How to build a Global Currency

From The Economist

Seventy years ago the Indian rupee was often found a long way from home. After India gained independence from Britain, the currency remained in use in sheikhdoms across the Arabian Sea. Until as late as 1970, some employed the Gulf rupee, a currency issued by India’s central bank.

Today the picture is rather different. The rupee accounts for less than 2% of international-currency transactions, even though the Indian economy is the world’s fifth-largest. Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, would like to see the currency span the globe once again. Speaking at the 90th anniversary of the Reserve Bank of India on April 1st, Mr Modi told the central bank’s policymakers to focus on making the rupee more accessible. Historically, however, national leaders have been a lot more likely to express enthusiasm for the idea of making their currency a global one than to enact the reforms required to do so.

Although the American dollar is the undisputed king of currencies, there are many with a global role of their own. The euro, the British pound, the Swiss franc, and the dollars of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore are all examples. These currencies are found in foreign reserves and private portfolios worldwide, and used for both trade and financial transactions. In theory, there is no reason why the rupee should not join the illustrious group.

Having a widely used currency brings sizeable benefits. Demand from overseas investors lowers financing costs for domestic companies, which are no longer compelled to borrow in foreign currencies. Such demand also reduces exchange-rate risks for exporters and importers, who do not need to convert currencies so often when trading, and enables the government to reduce the size of its foreign-exchange reserves.

Some of the foundation stones of an international currency are being laid in India. The country now has assets that foreigners want to buy, making the rupee a potential store of value overseas. In September JPMorgan Chase, a bank, announced that it would include Indian government bonds in its emerging-market index. Bloomberg, a data provider, took the same decision last month. The explosive performance of the country’s stocks, which are up by 37% in dollar terms over the past year, has piqued global interest.

The rupee is also increasingly a unit of account and a medium of exchange for foreigners. Banks from 22 countries have been permitted to open special rupee-denominated accounts, without the usual exchange limits. In August India made its first rupee payment for oil, to the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company.

Yet China shows how far India has to go. Although Chinese policymakers have been trying to make the yuan a global currency for more than a decade, it still accounts for less than 3% of international trades made via swift, a payments network, outside the euro zone, despite the fact that China accounts for 17% of global gdp. Moreover, 80% of such international yuan transactions occur in Hong Kong. China’s relatively closed capital account, which prevents investments from flowing freely across its borders, is the main obstacle to wider use of its currency. India’s capital account is less closed than it once was, but is still far more sheltered than that of any of the countries with a global currency.

Japan provides a better example. In 1970 it accounted for 7% of global gdp—more than the 4% it does now—and its companies were beginning to make a mark abroad. But the yen was a nonentity. That changed over the following decade: in 1970, 1% of Japan’s exports were invoiced in yen; by the early 1980s, 40% were. In 1989 the yen made up 28% of all foreign-exchange transactions. It still accounts for 16% today.

To make the leap to global-currency status, Japan’s leaders had to transform the country’s economy. They allowed foreigners to hold a wide range of assets, deregulated big financial institutions, and peeled back controls on capital flows and interest rates. These changes disrupted Japan’s export-oriented economic model, and undermined the power of the country’s bureaucrats.

Changes just as far-reaching—and uncomfortable—will be required for any country that now wants to join the top table. Few seem to have the stomach for them at present. Indeed, without American pressure and the threat of tariffs, Japan itself might not have made such reforms. America is not about to lean on India in the same way. The desire for change will have to come from within.

Understanding India's Foreign exchange Reserves

 

'Mother of Hypocrisy or Democracy'? Ashoka University and Unacademy

 

A history of global reserve currencies

Michael Pettis in The FT

The US dollar, analysts often propose, is the latest in a 600-year history of global reserve currencies. Each of its predecessor currencies was eventually replaced by another, and in the same way the dollar will eventually be replaced by one or more currencies.  

The problem with this argument, however, is that there is no such history. The role of the US dollar in the global system of trade and capital flows is unprecedented, mainly because of the unprecedented role the US economy plays in global trade and capital imbalances. The fact that so many analysts base their claims on this putative history only shows just how confused the discussion has been.  

It’s not that there haven’t been other important currencies before the dollar. The history of the world is replete with famous currencies, but these played a very different role in the flow of capital and goods across international borders. Trade before the days of dollar dominance was ultimately settled in gold or silver. A country’s currency could only be a “major” trade currency to the extent that its gold and silver coins were widely accepted as unadulterated or, by the 19th century, if the convertibility of its paper claims into gold or silver was highly credible.  

This is not just a technical difference. A world in which trade is denominated in gold or silver, or in claims that are easily and quickly convertible into gold and silver, creates very different conditions from those today. Consider the widely-held belief that sterling once ruled the world in much the same way the dollar does today.  

It simply isn’t true. While sterling was indeed used more than other currencies in Europe to settle trade, and the credibility of its conversion into gold was hard-earned by the Bank of England after the Napoleonic wars, whenever sterling claims rose relative to the amount of gold held by the Bank of England, its credibility was undermined. In that case foreigners tended to reverse their use of sterling, forcing the Bank of England to raise interest rates and adjust demand to regain gold reserves.¹ 

This does not happen to the US dollar. Trade conditions under gold- or silver-standards are dramatically different from those in a dollar world in at least three important ways. First, trade imbalances in the former must be consistent with the ability of economies to absorb gold and silver inflows and outflows. This means that while small imbalances were possible to the extent that they allowed wealthier economies to fund productive investment in developing economies, this was not the case for large, persistent trade imbalances — except under extraordinary circumstances.²  

Second, and much more importantly, as trade imbalances reverse, the contraction in demand required in deficit countries is matched by an expansion in demand in surplus countries. That is because while monetary outflows in deficit countries force them to curtail domestic demand to stem the outflows, the corresponding inflows into the surplus countries cause an automatic expansion of domestic money and credit that, in turn, boosts domestic demand. Under the gold- and silver-standards, in other words, trade imbalances did not put downward pressure on global demand, and so global trade expansion typically led to global demand expansion. 

And third, under gold and silver standards it was trade that drove the capital account, not vice versa as it is today. While traders chose which currency it was most convenient in which to trade, shifting from the use of one currency to another had barely any impact on the underlying structure of trade. 

None of these conditions hold in our dollar-based global trading system because of the transformational role played by the US economy. Because of its deep and flexible financial system, and its well-governed asset markets, the US — and other anglophone economies with similar conditions, eg the UK, Canada, and Australia — are the preferred location into which surplus countries dump their excess savings. 

Contrary to traditional trade theory, in which a well-functioning trading system might involve small, manageable capital flows from advanced, capital-intensive economies to capital-poor developing economies with high investment needs, nearly 70-80 per cent of all the excess savings — from both advanced and developing economies — is directed into the wealthy anglophone economies. These in turn have to run the corresponding deficits of which the US alone typically absorbs more than half. As I have discussed elsewhere, this creates major economic distortions for the US and the other anglophone economies, whose financial sectors benefit especially at the expense of their manufacturing sectors. 

It is only because the US and, to a lesser extent, the anglophone economies, are willing to export unlimited claims on their domestic assets — in the form of stocks, bonds, factories, urban real estate, agricultural property, etc — that the surplus economies of the world are able to implement the mercantilist policies that systematically suppress domestic demand to subsidise their manufacturing competitiveness. This is precisely what John Maynard Keynes warned about, unsuccessfully, in 1944. He argued that a dollar standard would lead to a world in which surplus and deficit countries would adjust asymmetrically, as the former suppressed domestic demand and exported the resulting demand deficiency. 

The point is that dollar dominance isn’t simply about choosing to denominate trading activities in dollars the way one might have chosen, in the 19th century, between gold-backed franc, gold-backed sterling, or Mexican silver pesos. It is about the role the US economy plays in absorbing global savings imbalances. This doesn’t mean, by the way, that the US must run permanent deficits, as many seem to believe. It just means that it must accommodate whatever imbalances the rest of the world creates. 

In the fifty years characterised by the two world wars, for example, the US ran persistent surpluses as it exported savings. Because Europe and Asia at the time urgently needed foreign savings to help rebuild their war-torn economies, it was the huge US surpluses that put the dollar at the centre of the global trading system during that period. 

By the 1960s and 1970s, however, Europe and Asia had largely rebuilt their economies and, rather than continue to absorb foreign savings, they wanted to absorb foreign demand to propel domestic growth further. Absorbing foreign demand means exporting domestic savings, and because of its huge domestic consumer markets and safe, profitable and liquid asset markets, the obvious choice was the US. Probably because of the exigencies of the cold war, Washington encouraged them to do so. Only later did this choice congeal into an economic ideology that saw unfettered capital flows as a way to strengthen the power of American finance. 

This is why the end of dollar dominance doesn’t mean a global trading system that simply and non-disruptively shifts from denominating trade in dollars to denominating it in some other currency. It means instead the end of the current global trading system — Ie the end of the willingness and ability of the anglophone economies to absorb up to 70-80 per cent of global trade surpluses, the end of large, persistent trade and capital flow imbalances, and, above all, the end of mercantilist policies that allow surplus countries to become competitive at the expense of foreign manufacturers and domestic demand. 

The end of dollar dominance would be a good thing for the global economy, and especially for the US economy (albeit not, perhaps, for US geopolitical power), but it can’t happen without a transformation of the structure of global trade, and it probably won’t happen until the US refuses to continue absorbing global imbalances as it has for the past several decades. However it happens, a world in which trade isn’t structured around the dollar will require a massive transformation of the structure of global trade — and for surplus countries like Brazil, Germany, Saudi Arabi, and China, this is likely to be a very disruptive transformation. 

1. Nor was sterling even the leading trade currency in the 18th and 19th centuries. More widely used in much of Asia and the Americas were Mexican silver pesos, whose purity and standardisation were much valued by traders and so formed the bulk of trade settlements. 

2. One can argue that the closest comparison to today was 17th century Spain, when Spain ran large, persistent trade deficits, but of course these were the automatic consequences of huge inflows of American silver, and Spain didn’t accommodate foreign imbalances so much as create them, to the benefit especially of England and the Netherlands. In a recent conversation George Magnus also noted how the famous sterling balances of the 1940s illustrated another — very different — example in which the structure of trade could not be separated from the use of its underlying currency.  

What's causing the wave of Economic Collapse?

 

Is De-Dollarisation on the Cards? Can the Yuan or a BRICS currency replace the US Dollar?

 

The Rupee's Exchange Rate and Declining Dollar Reserves

 

A post-dollar world is coming

 The currency may look strong but its weaknesses are mounting writes Ruchir Sharma in The FT

This month, as the dollar surged to levels last seen nearly 20 years ago, analysts invoked the old Tina (there is no alternative) argument to predict more gains ahead for the mighty greenback. 

What happened two decades ago suggests the dollar is closer to peaking than rallying further. Even as US stocks fell in the dotcom bust, the dollar continued rising, before entering a decline that started in 2002 and lasted six years. A similar turning point may be near. And this time, the US currency’s decline could last even longer. 

Adjusted for inflation or not, the value of the dollar against other major currencies is now 20 per cent above its long-term trend, and above the peak reached in 2001. Since the 1970s, the typical upswing in a dollar cycle has lasted about seven years; the current upswing is in its 11th year. Moreover, fundamental imbalances bode ill for the dollar. 

When a current account deficit runs persistently above 5 per cent of gross domestic product, it is a reliable signal of financial trouble to come. That is most true in developed countries, where these episodes are rare, and concentrated in crisis-prone nations such as Spain, Portugal and Ireland. The US current account deficit is now close to that 5 per cent threshold, which it has broken only once since 1960. That was during the dollar’s downswing after 2001. 

Nations see their currencies weaken when the rest of the world no longer trusts that they can pay their bills. The US currently owes the world a net $18tn, or 73 per cent of US GDP, far beyond the 50 per cent threshold that has often foretold past currency crises. 

Finally, investors tend to move away from the dollar when the US economy is slowing relative to the rest of the world. In recent years, the US has been growing significantly faster than the median rate for other developed economies, but it is poised to grow slower than its peers in coming years. 

If the dollar is close to entering a downswing, the question is whether that period lasts long enough, and goes deep enough, to threaten its status as the world’s most trusted currency. 

Since the 15th century, the last five global empires have issued the world’s reserve currency — the one most often used by other countries — for 94 years on average. The dollar has held reserve status for more than 100 years, so its reign is already older than most. 

The dollar has been bolstered by the weaknesses of its rivals. The euro has been repeatedly undermined by financial crises, while the renminbi is heavily managed by an authoritarian regime. Nonetheless, alternatives are gaining ground. 

Beyond the Big Four currencies — of the US, Europe, Japan and the UK — lies the category of “other currencies” that includes the Canadian and Australian dollar, the Swiss franc and the renminbi. They now account for 10 per cent of global reserves, up from 2 per cent in 2001. 

Their gains, which accelerated during the pandemic, have come mainly at the expense of the US dollar. The dollar share of foreign exchange reserves is currently at 59 per cent — the lowest since 1995. Digital currencies may look battered now, but they remain a long-run alternative as well. 

Meanwhile, the impact of US sanctions on Russia is demonstrating how much influence the US wields over a dollar-driven world, inspiring many countries to speed up their search for options. It’s possible that the next step is not towards a single reserve currency, but to currency blocs. 

South-east Asia’s largest economies are increasingly settling payments to one another directly, avoiding the dollar. Malaysia and Singapore are among the countries making similar arrangements with China, which is also extending offers of renminbi support to nations in financial distress. Central banks from Asia to the Middle East are setting up bilateral currency swap lines, also with the intention of reducing dependence on the dollar. 

Today, as in the dotcom era, the dollar appears to be benefiting from its safe-haven status, with most of the world’s markets selling off. But investors are not rushing to buy US assets. They are reducing their risk everywhere and holding the resulting cash in dollars. 

This is not a vote of confidence in the US economy, and it is worth recalling that bullish analysts offered the same reason for buying tech stocks at their recent peak valuations: there is no alternative. That ended badly. Tina is never a viable investment strategy, especially not when the fundamentals are deteriorating. So don’t be fooled by the strong dollar. The post-dollar world is coming.

The US’s selfish war on inflation will tip the world into recession

Phillip Inman in The Guardian


As the Fed raises interest rates, dollar-denominated loans become an unsustainable burden to states around the globe

The Federal Reserve is planning a second interest rate rise in a year this month. Photograph: Chris Wattie/Reuters 


Later in July US interest rates are expected to jump for a second time this year, and that’s going to wreck any chance of a global recovery.

The Federal Reserve could push its base rate up by as much as a full percentage point, ending 15 years of ultra-cheap money, intended to promote growth.

This jump, to a range of 2.5%-2.75%, would take the cost of borrowing money in the US to more than double the Bank of England’s 1.25%. And yet the Fed could just be taking a breather as it contemplates even higher rates.

This column, though, is not about the US. It is concerned with the terrible impact on Britain and countries across the world of America’s selfish disregard when it decides to tackle high inflation with higher borrowing costs. Britain is already feeling the effects of the Fed’s pledge to tackle inflation until it is “defeated”, come what may.

Higher interest rates in the US make it a more attractive place for investors to store their money. To take full advantage, investors must sell their own currency and buy dollars, sending the price of dollars rocketing higher.

In July the US dollar increased in value against a basket of six major currencies to a 20-year high. The euro has slipped below parity with the dollar in the last few days. The pound, which has plunged by more than 10% this year to below $1.20, is losing value with every week that passes.

In Japan, the central bank has come under huge pressure to act after the yen tumbled to its lowest level against the dollar since 1998.

There are two important knock-on effects for those of us that live and work outside the US.

The first is that goods and raw material priced in dollars are much more expensive. And most commodities are priced in dollars, including oil.

Borrowing in dollars also becomes more expensive. And while getting a loan from a US bank is beyond the average British household, companies do it all the time, and especially those in emerging economies, where funds in their backyard can be in short supply.

The Bank of England interest-rate setter Catherine Mann recently said that her main motivation for wanting significant increases in the UK’s lending rates was her fear that the widening gap with the dollar was pushing up import prices. And higher import prices meant higher inflation.

If only she could persuade her colleagues on the Bank’s monetary policy committee that the devaluation of the pound was a serious issue, maybe they would push up the Bank’s base rate in line with the Fed rate increases. After the Fed makes its move, more may join her.

Until January this year, Britain’s inflation surge was on course to be short-lived. Now it seems the Russian invasion of Ukraine and a splurge of untargeted handouts by the Biden administration during the pandemic, which have served to push up prices in America, will keep inflation in the UK high into next year. 

Those governments that have borrowed in dollars face a double whammy. Not only will they need to raise domestic interest rates to limit the impact of import price rises, they will also face a massive jump in interest payments on their dollar borrowings.

Emerging markets and many developing-world countries will be broke when these extra costs are combined with a loss of tourism from the Covid pandemic. Sri Lanka has already gone bust and many more could follow.

For the past three decades, western banks have marketed low-cost loans across the developing world as a route to financial freedom.

Zambia’s government borrowed heavily before the pandemic to become self-sufficient in electricity. It is a laudable aim, but has left the central African state with a ratio of debt to national income (GDP) much the same as France’s – about 110%.

The problem for Zambia is not the same as for France, which pays an interest rate of 1.8% to finance its debts, measured by the yield on its 10-year bonds. The Zambian 10-year bond commands a rate of 27%. Now Zambia, like France and so many other countries, must borrow simply to live. To invest is to borrow more.

There is no sign that the US will change course. Joe Biden is in a panic about the midterm elections, when fears of spiralling inflation could favour the Republicans. This panic has spilled over to the Fed, which has adopted hysterical language to persuade consumers and businesses that higher rates are coming down the track and to curb their spending accordingly.

The Fed knows inflation is a problem born of insufficient supply that only governments can tackle. But that doesn’t look like stopping it from pushing the US economy, and everyone else’s, into recession.

Will dollar dominance give way to a multipolar system of currencies?

From The Economist

In the wake of an invasion that drew international condemnation, Russian officials panicked that their dollar-denominated assets within America’s reach were at risk of abrupt confiscation, sending them scrambling for alternatives. The invasion in question did not take place in 2022, or even 2014, but in 1956, when Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary. The event is often regarded as one of the factors that helped kick-start the eurodollar market—a network of dollar-denominated deposits held outside America and usually beyond the direct reach of its banking regulators.

The irony is that the desire to keep dollars outside America only reinforced the greenback’s heft. As of September, banks based outside the country reported around $17trn in dollar liabilities, twice as much as the equivalent for all the other currencies in the world combined. Although eurodollar deposits are beyond Uncle Sam’s direct control, America can still block a target’s access to the dollar system by making transacting with them illegal, as its latest measures against Russia have done.

This fresh outbreak of financial conflict has raised the question of whether the dollar’s dominance has been tarnished, and whether a multipolar currency system will rise instead, with the Chinese yuan playing a bigger role. To understand what the future might look like, it is worth considering how the dollar’s role has evolved over the past two decades. Its supremacy reflects more than the fact that America’s economy is large and its government powerful. The liquidity, flexibility and the reliability of the system have helped, too, and are likely to help sustain its global role. In the few areas where the dollar has lost ground, the characteristics that made it king are still being sought out by holders and users—and do not favour the yuan.

Eurodollar deposits illustrate the greenback’s role as a global store of value. But that is not the only thing that makes the dollar a truly international currency. Its role as a unit of account, in the invoicing of the majority of global trade, may be its most overwhelming area of dominance. According to research published by the imf in 2020, over half of non-American and non-eu exports are denominated in dollars. In Asian emerging markets and Latin America the share rises to roughly 75% and almost 100%, respectively. Barring a modest increase in euro invoicing by some European countries that are not part of the currency union, these figures have changed little in the past two decades.

Another pillar of the dollar’s dominance is its role in cross-border payments, as a medium of exchange. A lack of natural liquidity for smaller currency pairs means that it often acts as a vehicle currency. A Uruguayan importer might pay a Bangladeshi exporter by changing her peso into dollars, and changing those dollars into taka, rather than converting the currencies directly.

So far there has been little shift away from the greenback: in February only one transaction in every five registered by the swift messaging system did not have a dollar leg, a figure that has barely changed over the past half-decade. But a drift away is not impossible. Smaller currency pairs could become more liquid, reducing the need for an intermediary. Eswar Prasad of Cornell University argues convincingly that alternative payment networks, like China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, might undermine the greenback’s role. He also suggests that greater use of digital currencies will eventually reduce the need for the dollar. Those developed by central banks in particular could facilitate a direct link between national payment systems.

Perhaps the best example in global finance of an area in which the dollar is genuinely and measurably losing ground is central banks’ foreign-exchange reserves. Research published in March by Barry Eichengreen, an economic historian at the University of California, Berkeley, shows how the dollar’s presence in central-bank reserves has declined. Its share slipped from 71% of global reserves in 1999 to 59% in 2021. The phenomenon is widespread across a variety of central banks, and cannot be explained away by movements in exchange rates.

The findings reveal something compelling about the dollar’s new competitors. The greenback’s lost share has largely translated into a bigger share for what Mr Eichengreen calls “non-traditional” reserve currencies. The yuan makes up only a quarter of this group’s share in global reserves. The Australian and Canadian dollars, by comparison, account for 43% of it. And the currencies of Denmark, Norway, South Korea and Sweden make up another 23%. The things that unite those disparate smaller currencies are clear: all are floating and issued by countries with relatively or completely open capital accounts and governed by reliable political systems. The yuan, by contrast, ticks none of those boxes. “Every reserve currency in history has been a leading democracy with checks and balances,” says Mr Eichengreen.
Battle royal

Though the discussion of whether the dollar might be supplanted by the yuan captures the zeitgeist of great-power competition, the reality is more prosaic. Capital markets in countries with predictable legal systems and convertible currencies have deepened, and many offer better risk-adjusted returns than Treasuries. That has allowed reserve managers to diversify without compromising on the tenets that make reserve currencies dependable.

Mr Eichengreen’s research also speaks to a plain truth with a broader application: pure economic heft is not nearly enough to build an international currency system. Even where the dollar’s dominance looks most like it is being chipped away, the appetite for the yuan to take even a modest share of its place looks limited. Whether the greenback retains its paramount role in the international monetary system or not, the holders and users of global currencies will continue to prize liquidity, flexibility and reliability. Not every currency can provide them. 

A women led war on Russia: The weaponisation of finance

Valentina Pop, Sam Fleming and James Politi in The FT

It was the third day of the war in Ukraine, and on the 13th floor of the European Commission’s headquarters Ursula von der Leyen had hit an obstacle. 

The commission president had spent the entire Saturday working the phones in her office in Brussels, seeking consensus among western governments for the most far-reaching and punishing set of financial and economic sanctions ever levelled at an adversary. 

With Russia seemingly intent on a rapid occupation of Ukraine, emotions were running high. During a video call with EU leaders on February 24, the day the invasion began, Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, warned: “I might not see you again because I’m next on the list.” 

A deal was close but, in Washington, Treasury secretary Janet Yellen was still reviewing the details of the most dramatic and market-sensitive measure — sanctioning the Russian central bank itself. The US had been the driving force behind the sanctions push but, as Yellen pored over the fine print, the Europeans were anxious to push the plans over the finishing line. 

Von der Leyen called Mario Draghi, Italian prime minister, and asked him to thrash the details out directly with Yellen. “We were all waiting around, asking, ‘What’s taking so long?’” recalls an EU official. “Then the answer came: Draghi has to work his magic on Yellen.” 

Yellen, who used to chair the US Federal Reserve, and Draghi, a former head of the European Central Bank, are veterans of a series of dramatic crises — from the 2008-09 financial collapse to the euro crisis. All the while, they have exuded calm and stability to nervous financial markets. 

But in this case, the plan agreed by Yellen and Draghi to freeze a large part of Moscow’s $643bn of foreign currency reserves was something very different: they were effectively declaring financial war on Russia. 

The stated intention of the sanctions is to significantly damage the Russian economy. Or as one senior US official put it later that Saturday night after the measures were announced, the sanctions would push the Russian currency “into freefall”. 

This is a very new kind of war — the weaponisation of the US dollar and other western currencies to punish their adversaries. 

It is an approach to conflict two decades in the making. As voters in the US have tired of military interventions and the so-called “endless wars”, financial warfare has partly filled the gap. In the absence of an obvious military or diplomatic option, sanctions — and increasingly financial sanctions — have become the national security policy of choice. 

“This is full-on shock and awe,” says Juan Zarate, a former senior White House official who helped devise the financial sanctions America has developed over the past 20 years. “It’s about as aggressive an unplugging of the Russian financial and commercial system as you can imagine.” 

The weaponisation of finance has profound implications for the future of international politics and economics. Many of the basic assumptions about the post cold war era are being turned on their head. Globalisation was once sold as a barrier to conflict, a web of dependencies that would bring former foes ever closer together. Instead, it has become a new battleground. 

The potency of financial sanctions derives from the omnipresence of the US dollar. It is the most used currency for trade and financial transactions — with a US bank often involved. America’s capital markets are the deepest in the world, and US Treasury bonds act as a backstop to the global financial system. 

As a result, it is very hard for financial institutions, central banks and even many companies to operate if they are cut off from the US dollar and the American financial system. Add in the euro, which is the second most held currency in central bank reserves, as well as sterling, the yen and the Swiss franc, and the impact of such sanctions is even more chilling. 

The US has sanctioned central banks before — North Korea, Iran and Venezuela — but they were largely isolated from global commerce. The sanctions on Russia’s central bank are the first time this weapon has been used against a major economy and the first time as part of a war — especially a conflict involving one of the leading nuclear powers. 

Of course, there are huge risks in such an approach. The central bank sanctions could prompt a backlash against the dollar’s dominance in global finance. In the five weeks since the measures were first imposed, the Russian rouble has recovered much of the ground it initially lost and officials in Moscow claim they will find ways around the sanctions. 

Whatever the result, the moves to freeze Russia’s reserves marks a historic shift in the conduct of foreign policy. “These economic sanctions are a new kind of economic statecraft with the power to inflict damage that rivals military might,” US President Joe Biden said in a speech in Warsaw in late March. The measures were “sapping Russian strength, its ability to replenish its military, and its ability to project power”. 

Global financial police 

Like so much else in American life, the new era of financial warfare began on 9/11. In the aftermath of the terror attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan, moved on to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and used drones to kill alleged terrorists on three continents. But with much less scrutiny and fanfare, it also developed the powers to act as the global financial police. 

Within weeks of the attacks on New York and Washington, George W Bush pledged to “starve the terrorists of funding”. The Patriot Act, the controversial law, which provided the basis for the Bush administration’s use of surveillance and indefinite detention, also gave the Treasury department the power to effectively cut off any financial institution involved in money laundering from the US financial system. 

By coincidence, the first country to be threatened under this law was Ukraine, which the Treasury warned in 2002 risked having its banks compromised by Russian organised crime. Shortly after, Ukraine passed a new law to prevent money laundering. 

Treasury officials also negotiated to gain access to data about suspected terrorists from Swift, the Belgium-based messaging system that is the switchboard for international financial transactions — the first step in an expanded network of intelligence on money moving around the world. 

The financial toolkit used to go after al-Qaeda’s money was soon applied to a much bigger target — Iran and its nuclear programme. 

Stuart Levey, who had been appointed as the Treasury’s first under-secretary of terrorism and financial intelligence, remembers hearing Bush complain that all the conventional trade sanctions on Iran had already been imposed, leaving the US without leverage. “I pulled my team together and said: ‘We haven’t begun to use these tools, let’s give him something he can use with Iran’,” he says. 

The US sought to squeeze Iran’s access to the international financial system. Levey and other officials would visit European banks and quietly inform them about accounts with links to the Iranian regime. European governments hated that an American official was effectively telling their banks how to do business, but no one wanted to fall foul of the US Treasury. 

During the Obama administration, when the White House was facing pressure to take military action against its nuclear installations, the US imposed sanctions on Iran’s central bank — the final stage in a campaign to strangle its economy. 

Levey argues that financial sanctions not only put pressure on Iran to negotiate the 2015 deal on its nuclear programme but also cleared a path for this year’s action on Russia. 

“On Iran, we were using machetes to cut down the path step by step, but now people are able to go down it very quickly,” he says. “Going after the central bank of a country like Russia is about as powerful a step as you can take in the category of financial sector sanctions.” 

Central banks do not just print money and monitor the banking system, they can also provide a vital economic buffer in a crisis — defending a currency or paying for essential imports. 

Russia’s reserves increased after its 2014 annexation of Crimea as it sought insurance against future US sanctions — earning the term “Fortress Russia”. China’s large holdings of US Treasury bonds were once seen as a potential source of geopolitical leverage. “How do you deal toughly with your banker?” then secretary of state Hillary Clinton asked in 2009. 

But the western sanctions on Russia’s central bank have undercut its ability to support the economy. According to Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum, a central bank research and advisory group, around two-thirds of Russia’s reserves are likely to have been neutralised. 

“The action against the central bank is rather like if you have savings to be used in case of emergency and when the emergency arrives the bank says you can’t take them out,” says a senior European economic policy official. 

A revived transatlantic alliance 

There is an irony behind a joint package of American and EU financial sanctions: European leaders have spent much of the past five decades criticising the outsized influence of the US currency. 

One of the striking features of the war in Ukraine is the way Europe has worked so closely with the US. Sanctions planning began in November when western intelligence picked up strong evidence that Vladimir Putin’s forces were building up along the Ukrainian border. 

Biden asked Yellen to draw up plans for what measures could be taken to respond to an invasion. From that moment the US began coordinating with the EU, UK and others. A senior state department official says that between then and the February 24 invasion, top Biden administration officials spent “an average of 10 to 15 hours a week on secure calls or video conferences with the EU and member states” to co-ordinate the sanctions. 

In Washington, the sanctions plans were led by Daleep Singh, a former New York Fed official now deputy national security adviser for international economics at the White House, and Wally Adeyemo, a former BlackRock executive serving as deputy Treasury secretary. Both had worked in the Obama administration when the US and Europe had disagreed about how to respond to Russia’s annexation of Crimea. 

The EU was also desperate to avoid a more recent embarrassing precedent regarding Belarus sanctions, which ended up much weaker as countries sought carve-outs for their industries. So in a departure from previous practices, the EU effort was co-ordinated directly from von der Leyen’s office through Bjoern Seibert, her chief of staff. 

“Seibert was key, he was the only one having the overview on the EU side and in constant contact with the US on this,” recalls an EU diplomat. 

A senior state department official says Germany’s decision to scrap the Nord Stream 2 pipeline after the invasion was crucial in bringing hesitant Europeans along. It was “a very important signal to other Europeans that sacred cows would have to be sacrificed,” says the official. 

The other central figure was Canada’s finance minister Chrystia Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent and has been in close contact with officials in Kyiv. Just a few hours after Russian tanks started rolling into Ukraine, Freeland sent a written proposal to both the US Treasury and the state department with a specific plan to punish the Russian central bank, a western official says. That day, Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, raised the idea at a G7 leaders emergency summit. And Freeland issued an emotional message to the Ukrainian community in Canada. “Now is the time to remember,” she said, before switching to Ukrainian, “Ukraine is not yet dead.” 

The threat of economic pain may not have deterred Putin from invading, but western leaders believe the financial sanctions that have been put in place since the invasion are evidence of a revitalised transatlantic alliance — and a rebuke to the idea that democracies are too slow and hesitant. 

“We have never had in the history of the European Union such close contacts with the Americans on a security issue as we have now — it’s really unprecedented,” says one senior EU official. 

Draghi takes the initiative 

In the end, the move against Russia’s central bank was the product of 72 hours of intensive diplomacy that mixed high emotion and technical detail. 

The idea had not been the priority of prewar planning, which focused more on which Russian banks to cut off from Swift. But the ferocity of Russia’s invasion brought the most aggressive sanctions options to the fore. 

“The horror of Russia’s unacceptable, unjustified, and unlawful invasion of Ukraine and targeting of civilians — that really unlocked our ability to take further steps,” says one senior state department official. 

In Europe, it was Draghi who pushed the idea of sanctioning the central bank at the emergency EU summit on the night of the invasion. Italy, a big importer of Russian gas, had often been hesitant in the past about sanctions. But the Italian leader argued that Russia’s stockpile of reserves could be used to cushion the blow of other sanctions, according to one EU official. 

“To counter that . . . you need to freeze the assets,” the official says. 

The last-minute nature of discussions was critical to ensure Moscow was caught off-guard: given enough notice, Moscow could have started moving some of its reserves into other currencies. An EU official says that given reports Moscow had started placing orders, the measures needed to be ready by the time the markets opened on Monday so that banks would not process any trades. 

“We took the Russians by surprise — they didn’t pick up on it until too late,” the official says. 

According to Adeyemo at the US Treasury: “We were in a place where we knew they really couldn’t find another convertible currency that they could use and try to subvert this.” 

The last-minute talks caught some western allies off guard — forcing them to scramble to implement the measures in time. In the UK, they triggered a frantic weekend effort by British Treasury officials to finalise details before the markets opened in London at 7am on Monday. Chancellor Rishi Sunak communicated by WhatsApp with officials through the night, with the work only concluding at 4am. 

No clear political strategy 

Yet if the western response has been defined by unity, there are already signs of potential faultlines — especially given the new claims about war crimes, which have prompted calls for further sanctions. 

Western governments have not defined what Russia would need to do for sanctions to be lifted, leaving some of the difficult questions about the political strategy for a later date. Is the objective to inflict short-term pain on Russia to inhibit the war effort or long-term containment? 

Even when they work, sanctions take a long time to have an impact. However, the economic pain from the crisis is being unevenly felt, with Europe suffering a much bigger blow than the US. 

Europe has so far been reluctant to impose an oil and gas embargo, given the bloc’s high dependence on Russian energy imports. But since the atrocities allegedly perpetrated by Russian soldiers in the suburbs of Kyiv have been revealed, a fresh round of EU sanctions was announced on Tuesday that will include a ban on Russian coal imports and, at a later stage, possibly also oil. A decision among the 27 capitals is expected later this week. 

The other key factor is whether the west can win the narrative contest over sanctions — both in Russia and in the rest of the world. 

Speaking in 2019, Singh, the White House official, admitted that sanctions imposed on Russia after Crimea were not as effective as hoped because Russian propaganda succeeded in blaming the west for economic problems. 

“Our inability to counter Putin’s scapegoating,” he told Congress, “gave the regime far more staying power than it would have enjoyed otherwise.” 

In the coming weeks and months, Putin will try to convince a Russian population undergoing economic hardship that it is the victim, not the aggressor. 

To China, India, Brazil and the other countries which might potentially help him evade the western sanctions, Putin will pose a deeper question about the role of the US dollar in the global economy: can you still trust America?

How do sanctions work?

US Dollar vs. China's Yuan

 

China, Russia and the race to a post-dollar world

Rana Foroohar in The FT

Markets often react strongly to geopolitical events, but then later shrug them off. Not this time. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a key economic turning point that will have many lasting consequences. Among them will be a quickening of the shift to a bipolar global financial system — one based on the dollar, the other on the renminbi. 

The process of financial decoupling between Russia and the west has, of course, been going on for some time. Western banks reduced their exposure to Russian financial institutions by 80 per cent following the country’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, and their claims on the rest of Russia’s private sector have halved since then, according to a recent Capital Economics report. The new and more aggressive sanctions announced by the US will take that decoupling much further. 

It will also make Russia much more dependent on China, which will use the US and EU sanctions as an opportunity to pick up excess Russian oil and gas on the cheap. China is no fan of Vladimir Putin’s war. But it needs Russian commodities and arms, and sees the country as a key part of a new Beijing-led order, something Moscow is aware of. 

“China is our strategic cushion,” Sergei Karaganov, a political scientist at the Moscow-based Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, told Nikkei Asia recently. “We know that in any difficult situation, we can lean on it for military, political and economic support.” 

That does not mean China would break US or European sanctions to support Russia, but it could certainly allow Russian banks and companies more access to its own financial markets and institutions. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, the two countries announced a “friendship without limits”, one that will certainly include closer financial ties as Russia is shut out of western markets. This follows a 2019 agreement between Russia and China to settle all trade in their respective currencies rather than in dollars. The war in Ukraine will speed this up. Witness, in the past few days, China lifting an import ban on Russian wheat, as well as a new long-term Chinese gas deal with Gazprom. 

All of this supports China’s long-term goal of building a post-dollarised world, in which Russia would be one of many vassal states settling all transactions in renminbi. Getting there is not an easy process. The Chinese want to de-dollarise, but they also want complete control of their own financial system. That’s a difficult circle to square. One of the reasons that the dollar is the world’s reserve currency is that, in contrast, the US markets are so open and liquid. 

Still, the Chinese hope to use trade and the petropolitics of the moment to increase the renminbi’s share of global foreign exchange. One high-level western investor in China told me he expected that share would rise from 2 per cent to as high as 7 per cent in the next three to four years. That is, of course, still minuscule compared with the position of the dollar, which is 59 per cent. 

But the Chinese are playing a long game. Finance is a key pillar in the new Great Power competition with America; currency, capital flows and the Belt and Road Initiative trade pathway will all play a role in that. Beijing is slowly diversifying its foreign exchange reserves, as well as buying up a lot of gold. This can be seen as a kind of hedge on a post-dollar word (the assumption being that gold will rise as the dollar falls). 

New US limits on capital flows to China on national security grounds may speed up the financial decoupling process further. If US pension funds can’t flow into China, self-sufficiency in capital markets becomes ever more important. Beijing has been trying to bolster trust and transparency in its own system, not only to attract non-US foreign investment, but also to encourage an onshore investment boom in which huge amounts of Chinese savings would be funnelled into domestic capital markets. 

While sanctions against Russia herald more decoupling, it is also possible that the economic fallout from the war (lowered demand, even higher inflation) would push America and other nations into succumbing to pricing pressures that would favour Chinese goods. While there is likely to be a lot of political posturing on both sides of the aisle about standing up to Russia and China, it takes a long time to decouple supply chains. Policymakers in Washington have yet to get really serious about it. 

Beijing, on the other hand, is quite serious about the new world order that it is pursuing. In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US national security adviser, wrote presciently that the most dangerous geopolitical scenario for the west would be a “grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran”. This would be led by Beijing and united not by ideology but by common grievances. “Averting this contingency, however remote it may be, will require a display of US geostrategic skill on [all] perimeters of Eurasia simultaneously,” he wrote. 

Financial markets are going to be a major field of battle. They will become a place to defend liberal values (for example, via sanctions against Russia) and renew old alliances. (Might the US and Europe come together to forge a strategy on both energy security and climate change?) They will also be a lot more sensitive to geopolitics than they have been in the past. 

China's Economic "Model"

 

Currency warrior: why Trump is weaponising the dollar

Businesses in countries such as Russia are testing the power of the reserve currency but it could benefit from any global instability writes Sam Fleming in The FT


In an industry long dominated by the dollar, it was a move that carried obvious symbolic weight. 

Last summer Russian diamond miner Alrosa tested a new system for selling its rocks in roubles to clients in countries such as China and India, as an alternative to the US currency. 

Since then the company has conducted about 50 transactions under the mechanism, using a range of currencies, says Evgeny Agureev, Alrosa’s director of sales, who says avoiding dollar conversion allows transactions to be conducted more speedily. 

“The number and volume of these transactions is relatively small . . . but we think it is valuable for our clients to have a variety of options for settlement to choose from,” he says in an email, adding that the “world changes and we need to respond”. 

Though under consideration for several years, the initiative by the partly state-owned miner is a sign of a growing appetite to find ways of shaking off the stranglehold the US dollar has long held on global commerce and finance. Those efforts have taken on high urgency given Donald Trump’s increasingly aggressive use of US economic and financial weaponry to get his way in foreign affairs. 

The president has thus far engaged in minimal military conflict, but he has proved an unusually pugnacious currency warrior, as he pairs a tendency to talk down the dollar’s value in his quest for a smaller trade deficit with an unusual willingness to use the currency’s global heft as a tool of foreign policy. 

Critically, sanctions, which can block foreign officials or corporations from accessing vast swaths of dollar-dominated commerce and finance, are being deployed against Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and a host of other countries, alongside tariffs and other restrictions on key companies such as telecoms manufacturer Huawei. As a result, economies including China and Russia are examining mechanisms to curtail their reliance on the dollar, while European capitals are seeking ways of circumventing America’s new barriers on dealings with Iran. 

To date the initiatives amount to less than a pinprick in the US currency’s hegemonic status, as underscored by the modest scale of Alrosa’s foreign exchange innovation. But Mr Trump’s unilateralist approach has unquestionably unleashed a phase of experimentation elsewhere, prompting some analysts to ask whether, in the longer term, the US dollar’s supreme position in the global financial system could be shaken as other nations revolt against what they see as Mr Trump’s arbitrary use of American power. 

Adam M Smith, a former Treasury and White House official who is now a partner at law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, says the manner in which Mr Trump is wielding America’s economic power is unprecedented, as he uses sanctions, tariffs, trade negotiations and export controls interchangeably. 

“He is using the importance and attractiveness of the US market to the rest of the world as a coercive tool to get others to bend to his will,” says Mr Smith. “Does the very aggressive use of these economic tools make it more urgent for countries to find ways to avoid the US market? Probably. However, the urgency may not mean that most countries will be successful in finding effective workarounds.” 

America has long enjoyed a singular economic arsenal thanks to the ubiquity of the dollar and the centrality of its economy and financial system to global commerce. Although America’s share of global gross domestic product may have declined, its currency still accounts for over 60 per cent of international debt, according to a speech by European Central Bank official Benoît Cœuré in February, and leads the euro both as a global payment currency and in foreign exchange turnover. It dominates pricing of commodities such as oil and metals and accounts for about 40 per cent of cross-border financial transactions. 

The dollar’s share of global foreign exchange reserves has slipped in the 10 years since the financial crisis, but at 62 per cent of the total it still dwarfs all rivals. The euro has lost greater ground over the same time, now standing at just over 20 per cent. The Chinese renminbi is just a few per cent of global reserves, and a mere 2 per cent of international payments, according to the global transfer network, Swift. 

This unique place at the heart of the global economic system gives the US government enormous power. Using the dollar almost invariably means touching a US financial institution, says Eswar Prasad, a professor of economics at Cornell University. This immediately puts you within the reach of US government and regulators. 

The US toolkit is particularly potent thanks to the use of “secondary” sanctions. Normal US sanctions aim to prevent American citizens from dealing with a given country or party, but secondary measures allow the government to penalise third parties that do business with a sanctioned country. 

The consequences for non-US institutions of failing to comply with US rules can be severe. In 2014, for example, BNP Paribas was hit by a penalty of nearly $9bn by the US authorities in connection with sanctions violations, as well as being forced to temporarily suspend part of its US dollar clearing work. 

While Washington’s use of sanctions has been on the rise for decades, Mr Trump has emerged as a particular enthusiast. Data compiled by Gibson Dunn show 1,474 entities were subject to sanctions designations in 2018 — 50 per cent higher than in any previous year for which it has kept records. 

The power of these tools has been felt across markets. The Treasury’s decision to sanction metal groups Rusal and parent company En+ led to a surge in aluminium prices, before it agreed to ease its stance if its major shareholder, Oleg Deripaska, gave up control. Sanctions were lifted in January. 

Last August Turkey was plunged into a currency crisis as the US imposed swingeing tariffs on its steel and aluminium exports, on top of sanctions on senior ministers. 

The US Congress has equally been aggressive in pushing sanctions. In April a cross-party group of senators led by Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Bob Menendez demanded sanctions against senior Chinese Communist party officials in response to alleged human rights abuses against Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in the northwestern province of Xinjiang. 

This month senators demanded the more rigorous enforcement of US regulations against Chinese companies that seek access to US markets. Hawks such as Mr Rubio want to take matters further and more closely examine China’s ready access to US finance. 

“China poses the greatest long-term threat to US national and economic security. At a minimum, American investors should be aware of where their money is going when it comes to Chinese investments,” said Mr Rubio. 

The Trump administration’s aggressive use of sanctions carries multiple risks. It is not only rivals who are upset: the US has at times also incensed close allies, which for decades have viewed Washington as a reliable steward of orderly global markets. 

In the longer term it could accelerate a trend in which other countries wish to reduce their reliance on the dollar for its main three purposes — as a store of value, a unit of account and a medium of global exchange. In the very long run, some specialists fear the US dollar’s totemic status at the centre of the global economy could be eroded, or even supplanted, just as the British pound was by the dollar during the interwar period. 

Richard Nephew, a former US government sanctions specialist who is now programme director at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, says that for at least the next five to 10 years the world is locked into the dollar as the default currency. 

But he argues there will be an evolution towards a system where the US is not the sole significant trading currency. US policy today “will increase the speed with which that transition takes place”. 

A recent report from the Center for a New American Security think-tank argues that a host of factors could conspire to weaken the impact of America’s economic policy arsenal over the longer term. Critically, it says that if the US attempts to reduce its economic, financial and trading connections with key overseas economies, “over time US coercive economic leverage over those economies will diminish”. 

Russia has been at the forefront of attempts to de-dollarise, spurred on by the punishing impact of US sanctions on its economy. “We are not ditching the dollar, the dollar is ditching us,” Russia’s president Vladimir Putin said late last year. “The instability of dollar payments is creating a desire for many global economies to find alternative reserve currencies and create settlement systems independent of the dollar.” 

Russia’s central bank last spring sold $101bn worth of dollars from its reserves, shifting the holdings into renminbi, euros and yen, according to official data published in January with a six-month delay. Fifteen per cent of Russia’s reserves were in the Chinese currency last summer, the data showed, three times the proportion at the end of the first quarter of 2018. 

For its part, China has experimented with denominating oil futures in its currency as well as working on its own international payments system. 

In June Russia agreed with China at a summit between Xi Jinping and Mr Putin to do more trade in their respective currencies. The rouble and renminbi’s share of Chinese imports into Russia edged up from 17 per cent in 2017 to 24 per cent in 2018, according to economist Dmitry Dolgin of ING. 

Yet for all the political attention, the two countries’ attempts to reduce the dollar’s role remain in their infancy. For example, China and Russia set up a non-dollar direct settlement plan to help with their gas pipeline deals around 2015. However, in practice, the Chinese side uses it as little as possible, in part because of the risk of rouble volatility. 

China has also harboured aspirations to turn its Belt and Road Initiative into a platform for boosting the international use of the renminbi. But it would in practice have to dramatically liberalise its capital controls to gain widespread acceptance as a reserve currency. 

In Europe, frustrations have been growing at the continent’s faltering attempts to boost the euro’s global role alongside the dollar. Top French officials including François Villeroy de Galhau, governor of the Banque de France, have called for greater use of the euro in international transactions in a bid to challenge the dollar’s dominance. European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker last year said it was an “aberration” that the EU paid for more than 80 per cent of its energy imports in dollars despite only 2 per cent of imports coming from the US. 

Yet the pattern since the financial crisis has if anything been a decline in the euro’s international role. Gita Gopinath, the IMF’s chief economist, points to a reduction in euro invoicing and international financial transactions. “The dollar on the other hand has gained relative to the euro in the last 10 years,” she says. 

Meanwhile progress on a high-profile mechanism backed by major European countries that aims to sustain trade with Iran despite newly imposed US sanctions has been painfully slow.   

Sigal Mandelker, the Treasury official in charge of enforcing sanctions, points out that despite European efforts to keep their businesses invested in Iran following Mr Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, the companies “got out in droves”. 

“There are people out there who argue we have overused the tool,” says Ms Mandelker, “[but] if you look at our objectives and how we are using the tool, you will see that what we have been doing systemically is to change behaviour, to disrupt the flow of bad money, and to go after entities and individuals who pose national security and illicit finance risk.” 

For all the warnings that the US will undermine its own currency by being so aggressive, there is little sign of any diminished appetite for using the greenback. Kevin Hassett, the outgoing chairman of Mr Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, says: “If you thought that the Trump policies were imperilling the status of the dollar, then your case would be stronger if you showed that the dollar had collapsed a lot under Trump policies . . . But the move in the dollar has been kind of the opposite of that.” 

Ms Gopinath is sceptical about the chances of near-term change. “You are hearing more noise right now for other currencies to become truly global currencies. But the data do not show a more forceful dynamic in this direction and it would take a lot more than what we’re seeing now for there to be a switch.” 

Indeed, the irony is that if the president ends up triggering global instability via his policies, investors may end up flocking all the more enthusiastically towards dollar assets. That was after all the phenomenon during the financial crisis, when a mortgage meltdown that was made in the US prompted global investors to scamper for the safety of government bonds, and it has been the same story more recently as Mr Trump’s trade wars drove down US bond yields. 

“Anything Trump creates to foment uncertainty and instability will only end up strengthening the dollar,” says Mr Prasad. Over time, other countries will indeed get tired of this and shift away from the dollar as a unit of account and a medium of exchange, he adds, but “in the foreseeable and longer future the dollar’s role as the dominant store of value is unlikely to be challenged.”

Why do we value gold?

 By Justin Rowlatt

Presenter, Business Daily, BBC World Service

Mankind's attitude to gold is bizarre. Chemically, it is uninteresting - it barely reacts with any other element. Yet, of all the 118 elements in the periodic table, gold is the one we humans have always tended to choose to use as currency. Why?

Why not osmium or chromium, or helium, say - or maybe seaborgium?

I'm not the first to ask the question, but I like to think I'm asking it in one of the most compelling locations possible - the extraordinary exhibition of pre-Columbian gold artefacts at the British Museum?

That's where I meet Andrea Sella, a professor of chemistry at University College London, beside an exquisite breastplate of pure beaten gold.

He pulls out a copy of the periodic table.

"Some elements are pretty easy to dismiss," he tells me, gesturing to the right-hand side of the table.

"Here you've got the noble gases and the halogens. A gas is never going to be much good as a currency. It isn't really going to be practical to carry around little phials of gas is it?

"And then there's the fact that they are colourless. How on earth would you know what it is?"

The two liquid elements (at everyday temperature and pressure) - mercury and bromine - would be impractical too. Both are also poisonous - not a good quality in something you plan to use as money. Similarly, we can cross out arsenic and several others.

Sella now turns his attention to the left-hand side of the table.

"We can rule out most of the elements here as well," he says confidently.

"The alkaline metals and earths are just too reactive. Many people will remember from school dropping sodium or potassium into a dish of water. It fizzes around and goes pop - an explosive currency just isn't a good idea."

A similar argument applies to another whole class of elements, the radioactive ones: you don't want your cash to give you cancer.

Out go thorium, uranium and plutonium, along with a whole bestiary of synthetically-created elements - rutherfordium, seaborgium, ununpentium, einsteinium - which only ever exist momentarily as part of a lab experiment, before radioactively decomposing.

Then there's the group called "rare earths", most of which are actually less rare than gold.

Unfortunately, they are chemically hard to distinguish from each other, so you would never know what you had in your pocket.

This leaves us with the middle area of the periodic table, the "transition" and "post-transition" metals.

This group of 49 elements includes some familiar names - iron, aluminium, copper, lead, silver.

But examine them in detail and you realise almost all have serious drawbacks.

We've got some very tough and durable elements on the left-hand side - titanium and zirconium, for example.

The problem is they are very hard to smelt. You need to get your furnace up into the region of 1,000C before you can begin to extract these metals from their ores. That kind of specialist equipment wasn't available to ancient man.

Aluminium is also hard to extract, and it's just too flimsy for coinage. Most of the others in the group aren't stable - they corrode if exposed to water or oxidise in the air.

Take iron. In theory it looks quite a good prospect for currency. It is attractive and polishes up to a lovely sheen. The problem is rust: unless you keep it completely dry it is liable to corrode away.

"A self-debasing currency is clearly not a good idea," says Sella.

We can rule out lead and copper on the same basis. Both are liable to corrosion. Societies have made both into money but the currencies did not last, literally.

So, what's left?

Of the 118 elements we are now down to just eight contenders: platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium, osmium and ruthenium, along with the old familiars, gold and silver.

These are known as the noble metals, "noble" because they stand apart, barely reacting with the other elements.

They are also all pretty rare, another important criterion for a currency.

Even if iron didn't rust, it wouldn't make a good basis for money because there's just too much of it around. You would end up having to carry some very big coins about.

With all the noble metals except silver and gold, you have the opposite problem. They are so rare that you would have to cast some very tiny coins, which you might easily lose.

They are also very hard to extract. The melting point of platinum is 1,768C.

That leaves just two elements - silver and gold.

Both are scarce but not impossibly rare. Both also have a relatively low melting point, and are therefore easy to turn into coins, ingots or jewellery.

Silver tarnishes - it reacts with minute amounts of sulphur in the air. That's why we place particular value on gold.

It turns out then, that the reason gold is precious is precisely that it is so chemically uninteresting.

Gold's relative inertness means you can create an elaborate golden jaguar and be confident that 1,000 years later it can be found in a museum display case in central London, still in pristine condition.

So what does this process of elemental elimination tell us about what makes a good currency?

First off, it doesn't have to have any intrinsic value. A currency only has value because we, as a society, decide that it does.

As we've seen, it also needs to be stable, portable and non-toxic. And it needs to be fairly rare - you might be surprised just how little gold there is in the world.

If you were to collect together every earring, every gold sovereign, the tiny traces gold in every computer chip, every pre-Columbian statuette, every wedding ring and melt it down, it's guesstimated that you'd be left with just one 20-metre cube, or thereabouts.

But scarcity and stability aren't the whole story. Gold has one other quality that makes it the stand-out contender for currency in the periodic table. Gold is... golden.

All the other metals in the periodic table are silvery-coloured except for copper - and as we've already seen, copper corrodes, turning green when exposed to moist air. That makes gold very distinctive.

"That's the other secret of gold's success as a currency," says Sella. "Gold is unbelievably beautiful."

But how come no-one actually uses gold as a currency any more?

The seminal moment came in 1973, when Richard Nixon decided to sever the US dollar's tie to gold.

Since then, every major currency has been backed by no more than legal "fiat" - the law of the land says you must accept it as payment.

Nixon made his decision for the simple reason that the US was running out of the necessary gold to back all the dollars it had printed.

And here lies the problem with gold. Its supply bear no relation to the needs of the economy. The supply of gold depends on what can be mined.

In the 16th Century, the discovery of South America and its vast gold deposits led to an enormous fall in the value of gold - and therefore an enormous increase in the price of everything else.

Since then, the problem has typically been the opposite - the supply of gold has been too rigid. For example, many countries escaped the Great Depression in the 1930s by unhitching their currencies from the Gold Standard. Doing so freed them up to print more money and reflate their economies.

The demand for gold can vary wildly - and with a fixed supply, that can lead to equally wild swings in its price.

Most recently for example, the price has gone from $260 per troy ounce in 2001, to peak at $1,921.15 in September 2011, before falling back to $1,230 currently.

That is hardly the behaviour of a stable store of value.

So, to paraphrase Churchill, out of all the elements, gold makes the worst possible currency.