Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:45AM   Printer-friendly
from the gaining-interest dept.

Previous Liberty Street Economics analysis and New York Fed research addressed the potential implications for the United States if the dollar's global role changed, noting that the currency might not retain its dominance forever. This post checks the status of the dollar, considering whether any erosion in the dollar's international standing has occurred. The evidence to date is that the dollar remains the world's dominant currency by broad margins. Alternatives have not gained extensive traction, albeit this does not rule out potential future pressures.

[...] Major developments pertinent for the current international financial architecture include the introduction of the euro in 2000, China's rising status in the global economy, and post financial crisis changes in the U.S. policy and financial environment. Various additional policy and operational developments have had and will have the potential to alter the desirability of using U.S. dollars.

[...] After its introduction in 2000, the euro saw its status as an international currency deepen, peak around 2003, and decline in the aftermath of the global financial and euro-area crises amid slower growth in the euro area and uneven progress toward reaching a fuller financial and economic union.

[...] The international use of China's currency has risen with the importance of China in global output, official investments to improve China's institutions and governance, and deliberate promotional steps by the Chinese government.

[...] Potentially working against the international use of dollars are: a decline in correspondent banking, where banks seek out other banks to provide services on their behalf (occurring as banks de-risk); higher fiscal imbalances in the United States, to the extent that concerns rise about fiscal deficits and debt burden sustainability; and policy actions that could weaken international trade and financial ties.

[...] Cryptocurrencies, set up to challenge the conventional structure of payments in official currencies

https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2019/02/the-us-dollars-global-roles-where-do-things-stand.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:54PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @06:54PM (#800691)

    Interesting points.

    1) Why build an alternative to SWIFT? It works well enough.
    2) The US dollar is part of this package, the other is being an assertive leader to our satellites and making them buy our military hardware.
    3) Less valuable, but at ~300m first world consumers, impossible to ignore, and far more attractive than countries like Russia or Iran. Even with a declining dollar, the US could still sanction countries and companies that trade with our political enemies.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @07:27PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @07:27PM (#800702)

    Here is how it works:

    1) The money supply is *always* increasing. They target a magic number (made up by some australian dude) of 2% per year.
    2) The "new money" is given to special corporations called "Primary Dealers" [wikipedia.org].
    3) The primary dealers get to spend (eg, literally or use as collateral for new loans) this new money before prices have dropped to account for more dollars in existence.
    4) The larger set of people/corps who get those loans/cash from the primary dealers also get this advantage, but then prices of adjusted somewhat.
    5) The next set get less advantage, etc.
    6) This new money tends to get spent in the US first.
    7) The last thing to rise due to the new money are wages and fixed incomes (pensions), but even those people in the US do get some (much reduced) benefit over the rest of the world due to number 6.

    I'm not even making a judgement on whether this system is better/worse than others. However, it is obvious to see this "tickle down" system is designed for the rich to get relatively richer. Any politician who complains about that (e.g., the "1%") without mentioning where money comes from is either a liar or has no idea what they are talking about.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @09:36PM (#800745)

      Typos I just noticed:
      "before prices have dropped [risen]"
      "prices of [have] adjusted somewhat"

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @10:30PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 13 2019, @10:30PM (#800758)

    1) If you're the USA, no reason. If you're not the USA, then the fact that the USA calls the shots is reason enough.
    2) Yes, but weakening the package matters to the USA.
    3) True, but from a position of decreasing relative strength. This still matters to the USA.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @05:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 14 2019, @05:04AM (#800883)

      The US' strength can decline, but the US will retain its lead as long as any alternative is not as attractive as retaining the status quo. Goes for the financial infrastructure, our military block and trade relations.