Russian Christians now admit that the concept of human rights and liberties as advocated by America and the West has no application in contemporary Russia . That country is drowning in vices directly linked to the West’s concept of inherent rights and liberties: abortion; homosexuality; dissolution of traditional marriage; pornography; slavery, prostitution, and exploitation of the oppressed, etc. The Russian Orthodox now understand that such American “values” are, in fact, vices which harm every human society as a collective. Such American “rights” have not brought happiness. They represent the deviance of the cult of the individual. From my Third World perspective, I am amazed that some Americans continue to argue that America’s virtue is that it protects such “rights” (=vices).

I focus here on similarities between America and the Soviet Union, two rival systems which have collapsed. Both systems boasted some admirable ideals. There was a period of several decades in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when America offered immigrants numerous opportunities, which many citizens took advantage of. The Soviet record is more spotted. It took me some time to understand the Soviets’ rabid anti-religiousness. Why did the Soviets work so tirelessly to destroy traditional Russian culture, much of which is, in fact, oriented towards biblical Christian socialism? It came, of course, from the desire of Jews, the major component of Soviet communism, to take revenge upon Christian Slavs. A natural reaction, one might apologize, of history’s formerly powerless against the powerful. But might Soviet communism have “worked” without the Jews? Probably not, because so much of Soviet communism was based upon radical, indiscriminate violence (against Christians and others), something from which no good ever comes: a lesson to any Muslim listening. (Ends never justify means). The Soviet Union fell apart, such that Ole Soviet King Cole Putin, despite his many talents, has been unable to put it back together again.

We are now witnessing the demise of America. For decades, America successfully marketed its “values” throughout the world (accompanied often by hefty cash subsidies for corrupt, subservient regimes). The aims of the American ideology were no less ambitious than those of Soviet communism, and the Americans were victorious over the Soviets, for a couple of years anyway.

But after the collapse of the Soyuz, the shallowness of American values became evident throughout the world. It turns out now that American-style Brown’n’Root democracy does not, in fact, suit Iraq, a land long plagued by European colonialism and internal division. It is now clear that America never intended to export its American-style democracy to totalitarian regimes in Israel, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia. American democracy is a sham, all double-talk, just like the Soviets’ spin on the fraternal brotherhood of nations.

Democracy for several generations now has not existed in America. The large corporations continue to increase their power, irregardless of the red or blue façade of the regime. The moral pedigree of a Clinton is as nasty as that of a Bush. As identified by a recent controversial study ignored by the American media, it is, indeed, a cabal of pro-Israeli groups which controls America’s purse-strings and foreign policy.

America is dying. I assure those Americans who still feel secure about a regular pay check, their job perks, vacations, company cars and cell phones, annual bonuses, benefits, government entitlements, U.S. dollar-based investments and accounts, etc etc., that their lifestyle is crumbling. There is no longer any right or logic in America’s prosperity. What gives Americans the right to consume the bulk of the world’s energy resources? By what right does an American drive a hummer while much of the rest of the world walks, rides bicycles, and commutes by public transportation? No longer can America’s traditional rights be excused. Those rights are mostly derived from a narrow, archaic Anglo-Saxon tradition: the “right” to carry (and use/abuse) firearms and the “right” to exploit land and natural resources for personal benefit. The American Middle Class has outlived its period of historical relevance and soon will be replaced, by Hispanics, India’s Indians, and Chinese. Those groups have no qualms about bearing and rearing children.

It is the twenty-first century. America is rat-infested history. America will fall, overrun by fatwah-inspired Muslims; wild, dispossessed, self-identified Apache or Aztec guerillas; looting, reparations-deluded African-Americans; indignant Eskimos; flaming cross-dressers and advocates of every sort of politically correct nonsense. History doesn’t last forever, and anyway, America had a couple of good centuries before it turned to cr*p.

Stojgniev O’Donnell
April 2006

Discuss this article on Pravda.Ru English Forum

Not much logic to history. Big names in civilizations come and go, at the whim of unpredictable trends and processes. One of the ugly realities of modernity is that the world has become a junkyard of failed ideologies. To live in the present is like trying to relax on the comfortable porch of a home surrounded by unsightly putrid piles of garbage. (The upside of this situation is that the thinking person can identify the values which are worth cultivating, simply by noting what is missing in the failed ideologies). One ugly ideology of the present is what I call Americanism: the politics, culture, and morality of the United States since the mid-twentieth century.

I admit that America formerly was instrumental in spreading freedoms throughout the world. The particular America which inspired me was immigrant America, built from elements of Europe’s cultural and moral traditions. America gave several generations of immigrants the opportunity to reject some of Europe’s previous failed ideologies and to experiment with new ones (not all of which were happy, however). Just and compassionate communities were forged from Old Country values and New World opportunities, and those communities thrived and managed somehow to love, rear, and educate their generations born in America. I personally experienced the positive energy of those old communities, now dissipated, which shared venerable common values.

History is a dialectic. The America of the 1880s and 1920s hardly resembles the contemporary state. One of the ugliest characteristics of contemporary America is its dishonesty and hypocrisy. The great civilizations of the past left behind some remarkable monuments, created from stone or from human wisdom and imagination. The legacy of Americanism is its spin and ability to market itself. America is one big magic trick for the rest of the world. If one symbol were selected as a “Wonder of the World,” to represent America, it would probably be Las Vegas. But America is also about Hollywood, breast and hair implants, corporate capitalism, hula hoops, MTV, unreal reality shows. For other societies, Americanism is the culture of death, because Americanism disrupts and destroys authentic human cultures.

The crude propaganda of the Soviet Union pales in comparison with the spin which America has produced. Clintons excelled at it (though to the point, finally, that no one believed Bill at all), but George W. is perhaps as good (thanks to his speechwriters and neoconservative mentors). A prime reserve of America’s current dishonesty, on the war, for example, is the mouth of W., rancher and former baseball magnate, who prides himself on his aloofness from world history, geography, and reality. W. claims publicly to be guided by his identification with American-style Christianity. (The Bush dynasty is diplomatically areligious. W. is a “born-again” Evangelical, though recently I saw an internet photo of W. toting a large Talmud. George Sr. attends Anglican worship. Jeb claims he’s Catholic. One envisions a scenario in which future Bushes enthusiastically embrace victorious Islam).

America was an experiment, a dialectic which links the past and the future. Similarly, the failed ideology of Soviet Communism, in its several decades of existence, linked a past way of life to the final bankrupt years of a massive, costly and deadly social experiment. Soviet Communism, established through violence and aggression and strongly influenced by European Jews who pushed their own ethnic and anti-Christian agenda, never had a chance (although the Chinese version of communism is managing much better). The Soviet Union collapsed finally because the experiment had reached its historical conclusion; it could no longer function, and thus gave birth to the current corrupt system which dominates Russia and other parts of the former empire.

The American experiment now has been taken to its logical conclusion. America functioned well under the system of the melting pot, according to which my ancestors in America were required to sacrifice their language and culture. America once had some sort of common system of values, but lost it after the 1960s, when America embraced moral and cultural relativism, political correctness, and sham multiculturalism. It’s true that periodically W. and other Americans publicly thump a leather-bound Bible, or even display tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments, but that’s mainly for show and no longer signifies the deepest convictions of the majority of Americans.

It’s the trinity of relativism, political correctness, and multiculturalism that ultimately destroyed America. Political correctness is wrong because it privileges certain groups and discriminates against others. America’s promotion of Kwanzaa celebrations and annual African-American History Months reminds me of the Soviet Union’s cultivation of communist myths. One notes certain similarities in the public cults of Lenin and Martin Luther King, Jr. King in recent decades has been promoted by the American government as a superhuman figure, a secular American saint. He was, no doubt, a pioneer for African-Americans, and his accomplishments had not previously been matched in Black America. Yet adulterer and plagiarizer King is no role model for me, and I question the decision of America to elevate him to civic sainthood. MLK Day is, for me, not a sign of “progress,” but a symbol of decadence, propaganda, and injustice.

Healthy societies are concerned with opportunities and obligations, that which we are obligated to provide our community and fellow human beings, not rewards which history “owes” us. But Modern America is about grievances, about the “debts” which privileged groups and individuals expect to reap from the world, their state, and neighbor. In order that America might have survived, it needed shared beliefs and culture, not the contemporary system which teaches that each human culture and value are of equal relevance.

True human multiculturalism is a marvelous thing. America’s multiculti is a lie, outrageous as the grossest piece of Soviet propaganda. The Soviet Union, ultimately, was consigned to the trash heap of human history. Without the Soviet threat, Americanism is now irrelevant. As with other once great civilizations, America and Americanism are perishing.

Stojgniev O’Donnell 

Discuss this article on Pravda.Ru English Forum 

The Bill of Rights is moribund in today's America because in the view of many powerful people it should never have been born.
James Madison said two centuries ago, "We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. ... A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions." Has this day arrived?  

It is sanctified by words during the best of times, when it is not needed; It is ignored by deeds during the worst of times, when it is needed most; It is presented as the bedrock of American freedom; It is in reality as fragile as a pane of glass; It is praised when one requires its protections; It is scourged when one’s foe demands those same protections; It is promoted as a vibrant, living document; It is dying a slow, but certain, death.

With apologies to Charles Dickens for paraphrasing the opening sentence of his immortal classic A TALE OF TWO CITIES, this opening passage describes the demise of a single document:  The Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights is moribund in today’s America because in the view of many powerful people it should never have been born.  During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates, having recently won a war against a monarchy, were astutely aware of the corrupting influence of political power, particularly when concentrated into too few hands. 
James Madison went so far as to state, "The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. So a system of "checks-and-balances" was devised to ensure that no individual, or branch of government, would obtain absolute power.

But a conflict arose over what rights and freedoms, if any, should be extended to the governed.  Some delegates believed the "checks-and-balances" system alone guaranteed that the government would never abuse its authority, and were distrustful of vesting too much freedom in the common people, whom Alexander Hamilton described as "a great beast."

Others, however, recognized that the potential for abuse still existed.  In support of this belief, Patrick Henry remarked:  "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty!  I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt."

So, to ensure ratification of the Constitution, it was agreed that amendments would be added to acknowledge there were certain rights and freedoms so sacred to the individual they could not be removed or suppressed, either by the government or the "tyranny of the majority."  On December 15, 1791 the first ten of these amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, went into effect.

When America was primarily an agrarian culture, the fundamental weaknesses of the Bill of Rights largely remained dormant.  But, as the nation became more industrialized and as wealth and power in the private economic sector became concentrated into fewer hands, these weaknesses became more palpable, revealing that the tyranny to be feared was not from the majority of the people, but the minority of the people with the majority of the money.

Even a cursory examination of the evolution of the Bill of Rights reveals two such weaknesses:  First, the Bill of Rights only dictates what the government CANNOT do.  (For example, it cannot interfere with an individual’s right to freedom of speech or religion, and it cannot deprive a person of the right to vote because of race or gender).  It does not (with limited exceptions regarding the rights of criminal defendants) place any affirmative duties upon the government; Second, the Bill of Rights (again with limited exceptions) does not apply to the private economic sector.  Just because somebody composes a song does not mean any radio station is obligated to play it; Just because somebody writes a Letter to the Editor does not mean any newspaper is obligated to print it; Just because somebody authors a book does not mean any company is obligated to publish it; And just because somebody produces a motion picture does not mean any movie theater or television
station is obligated to show it.

The first problem these weaknesses create is fear of economic retaliation, also known as a "chilling effect," which can detrimentally affect one’s willingness or ability to exercise Constitutional rights.  Most Americans depend upon the private sector for their incomes and material needs and desires.  As the late playwright Rod Serling once wrote:  "They pay you a certain amount each year until you need that amount to live on. Then you spend the rest of your life afraid they’ll take it away from you." Therefore, if the exercise of a Constitutional right, such as freedom of speech, could result in the loss of employment and the inability to provide food, clothing, health care, education and shelter for one's loved ones, all but the most intrepid will remain silent.

This consistently confines the ability to exercise basic Constitutional rights to those individuals or groups wealthy enough to weather any economic reprisals.  That reality was dramatically accentuated during the "Red Scare" of the 1950s, when Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Committee, in conjunction with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), employed a tactic known as "prescriptive publicity."  People summoned before these committees who were perceived as hostile or uncooperative were routinely fired from their jobs and "blacklisted" from future employment. The late Mark Goodson, a television game show producer during the McCarthy era, stated in a 1991 New York Times article "If I’d Stood Up Earlier . . ." that he had even been asked to fire
an employee simply because she had the same name as a suspected communist.

Although occasional concerns were raised about the devastating impact McCarthyism was having on the Bill of Rights, critics were hastily silenced by the fear of being labeled "communist sympathizers, fellow-travelers, or un-American."  Tragically, as McCarthy informant Harvey Matusow detailed in his book FALSE WITNESS, informants who had been encouraged and/or paid to lie were the primary accusers of many of the people whose lives were destroyed during this period.

Times have not changed very much.  In recent months actors like Whoopi Goldberg and Danny Glover lost corporate sponsorships because of their political activities and the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted from radio stations owned by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel.  Those who recognizedthe lies of George W. Bush and/or opposed the Iraqi war were easily
muzzled by accusations of being "unpatriotic, un-American" or "failing to support the troops."  And, just a few days ago, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, owner of sixty-two television stations throughout the United States, fired its Washington Bureau Chief Jon Leiberman after Leiberman criticized Sinclair’s plans to broadcast over public airwaves, roughly two weeks before the election, a documentary hostile to presidential candidate John Kerry.  (In a case of ironic justice, Sinclair itself, after suffering economic retaliation from its shareholders, chose not to air the anti-Kerry documentary in its entirety).

Sadly, even if poor or middle-class people suffer no economic retaliation from an employer for the exercise of a Constitutional right, they still face the specter of "civil law."  Although speech is usually not punishable in a criminal sense, if it is found to be libelous or slanderous monetary penalties are often imposed upon the speaker.

The positive aspect of civil law, as demonstrated by the work of organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, is that organizations or individuals who incite others to violence are often compelled to financially compensate those victimized by this violence. The negative aspect is the proclivity of wealthy individuals or organizations to file SLAPP suits--an acronym meaning "Strategic Lawsuits (or Litigation) Against Public Participation"--against members of the poor or middle-class who have engaged in speech activities as mundane as writing a letter to their local newspaper. Although those filing SLAPP suits know they have little chance of winning, their strategy is to inflict emotional distress and financial hardship
upon those engaged in speech activities, thereby discouraging others from engaging in similar speech.

Although statements presented as factual are libelous and/or slanderous if found to be false and injurious to one’s reputation, opinions are protected by the Bill of Rights.  Unfortunately the line of demarcation between what constitutes a statement of fact and an opinion is often
blurred.  By forcing a court to determine whether something is fact or opinion, those filing SLAPP suits can delay the timely publication or dissemination of speech materials.  For example, the release of Peter Matthiessen's book IN THE SPIRIT OF CRAZY HORSE, about imprisoned Native-American activist Leonard Peltier and the American Indian Movement (AIM),
was delayed for several years because of allegations it libeled some of the people mentioned therein.

This leads to the second problem: While the wealthy and powerful are often the ones most capable of exercising their constitutional rights, they are also the ones most capable of denying those rights to others through the use of censorship.

Besides the previously mentioned example of this tactic being employed by Cumulus Media and Clear Channel, there has also been censorship through intimidation, as evidenced by CBS Television’s refusal to air THE REAGANS, a mini-series that right-wing critics claimed did not display the former president of the United States, or his family, in a favorable manner.  When Showtime, a cable-based movie channel, decided to air THE REAGANS instead, Republican (GOP) National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who apparently (to paraphrase the late comedian Will Rogers) never met a hypocrisy he didn't like, said "Misleading a smaller audience of viewers is not a noble response to the legitimate concerns raised about this program."

True to this right-wing tradition, the previously mentioned Sinclair Broadcasting Group refused to let its ABC affiliates air a "NIGHTLINE" news segment where the names of Americans killed in Iraq were read, claiming the segment was making "a political statement."  Also some theater chains, primarily in the Midwest, refused to air Michael Moore's documentary FAHRENHEIT 9/11, allegedly for the same reason.

Several radio stations owned by Clear Channel, however, had no hesitation about sponsoring pro-war rallies, and neither the GOP nor Michael Powell, Republican head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and son of Bush lapdog Colin Powell, found anything ignoble, illegitimate, illegal or hypocritical about Sinclair Broadcasting’s original plan to televise the anti-Kerry documentary.

Although Sinclair Broadcasting endeavored to camouflage as "news" this propaganda piece attacking Kerry’s military record in Vietnam and/or his anti-war efforts at home, many commentators have pointed out that Sinclair is, in actuality, cynically attempting to enhance its own profits at the expense of the public interest. Powell’s FCC, under the pretext of creating "greater diversity," has consistently sought to generate more profits for right-wing, pro-Bush media outlets by permitting even greater concentration of media ownership.  If John Kerry is elected president, Powell will no longer have his coveted, nepotism-obtained position, and the push for more concentrated media ownership will have ended.

In response to Powell’s disingenuous efforts and Sinclair’s profit-motivated impetus, FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps proclaimed:  "This is an abuse of the public trust.  And it is proof positive of media consolidation run amok when one owner can use the public airwaves to blanket the country with its political ideology--whether liberal or conservative. . . .  This is the same corporation that refused to air Nightline’s reading of our war dead in Iraq. . . .  Sinclair and the FCC, are taking us down a dangerous road."

Naturally what Sinclair, Powell, the GOP, the FCC and their right-wing media sycophants hope the public will overlook is the fact that neither George W. Bush nor Dick Cheney even served in Vietnam.  Bush avoided the war by using his family's influence to get into the National Guard, and Cheney obtained five deferments.

Yet, while many may have disagreed (and still disagree) with Kerry's words and actions, he at least spoke with the courage of his convictions.  Contrast this with Bush and Cheney, whose only excuse for avoiding the war was that he had "other priorities."

It is one thing to be courageous enough to speak out with the knowledge that one day this speech could be used against you.  It is quite another to be too cowardly to speak at all.  Kerry’s statements against the war in Vietnam were made with the belief that no more young people should die.  Bush and Cheney, as implied by their silence, simply did not care how many died in Vietnam as long as they were not among them.

Just as things have not changed much since the McCarthy era, things also have not changed much since the Vietnam era.  The corporate-controlled media's coverage leading up to and during the early days of the Iraqi war was not motivated by any altruistic devotion to the public trust.  It was motivated by the selfish lust for the ratings and profits that war engenders, with its "embedded reporters," "twenty-four hour coverage," and plethora of military "experts" droning on about military
strategy.

The profit-driven impulses of the corporate-controlled media invariably lead to the third problem:  "Bandwagon" speech, where opportunistic individuals speak and act less from the sincerity of their convictions than from the career-enhancing prospects of exploiting popular sentiments or ideas.

For example, while Cumulus and Clear Channel were censoring the songs of the Dixie Chicks, Country singer Toby Keith was getting rich(er) singing about kicking Iraqi "a**."  Yet these media outlets seemed blissfully unconcerned about the fact that Keith had (and has) made absolutely no effort to personally participate in the war he so vocally supports.

The same holds true for Bill O’Reilly of the Fox Propaganda Network. When Michael Moore asked O’Reilly whether he would be willing to sacrifice his children in the Iraqi war, O’Reilly repeatedly remarked, "I’d sacrifice myself."  Yet while people like Jon Leiberman are fired for their honesty, O’Reilly remains safely ensconced in the Fox studios, and the only war he is currently fighting is a sexual harassment lawsuit recently filed against him.

As long as people keep enriching and politically empowering hypocrites like Toby Keith, Bill O’Reilly, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and others of their ilk, there will continue to be a surfeit of celebrities, journalists and politicians willing to shed everyone’s blood, except their own.

Bandwagon speech has been primarily responsible for the "dumbing down of America," as the focus of the corporate-controlled media has shifted from substance to superficiality.  Many media conglomerates also own movie studios, and thus use their television stations, newspapers and magazines to promote celebrity "culture."  As a result, America has become a society where people are cognizant of minor trivialities regarding the lives of celebrities, yet are unaware of laws, like the Patriot Act, that decimate their Constitutional rights.  Materialistic vamps like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears inundate the airwaves, yet many Americans cannot recite the name of a single person killed in Iraq.

Some may claim it is hypocritical to write an article supporting the Bill of Rights while complaining about the abuses of the corporate-controlled media or applauding the protests that altered Sinclair’s plan to air the anti-Kerry documentary.  These media, after all, will claim they are only providing what the public wants to see, read and hear.  But a child may want to eat ice cream and cake everyday for breakfast, lunch and dinner.  For good health, however, a child needs to eat a balanced diet. Corporate-controlled media also need to, without regard for ratings or profits, feed the people the
information they need.

These media further claim they are also entitled to the right to "freedom of speech."  But American courts have held that communications driven by the quest for profits and/or other economic considerations—also known as "commercial speech"--does not enjoy the same level of protection under the Bill of Rights as other forms of speech.  Yet this is (as evidenced by the charade attempted by Sinclair Broadcasting) the speech the corporate-controlled media are consistently disseminating. Unless the courts, the legislators and the public acknowledge this reality and rebel against it, the corporate-controlled media will never again serve the public interest.

With the increased concentration of media ownership, Americans and perhaps the most ill informed people on earth, and, as the rush to invade Iraq illustrates, much more susceptible to government or media lies.  Although there are alternative media sources, Americans are often too harried, too tired, or too apathetic to pursue them unless they are available at the touch of a remote control or delivered to one’s mailbox or doorstep.

James Madison said two centuries ago, "We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of a few. A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets, and when the day comes, when the wealth of the nation will be in the hands of a few, then we must rely upon the wisdom of the best elements in the country to readjust the laws of the nation to the changed conditions."

Perhaps that day has arrived.

David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of PRAVDA.Ru
 

Central banks in several Asian states considerably reduced the dollar constituent of their reserves

The US currency has been balancing on the verge of disaster these days. Several countries have announced their intention to diversify their dollar reserves this week. Central banks have decided to add some euro cash to their financial sources.

Another stage of the American currency decline touched upon Russia as well. The dollar value has been declining against the Russian ruble since February 9th, 2005. The US dollar costs 27.46 rubles at the moment in Russia in comparison with 28.18 rubles per dollar just a month ago.

This is the result of another wave of the anti-dollar hysteria. The story started with a message from the Basel-based Bank for International Settlements. It was said that central banks in several Asian states considerably reduced the dollar constituent of their reserves over the recent several years. Banks of China and India, for example, were rather emphatic about such a decision of theirs.  The dollar funds of those banks, BIS said, made up 81 percent of their total reserves in 2001. The dollar index dropped to 67 percent by September of 2004. The most considerable reduction of dollar reserves was registered in India: they dropped from 68 to 43 percent from 2001 to 2004.

Market specialists realized that the dollar dependence of the dynamic Asian region was exaggerated. The new concept later resulted in a very active promotion of the European currency. The European Central Bank said that it was going to raise its basic rate (2.25 percent currently) to create “the image of the euro” as a more attractive and reliable world currency. The statement from the bank gave an additional incentive to the growth of the euro.

The dollar started plummeting. The slide was intensified even further after the statement from the Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi. The minister told the national parliament that it was necessary to consider the issue regarding the diversification of Japanese currency reserves. Spokespeople for the Finance Ministry of Japan assured the troubled market a bit later that Japan would not be enlarging its euro-assets: the dollar demise was suspended. Nevertheless, the dollar rate has already stepped over the psychologically important level of 1.34 dollars per euro.

The future of the American currency can hardly be viewed as promising, though. The USA is to publish the balance of trade data in the near future. Specialists believe that they can hardly be better than the previous ones. “The liquidation of the dual American deficit – of the balance of trade and payment – is a matter of distant future. Oil prices are growing, and they have nothing to cut deficit on,” FIBO analyst, Rushan Zeinetdinov said.

Europe and Japan taught a good lesson to the States. The US Federal Reserve System is taking measures to stabilize the national currency. European and Asian specialists, however, believe that those measures are not sufficient. Raising the FRS rate by only 0.25 percent cannot stop the ongoing decline of the US dollar. Europe is apparently tired of the never-ending financial fight with the USA and decided to play the game of the strong euro, although it is definitely not good for European exporters. The strong euro might eventually undermine the global reputation of the dollar as the major world currency.

Specialists believe that the information of the Bank for International Settlements can be considered as another proof of the general trend to turn the dollar down as the key currency for saving deposits in.