The video is awesome, and Saker’s analysis right on, IMO:
It is very hard to change a system which works, a system upon which people depend for their salaries, a system which has been stable for years and which, while not perfect, at least is understood by all parties. This is why for all its imperfections, sometimes bordering on dysfunctions, what I would call the “Western financial-economic system” was so important and, frankly, so attractive: it was there and it worked. But then the USA did something extremely dangerous: they began to use and abuse this system for their very narrow political goals: MasterCard, Visa and the rest of them suddenly dropped Wikileaks, Iran was excluded from SWIFT, the French were told to be billions to Uncle Sam because of the Mistral sales to Russia, the Russians were told to compensate Khodorkovsky, the Swiss were blackmailed into given up their traditional banking secrecy, etc.
Of course, the dollar and the western economic interests did not only attract with a tasty carrot. They also came with a big stick: the US military. But at the same time when the US began using and abusing the Western financial-economic system, they also began a long streak of lost wars.
I would like to add to this also the shift to congressional deficit-cutting and the shift to austerity. Besides reducing demand for imports and forcing other nations to find other markets, it seems to me that reducing the availability of dollars may also be making other currencies more attractive. The strength of the US has historically been the sheer size of it’s markets coupled with the safest, most well-regarded financial system on earth. Deregulation and the dominance of “free-market” ideals have been an object lesson to the rest of the world on what *not* to do.