Monetary Reform 101
“Somewhere in our history we took a wrong turn and today we are reaping the consequences. If we don’t step back to evaluate the root causes of the rolling economic crises, our civilization is in danger of collapse.” – Clive Menzies
As a follow-up to the Pope’s recent condemnation of the global “cult of money,” someone has sent me an astounding video by an extremely forward thinking financial analyst named Clive Menzies, president of British Fund Building and member of the Free Critical Thinking Institute.
Eighteen months ago Menzies entered into an ongoing dialogue with the London Occupy movement. The result is a radical monetary reform proposal to fix the global economic mess. In the film below, he is presenting it to the Chartered Institute for Securities and Investment (translation: a high-powered group of investment bankers and stock brokers).
In his presentation, Menzies attributes the current crisis, as well as capitalism’s recurrent boom and bust cycles, to the alienation of the vast majority of the global population from the commons (i.e. land) and the prohibition of any discussion of this catastrophic event in contemporary economic discourse.
Most of his talk focuses on the urgent need to eliminate interest from our current economic system. He argues that our interest (debt)-based monetary system needs to be abolished because interest
- drives systemic inequality by allowing those with more money than they need to exploit those who need money.
- drives unsustainable, exponential debt growth because the interest cost rises faster than society can create wealth to pay it.
- discounts the future, driving environmental destruction – a forest is worth more as sawed timber than preserved for future generations
- it demands exponential GDP growth, rapidly depleting finite resources – 3% GDP growth means the economy doubles every 24 years which means extracting resources at twice the rate and throwing twice as much away
- it drives inflation
He also demolishes the prevailing myth that a person’s existence on this planet is only justified by paid work. In a way it’s deliberate falsehood more than a myth. There is only enough “productive” work for 50% of the adult population and the vast majority of income in contemporary society is generated via “rent-seeking” (i.e. charging interest or rent or extracting and exploiting publicly owned natural resources).
Menzies lays out a monetary reform proposal that would abolish interest exploitation through the creation of interest-free government currency (which would most likely be land based and funded through rents), which would be supplemented by local currencies, as is currently in happening in countries like Greece and Cyprus.
Please watch. I certify the following presentation to be totally jargon-free and painless, no economic expertise required.
by stuartbramhall in The Wars in the Middle East
A highly illuminating interview (for Argentinian TV) in which Assad argues that the Syrian people should decide who rules Syria in internationally monitored elections scheduled for 2014. They would be conducted according to constitutional reforms enacted in 2011-2012 that limit the power of the ruling Ba’ath Party. *
Assad also has some interesting observations on changes in US foreign policy under Obama. He notes our current president favors proxy wars relying on terrorist mercenaries rather than direct military intervention.
**The US clearly disagrees with Assad’s proposal, as he would likely win the elections. A substantial majority of Syrians want to retain secular government and are immensely fearful the rebels and their US and Saudi backers will install a repressive Islamic government (as in Libya). I am reminded of the Obama administration’s decree in 2010 that socialist ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide could only return to Haiti if he agreed not to run for president. This was after two US-backed coups against Aristide, who was democratically elected, in 1991 and 2004. The US government also opposed the decision of the overwhelming majority of Venezuelans to elect socialist Hugo Chavez as president.
by stuartbramhall in Things That Aren't What They Seem
The Bather by Pissarro
Guest post by Jerry Fresia
(A response to my post “The Company That Owns Angelina Jolie’s Breast Cancer Gene”)
There’s an old joke from grade school that I still remember. It’s rather dumb, but the punch line turns on a thought that has relevance. Maybe that’s why I remember it. Two guys on an island. One is a millionaire smoker who has a ton of cigarettes but no matches. He’s freaking out. The other guy has a book of matches and says to the millionaire smoker, “I’ll give you my matches for $1,000.” The smoker jumps at the chance, hands over $1,000 and the guy with the book of matches rips out the matches from the book and hands them to the smoker. “That’s not fair,” implores the smoker. “I still can’t light a cigarette. I have no striker.” “So true,” says the guy with the empty book of matches containing the striker. “But I will sell you the striker for $50,000.”
Let’s call this the “striker phenomenon” or SP for short. SP occurs when someone controls, often a monopoly control, some single thing that substantially impacts the life chances of another. Okay, are you still with me? Enter Pissarro.
Pissarro, as you know, was the philosophical leader of the Impressionists. What historians wish us to remember is that the Impressionists broke the rules of traditional painting and came up with a new aesthetic. This isn’t wrong. But this emphasis trivializes, to say the least, the Impressionist contribution. The Impressionist contribution that is much more relevant to painters today was not their rule breaking aesthetic. Instead it was their brilliant way of avoiding the SP or to say it another way, they devised a way to sidestep what was an aristocratic-state controlled monopoly over exhibitions (think distribution) of their work, ie., the Salon. In short, the Salon of mid-19th century Paris required that artists paint certain themes and in a certain way (in order to make noble and moral the vast accumulation of wealth by a few). If you didn’t, you would have a hard time surviving. The genius of Pissarro et al, was in devising an institutional response to an institutional constraint on the freedom of artists. The model that Pissarro came up with was based upon a baker’s union: the Impressionists (called “intransigents” at the time), launched a series of independent exhibitions, gained controlled over the exhibition/distribution of their work and, hence, the production of their work as well. Or to put it in plain English, they became free to paint whatever the hell they wanted in the way they wanted. Enter paintings of joy.
But alas, the story doesn’t end well. Yes, the control by the aristocratic state faded away, but a new control over the exhibition of their work (and hence their production) arose in the guise of the private entrepreneur or dealer, the most famous of which at the time was Durand-Ruel. To be sure, Durand-Ruel was credited with opening markets, especially internationally for the Impressionists and for a time, especially early on, was praised by the painters themselves. But the SP, unmistakably, reasserted itself. Pissarro, ever alert to the control by another over his direction, would lament, as he struggled financially, that he had “to please Durand.” Resigned to his fate, Pissarro wrote to his son when he was 68, “Durand-Ruel, who has given me the same prices for ten years….It is true that he takes all my work, but on the other hand, he has too much power over me.” The Impressionists, jumping out of the state controlled SP frying pan, jumped into the fire of the private enterprise SP.
And how does Angelina Jolie fit into this story? As noted above, she underwent a double mastectomy because tests showed that were she not to do this, she would have a high risk of developing either breast or ovarian cancer. The tests in question are tests that can identify the mutation of specific genes, and it is this mutation that could lead to life threatening cancer. But here’s the rub: the private SP is back in spades. There is private monopoly control over these tests:
“A owns the patent to BRCA1, the so-called “breast cancer gene” responsible for Angelina’s Jolie’s decision to have a preventative double mastectomy. They also on the patent on a similar breast cancer gene called BRCA2. Moreover these gene patents also give Myriad a monopoly on .
At present a suit cancer groups have to invalidate these patents is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. argue that it’s illegal and unethical for biotech companies to patent nature. Joseph Stiglitz that allowing Myriad to hold exclusive patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 removes the opportunity for other scientists to come up with better and cheaper tests. In this way, they make the tests less widely available and possibly prevent women from knowing they carry these genes and taking preventive measures.[i]“
In the U.S. a full test for each of these genes costs about $3,000. Private insurance policies may (or may not) cover the cost. But this highlights the problem. Access to those things that give us life, be they medical tests for someone like Angelina Jolie or creative processes as in the case of Pissarro and painters, are less likely to be controlled by the state in the western world today, and more likely to be controlled privately by those seeking to maximize profit and market share. Myriad Genetics is the Durand-Ruel of the gene world. They seek, in all their creativity, to control the distribution of golden eggs so that they are able to control the goose that lays them.
So what’s the point of all this? The point is that painters today are quite aware of the great boogie-man of “censorship” when it is government doing the controlling. But what we totally ignore are the private enterprise controllers who shape what we do, how we do it, and who we are. Not long ago I was explaining to a painter the method of painting that I teach. One of its virtues, I offered, was that it affords the painter “a great deal of control.” My artist friend recoiled at the mention of the word “control.” It was as if I had said that the method I teach gives you a deadly bacterium. “Control” over what a painter does, painters will declare, is to be avoided like – well – like the plague. And so it goes: painters today, unknowingly –or perhaps I should say unreflectively – embrace practices that control the very creative processes that could give them life. “To be an artist today,” I heard someone say recently, “you really need to get into marketing.” No, I thought to myself; that would be an entrepreneur (who bends every creative urge to meet the schedule, aims, and interests of a myriad of agents and investors and consumers), not an artist (whose only interest is taking the next step in her unfolding). The entrepreneur is someone who plays the private enterprise game, establishes points of market control – monopoly control if possible, and is someone who is both market and profit driven. The artist is someone who seeks freedom from the control that market-driven entrepreneurs, market-driven investors, all those people who control exhibitions-exposure-competitions, and all those people who grab you by the short hairs require.
“Here’s the work I do to make money. And here’s my own work,” is the refrain of so many painters. Oh crapola. What kind of creative people are we if we slink along as a servile following half the day and during the other half hope to find ourselves? “Freedom” was the clarion call of the Impressionists, be it from public or private centers of power. But guess what? We are taught that the only source of censorship is public; private enterprise is always good. We are taught, too, that the Impressionists were about the end result, the brush strokes, or the mode: going outside. This is not surprising, but it is appalling history. Here’s the deeper truth: the Impressions said screw you to power – both to the state and the entrepreneur (whom they politely referred to as the bourgeoisie). We know our self-worth they declared and we will find an independent means of entering upon the scene of history. The scandal that still instructs us today was not about their paintings. It was about their disobedience.
by stuartbramhall in The Wars in the Middle East
It appears the Obama administration and their Turkish, Saudi and Qatari allies are losing the covert war in Syria. If so, this explains why the President and US and British media are once again trying to ramp up momentum for military intervention against the Assad regime.
The following video from AMTV examines the evidence that Assad loyalists are gaining ground against widely disunited Syrian opposition.
Anchor Topher Morrison summarizes evidence that government forces have successfully cut the rebels’ weapons supply line from Turkey. This, in turn, has forced them to fall on more primitive terrorist tactics, such as recent bombings in Damascus.
For awhile there was speculation that Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit to Moscow signaled a possible relaxation in Russia’s opposition to military intervention. This ceased after the Russian government arrested (during Kerry’s visit) a US State Department official for spying for the CIA.
Breaking News: According to the Daily Mail, it now appears Russia’s CIA spy bust was linked to Boston Bombing. Click here:
A Utah biotech company Myriad Genetics owns the patent to BRCA1, the so-called “breast cancer gene” responsible for Angelina’s Jolie’s decision to have a preventative double mastectomy. They also on the patent on a similar breast cancer gene called BRCA2. Moreover these gene patents also give Myriad a monopoly on testing for these genes.
At present a suit cancer groups have filed to invalidate these patents is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. Cancer advocates argue that it’s illegal and unethical for biotech companies to patent nature. Joseph Stiglitz has written in Slate that allowing Myriad to hold exclusive patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 removes the opportunity for other scientists to come up with better and cheaper tests. In this way, they make the tests less widely available and possibly prevent women from knowing they carry these genes and taking preventive measures.
Surprisingly, Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the courts most conservative and pro-corporate justices, seems to be siding with Stiglitz. “You haven’t created a type of gene that does not exist in the body,” he told a lawyer for Myriad.
Read how other justices argued here. A decision is expected next month.
The New York Academy of Medicine celebrated the second anniversary of Fukushima’s nuclear disaster with a two day Fukushima Symposium on March 11th and 12th. Sponsored by the Helen Caldicott Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility, the event consisted of presentations from a broad range of physician and non-physician researchers specialized in the effects of nuclear radiation on the environment and human health. It was videoed and can be viewed free on-line (see links below).
What the symposium makes crystal clear is that there has been a deliberate effort by Japanese government, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the Obama administration, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) to minimize the long term health consequences of nuclear fallout, especially to children. Instead of backtracking on the billions of dollars he approved to subsidize TEPCO to build more US nuclear power plants, Obama is participating in an international cover-up to conceal the serious long term dangers of this technology. See After 50 Years Nuclear Power Still not Viable Without Subsidies
I found the March 11th presentation by Dr Steven Starr of the Clinical Laboratory Science Program at the University of Missouri the most illuminating. The focus of Starr’s talk was the long term effects of Cesium-137, which is the main long term contaminant of soil and food following a nuclear accident.
The research Starr presents directly contradicts a study WHO published two months ago called The Health Risk Assessment From the Nuclear Accident after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. The latter supports the Japanese government’s position that the radioactive contamination deposited immediately after meltdown has dissipated and there is no longer any risk of eating food produced there. Buoyed by the WHO study, the Japanese government has already declared Fukushima rice totally safe provided it emits less than 100 Becquerels (Bq) per kilogram (kg). (A Becquerel is one atomic disintegration per second.)
Research conducted after Chernobyl contradicts this directive. According to Starr, children in the Ukraine and Belarus routinely exposed to more than 50 Bq per kg of Cesium-137 (from the Chernobyl meltdown) Chernobyl suffered irreversible heart damage.
According to Starr WHO and IRCP are guilty of four main scientific errors:
- WHO and IRCP quantify radiation exposure in Sieverts or milliSieverts (mSv). This is extremely controversial because a Sievert isn’t a measure of actual radiation exposure but of presumed radiation “effect” based on mathematical modeling.
- WHO and IRCP studies are based on an assumption that Cesium-137 is spread uniformly throughout the body, whereas their own research shows it bioaccumulates in specific organs.
- None of the WHO and IRCP studies incorporate Dr Yuri Bandazhevsky’s detailed research into Belarusian children exposed to Cesium-137 following Chernobyl, which has only recently been translated into English.
- None of the WHO and IRCP studies distinguish between external exposure and chronic internal exposure due to radionuclides that accumulate in vital organs.
Basic Scientific Facts About Cesium-137 and Fallout from Fukushima
Cesium-137 is released as a gas and has chemical properties similar to potassium. Thus it reaches highest concentrations in potassium-rich foods, like berries and mushrooms and in animal products at the top of the food chain (e.g. milk and meat). In the body it accumulates in the same organs in which potassium accumulates (heart, pancreas and other endocrine organs, intestine and kidneys).
Eight months after the Fukushima meltdown, the Japanese Science Ministry released a map showing that 11,580 square miles, 30,000 square kilometers, or 13% of the Japanese mainland, had been contaminated with Cesium-137. The official government map fails to designate any cesium-137 contamination in the Tokyo metropolitan area, unlike an independent survey done by Professor Yukio Hayakawa of Gunma University. (People may recall the government also tried to deny for two months that there had been any meltdowns.)
Somewhere between 4500 and 7700 square miles (an area approximately the size of Connecticut) was found to have radiation levels that exceeded Japan’s previous allowable exposure limit of 1 mSv per year. Rather than evacuate this area, Japan chose to raise its acceptable radiation exposure from 1mSv to 20 mSv per year.
Studies show that a dose of 20 mSv per year, will produce 1,000 additional cases of cancer in female infants and 500 in male infants (per 100,000 in their age group.). There will be also sn additional 100 per 100,000 cancer cases in 30 year-old-males.
The Effect of Chronic Cesium-137 Exposure
Based on Bandazhevsky’s research, Starr questions whether even 1 mSv (14,000 Bq) per year is safe in children, as WHO and ICRP claim. The figure is based on the assumption that absorbed Cesium-137 is distributed uniformly throughout the body.
Research done by Dr. Yuri Bandazhevsky and his colleagues in Belarus between 1991 and 1999, found that children exposed to whole body radiation levels above 50 Bq per kg of body weight experienced irreversible damage to their heart and other vital organs.
Bandazhevsky summarized his nine years of research in s paper entitled “Radioactive Cesium and the Heart.” With the help of friends, Starr has just finished editing an English translation of this work. It has never been translated before because shortly after Bandazhevsky presented it to the Parliament and President of Belarus, he was arrested and imprisoned. Just as Soviet physicians were forbidden to diagnose radiation-related illness following Chernobyl, the Belarusian government vigorously suppressed the work of Bandazhevsky, who was protesting government efforts to resettle people back into land badly contaminated with Cesium-137.
Two million people in Belarus live on lands severely contaminated by cesium-137. Fourteen years following Chernobyl, most of the children there were in very poor health. 45 to 47% of high school graduates had physical disorders, including gastrointestinal anomalies, abnormal heart function and cataracts, and 40% were diagnosed with chronic “blood disorders” and malfunctioning thyroids.
You can watch a video of Stars presentation at Implications of Massive Cesium-137 Contamination and read the transcript at Cesium-137 transcript. You can watch the entire 2-day symposium at Symposium webcast.
The presentations on Day 2 focus more heavily on the distribution of the radioactive plume that reached the US (and not just the West Coast), and the growing Fukushima-related health problems in Americans.
The final event on the March 11 morning webcast is a presentation by two US sailors whose aircraft carrier was anchored off Fukushima. They describe how Navy negligence and disinformation caused both to be exposed to heavy doses of radiation – and the major health problems they’re dealing with. You can watch it at press conference and read all the gory details at More Vets Join Fukushima Lawsuit
What Really Happened in Benghazi?
Americans (at least the ones who know where Libya is) are understandably confused and angry about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that killed US ambassador Chris Stevens in Benghazi. If they are looking to the current congressional hearings to clarify what really happened, they will be greatly disappointed.
Despite accusations by Republican leaders that Obama committed has treason and is trying to cover it up, they have no more interest than Democrats in bringing out the truth. No one wants the dirty little secret coming out that Stevens was involved in a covert CIA operation to funnel Libyan weapons and jihadists to Syria to fight the Assad regime.
The funding, arming and training of Al Qaeda terrorists for geopolitical ends is a well-established pillar of US foreign policy. (National Counterterrorism Center Report on Terrorism 2011). This isn’t a partisan issue, as CIA support for jihad has received equal levels of support from both Obama and his predecessor George W Bush.
The Road to Damascus Starts in Benghazi
The May 9th Washington’s Blog provides a comprehensive summary of the factual details about September 2012 that have come out over the past eight months. Numerous official and mainstream sources confirm that Benghazi is a long time stronghold of Al Qaeda terrorists, who transferred their focus to Syria and the Assad regime after Gaddafi was overthrown. For example (specific sources shown in parentheses):
- The US-supported opposition which overthrew Libyan president Muammar Gadaffi was largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists (Telegraph interview with Libyan rebel commander).
- According to a 2007 report by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center’s center, the Libyan city of Benghazi was one of Al Qaeda’s main headquarters and sent Al Qaeda fighters into Iraq prior to Gaddafi’s overthrow (West Point military academy).
- Al Qaeda is now largely in control of Libya, and the Libyan Provisional Government immediately ran up Al Qaeda flags at the Benghazi courthouse (the seat of their new government) after Gaddafi was overthrown (Daily Mail).
- Gaddafi, who always maintained Benghazi was an Al Qaeda stronghold, was on the verge of invading the city in 2011. However NATO planes stopped him, and protected Benghazi (Telegraph correspondent in Benghazi).
- CNN, the Telegraph, the Washington Times and many other mainstream sources confirm that since Gaddafi’s overthrow, Al Qaeda terrorists from Libya have been flooding into Syria to fight the Assad regime.
- Mainstream sources, such as the New York Times also confirm the Syrian opposition is largely comprised of Al Qaeda terrorists.
- Despite claims to the contrary, The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006. (Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post, CBC News).
- The post-Gaddafi Libyan government is also a top funder and arms supplier of the Syrian opposition. (Washington Post, Telegraph correspondent in Istanbul).
Was Stevens Running the Operation?
Mounting evidence suggests Stevens was assigned to run the covert CIA operation to funnel Libyan arms and jihadists to Syria via Turkey:
- In 2011, Stevens was appointed to be the Obama administration’s liaison with the “budding Libyan opposition” (ABC News).
- Stevens and the State Department worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, who has direct connections with Al Qaeda (Russia Today).
- The Wall Street Journal, Telegraph and other sources confirm that the US consulate (which wasn’t really a consulate but a “State Department Special Mission Compound”) in Benghazi was mainly being used for a secret CIA operation.
- Retired Lt. General William Boykin, former US Special Forces Commander and deputy defense undersecretary for intelligence (who worked with the CIA in the 1990s), stated in a January interview that it’s a “reasonable supposition” that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm the Syrian opposition. He draws this conclusion based on 1) the directive Stevens was given to support the Syrian rebels, 2) the logical assumption the Special Mission Compound would be the hub of that activity and 3) the absence lack of any other logical explanation for Stevens’ sudden reappearance in Benghazi on September 10, 2012 after a year’s absence. (CNS News)
- Egyptian security officials and US intelligence sources have confirmed Boykin’s hypothesis (WND Politics, CNBC)
Why Was Stevens Murdered?
I have yet to see a plausible explanation anywhere for the terrorist attack on the Special Mission Compound or Stevens’ murder. Perhaps a genuine congressional investigation – in place of the soap operate we saw last week – could come up with some genuine leads. However so long as Congress refuses to examine the covert operation angle, they are unlikely to add much to what we already know.
I agree with Boykin that the Obama administration and Congress need to come clean, without necessarily revealing details, that Stevens was involved in a covert operation. The main problem (besides being illegal and morally bankrupt and undermining US standing internationally) with the existing US policy of covertly funding and arming jihadists is that it isn’t secret any more. This continuing duplicity on the part of the Obama administration and Congress only further undermines Americans’ confidence in government, as well as the major respect the United States used to enjoy abroad.
Reposted from Veterans Today
John Stewart’s hilarious take on the Monsanto Protection Act, introduced as an amendment to the most recent continuing budget resolution (which keeps the federal government going until September). The amendment allows Monsanto to bypass judicial scrutiny, granting them virtual immunity to lawsuits based on adverse health or environmental consequences of their GMO organisms.
For a more detailed analysis of the destructive consequences of this legislation, check out Is the Monsanto Protection Act the End of Food Democracy
Reposted from Daily Censored
by stuartbramhall in Things That Aren't What They Seem
Below is an excellent 60 minute interview with FBI translator and whistle blower Sibel Edmonds.
In it she provides extensive background on the cold war CIA/NATO Gladio Operation, which apparently never ended in Turkey and the Caucasus. This background is essential in understanding how the CIA came to fund Islamic jihadists in the breakaway republic of Georgia and the turbulent Russian regions of Chechnya and Dagestan. This, in turn, is essential in understanding how Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev came to attend a CIA-funded Jamestown Foundation workshop in Dagestan.
Edmonds stresses that additional factual evidence is necessary to connect all the dots. However she poses an interesting hypothesis linking the Boston bombing with a recent switch in CIA attitudes towards Chechen separatists (they are suddenly being referred to as terrorists rather than freedom fighters). She believes this, in turn, may possibly relate to a convoluted scheme to pressure Russia to agree to a NATO invasion of Syria.
Originally posted at Daily Censored
The following video by Storm Clouds Gathering provides an excellent summary of continuing Chinese efforts to chip away at the US dollar. These include a recent trade agreement between China and Australia to use the yuan and Australian dollar – rather than the US dollar – in bilateral trade. China entered into a similar trade agreement with Russia in 2010 and with Japan in 2011. Another major concern for the Obama administration is recent massive Chinese gold purchases, which suggest they may intend to create a gold-backed currency to rival the US dollar.
The film underlines the obvious build-up for war couched in US government’s increasing belligerence towards China, Syria, Iran and North Korea. The main intended target of this saber rattling is China, America’s main economic rival. However, for the most part, Obama’s true military intentions remain hidden from public view owing to proxy wars with China’s allies (Syria, Iran and North Korea). Historically the main purpose of such proxy wars has always been psychological – to overcome civilian resistance to military aggression.
The video also reminds us that the so-called war on terror is really a war about control of the international financial system. Up until the recent defection of China and its allies and now Russian, Japan and Australia, it was only possible to purchase oil in US dollars – which came to be known as petrodollars. For many years, all countries relying on imported oil were forced to keep reserves of US dollars. After the US abandoned first the gold and then the silver standard, the US dollar maintained its value by virtue of its relative monopoly on the buying and selling of oil. If the petrodollar dies, so does the US dollar does and with it the US economy.
Two of the most significant US military invasions of the last decade relate to threats against the petrodollar. The first occurred in 2003, after Saddam Hussein tried to set up an oil bourse that would trade oil in euros rather than dollars. The second occurred in 2010 when Gaddafi tried to introduce a new currency called the “gold dinar” to be used for Libyan oil purchases.
Crossposted at Daily Censored