Tag: international monetary system

Economics-Watching: BRICS Currency Creates Dilemma for the Dollar

by Christopher Whalen, from China Daily

The term “BRICS currency” typically refers to a hypothetical or proposed unified currency for the BRICS grouping. It’s not a single, physical currency currently in use, but rather a concept for a potential future monetary system that some suggest will reduce the dominance of the U.S. dollar in international trade and finance.

Is BRICS currency cooperation about immediate de-dollarization or long-term financial sovereignty? The answer is that BRICS cooperation may include reducing long-term dependence on the dollar as a means of exchange. The dollar is involved in more than half of all trade and 80 percent of all foreign exchange transactions. BRICS currency cooperation aims to gradually reduce the group’s dollar dependency, but challenges remain.

The BRICS concept came about not because the dollar is unsuitable as a means of exchange or unit of account, but rather because of the use of the dollar by Washington as a weapon. As I note in my book, Inflated: Money, Debt and the American Dream, the special role of the dollar in U.S. finance allows the U.S. government to impose harsh compliance and reporting requirements on foreign nationals and institutions. The U.S. is an arbitrary hegemon and does not follow reciprocity with other countries.

The global role of the dollar is an anomaly, the byproduct of two world wars had left the other antagonists broke by the time the Bretton Woods Agreement was signed in July 1944.

Choosing the fiat paper dollar as the default global reserve currency more than seven decades ago reflected the fact that the United States was one of the victors and possessed the wealth that gave Washington unchallenged economic leadership. Prior to World War I, the United Kingdom’s pound sterling was the global standard, but importantly, this paper currency was backed by gold — the only money that is not debt. The dollar, too, was backed by gold — until 1933, when the Franklin Roosevelt administration confiscated gold in private hands to prevent his government from collapsing.

Pound notes started to circulate in England in 1694, shortly after the establishment of the Bank of England. The paper pound helped to fuel the expansion of the British Empire, in large part because the only competing form of money was physical gold. When Britain and other nations left the gold standard in the 1930s, it was due to the deflation caused by the Great Depression rather than a deliberate choice.

The 19th-century rule attributed to English journalist and businessman Walter Bagehot says that in times of crisis, lend freely at a high rate against good collateral. Yet since the currency devaluation and gold seizures of 1933, fiat currencies and below-market interest rates have been the rule. In a global scheme in which the government occupies the prime position, the operative term remains “financial repression”, whereby governments control markets and artificially suppress rates of return on debt. For this reason, the dollar is losing its role as a store of value to gold.

The fact that the dollar continues to trade strongly versus other currencies reflects the reality that as the main means of exchange globally, the dollar cannot be easily replaced. One reason for this continued support for the dollar is that the trade in petroleum and other commodities is so large that it requires an equally large currency to accommodate it. Also, neither the Europeans nor the Japanese, the only two possible alternatives, are willing to risk the external deficits or inflation that the U.S. suffers as the host for the global currency.

What global currency will replace the fiat paper dollar? None. As this article is being written, gold is the second-largest reserve asset for central banks after the dollar. “The initiation in 2002 of the Shanghai Gold Exchange was of great strategic significance, both for gold and the global monetary system,” notes veteran gold fund manager Henry Smyth in an interview in The Institutional Risk Analyst. “Now it is completely clear what happened.”

Smyth and many other observers see the creation of the SGE in 2002 as the return of gold to the international monetary system. But while gold is growing in importance as a reserve asset for many countries, it does not mean that the role of the dollar as a global means of exchange or unit of account is about to change.

The dollar will remain the dominant asset. And even then, displacing the dollar will require a major change in the international monetary system, a change that is already underway.

The author is the chairman of Whalen Global Advisors LLC in New York and the author of Inflated: Money, Debt and the American Dream published by Wiley Global (2025).

World-Watching: The Problem with the Current Russia Sanctions Regime

[from Project Syndicate, by Mohamed A. El-Erian]

There is much debate about the effectiveness of Western sanctions, the Ukraine war’s implications for markets and the global economy, and what the West’s next steps should be. While there are few good options, some are clearly worse than others.

Cambridge — It has been five months since Europe and the United States imposed tough economic and financial sanctions on Russia, a G20 country that was the world’s eleventh-largest economy on the eve of its invasion of Ukraine. While the sanctions have been gradually strengthened in the intervening months, debate rages about their effectiveness, the war’s broader implications for markets and the global economy, and what the West’s next steps should be.

On the first question, although the sanctions have been less effective than Europe and the U.S. had hoped, they also are proving more onerous than the Kremlin claims. Russia’s central bank expects GDP to contract by 8-10% this year, while other forecasters expect a larger fall, together with longer-lasting damage to growth potential. Imports and exports have been severely disrupted, and inflows of foreign investment have essentially stopped. Shortages are multiplying, pushing inflation higher. At this point, the country no longer has a properly functioning foreign-exchange market.

The sanctions would have bitten much harder had the West not opted for a carve-out of Russia’s energy sector, and had many more countries joined the U.S. and Europe in the effort. Because that didn’t happen, Russia has not felt nearly as much pressure as it would have. Moreover, it has been able to continue trading through various side and back doors that will likely become increasingly important as long as the sanctions regime, as currently designed, continues.

Nonetheless, it is only a matter of time before the Russian economy experiences a harder hit. Inventories of imported goods – including many critical technological and industrial inputs – are dwindling fast, and many sectors are becoming less resilient. The cumulative damage to Russia’s economy over time will be significant and long-lasting – a fact that has not yet been fully captured by consensus medium-term forecasts.

The second question concerns global spillovers from the war and the sanctions regime. Most observers agree that Russia’s invasion has increased not just energy insecurity but also food insecurity, highlighting the fallout from the war’s disruption to Ukrainian agricultural exports. But there is still much debate about the West’s use of the economic nuclear sanctions option: the curbs placed on Russia’s central bank and on Russia’s use of the international payments system.

These curbs are far more intrusive than the usual mix of restrictions on sanctioned government and private sector trade and on individuals’ financial dealings. Yet, because they are not subject to any internationally agreed standards, guidelines, or checks and balances, they fall outside the purview of relevant global-governance bodies such as the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.

In a time of war, such oversight might seem like a nicety. But some worry that the sanctions could significantly reduce the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency and the U.S. financial system’s role as the primary global intermediary for other countries’ savings and investments. After all, a growing number of countries undoubtedly now feel more vulnerable to the reach of U.S. sanctions.

But it is impossible to replace something with nothing, which means that no significant loss of dollar or U.S. financial primacy will occur in the immediate future. Rather, the sanctions will lend further momentum to the gradual process of global economic fragmentation, which was also fueled a few years ago by the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. More countries now have even more of a reason to pursue greater financial resilience and inherently inefficient forms of self-insurance.

That brings us to the third debate. With no end in sight for the war, what should the West do next? Fearing the implications for energy prices and the supply of gas to Europe, many in the West are tempted to call for a moratorium on any new sanctions – or even for additional carve-outs. Others, however, favor additional measures to hold Russia accountable for its indiscriminate attacks on Ukrainian civilians.

In any case, maintaining the current sanctions regime is not problem-free, owing to the twin objectives of pressuring Russia and limiting the economic disruption to Europe. Moreover, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently said, it feels as if Russia is “blackmailing” Europe by threatening to disrupt gas supplies at any moment. No wonder the Commission is urging member countries to cut consumption by 15%.

Under the current sanctions regime, the West risks falling between two horses. While easing sanctions could help alleviate concerns about Europe’s economic outlook, this option is a non-starter, given the atrocities that Russian forces are committing in Ukraine. But if the West is serious about pressuring Russia through truly crippling economic and financial sanctions, it needs to bite the bullet and eliminate the carve-outs for energy.

Doing so would undoubtedly have a severe short-term economic impact on European economies and the rest of the world, amplifying the “little fires everywhere” syndrome that I warned about in May. It is therefore critical that governments use their available fiscal space to provide targeted support to vulnerable segments of the population, as well as to fragile countries; and multilateral agencies must support developing countries through aid and a more operational debt relief framework. If done properly, this option would yield better outcomes in the medium and long term than the current strategy.

Muddling through risks bringing about the worst of all possible worlds. It is insufficient to dissuade Russia from continuing its illegal war; it is fueling deeper fragmentation of the international monetary system; and it is not even protecting Europe from a winter gas disruption.

Mohamed A. El-Erian, President of Queens’ College at the University of Cambridge, is a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the author of The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability, and Avoiding the Next Collapse (Random House, 2016).