To read 11 to 12 held at the G20 summit in Seoul, really have to need a PhD in finance. The meeting’s agenda is the exchange rate, currency, global trade imbalances, etc., the main character is the currency and monetary system. Although these terms appear frequently in the newspapers, but to figure out their meaning, does require some effort in the ivory tower Caixing. However, if we remember to live in the financial crisis at the birth of this forum are politicians, then we just have analyzed the relationship between rhetoric and the origin of the capacity of the line.

Conference USA is undoubtedly the most critical role, even if the Fed does not release at the summit on the eve of U.S. treasury bonds to buy 600 billion initiative, as well. With the Fed’s move, the U.S. appears to backfire, and public opinion, the description given is 19 to 1, the summit seems to be on the U.S. siege of war. But you have to really think so, there is likely to fall into the quagmire of political rhetoric in the.

We take a look at the summit on the eve of a few authoritative words. November 11, the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan criticized the depreciation of the U.S. policy, also pointed out that “(China) have not chosen to share their economic status required by the global obligations.” The implication is the idea of natural to assume greater international responsibility for the renminbi. November 10, the former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, said in Beijing, the global economic downturn and dissatisfaction with the recent policy of the Federal Reserve sparked new interest also, that rethink the current dollar-based international monetary order. The system failed to eliminate global economic imbalances, the confidence of the system is gradually being eroded. He believes that a rational solution should be: the globalized financial system urgently needs a global currency. November 8, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said that the current international monetary system needs a successor, and he called for a new system that “may need to include the U.S. dollar, euro, yen, pound sterling, and the internationalization and then open the RMB capital account. ”

The views are in line to the “currency war” view of the world’s taste. Sounds, they think need a new international monetary system. However, these authorities do advocate regime change it? In answering this question, we quote some current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is causing an uproar in the purchase of 600 billion U.S. dollars debt policy, then defense. November 4 he “Washington Post” the author said: “The high unemployment rates and inflation low in the case of the economy and further support is necessary,” and “liberal financial environment to promote economic growth … … which way to further support a virtuous cycle of economic expansion. ” Article in this defense, he did not mention the measures on the world economy, but also no mention of the international monetary system, all of the arguments is that the internal needs of the U.S. economic expansion. Clearly, Bernanke remarks against the people of said country. As for the dollar is not an international reserve currency, the dollar is not hegemony, not matter.

Do not mention the current U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman’s “international responsibility”, while the two former President has put this lip, and the latter seems to want to give up the dollar hegemony. Opposition between them is really it? I think not. Constitute the current President and former Chairman of both sides of American politics. When Bernanke “forget” the dollar is the international reserve currency, he is playing a political rhetoric, the dollar is the U.S. dollar, the U.S. dollar as the currency sovereign and have their own freedom of action. When the two former President called on the urgent need for a world currency while also playing a rhetorical, euro, yen, pound sterling, “as well as internationalization, and then open the renminbi capital account”, you have to assume international obligations, not to count the dollars, because the system “failed to eliminate global imbalances.” At the origin, we see the essence of the problem, to eliminate the imbalance in the global economy, it must meet the needs of the United States. When people talk about systems, he talking about the United States, when people talk about America, he was talking about systems.

See things behind the rhetoric, we can understand why the United States on the eve of the summit just deliberately Rexia outrage. Safeguard the interests of domestic policy, the bottom line is the first to draw the bottom line, the United States at the summit will be able to maximize their own interests. According to the country’s historical experience, if you can not maximize their national interests, it is altogether not bother to participate in any international meeting. Obama told the summit on the eve of politicians in other countries: “the strong recovery in the United States will be able to create jobs, income and consumption, and this will be the United States can make the world’s most important contribution to recovery. … … U.S. forces ultimately have to rely on the basic strength of the U.S. economy. “attention is necessary during the rhetoric: the United States, the world’s most important contribution to make, that is, that is, their own good!

Author Bio: I am a professional editor from China Suppliers, and my work is to promote a free online trade platform. http://www.frbiz.com/ contain a great deal of information about treasure metal detector,solar grid tie,price label gun, welcome to visit!

Category: Business
Keywords: treasure metal detector,solar grid tie,price label gun,