined by the advent of globalization.
Tradeliberalization has opened up most developing countries to imports (inreturn
for export access to developed countries), and huge declines inthe costs of
communication and transport have revolutionized theeconomics of global
production and distribution. Accordingly, thereasons for foreign companies to
invest in developing countries havechanged. The desire to extract commodities
remains, but companiesgenerally no longer need to invest for the sake of gaining
access todomestic markets. It is generally not necessary today to produce in
acountry in order to sell in it (except in large economies such as Braziland
China).
At the same time, globalization has produced a compelling new reason
toinvest in developing countries: to take advantage of lower productioncosts by
integrating local facilities into global chains of productionand distribution.
Now that markets are global rather than local,countries compete with others for
investment, and the factors definingan attractive investment climate have
changed dramatically. Countriescan no longer attract investors by protecting
them against competition;now, since protection increases the prices of goods
that foreigninvestors need as production inputs, it actually reduces
globalcompetitiveness.
In a globalizing economy, monetary stability and
access to sophisticatedfinancial services are essential components of an
attractive localinvestment climate. And in this regard, developing countries
areespecially poorly positioned.
Traditionally, governments in the
developing world exercised strictcontrol over interest rates, loan maturities,
and even the beneficiariesof credit -- all of which required severing financial
and monetary linkswith the rest of the world and tightly controlling
international capitalflows. As a result, such flows occurred mainly to settle
tradeimbalances or fund direct investments, and local financial systemsremained
weak and underdeveloped. But growth today depends more and moreon investment
decisions funded and funneled through the global financialsystem. (Borrowing in
low-cost yen to finance investments in Europewhile hedging against the yen's
rise on a U.S. futures exchange is nolonger exotic.) Thus, unrestricted and
efficient access to this globalsystem -- rather than the ability of governments
to manipulate parochialmonetary policies -- has become essential for future
economic development.
But because foreigners are often unwilling to hold the
currencies ofdeveloping countries, those countries' local financial systems end
upbeing largely isolated from the global system. Their interest rates tendto be
much higher than those in the international markets and theirlending operations
extremely short -- not longer than a few months inmost cases. As a result, many
developing countries are dependent on U.S.dollars for long-term credit. This is
what makes capital flows, howevernecessary, dangerous: in a developing country,
both locals andforeigners will sell off the local currency en masse at the
earliestwhiff of devaluation, since devaluation makes it more difficult for
thecountry to pay its foreign debts -- hence the dangerous instability oftoday's
international financial system.
Although OCA theory accounts for none of
these problems, they are graveobstacles to development in the context of
advancing globalization.Monetary nationalism in developing countries operates
against the grainof the process -- and thus makes future financial problems even
morelikely.
MONEY IN CRISIS
Why has the problem of serial currency
crises become so severe in recentdecades? It is only since 1971, when President
Richard Nixon formallyuntethered the dollar from gold, that monies flowing
around the globehave ceased to be claims on anything real. All the world's
currenciesare now pure manifestations of sovereignty conjured by governments.
Andthe vast majority of such monies are unwanted: people are unwilling tohold
them as wealth, something that will buy in the future at least whatit did in the
past. Governments can force their citizens to holdnational money by requiring
its use in transactions with the state, butforeigners, who are not thus
compelled, will choose not to do so. And ina world in which people will only
willingly hold dollars (and a handfulof other currencies) in lieu of gold money,
the mythology tying money tosovereignty is a costly and sometimes dangerous one.
Monetarynationalism is simply incompatible with globalization. It has
alwaysbeen, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when allthe
world's governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.
Yet,
perversely as a matter of both monetary logic and history, the mostnotable
economist critical of globalization, Stiglitz, has arguedpassionately for
monetary nationalism as the remedy for the economicchaos caused by currency
crises. When millions of people, locals andforeigners, are selling a national
currency for fear of an impendingdefault, the Stiglitz solution is for the
issuing government to simplydecouple from the world: drop interest rates,
devalue, close offfinancial flows, and stiff the lenders. It is precisely this
thinking, athrowback to the isolationism of the 1930s, that is at the root of
thecycle of crisis that has infected modern globalization.
Argentina has
become the poster child for monetary nationalists -- thosewho believe that every
country should have its own paper currency andnot waste resources hoarding gold
or hard-currency reserves. Monetarynationalists advocate capital controls to
avoid entanglement withforeign creditors. But they cannot stop there. As Hayek
emphasized inhis 1937 lecture, "exchange control designed to prevent effectively
theoutflow of capital would really have to involve a complete control offoreign
trade," since capital movements are triggered by changes in theterms of credit
on exports and imports.
Indeed, this is precisely the path that Argentina
has followed since2002, when the government abandoned its currency board, which
tried tofix the peso to the dollar without the dollars necessary to do so.
Sincewriting off $80 billion worth of its debts (75 percent in nominalterms),
the Argentine government has been resorting to ever moreintrusive means in order
to prevent its citizens from protecting whatremains of their savings and buying
from or selling to foreigners. Thecountry has gone straight back to the statist
model of economic controlthat has failed Latin America repeatedly over
generations. Thegovernment has steadily piled on more and more onerous capital
anddomestic price controls, export taxes, export bans, and limits oncitizens'
access to foreign currency. Annual inflation has neverthelessrisen to about 20
percent, prompting the government to make ham-fistedefforts to manipulate the
official price data. The economy has becomeominously dependent on soybean
production, which surged in the wake ofprice controls and export bans on cattle,
taking the country back to thepre-globalization model of reliance on a single
commodity export forhard-currency earnings. Despite many years of robust
postcrisis economicrecovery, GDP is still, in constant U.S. dollars, 26 percent
below itspeak in 1998, and the country's long-term economic future looks
asfragile as ever.
When currency crises hit, countries need dollars to pay
off creditors.That is when their governments turn to the IMF, the most
demonizedinstitutional face of globalization. The IMF has been attacked
byStiglitz and others for violating "sovereign rights" in imposingconditions in
return for loans. Yet the sort of compromises on policyautonomy that sovereign
borrowers strike today with the IMF were in thepast struck directly with foreign
governments. And in the nineteenthcentury, these compromises cut far more deeply
into national autonomy.
Historically, throughout the Balkans and Latin
America, sovereignborrowers subjected themselves to considerable foreign
control, at timesenduring what were considered to be egregious blows to
independence.Following its recognition as a state in 1832, Greece spent the rest
ofthe century under varying degrees of foreign creditor control; on theheels of
a default on its 1832 obligations, the country had its entirefinances placed
under French administration. In order to return to theinternational markets
after 1878, the country had to precommit specificrevenues from customs and state
monopolies to debt repayment. An 1887loan gave its creditors the power to create
a company that wouldsupervise the revenues committed to repayment. After a
disastrous warwith Turkey over Crete in 1897, Greece was obliged to accept a
controlcommission, comprised entirely of representatives of the major
powers,that had absolute power over the sources of revenue necessary to fundits
war debt. Greece's experience was mirrored in Bulgaria, Serbia, theOttoman
Empire, Egypt, and, of course, Argentina.
There is, in short, no age of
monetary sovereignty to return to.Countries have always borrowed, and when
offered the choice betweenpaying high interest rates to compensate for default
risk (which wastypical during the Renaissance) and paying lower interest rates
inreturn for sacrificing some autonomy over their ability to default(which was
typical in the nineteenth century), they have commonly chosenthe latter. As for
the notion that the IMF today possesses someextraordinary power over the
exchange-rate policies of borrowingcountries, this, too, is historically
inaccurate. Adherence to thenineteenth-century gold standard, with the Bank of
England at the helmof the system, severely restricted national monetary
autonomy, yetgovernments voluntarily subjected themselves to it precisely
because itmeant cheaper capital and greater trade opportunities.
THE MIGHTY
DOLLAR?
For a large, diversified economy like that of the United
States,fluctuating exchange rates are the economic equivalent of a
minortoothache. They require fillings from time to time -- in the form
ofcorporate financial hedging and active global supply management -- butnever
any major surgery. There are two reasons for this. First, much ofwhat Americans
buy from abroad can, when import prices rise, quickly andcheaply be replaced by
domestic production, and much of what they sellabroad can, when export prices
fall, be diverted to the domestic market.Second, foreigners are happy to hold
U.S. dollars as wealth.
This is not so for smaller and less advanced
economies. They depend onimports for growth, and often for sheer survival, yet
cannot pay forthem without dollars. What can they do? Reclaim the sovereignty
theyhave allegedly lost to the IMF and international markets by replacingthe
unwanted national currency with dollars (as Ecuador and El Salvadordid half a
decade ago) or euros (as Bosnia, Kosovo, and Montenegro did)and thereby end
currency crises for good. Ecuador is the shining exampleof the benefits of
dollarization: a country in constant politicalturmoil has been a bastion of
economic stability, with steady, robusteconomic growth and the lowest inflation
rate in Latin America. Nowonder its new leftist president, Rafael Correa, was
obliged to ditchhis de-dollarization campaign in order to win over the
electorate.Contrast Ecuador with the Dominican Republic, which suffered
adevastating currency crisis in 2004 -- a needless crisis, as 85 percentof its
trade is conducted with the United States (a figure comparable tothe percentage
of a typical U.S. state's trade with other U.S. states).
It is often argued
that dollarization is only feasible for smallcountries. No doubt, smallness
makes for a simpler transition. But evenBrazil's economy is less than half the
size of California's, and theU.S. Federal Reserve could accommodate the
increased demand for dollarspainlessly (and profitably) without in any way
sacrificing itscommitment to U.S. domestic price stability. An enlightened
U.S.government would actually make it politically easier and less costly formore
countries to adopt the dollar by rebating the seigniorage profitsit earns when
people hold more dollars. (To get dollars, dollarizingcountries give the Federal
Reserve interest-bearing assets, such asTreasury bonds, which the United States
would otherwise have to payinterest on.) The International Monetary Stability
Act of 2000 wouldhave made such rebates official U.S. policy, but the
legislation died inCongress, unsupported by a Clinton administration that feared
it wouldlook like a new foreign-aid program.
Polanyi was wrong when he
claimed that because people would never acceptforeign fiat money, fiat money
could never support foreign trade. Thedollar has emerged as just such a global
money. This phenomenon wasactually foreseen by the brilliant German philosopher
and sociologistGeorg Simmel in 1900. He surmised:
"Expanding economic
relations eventually produce in the enlarged, andfinally international, circle
the same features that originallycharacterized only closed groups; economic and
legal conditions overcomethe spatial separation more and more, and they come to
operate just asreliably, precisely and predictably over a great distance as they
didpreviously in local communities. To the extent that this happens, thepledge,
that is the intrinsic value of the money, can be reduced. ...Even though we are
still far from having a close and reliablerelationship within or between
nations, the trend is undoubtedly in thatdirection."
But the dollar's
privileged status as today's global money is notheaven-bestowed. The dollar is
ultimately just another money supportedonly by faith that others will willingly
accept it in the future inreturn for the same sort of valuable things it bought
in the past. Thisputs a great burden on the institutions of the U.S. government
tovalidate that faith. And those institutions, unfortunately, are failingto
shoulder that burden. Reckless U.S. fiscal policy is undermining thedollar's
position even as the currency's role as a global money isexpanding.
Four
decades ago, the renowned French economist Jacques Rueff, writingjust a few
years before the collapse of the Bretton Woods dollar-basedgold-exchange
standard, argued that the system "attains such a degree ofabsurdity that no
human brain having the power to reason can defend it."The precariousness of the
dollar's position today is similar. The UnitedStates can run a chronic
balance-of-payments deficit and never feel theeffects. Dollars sent abroad
immediately come home in the form of loans,as dollars are of no use abroad. "If
I had an agreement with my tailorthat whatever money I pay him he returns to me
the very same day as aloan," Rueff explained by way of analogy, "I would have no
objection atall to ordering more suits from him."
With the U.S. current
account deficit running at an enormous 6.6 percentof GDP (about $2 billion a day
must be imported to sustain it), theUnited States is in the fortunate position
of the suit buyer with aChinese tailor who instantaneously returns his payments
in the form ofloans -- generally, in the U.S. case, as purchases of U.S.
Treasurybonds. The current account deficit is partially fueled by the
budgetdeficit (a dollar more of the latter yields about 20-50 cents more ofthe
former), which will soar in the next decade in the absence ofreforms to curtail
federal "entitlement" spending on medical care andretirement benefits for a
longer-living population. The United States --and, indeed, its Chinese tailor --
must therefore be concerned with thesustainability of what Rueff called an
"absurdity." In the absence oflong-term fiscal prudence, the United States risks
undermining the faithforeigners have placed in its management of the dollar --
that is, theirbelief that the U.S. government can continue to sustain low
inflationwithout having to resort to growth-crushing interest-rate hikes as
ameans of ensuring continued high capital inflows.
PRIVATIZING MONEY
It
is widely assumed that the natural alternative to the dollar as aglobal currency
is the euro. Faith in the euro's endurance, however, isstill fragile --
undermined by the same fiscal concerns that afflict thedollar but with the added
angst stemming from concerns about thetemptations faced by Italy and others to
return to monetary nationalism.But there is another alternative, the world's
most enduring form ofmoney: gold.
It must be stressed that a well-managed
fiat money system hasconsiderable advantages over a commodity-based one, not
least of whichthat it does not waste valuable resources. There is little to
commend indigging up gold in South Africa just to bury it again in Fort Knox.
Thequestion is how long such a well-managed fiat system can endure in theUnited
States. The historical record of national monies, going back over2,500 years, is
by and large awful.
At the turn of the twentieth century -- the height of
the gold standard-- Simmel commented, "Although money with no intrinsic value
would bethe best means of exchange in an ideal social order, until that point
isreached the most satisfactory form of money may be that which is boundto a
material substance." Today, with money no longer bound to anymaterial substance,
it is worth asking whether the world evenapproximates the "ideal social order"
that could sustain a fiat dollaras the foundation of the global financial
system. There is no wayeffectively to insure against the unwinding of global
imbalances shouldChina, with over a trillion dollars of reserves, and other
countrieswith dollar-rich central banks come to fear the unbearable lightness
oftheir holdings.
So what about gold? A revived gold standard is out of the
question. Inthe nineteenth century, governments spent less than ten percent
ofnational income in a given year. Today, they routinely spend half ormore, and
so they would never subordinate spending to the stringentrequirements of
sustaining a commodity-based monetary system. Butprivate gold banks already
exist, allowing account holders to makeinternational payments in the form of
shares in actual gold bars.Although clearly a niche business at present, gold
banking has growndramatically in recent years, in tandem with the dollar's
decline. A newgold-based international monetary system surely sounds
far-fetched. Butso, in 1900, did a monetary system without gold. Modern
technology makesa revival of gold money, through private gold banks, possible
evenwithout government support.
COMMON CURRENCIES
Virtually every major
argument recently leveled against globalizationhas been leveled against markets
generally (and, in turn, debunked) forhundreds of years. But the argument
against capital flows in a worldwith 150 fluctuating national fiat monies is
fundamentally different. Itis highly compelling -- so much so that even
globalization's staunchestsupporters treat capital flows as an exception, a
matter to beintellectually quarantined until effective crisis inoculations can
bedeveloped. But the notion that capital flows are inherentlydestabilizing is
logically and historically false. The lessons ofgold-based globalization in the
nineteenth century simply must berelearned. Just as the prodigious daily capital
flows between New Yorkand California, two of the world's 12 largest economies,
are souneventful that no one even notices them, capital flows betweencountries
sharing a single currency, such as the dollar or the euro,attract not the
slightest attention from even the most passionateantiglobalization activists.
Countries whose currencies remain unwanted by foreigners will continueto
experiment with crisis-prevention policies, imposing capital controlsand
building up war chests of dollar reserves. Few will repeatArgentina's misguided
efforts to fix a dollar exchange rate without thedollars to do so. If these
policies keep the IMF bored for a few moreyears, they will be for the good.
But the world can do better. Since economic development outside theprocess
of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandonmonetary
nationalism. Governments should replace national currencieswith the dollar or
the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate toproduce a new multinational
currency over a comparably large andeconomically diversified area.
Europeans
used to say that being a country required having a nationalairline, a stock
exchange, and a currency. Today, no European country isany worse off without
them. Even grumpy Italy has benefited enormouslyfrom the lower interest rates
and permanent end to lira speculation thataccompanied its adoption of the euro.
A future pan-Asian currency,managed according to the same principle of targeting
low and stableinflation, would represent the most promising way for China to
fullyliberalize its financial and capital markets without fear of
damagingrenminbi speculation (the Chinese economy is only the size
ofCalifornia's and Florida's combined). Most of the world's smaller andpoorer
countries would clearly be best off unilaterally adopting thedollar or the euro,
which would enable their safe and rapid integrationinto global financial
markets. Latin American countries shoulddollarize; eastern European countries
and Turkey, euroize. Broadlyspeaking, this prescription follows from relative
trade flows, but thereare exceptions; Argentina, for example, does more eurozone
than U.S.trade, but Argentines think and save in dollars.
Of course,
dollarizing countries must give up independent monetarypolicy as a tool of
government macroeconomic management. But since theHoly Grail of monetary policy
is to get interest rates down to thelowest level consistent with low and stable
inflation, an argumentagainst dollarization on this ground is, for most of the
world,frivolous. How many Latin American countries can cut interest ratesbelow
those in the United States? The average inflation-adjusted lendingrate in Latin
America is about 20 percent. One must therefore ask whatpossible boon to the
national economy developing-country central bankscan hope to achieve from the
ability to guide nominal local rates up anddown on a discretionary basis. It is
like choosing a Hyundai with manualtransmission over a Lexus with automatic: the
former gives the drivermore control but at the cost of inferior performance
under any condition.
As for the United States, it needs to perpetuate the
sound moneypolicies of former Federal Reserve Chairs Paul Volcker and
AlanGreenspan and return to long-term fiscal discipline. This is the onlysure
way to keep the United States' foreign tailors, with their massiveand growing
holdings of dollar debt, feeling wealthy and secure. It isthe market that made
the dollar into global money -- and what the marketgiveth, the market can taketh
away. If the tailors balk and the dollarfails, the market may privatize money on
its own.