Der Wold, Woldo oder Woldi

:lachtot::lachtot::lachtot:
 
For Mr. Mundell -- and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker -- the lessons point to the eventual need for a single global currency. That may be a political leap too far. But the world could still harness the benefits of exchange-rate stability if its political and economic leaders began to discuss how better to coordinate monetary policy. Mr. Mundell suggests, for starters, a mechanism for close coordination among the Fed, the ECB, and the Banks of England, China and Japan.

In the wake of the financial meltdown and with a new Administration in Washington, new progress may be possible. The Bush Administration has been clueless on monetary issues, with all three of its Treasury Secretaries repeating that the price of currencies should be set like the price of any other commodity. But the supply of corn, say, isn't set by a cartel of central banks and copper isn't a medium of global commerce. With Mr. Volcker's help, President-elect Obama has a unique chance to exercise global monetary leadership.

The decade of the euro has demonstrated that there is an alternative to the instability and volatility of the era of floating exchange rates that began with the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971. It's time to build on that lesson for the good of free markets and global prosperity.
 
The Eurodollar

May 2004

Introduction

Currencies have been at the focus of the international economy in the past years. On the one hand, there have been currency collapses in many East Asian countries in 1997 and in Russia 1998 or Argentina in 2002, with the fear that these currency collapses could lead to a worldwide economic recession. On the other hand, in January 1999, members of the European Union introduced the Euro, which replaced national currencies in 2002.

It is my belief that there is a simple solution to the problems which currencies are causing the international economy. Within the next ten years the Euro should be merged with the Dollar to create a Eurodollar, which would act as a single currency for both the United States and Europe, and eventually for the rest of the world.

I believe that history, economics and politics all point toward the benefit of moving toward a single international currency. To prove our point, we first provide a brief economic history of money and currencies, showing that whenever it has been politically and economically feasible, the world has moved toward a single currency. Next, we look at the economic and political impact of a single currency, and we see how a single currency would affect financial markets. Finally, we provide show how the United States and Europe can introduce a single currency for them, and eventually, for the rest of the world.

A History of Single Currencies

Whenever economic and political stability have enabled international trade to expand, attempts have been made to introduce a universal currency that meets the demands of trade. Because of the political benefits of introducing a universal currency, a single monetary standard has usually followed the expansion of political power. The Roman Empire, the Chinese Empire, and the British Empire all established a single currency standard for the regions over which they ruled. Although there are economic reasons for having a universal currency, history suggests that politics, and not economics, has been the chief determinant of currency areas in the past and today.

The first attempts to create an international currency for Europe occurred in 1800. The German Zollverein was introduced in 1834 and the German currencies were consolidated into the mark in 1873. The Latin Monetary Union was established in 1865, and lasted until 1914, with France, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy as charter members. Each country agreed to mint coins to a single standard that would be accepted as legal tender by government offices in any of the member countries.

The relative success of the Latin Monetary Union led to the International Monetary Conference of 1867, which tried to create a single monetary standard for Europe and the United States by minting a common coin equal to 25 French Francs, 5 U.S. dollars and 1 British pound; however, the idea fell through. Without a single European government or international currency agreement, the gold standard was the closest the world could get to a universal currency. Currencies were fixed to gold, and gold fixed currencies to each other. The result was the virtual elimination of currency fluctuations among the world´s major currencies between the 1870s and 1914 when World War I forced countries to suspend their currency conversion.

Despite numerous attempts to stabilize the international financial system after World War I, any success was only temporary. The Bretton Woods established a dollar standard to replace the gold standard. The value of the dollar was fixed to gold at $35 to the ounce, and the world´s currencies were fixed to the dollar. Exchange rates were fixed in the short run, but flexible in the long run. By the early 1970s, however, the world had changed dramatically from 1944, and in 1973, Bretton Woods collapsed. Flexible exchange rates replaced system of the fixed exchange rates.

The current push for monetary union in Europe began with the Delors report of 1988, which advocated a gradual move toward a single currency. This was the basis for the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992, which set the timetable for the move to a single currency by January 1, 1999.

There have been other attempts to form currency unions since World War II, and the record shows that currency unions have succeeded in two cases. The first has been when a small country tied its currency to a larger country´s currency, and second when several countries gave up control over their monetary policy to a supranational central bank. Belgium and Luxembourg have been in a currency union since World War II. Similarly, Swaziland, Lesotho and Namibia have all tied their currencies to the South African Rand.

Only two multinational currency unions have worked since World War II. The smaller success story has occurred among the islands of the East Caribbean, which has continued since the British Caribbean Currency Board was established in 1950. The most successful currency union has been the Communaute Financiere Africaine (CFA) which has continued a successful currency union among its members since the former French colonies gained their independence in the early 1960s. Fourteen countries in west and in central Africa share the CFA Franc.

In countries that do not share a single currency, economic necessity and technological change have pushed the world toward a single monetary standard. US dollars are accepted almost everywhere. It has been estimated that about half the United States´ outstanding currency, and the majority of its $100 bills, are held outside of the United States.

Technology has unified the world´s currencies in a way that is fundamentally different from either the era of the gold standard or from Bretton Woods. Over 1.5 trillion dollars in currency is traded every day or about $300 for every person on the planet every single day. Currency crises can lead to, and can produce, recessions and political change. Given this, it is not difficult to imagine the massive savings that could occur by the introduction of a universal currency.

In short, history shows a continuous desire to move toward a single currency when such a change is economically and politically feasible. The reason is simple, the benefits of having a common currency exceed the costs. Though political trends have been moved toward greater plurality in the world, finance, technology and economics have moved toward greater integration. Yet, there is no reason to believe that monetary integration in the form of a single currency could not coexist with political plurality.

The Economics of a Single Currency

The introduction to a single currency for the United States and Europe will produce both economic benefits and economic costs. On average, the net economic benefits for society should exceed the costs.

The theory of optimum currency areas was first elaborated by Robert Mundell back in the 1960s. The benefit of having different exchange rates between countries is that they help countries adjust to asymmetric economic shocks. A single currency eliminates the ability to adjust prices between different economic regions through changes in the exchange rate. Consequently, economic adjustments must be made in one of three ways.

First, labor must be mobile so workers can move from an area suffering from recession to one that is enjoying an economic boom. Second, wages and prices must be flexible in order that the economy can respond to changes in supply and demand. Third, there must be some way of transferring resources to the country or region which is in dire economic straits in order to help it recover from its recession. Given these three criteria, it is unlikely that the United States and Europe would fit Mundell´s definition of an optimum currency area. However, it is also unlikely that many countries that have a single currency, such as the former Soviet Union, China, India or Italy are optimum currency areas. No government in modern times has allowed different currencies to circulate within its borders, regardless of any economic benefits that would occur.

The real question, however, is whether having a single currency for the United States and Europe would be more efficient than having a multitude of currencies. Whether the United States and Europe move on to a single currency will be determined by the net political and economic benefits that come from introducing a Eurodollar.

Money is a public good. If the government provides the coin of the realm, then society does not have to incur the costs of agreeing on a standard for carrying out economic activity. Having a single currency for the United States makes economic transactions easier than having a different currency in every state of the union. There are several reasons why a single currency increases economic efficiency.

First, a single currency increases the transparency of prices. Whether you buy or sell goods in New Hampshire or in California, consumers can compare price in the United States in a single currency. If you are in Europe, and you are trying to find the best price, you will have to compare prices in fourteen different currencies.

Second, a single currency reduces the transaction costs of buying and selling goods because you don´t have to convert money from one currency to another. Multinational corporations, which operate in ten or twenty different currencies, would see a large decrease the cost of managing revenues and costs would be reduced dramatically.

Third, a single currency would eliminate exchange rate risk among the countries that shared the currency. Foreign exchange risks and the cost of hedging these risks are a major cost of multinational corporations´ operations. Having a single currency eliminates foreign exchange risk as companies that operate exclusively in the United States already know.

Fourth, when a currency union exists, countries can no longer use devaluations as part of their economic policy to gain an advantage over other countries. Fifth, because the Central Bank which oversees the currency union is not controlled by a single government, it will be easier for the Central Bank to focus on its primary objective-to control prices and fight inflation.

Although there are many economic benefits from a single currency, there are also costs. The primary benefits of a single currency are microeconomic. The single currency enables individuals and businesses to carry out economic transactions more efficiently. There are also macroeconomic benefits from having a single currency. A single currency encourages international trade, and reduces the disruptions that result from currency fluctuations. Nevertheless, most of the costs of having a single currency are macroeconomic and political, and there are several important costs that nation sharing a common currency incur.

First, a single currency forces a country to forgo an independent monetary policy. After the currency union begins, the country´s monetary policy is determined by the supranational central bank and not by the domestic central bank. This is why the theory of optimal currency areas emphasizes the importance of flexible prices, labor mobility and fiscal transfers. Because flexible prices and labor mobility become more important when a currency union exists, governments have an incentive to make markets work more efficiently.

A second effect of the currency union is less regional economic differentiation. The Federal Reserve in the United States cannot lower interest rates in one part of the United States which is in a recession while simultaneously raising interest rates in another part of the country which is booming. Interest rates and prices become similar throughout most of the currency area.
Third, there are also political costs to a currency area. If the government loses control over monetary policy to the supranational central bank, politicians are limited to using fiscal policy to influence the macroeconomy.

The primary question we want to address here is whether a single currency for the United States and Europe would be more efficient than multiple currencies. Some would argue that the main difference between a currency union for the United States and a currency union for the United States and Europe would be the inability to use fiscal transfers to offset asynchronous regional economic cycles between the United States and Europe. However, special funds could be set up to address this problem.

Another benefit of introducing a single currency would be that individuals and corporations would have greater economic choice. The single currency would encourage trade which could in turn place pressure on governments to reduce the barriers to trade that currently exist between countries, and force governments to reduce structural barriers to trade. The market reforms that will inevitably follow from the introduction of a single currency should be included in the list of benefits that a Eurodollar would provide.

The Political Economy of the Eurodollar

Were the introduction of a single currency for Europe and the United States a purely economic concern, a Eurodollar and a supranational Global Reserve Bank probably would have been introduced long ago, because the economic benefits of a single currency exceed the costs.

Even if economics and history provide convincing arguments for the introduction of a single currency for the United States and Europe, or for the rest of the world, political factors have been and will continue to be the primary barrier to the introduction of a single currency. This section will focus on the political problems of establishing a currency union, and of establishing a supranational Global Reserve Bank to oversee the currency union. Many people already believe that central banks, which are independent but accountable to their governments, have too much power already, and ceding power to a supranational central bank would increase the central bank´s power even more. In order for governments to be willing to cede this power, they must believe that the benefits of a single currency will exceed the costs.

The process of introducing a single currency has been difficult enough in Europe, which has carried out multinational cooperation for decades. Getting the United States and Europe to agree on a single currency will be even more difficult. The United States was one of the last developed countries to have a central bank, and only in the past few years has the United States allowed nationwide banking, something which has been taken for granted in every other country in the world for most of this century. The United States´ willingness to participate in international economic organizations is evidenced by its membership in the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and NAFTA.

The primary political reason for opposing a supranational Central Bank would be the loss of economic sovereignty that would occur. However, it is important to differentiate between independence, accountability, and political control. Even though it would be a supranational agency, the Global Reserve Bank would never have complete independence from domestic political control. It would be accountable to the countries that would give the GRB its power. If the Global Reserve Bank forsook its accountability and acted against the interests of the United States, the US could leave the currency union just as some French African countries have left the CFA Franc currency union. The threat of exit would force the GRB to remain accountable.

The basis of democracy is a system of checks and balances, which limits the powers of each branch of government. Although members of the Federal Reserve have a large degree of freedom from political influence, Congress must approve Federal Reserve appointees, and the appointees are subject to impeachment. Similar control over appointees to the Global Reserve Bank would be necessary for the U.S. Congress to approve US membership. The Global Reserve Bank can be both independent and accountable. The two are not mutually exclusive.

In some ways, it would be easier to establish an independent, supranational Central Bank than to establish other supranational agencies. First, by definition, the Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent of political influence on a day-to-day basis. Second, because the Federal Reserve makes a profit from the reserves that are deposited with it by banks, it does not require any Federal funding. Third, the Federal Reserve has coordinated its actions with other central banks in the past. The Global Reserve Bank would institutionalize this cooperation. Fourth, by their very nature, financial markets are international, and the dollar is an international currency with about half of U.S. currency currently outside of the United States. A Global Reserve Bank would probably make policy coordination between the world´s central banks easier than it is today.

A final economic cost of the currency union would be that the United States would no longer be able to issue bonds in its own currency. Given the credit history of the United States, there would be few worries about default through non-payment, and the introduction of a Eurodollar could reduce the risk to bond holders because the government could no longer default through inflation.

One way of understanding the future debate over the Eurodollar will be to look at which interest groups will come out in favor of a currency union and which will oppose the currency union. In the case of a Eurodollar currency union, direct losers would be few. Although there might be ideological opposition, economic opposition would come mainly from firms that would fear that the currency union would favor large multinationals at their expense.

The introduction of a Eurodollar would also have political repercussion outside of the United. Many European countries found it difficult to convince their citizens to give up their own domestic currency for one controlled by the European Central Bank. Convincing Europeans to give up their currency for one jointly controlled by Europeans and Americans might be even more difficult. Outside of Europe, the introduction of the single currency would produce a group of insiders who were part of the world´s leading currency, and outsiders who were not. The world could become divided between Eurodollar countries and everyone else. For this reason, arrangements would have to be made for countries outside of Europe and North America to join the Eurodollar bloc.

Once the transition to a single currency for Europe and the United States was made, the transition to a single currency for the entire world could come with a speed that might surprise many. The world might easily moving from having almost 200 currencies today to having one within a decade, and twenty-five years from now, historians would wonder why it took so long to eliminate the Babel of currencies which existed in the twentieth century.

The fear that economic integration inevitably leads to greater political integration is unfounded. In fact, the opposite is probably true. Economic unity can coexist with and support political diversity. Countries which have been part of the Deutsche Mark bloc (Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Switzerland, Austria) have seen no reduction in political freedom as a result of linking their currency to the Mark. In some ways, having a currency union could enhance political sovereignty since it would reduce the role of monetary policy in politics.

One benefit of a currency union between the United States and Europe would be that it could strengthen the Euro. Many Europeans fear that the Euro could fail, but if the Euro were seen as an intermediate step on the path to a currency union between the United States and Europe, many reservations about the Euro could be removed.

Greater financial and economic integration within the world could also reduce the likelihood of conflict between countries. With a single currency being used throughout the world, and multinational corporations operating in dozens or even a hundred different countries, the potential for war due to economic reasons would be reduced substantially. This fact has been a driving force behind the economic integration of Europe since World War II.

The Impact of the Eurodollar on Financial Markets and on Banking

The greatest direct impact of the introduction of a Eurodollar would fall on financial markets, and particularly on foreign exchange. Currency markets transact over $1 trillion in foreign exchange operations every day. The introduction of a Eurodollar would dramatically reduce international currency transactions in the spot market, the futures market, swap market and forward markets. The need for currency hedging between the United States and Europe would be eliminated overnight. Moreover, once a Eurodollar was introduced, it would become the principal, perhaps the only, reserve currency in the world.

One consequence of introducing a Eurodollar would be the need to create a central bank, perhaps to be called the Global Reserve Bank (GRB), which would oversee the currency union. The Global Reserve Bank would probably be modeled on the Federal Reserve Bank. The Global Reserve Bank would build on the foundations of existing central banks to link the banks of all member countries together.

At the Fed, policy is centered in the Federal Open Market Committee with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York carrying out the policy actions of the FOMC. The Global Reserve Bank´s version of the FOMC could include twelve members. Six members would come from the GRB (one of whom would be the Chairman), three from United States district banks (one of whom would be from New York), and three from European central banks. Europeans could rotate their positions among different countries as they do now.

In addition to running monetary policy, the Federal Reserve in the United States plays an important role in regulating the banking system. The Comptroller of the Currency charters national banks, the FDIC provides deposit insurance that is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, and the Fed supervises banks. Countries would have to meet common standards for bank supervision and deposit insurance, which would be similar to the standards that currently exist in the United States. Banking regulations would have to be rewritten in both the United States and in Europe to harmonize them with each other. International accounting and transparency standards for countries that would be part of the Eurodollar bloc would have to be applied in all member countries.

These rules would be applied to other countries that wanted to join the Eurodollar. Although countries would be free to link their currency to the Eurodollar as Argentina has to the Dollar, joining the Eurodollar bloc would entail agreeing to the same regulatory standards as occur within the United States and European countries.

The globalization of financial markets, which would occur in banking, would extend to stock and futures markets. World stock markets would become more integrated because the single currency would make it easier to trade stocks on multiple exchanges. Firms that did an initial public offering or a secondary offering could offer shares in both the United States and Europe giving them a larger capital base to draw upon.

The savings to corporations and to individuals of introducing a single currency would be enormous, both in terms of the costs of carrying out international economic activities, and in the reduction in foreign exchange risk that would occur. Corporations would see a virtual elimination of transaction risk, economic risk and translation risk overnight.

It should be obvious that foreign currency markets are expensive. Governments force corporations to spend billions of dollars each year dealing with the consequences of operating in almost 200 currencies worldwide. Introducing a single currency for the United States and Europe would go a long way toward reducing these costs for corporations and for individuals.

A Timetable for the Introduction of a Eurodollar

Though the economic benefits of a single currency have long been obvious from a purely theoretical point of view, no currency for the entire world has been introduced until now because the political and economic costs of making this change have been too great. The real problem is, how do you go from having almost 200 currencies to having only one?

If there were a single world government, there would also be a single world currency, but a single world government is neither likely to occur, nor desirable. The current global financial crisis has made a single currency more feasible, because some people are beginning to question the efficiency of the current exchange rate system.

What is unique about the current world economic and financial situation is that for several reasons, it is now possible to convert to a single currency for the United States and Europe, and the rest of the world at a minimal economic cost.

First, financial markets throughout the world have become increasingly integrated. Financial firms span the globe and international transactions increase annually. In a world that is brought closer together everyday through airplanes, telecommunications and the Internet, having almost 200 different currencies seems an absurd, inefficient anachronism. In our opinion, the economic cost of maintaining almost 200 national currencies exceeds the cost of converting to a single currency.

The introduction of the Euro enables the world to make the first step toward a single currency for the United States and Europe. The Dollar and the Euro could be linked together to form a single currency at a 1:1 parity with each other. Linking the Dollar and the Euro would be a relatively simple step compared with creating the Euro out of the eleven currencies that preceded it.

The Euro will be introduced on January 1, 1999 in accordance with the Maastricht treaty. Participating countries will fix their domestic currencies to the Euro, and after that, their currencies will not be allowed to fluctuate against the Euro or against each other. The European Central Bank will begin running the monetary policy of the countries which are members of the Euro. On July 1, 2002, the German Mark, French Franc, Italian Lira and other currencies will cease to exist.

The introduction of the Euro simplifies the transition to a Eurodollar in a number of ways. First, once the Euro has been introduced, it reduces the cost of joining Europe´s currencies to the U.S. dollar because these currencies have already made the transition to a single currency. Second, it introduces the technology that is necessary to make the transition.

Third, the rough similarity in the value of the Euro and the Dollar means that the two currencies could be set at par to one another. Since one dollar is worth less than a Euro, this will put the United States at a disadvantage because it would automatically raise the prices of U.S. goods relative to European goods. However, finding a conversion rate other than par would probably make linking the currencies almost impossible. After the link is established, prices of goods will gradually adjust to insure that goods in the United States and Europe are priced similarly.

The earliest date which the Euro and the Dollar could be linked together at a 1:1 ratio would be January 1, 2003. The initial goal would be to establish the Eurodollar as a single currency, rather than to eliminate the Euro and the dollar altogether. Time would be needed to establish confidence in the new currency.

The other change that would occur on January 1, 2003 would be that the Federal Reserve Bank and the European Central Bank would begin cooperating with one another and would lay the foundations for the Global Reserve Bank, which would replace them. Similar ties would be established between other government agencies in the United States and Europe, which oversee financial markets and would be affected by the introduction of the single currency. Corporations would also begin preparing for operating their financial accounts in a single currency.

The Eurodollar could be established as the legal tender of all member countries two years later on January 1, 2005. The GRB would take control of monetary policy for member countries on this date, and the regional Federal Reserves in the United States and European central banks would henceforward carry out the policies of the Global Reserve Bank.

The third step would begin after the Eurodollar and the Global Reserve Bank had been firmly established. In this phase, other countries would be allowed to join the Eurodollar bloc and use the Eurodollar as their legal tender currency. Every country that wanted to join the Eurodollar bloc would have to go through a two-year probationary period.

During this time period, the country would have to set up a currency board and fully back its currency with Eurodollars, as Hong Kong and Argentina do today with the US Dollar. During this probationary period, the country would have to link its currency to the dollar and maintain that link. Second, each country would have to allow the GRB and other agencies which oversaw the financial system in the United States and Europe to establish regulatory control over the financial institutions within its own country. Third, each country would have to agree to strict limitations on government deficits and other aspects of fiscal policy that could jeopardize participation in the Eurodollar bloc. If the country had managed to maintain a stable link to the Eurodollar for two years, and if it had met all the regulatory requirements of the Global Reserve Bank and its sister agencies, the country would be allowed to introduce the Eurodollar as its legal tender currency.

Non-members could be allowed to link their currency to the Eurodollar beginning on January 1, 2005 when the Eurodollar would become legal tender in Europe and the United States. Countries would not be allowed to introduce the Eurodollar as their currency until January 1, 2007.

Conclusion

For the first time since the world moved to a system of flexible exchange rates back in 1973, it is possible to establish a single currency for Europe, the United States, and possibly for the rest of the world. The Eurodollar would move beyond Bretton Woods and the Gold Standard by establishing a single currency rather than a system of fixed exchange rates as had existed before.

Conditions are ripe for this transition. The introduction of the Euro has created the momentum to move to change to a single currency. The technology for making this change has been introduced in Europe, and because of the rough parity between the Euro and the Dollar, the transition to a single currency for Europe and the United States could be made at a minimal cost.

The only condition that is lacking is the political will to make this change. As with the Euro in Europe, making the transition will require strong leadership in both the United States and in Europe to see through the transition to a single currency. At some point in the near future, people will see that the benefits of having a single currency far outweigh the costs, and people will begin to ask if we can afford not to have a single currency. At that point, the single currency will become a political and economic fait accompli, and a world that has almost 200 currencies will be seen as an inefficient anachronism.

If the rallying cry of the twentieth century was to be "Workers of the world, unite!" then the rallying call of the twenty-first century could be "Currencies of the world, unite!"
 
News & Artikel/News/ Übersicht

Good-bye Dollar: Chinas Zentralbankchef plädiert für neue Leitwährung

24.03.2009

Das internationale Währungssystem bedarf einer Reform, lässt China
verlauten. Im Zuge dessen soll der Dollar langfristig als weltweite
Leitwährung abgelöst werden und einer neuen Leitwährung Platz machen, wie
der chinesische Zentralbankchef Zhou Xiaochuan in einem auf der Website der
Zentralbank veröffentlichten Aufsatz zwischen den Zeilen schrieb: "Der
Ausbruch der Krise und ihr Ausbreiten auf die gesamte Welt hat die
Verletzlichkeit und die systemischen Risiken des bestehenden internationalen
Währungssystems gezeigt."

Zwar erwähnte Xiaochuan den Dollar nicht explizit, führte allerdings an,
dass die Krise gezeigt habe, wie gefährlich es sei, sich bei internationalen
Finanzgeschäften auf die Währung eines einzigen Landes zu verlassen, da man
so in Gefahr laufe dass das Währungssystem durch das Handeln einzelner
Staaten beeinflusst werde.

IWF als Kontroll-Instanz

Um dies zu verhindern vermieden, sollte eine neue Leitwährung auch unter der
Aufsicht des Internationalen Währungsfonds (IWF) stehen und von ihm
gesteuert werden, so Chefbanker Xiaochuan, der dazu schreibt: "Eine
überhoheitliche Leitwährung, die von einer globalen Institution gemanagt
wird, könnte sowohl dazu genutzt werden, die globale Geldflüsse zu schaffen,
wie auch sie zu kontrollieren." So würde die Gefahr künftiger Krisen
reduziert und zugleich die Möglichkeiten zum Krisenmanagement erweitert.

Chinas Dollar-Reserven

Mit Blick auf das eigene Land stützt China sich massiv auf den US-Dollar,
was im Zuge der Finanzkrise bei Chinas Ministerpräsident Wen Jiabao Bedenken
geschürt hat, im Hinblick auf die Frage, wie sich das Vorgehen der USA und
deren ausuferndes Staatsdefizit gegen die Wirtschaftskrise auf die
chinesischen Währungsreserven in Höhe von 1,95 Billionen Dollar auswirken
wird, die - laut Schätzungen von Banken - zu rund zwei Dritteln in
US-Staatsanleihen investiert sind, was China zum größten Abnehmer der
US-Schuldenpapiere macht.

Diese würden auch weiterhin ein wichtiger Teil des
Devisenreserven-Managements der Volksrepublik bleiben, wie die
Vize-Gouverneurin der chinesischen Zentralbank, Hu Xiaolian, anmerkte, wohl
auch mit Blick auf das Treffen der G20-Treffen in London im April. Ihr
Kreditrisiko sei gering. Anders als Xiaochuan sieht sie das Thema
Leitwährung etwas moderater. Zwar könnten Studien zu einer weltweiten
Währungsreform aufgenommen werden, allerdings sei es wohl realistischer dass
man sich "auf eine stärkere Kontrolle des vom Dollar dominierten Systems
konzentrieren sollte, vor allem auf die finanzielle und wirtschaftliche Lage
wichtiger Staaten." (ir)
 
Zurück
Oben
Sie nutzen einen Adblocker

Sicherlich gibt es Seiten im Internet, die es mit Werbung übertreiben. Dieses Seite gehört nicht dazu!

Aus diesem Grunde bitte ich Sie, Ihren Adblocker zu deaktivieren. Danke!

Ich habe den Adblocker für diese Seite ausgeschaltet