3 ms·

I’m not sure I get your argument. It doesn’t appear the Economist article is claiming that the dominant currency has only just started imposing costs. Their cl

I’m not sure I get your argument. It doesn’t appear the Economist article is claiming that the dominant currency has only just started imposing costs. Their claim is that the recent increased costs, and more relevantly their almost arbitrary nature, hasn’t just led to the usual suspects grousing, but has also started causing allies who didn’t grouse in the past, to actively seek and build alternatives. As a result, the USD may potentially lose its status as the dominant currency much sooner that it may have otherwise.

hogFeast 7y ago
Yes, the main contention of the article is that this is unusual. If you think it through: the only way this article makes sense is if that claim is made...otherwise, the US was doing this in the past and it made no difference (which is true). I think you are taking a slightly expansive definition of ally. You are referring to the EU? A significant grouping within the EU does not regard the US as an ally (particularly economically, ref France bringing down Bretton Woods...the US is the giving tree here, the more you give, the more the EU takes)...and all of the people grousing are the usual suspects (China, Juncker, etc.). And no, you need to justify an extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence. None of this is even remotely extraordinary (and counter to the fairly obvious evidence of the dollar's position growing...not receding).