Wasn’t Adam Curry ranting something about a lunatic idea to establish a global currency coming up at G20? So, what other predictions have you got, Adam?

China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world’s standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations’ growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy.

The unusual proposal, made by central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan in an essay released Monday in Beijing, is part of China’s increasingly assertive approach to shaping the global response to the financial crisis.

Mr. Zhou’s proposal comes amid preparations for a summit of the world’s industrial and developing nations, the Group of 20, in London next week. At past such meetings, developed nations have criticized China’s economic and currency policies.

This time, China is on the offensive, backed by other emerging economies such as Russia in making clear they want a global economic order less dominated by the U.S. and other wealthy nations.
[…]
In his paper, published in Chinese and English on the central bank’s Web site, Mr. Zhou argued for reducing the dominance of a few individual currencies, such as the dollar, euro and yen, in international trade and finance. Most nations concentrate their assets in those reserve currencies, which exaggerates the size of flows and makes financial systems overall more volatile, Mr. Zhou said.

Moving to a reserve currency that belongs to no individual nation would make it easier for all nations to manage their economies better, he argued, because it would give the reserve-currency nations more freedom to shift monetary policy and exchange rates. It could also be the basis for a more equitable way of financing the IMF, Mr. Zhou added. China is among several nations under pressure to pony up extra cash to help the IMF.




  1. LibertyLover says:

    #60, Then why didn’t Clinton’s administration do something about it in 2000 when they were told things were heating up too quickly?

    Personally, I think they realized they screwed up and since there wasn’t anything they could do about it, just let is slide.

    It wasn’t bad until 2000. They could have stopped it then but didn’t, just like Bush’s group could have stopped it in 2001 when they saw all the defaults coming in from the loans made in the 90s.

    BTW . . . Bonfire, not campfire.

  2. Mr. Fusion says:

    #61, Poser,

    Now there you go again, posting incorrect shit. The problem was traced back to 2000. That does not mean there was a visible problem seen at any time in 2000.

    Any successful businessman understands the difference between noise and trends. Oopps, I said “successful businessman”. That though is the difference between the real world and a pretend scenario.

  3. LibertyLover says:

    #62, There you go again, when presented with facts, you attack the source.

    Note that in previous posts, Clinton Administration officials admitted they made a mistake and would have done it differently.

    Bush was only in office for three months when he got word of the problems with the defaults. There is no way in hell he could have caused the loans to default in that short of time.

  4. Mr. Fusion says:

    #63, Poser,

    Clinton Administration officials admitted they made a mistake and would have done it differently.

    They were unaware in 2000 that there even was a mistake. This is called “hindsight”.

    Bush was only in office for three months when he got word of the problems with the defaults.

    So Bush was made aware of the problem when they became apparent. Remember, HUD was not recognizing these loans as public interest loans for the FMs.

    There is no way in hell he could have caused the loans to default in that short of time.

    So, knowing that some of the loans were problematic, the Bush Administration told the FMs to buy them. Clinton didn’t. It was Bush.

    From your post in #27,

    HUD [under Clinton] expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

    My reply in #32 was the very same link you used. The very first three paragraphs were

    In 2004, as regulators warned that subprime lenders were saddling borrowers with mortgages they could not afford, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development helped fuel more of that risky lending.

    Eager to put more low-income and minority families into their own homes, the agency required that two government-chartered mortgage finance firms purchase far more “affordable” loans made to these borrowers. HUD stuck with an outdated policy that allowed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to count billions of dollars they invested in subprime loans as a public good that would foster affordable housing.

    Housing experts and some congressional leaders now view those decisions as mistakes that contributed to an escalation of subprime lending that is roiling the U.S. economy.

    Clinton did NOT cause the housing crises. All the evidence points to his successor, Bush.

    You are in some identity crises that is causing you to pretend you are a successful businessman. Your replies show an appalling lack of business world knowledge. The only explanation is you are a poser living in some theoretical, dream world, fantasy land. Your research is equivalent to a freshman or sophomore High School student. All indications are you have never held a job in your life. AND, since I have been a manager for many years, are a supervisor’s nightmare; you think you know it all even before the orientation.

    Now since we have been through this once already here, I’m done.

  5. LibertyLover says:

    #64, … Clinton Administration officials admitted they made a mistake and would have done it differently.

    They were unaware in 2000 that there even was a mistake. This is called “hindsight”.

    Hindsight, perhaps, but it was made during the Clinton years. They knew they had made a mistake and refused to put controls in place.

    From your own quote (except where you conveniently stripped out the DATE):

    In 2000 […] Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low “teaser” interest rates and ignoring borrowers’ qualifications.

    You are suffering from some kind of schizophrenic episode if you can’t see that.

    From your post in #27,

    HUD [under Clinton] expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.

    My reply in #32 was the very same link you used. The very first three paragraphs were

    This was in reference to 1995. Who was in the White House in 1995 ???? Again, you stripped out the DATE.

    They assumed HUD would take care of it and they didn’t.

    Clinton did NOT cause the housing crises. All the evidence points to his successor, Bush.

    I am not blaming Clinton’s administration alone. Bush’s had a mighty hand in it, too.

    Re: personal attacks

    Kids like you and your smart mouth are the type who used to get the crap kicked out of them in the locker room. Is that what your problem is? Are you trying to beat me up from the safety of your keyboard, hundreds of miles away from any possible reprisal? That’s got to be it. I’ve never met anyone in real life who would talk like that to someone face to face.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 20924 access attempts in the last 7 days.