Is something really bad about to happen to the U.S. dollar?

August 14, 2015

WRITER

Sec. John Kerry said that if America stops the Iran nuclear deal, the US dollar could no longer be the world’s reserve currency. What does that really mean? Glenn feels like something really bad is coming for the U.S. dollar and the global economy, and asked economist David Buckner to come onto the radio show and discuss.

GLENN: Just two days ago, we had John Kerry say this about the deal with Iran.

JOHN: That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world, which is already bubbling out there.

GLENN: So what does that even mean? I asked an audience last night what they thought that meant, and nobody really had any idea. I have somewhat of an idea, but I don't even know if I understand it. David Buckner is here. David Buckner is adjunct professor at Columbia University. An economist who goes all over the world trying to work with businesses and trying to hold things together. And he's been a consultant on this program for quite some time. David, welcome to the program.

DAVID: Good to hear from you, Glenn. How are you doing?

GLENN: Where are you in the world today?

DAVID: I'm upstate New York in the backwoods somewhere in the mountains right now. Life is pretty good, pretty sunny.

GLENN: Okay. Sorry to bother you. We just wanted to know exactly what that meant, David. I have this feeling that something really bad has begun especially with the devaluation of the currency in China and with Secretary Kerry saying that. It's almost like a shot across our bow that they know that we're on a course for something, and they're just -- they're going to use it to blame it on something that is convenient for them.

DAVID: Well, it actually started two or three years ago when China signed its first agreement. Do you recall that the reserve currency back prior to, you know, World War II was the sterling. Was the pound sterling. And it was the Bretton Woods Act in '44 and thereon through '55 that we transitioned to the dollar. And all that really meant was that we were going to exchange the dollar for oil. So it's the currency used for the exchange of oil. This is where Secretary Kerry starts pulling in ISIS in the Middle East.

Well, two years ago, China signed an agreement with Russia to no longer use the dollar. And within 17 days, Australia signed the agreement with China as well, that they would only -- it was almost like a unilateral treatment of currencies where they would decide between the yen and the Australian dollar or the yen and the ruble and other currencies. That they would exchange without the dollar being the global entity.

So we've already started down this path. What he identifies there is a little bit frightening because he's indicating that we have to make a decision, aligned with the current policy with ISIS, Iran, and others, or we're going to be -- we're going to lose the dollar. We're already on that path. And quite candidly, we're being held hostage by suggesting we have to capitulate or the dollar is going to be gone.

The dollar is already being comprised. And the question you asked regarding China is evidence of that. The fact that China has so much of our debt and that we're beholden to any movement they make in their currency indicates that any time they do something, like they did yesterday -- they did a 5 percent shift in their currency.

Their currency has been selling about 6.1 or 6.2 yen to the dollar. They moved up to 6.4, 6.5. There's a shift that immediately does two things to us: One, is makes their goods 5 percent cheaper. So that means our goods become expensive compared to them. That means more people are going to buy directly. Which, by the way, puts them in a better position to negotiate more of those deals to get rid of the dollar. That's one thing.

The second thing it does that nobody is talking about, that's more frightening for me personally, from a macroeconomic perspective, and what you and I have been talking about, Glenn, for probably three years now. And that is that what we owe China, all of that debt, we're talking trillions of dollars of debt, the largest percentage to China and a big chunk in Japan. What we owe them now has become 5 percent more expensive overnight.

Now, it doesn't mean the interest rates have changed, but the money that we borrowed -- and borrowed it when it was worth six, we now have to repay that same amount of money that if we were to use it to buy goods would be worth more. But we can't.

So we lose 5 percent on every dollar we're returning to them. That is an overnight shift in interest rates, if you will. Even though the interest hasn't changed, the buying ability of that piece of paper. So we're in a position where overnight, China made our commitment to them 5 percent more expensive. And made all of their goods 5 percent cheaper. So we're fighting -- we're fighting this -- this is crazy, Glenn.

GLENN: So tell me, David, what it means -- explain to somebody -- because what Secretary Kerry was saying, not getting off the dollar as the exchange rate for oil. But he's saying the reserve currency, which means people are not -- they're not generally having a bunch of gold in their bank. What they have is a bunch of US dollars. And if everybody gets rid of the reserve currency and goes off that, all those dollars come flooding back into the system. Am I wrong?

DAVID: No, you're correct on that. And the reason -- and you're correct. Let me blend the two words though, that we're aligned in this.

You're correct when we're talking reserve currency. That is because it is -- it has always been the global currency.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: So when we no longer -- the reason I linked in the oil is not because it's changing anything there or anybody has agreed differently. But the reality is, if there's other ways to purchase oil, we no longer need a large reserve, if I'm a foreign country, of US dollars.

GLENN: Correct.

DAVID: Consequently, I can then --

GLENN: Hang on just a second. So people understand that. That's because you were only allowed to buy oil in US dollars. So countries had to have that huge cash of the US dollar because if you wanted to buy something like oil, you had to buy it in dollars. That's quickly going away.

DAVID: Exactly.

GLENN: So how much money is in the -- the central banks of countries? How much -- how many dollars are there?

DAVID: Okay. Now, that's a question without my precise answer for this reason.

What we know we have put out there into a secondary market. You know, when we're shoving dollars out. When the fed shoves money out by buying bonds, that money goes out. And while we can say it's traceable, it's not traced. In other words, what goes out into the U.S. in a bond may make its way by others buying from China, from India, from other places.

So when we're talking about central banks holding them, they'll have what you might call an official number. But the unofficial market is unwieldily. So we know how much is out there. And that we've been flooding. That's been the damaging and frightening part of this, Glenn, is that we keep shoving it out there. And if it gets aggregated into one place, if China starts reserving it and holding it, then they have a huge club. And we keep saying, no, surely, surely they wouldn't have it. We've diffused it. The money is going out broadly. But nobody can track where it's actually being collected and held because the public announcement -- just like China has indicated that they devaluated their own currency, but they control their banking. So when you go to China -- you know I spend a lot of time there.

GLENN: Yes.

DAVID: And when you go to China, you have a variety of different ways in which currencies can be exchanged. When you go to Brazil, there are three totally different currencies: The dollar at the bank, the dollar on the street, and the dollar you pay in a hotel, which is the government rate. And they are vastly differing numbers.

So I'm not wobbling other than to suggest that I can -- I could give you formalized numbers. We could go back and look those up. They're irrelevant. The money that's out there could be aggregated by these central banks, and we do not know which central bank is truthfully aggregating the largest in their formal and informal economy.

GLENN: So here's what I really want to know, and I'm hoping that you're going to say I'm wrong. But this to me, when I heard this, what I heard was the equivalent economically of him saying, by the way, if you disagree, it is total nuclear war. This is an economic -- if the dollars that other countries have are no longer being used as the global currency and the world's reserve. That means that all those dollars are out and we're in hyperinflation and it is -- it's the end of the West or the western commerce as we know it. At least for -- at least until we can settle on what we're doing.

DAVID: Right. There are three things -- we talked about this before. But there are three things that America offers right now. One is that we offer the dollar. Okay? And if that goes away, that's frightening, right?

GLENN: Wait. Wait. Wait. Explain why -- tell people what that means, if the dollar goes away, to them.

DAVID: Well, right now because every exchange is principal for oil, which is the central currency of everything. Energy is everything, okay. Because that exchange must go through us and we control the medium or the piece of paper that you can use to exchange, we control -- I don't want to say control the world. But we control that exchange. And if that's the central exchange, then we still have some significant control on the markets of the world. If that is removed, you no longer have control. If you go into, you know, Germany and you're not using euros and you're using a Brazilian currency that nobody cares whether you have or not, you don't buy anything in Germany. So if our dollar is no longer viewed as the global necessity, we don't have that to offer.

GLENN: So hang on. Before you go on, on that. So, in other words, we become like Iceland. What was it, the kronas, that when it crashed and went away. They couldn't buy meat for McDonald's. Everything had to shut down. We wouldn't be able to buy oil from anybody because no one would accept the US dollar because it would be worthless.

DAVID: It's an irrelevant piece of paper. Most people would say that because there's so much debt being held of US debt, we're betting on our bankers not letting us fail. Now, that scares me, just to be honest. I don't want to bet on my bank not wanting me to fail especially if my house goes up in value and they'd rather take the house rather than to default on what I owe them. Okay? Our house is our natural resource in the U.S. So if we default and we have collateralized our -- the assets of our country, which are our natural resource. Then technically, just like they did in the 1980s when Manhattan, a good percentage of the real estate had to go to foreign entities. We hit such a downside, that you would see Chinese and Japanese signs in front of banks because the real estate was owned by them. We've collateralized what America has against our debt. And our debt is in crazy land. You know that. We've talked about that before.

GLENN: Right.

DAVID: So if the dollar goes away and they go technically after the assets and we then defend the assets, then you are correct that the next thing we offer is war. And that's not where -- and, by the way, I'll give you just one side note that may be contrary to what you think or it may be differing than what you think or it may simply augment it. I actually think the next real battle issue will not be metal against building. I think we can do more with cyber and banking zeros. Ones and zeros in the electric world than we can ever do with weapons.

GLENN: Yes, I agree.

DAVID: I think the next war will be a cyber disaster. And the frightening thing about that is, if you are the one that owes the rest of the world, they have control over your assets. It doesn't take much for them to be able to access all of those buttons. And that's where it gets crazy. So, Glenn --

GLENN: Go ahead. Wrap it up here, David.

DAVID: I was in Hiroshima a week ago. I was there for the 70th anniversary for the disaster there. And they talk about one bomb. And we talk about 15,000 warheads that exist if the world. All it takes is one finger to push buttons to get things crazy. And one one and one zero in the banking world or the economic world to get people desperate. I don't know when we get to that point. But I will tell you, this move by China to shift things by 5 percent in 15 minutes is a daunting look at where we go and what America has to see in the economic future.

GLENN: Thank you a lot, David. I appreciate it. Go back to the mountain and enjoy the sunshine.

DAVID: Good talking to you.

GLENN: God bless you. David Buckner.

Globalize the Intifada? Why Mamdani’s plan spells DOOM for America

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

If New Yorkers hand City Hall to Zohran Mamdani, they’re not voting for change. They’re opening the door to an alliance of socialism, Islamism, and chaos.

It only took 25 years for New York City to go from the resilient, flag-waving pride following the 9/11 attacks to a political fever dream. To quote Michael Malice, “I'm old enough to remember when New Yorkers endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”

Malice is talking about Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist assemblyman from Queens now eyeing the mayor’s office. Mamdani, a 33-year-old state representative emerging from relative political obscurity, is now receiving substantial funding for his mayoral campaign from the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR has a long and concerning history, including being born out of the Muslim Brotherhood and named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding case. Why would the group have dropped $100,000 into a PAC backing Mamdani’s campaign?

Mamdani blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone.

Perhaps CAIR has a vested interest in Mamdani’s call to “globalize the intifada.” That’s not a call for peaceful protest. Intifada refers to historic uprisings of Muslims against what they call the “Israeli occupation of Palestine.” Suicide bombings and street violence are part of the playbook. So when Mamdani says he wants to “globalize” that, who exactly is the enemy in this global scenario? Because it sure sounds like he's saying America is the new Israel, and anyone who supports Western democracy is the new Zionist.

Mamdani tried to clean up his language by citing the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, which once used “intifada” in an Arabic-language article to describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. So now he’s comparing Palestinians to Jewish victims of the Nazis? If that doesn’t twist your stomach into knots, you’re not paying attention.

If you’re “globalizing” an intifada, and positioning Israel — and now America — as the Nazis, that’s not a cry for human rights. That’s a call for chaos and violence.

Rising Islamism

But hey, this is New York. Faculty members at Columbia University — where Mamdani’s own father once worked — signed a letter defending students who supported Hamas after October 7. They also contributed to Mamdani’s mayoral campaign. And his father? He blamed Ronald Reagan and the religious right for inspiring Islamic terrorism, as if the roots of 9/11 grew in Washington, not the caves of Tora Bora.

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

This isn’t about Islam as a faith. We should distinguish between Islam and Islamism. Islam is a religion followed peacefully by millions. Islamism is something entirely different — an ideology that seeks to merge mosque and state, impose Sharia law, and destroy secular liberal democracies from within. Islamism isn’t about prayer and fasting. It’s about power.

Criticizing Islamism is not Islamophobia. It is not an attack on peaceful Muslims. In fact, Muslims are often its first victims.

Islamism is misogynistic, theocratic, violent, and supremacist. It’s hostile to free speech, religious pluralism, gay rights, secularism — even to moderate Muslims. Yet somehow, the progressive left — the same left that claims to fight for feminism, LGBTQ rights, and free expression — finds itself defending candidates like Mamdani. You can’t make this stuff up.

Blending the worst ideologies

And if that weren’t enough, Mamdani also identifies as a Democratic Socialist. He blends political Islam with Marxist economics — two ideologies that have left tens of millions dead in the 20th century alone. But don’t worry, New York. I’m sure this time socialism will totally work. Just like it always didn’t.

If you’re a business owner, a parent, a person who’s saved anything, or just someone who values sanity: Get out. I’m serious. If Mamdani becomes mayor, as seems likely, then New York City will become a case study in what happens when you marry ideological extremism with political power. And it won’t be pretty.

This is about more than one mayoral race. It’s about the future of Western liberalism. It’s about drawing a bright line between faith and fanaticism, between healthy pluralism and authoritarian dogma.

Call out radicalism

We must call out political Islam the same way we call out white nationalism or any other supremacist ideology. When someone chants “globalize the intifada,” that should send a chill down your spine — whether you’re Jewish, Christian, Muslim, atheist, or anything in between.

The left may try to shame you into silence with words like “Islamophobia,” but the record is worn out. The grooves are shallow. The American people see what’s happening. And we’re not buying it.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

How private stewardship could REVIVE America’s wild

Jonathan Newton / Contributor | Getty Images

The left’s idea of stewardship involves bulldozing bison and barring access. Lee’s vision puts conservation back in the hands of the people.

The media wants you to believe that Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) is trying to bulldoze Yellowstone and turn national parks into strip malls — that he’s calling for a reckless fire sale of America’s natural beauty to line developers’ pockets. That narrative is dishonest. It’s fearmongering, and, by the way, it’s wrong.

Here’s what’s really happening.

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized.

The federal government currently owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 28% of all land in the United States. To put that into perspective, that’s more territory than France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom combined.

Most of this land is west of the Mississippi River. That’s not a coincidence. In the American West, federal ownership isn’t just a bureaucratic technicality — it’s a stranglehold. States are suffocated. Locals are treated as tenants. Opportunities are choked off.

Meanwhile, people living east of the Mississippi — in places like Kentucky, Georgia, or Pennsylvania — might not even realize how little land their own states truly control. But the same policies that are plaguing the West could come for them next.

Lee isn’t proposing to auction off Yellowstone or pave over Yosemite. He’s talking about 3 million acres — that’s less than half of 1% of the federal estate. And this land isn’t your family’s favorite hiking trail. It’s remote, hard to access, and often mismanaged.

Failed management

Why was it mismanaged in the first place? Because the federal government is a terrible landlord.

Consider Yellowstone again. It’s home to the last remaining herd of genetically pure American bison — animals that haven’t been crossbred with cattle. Ranchers, myself included, would love the chance to help restore these majestic creatures on private land. But the federal government won’t allow it.

So what do they do when the herd gets too big?

They kill them. Bulldoze them into mass graves. That’s not conservation. That’s bureaucratic malpractice.

And don’t even get me started on bald eagles — majestic symbols of American freedom and a federally protected endangered species, now regularly slaughtered by wind turbines. I have pictures of piles of dead bald eagles. Where’s the outrage?

Biden’s federal land-grab

Some argue that states can’t afford to manage this land themselves. But if the states can’t afford it, how can Washington? We’re $35 trillion in debt. Entitlements are strained, infrastructure is crumbling, and the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service are billions of dollars behind in basic maintenance. Roads, firebreaks, and trails are falling apart.

The Biden administration quietly embraced something called the “30 by 30” initiative, a plan to lock up 30% of all U.S. land and water under federal “conservation” by 2030. The real goal is 50% by 2050.

That entails half of the country being taken away from you, controlled not by the people who live there but by technocrats in D.C.

You think that won’t affect your ability to hunt, fish, graze cattle, or cut timber? Think again. It won’t be conservatives who stop you from building a cabin, raising cattle, or teaching your grandkids how to shoot a rifle. It’ll be the same radical environmentalists who treat land as sacred — unless it’s your truck, your deer stand, or your back yard.

Land as collateral

Moreover, the U.S. Treasury is considering putting federally owned land on the national balance sheet, listing your parks, forests, and hunting grounds as collateral.

What happens if America defaults on its debt?

David McNew / Stringer | Getty Images

Do you think our creditors won’t come calling? Imagine explaining to your kids that the lake you used to fish in is now under foreign ownership, that the forest you hunted in belongs to China.

This is not hypothetical. This is the logical conclusion of treating land like a piggy bank.

The American way

There’s a better way — and it’s the American way.

Let the people who live near the land steward it. Let ranchers, farmers, sportsmen, and local conservationists do what they’ve done for generations.

Did you know that 75% of America’s wetlands are on private land? Or that the most successful wildlife recoveries — whitetail deer, ducks, wild turkeys — didn’t come from Washington but from partnerships between private landowners and groups like Ducks Unlimited?

Private stewardship works. It’s local. It’s accountable. It’s incentivized. When you break it, you fix it. When you profit from the land, you protect it.

This is not about selling out. It’s about buying in — to freedom, to responsibility, to the principle of constitutional self-governance.

So when you hear the pundits cry foul over 3 million acres of federal land, remember: We don’t need Washington to protect our land. We need Washington to get out of the way.

Because this isn’t just about land. It’s about liberty. And once liberty is lost, it doesn’t come back easily.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

EXPOSED: Why the left’s trans agenda just CRASHED at SCOTUS

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

You never know what you’re going to get with the U.S. Supreme Court these days.

For all of the Left’s insane panic over having six supposedly conservative justices on the court, the decisions have been much more of a mixed bag. But thank God – sincerely – there was a seismic win for common sense at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. It’s a win for American children, parents, and for truth itself.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s state ban on irreversible transgender procedures for minors.

The mostly conservative justices stood tall in this case, while Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson predictably dissented. This isn’t just Tennessee’s victory – 20 other red states that have similar bans can now breathe easier, knowing they can protect vulnerable children from these sick, experimental, life-altering procedures.

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying Tennessee’s law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. It’s rooted in a very simple truth that common sense Americans get: kids cannot consent to permanent damage. The science backs this up – Norway, Finland, and the UK have all sounded alarms about the lack of evidence for so-called “gender-affirming care.” The Trump administration’s recent HHS report shredded the activist claims that these treatments help kids’ mental health. Nothing about this is “healthcare.” It is absolute harm.

The Left, the ACLU, and the Biden DOJ screamed “discrimination” and tried to twist the Constitution to force this radical ideology on our kids.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw through it this time. In her concurring opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett nailed it: gender identity is not some fixed, immutable trait like race or sex. Detransitioners are speaking out, regretting the surgeries and hormones they were rushed into as teens. WPATH – the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the supposed experts on this, knew that kids cannot fully grasp this decision, and their own leaked documents prove that they knew it. But they pushed operations and treatments on kids anyway.

This decision is about protecting the innocent from a dangerous ideology that denies biology and reality. Tennessee’s Attorney General calls this a “landmark victory in defense of America’s children.” He’s right. This time at least, the Supreme Court refused to let judicial activism steal our kids’ futures. Now every state needs to follow Tennessee’s lead on this, and maybe the tide will continue to turn.

Insider alert: Glenn’s audience EXPOSES the riots’ dark truth

Barbara Davidson / Contributor | Getty Images

Glenn asked for YOUR take on the Los Angeles anti-ICE riots, and YOU responded with a thunderous verdict. Your answers to our recent Glennbeck.com poll cut through the establishment’s haze, revealing a profound skepticism of their narrative.

The results are undeniable: 98% of you believe taxpayer-funded NGOs are bankrolling these riots, a bold rejection of the claim that these are grassroots protests. Meanwhile, 99% dismiss the mainstream media’s coverage as woefully inadequate—can the official story survive such resounding doubt? And 99% of you view the involvement of socialist and Islamist groups as a growing threat to national security, signaling alarm at what Glenn calls a coordinated “Color Revolution” lurking beneath the surface.

You also stand firmly with decisive action: 99% support President Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to quell the chaos. These numbers defy the elite’s tired excuses and reflect a demand for truth and accountability. Are your tax dollars being weaponized to destabilize America? You’ve answered with conviction.

Your voice sends a powerful message to those who dismiss the unrest as mere “protests.” You spoke, and Glenn listened. Keep shaping the conversation at Glennbeck.com.

Want to make your voice heard? Check out more polls HERE.

Glenn's Show Prep