This is a detailed and comprehensive overview of what would greatly improve the existing financial protocols for the coming multipolarity world. Many proposals will be made — and the adoption of a new non-USD is a bit of ways off (imho).
To the extent that Warwick follows the China-driven blockchain alternative to the commercial bank/Swift system(based on BIS/mBridge) — I would be interested in your assessment. Secure, non-USD trade transactions that avoid the western banking system seem to be an enormous step forward in the trade transactions that are the bread-and-butter of the multipolar world. Because the transactions are cleared almost immediately (same day) versus the 5-day Swift, currency risk is not only reduced but the invisibility to western banks is an enormous advantage as the largest of the banks (Morgan, Citi, HSBC) all have active currency trading desks. These banks enabled (as just one example) the Soros play against the Bank of England which Bessent was possibly involved with (1992), which appeared to have netted Soros $1 billion (closer to $4 billion today).
Do we need a long-term store of value with (near) infinite sink? I'm thinking of countries like Japan which run up persistent surpluses as one decade, a megaquake will hit and they'd need their accumulated savings to rebuild whilst their industrial base is wrecked.
A followon concern is security of such value-stores ... if a single nuke can destroy it (think DUNE, he who can destroy the spice, controls the spice) then it creates a vulnerability. Which leads to the logical conclusion that nuclear arms reduction to prevent bad coercive behaviour is an issue.
The BRICS set-up is clearly intended to do what the UN was supposed to - end any benefit to wars between the members. If it becomes a global universal system, it is likely military spending, and WMDs, will reduce and perhaps become obsolete.
The system that Warwick was laying out, has built-in that any country that suddenly experiences a natural disaster, will get various ameliorations from the system itself to allow it to spend the vast sums needed to rebuild, and that's not mentioning the Asian Development Bank etc that would likely step in with cheap loans.
At Bretton Woods, Keynes raised the matter of what we today call the Triffin dilemma, the inherent conflict for countries whose currencies act as global reserve currencies: the choice between maintaining domestic economic stability and ensuring global liquidity. If they cut deficits, global trade suffers, but if they continue deficits, confidence in their currency may erode.
At the time, Britain was losing/had lost its fight to keep sterling a reserve currency, and failing. But Harry was adamant and here we are today.
one of the best articles on the topic for laypeople. the exchange rate conundrum remains but the will of the global south nations (and tariff-weary ones) grows each day
This is a detailed and comprehensive overview of what would greatly improve the existing financial protocols for the coming multipolarity world. Many proposals will be made — and the adoption of a new non-USD is a bit of ways off (imho).
To the extent that Warwick follows the China-driven blockchain alternative to the commercial bank/Swift system(based on BIS/mBridge) — I would be interested in your assessment. Secure, non-USD trade transactions that avoid the western banking system seem to be an enormous step forward in the trade transactions that are the bread-and-butter of the multipolar world. Because the transactions are cleared almost immediately (same day) versus the 5-day Swift, currency risk is not only reduced but the invisibility to western banks is an enormous advantage as the largest of the banks (Morgan, Citi, HSBC) all have active currency trading desks. These banks enabled (as just one example) the Soros play against the Bank of England which Bessent was possibly involved with (1992), which appeared to have netted Soros $1 billion (closer to $4 billion today).
Do we need a long-term store of value with (near) infinite sink? I'm thinking of countries like Japan which run up persistent surpluses as one decade, a megaquake will hit and they'd need their accumulated savings to rebuild whilst their industrial base is wrecked.
A followon concern is security of such value-stores ... if a single nuke can destroy it (think DUNE, he who can destroy the spice, controls the spice) then it creates a vulnerability. Which leads to the logical conclusion that nuclear arms reduction to prevent bad coercive behaviour is an issue.
The BRICS set-up is clearly intended to do what the UN was supposed to - end any benefit to wars between the members. If it becomes a global universal system, it is likely military spending, and WMDs, will reduce and perhaps become obsolete.
The system that Warwick was laying out, has built-in that any country that suddenly experiences a natural disaster, will get various ameliorations from the system itself to allow it to spend the vast sums needed to rebuild, and that's not mentioning the Asian Development Bank etc that would likely step in with cheap loans.
At Bretton Woods, Keynes raised the matter of what we today call the Triffin dilemma, the inherent conflict for countries whose currencies act as global reserve currencies: the choice between maintaining domestic economic stability and ensuring global liquidity. If they cut deficits, global trade suffers, but if they continue deficits, confidence in their currency may erode.
At the time, Britain was losing/had lost its fight to keep sterling a reserve currency, and failing. But Harry was adamant and here we are today.
one of the best articles on the topic for laypeople. the exchange rate conundrum remains but the will of the global south nations (and tariff-weary ones) grows each day