Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news foreign investors, both friends and foes, are quitting their exposure to the new Russified US.
But first up, the Redbook tracking of American retail sales shows they were up +6.3% last week from the same week a year ago. This is a heady gain outside the seasonal shopping windows. Buyers may be trying to insulate themselves ahead of the inflation that will flow from impending tariffs. Last week's gain was twice what it was a year ago, and also higher than the same week two years ago. Some of this defensive "doom spending" is being done with higher credit card debt.
They aren't spending on new housing. American housing starts slumped -9.8% in January from the prior month and are also lower year-on-year. The rise we noted in December was an outlier over the past year, not sustained.
And they aren't spending on switching houses either. Mortgage applications fell by -6.6% last week from the previous week, the sharpest decline so far this year. Mortgage interest rates are staying close to the 7% mark - plus there is rising uncertainty over the future status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The new Administration wants to sell these two mortgage infrastructure behemoths to their billionaire supporters. Borrowers supported by such loans, common in the US, may be facing an unwelcome future surprise. American 30 year fixed mortgages, only possible because of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, have an uncertain future.
There was a well-supported, but relatively small US Treasury 20 year bond auction earlier today and that brought a yield of 4.77%, down -9 bps from the median yield of 4.86% at the equivalent auction a month ago.
Foreign holdings of US Treasury paper is falling. December data was released overnight, showing total holdings are now US$8.5 tln, down from US$8.6 tln just before the election. Japan, the largest holder and only one holding more than US$1 tln, cut its exposure -5% from a year ago. China cut theirs -7% to its lowest level in more than 15 years.
And the more the US President talks up Russian propaganda points, the more unstable this is likely to become. The locals are worried.
Across the Pacific, Japan's core machinery orders fell -1.2% month-on-month in December, the worst reading in four months. The latest reading also reversed from a +3.4% rise in November. Markets had expected a slight +0.1% gain.
China’s new house prices in 70 cities fell -5.0% year-on-year in January, but that was an easing from a -5.3% drop in the previous month. It was also the smallest decline since last July. But prices in icon cities like Beijing are falling faster now. However Shanghai was an exception with prices there rising.
In Indonesia, as expected their central bank kept its policy rate unchanged at 5.75%. Inflation is under control there (under 1%) and their currency is stable, still at the same level it was in mid 2024.
In the UK, inflation is rising, hitting 3.0% in January, up from 2.5% in December in a jump that wasn't expected. A year ago it ran at 4.0%, so a fall from then.
The UST 10yr yield is at 4.56%, up +2 bps from yesterday at this time. The key 2-10 yield curve is steeper at +26 bps. Their 1-5 curve is steeper at +16 bps. And their 3 mth-10yr curve is also steeper at +23 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield starts today over 4.58% and up +3 bps from yesterday. The China 10 year bond rate is now at 1.69% and down -1 bp. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is now over 4.69%, up another +3 bps from yesterday.
Wall Street is marginally lower in its Wednesday trade. Overnight European markets all fell ranging from Frankfurt's -1.8% to London's -0.6%. Tokyo ended its Wednesday trade down -0.3%. Hong Kong was down -0.1%. Shanghai however rose +0.8%. Singapore ended up +0.2%. The ASX200 ended its Wednesday trade down another -0.7%, whereas the NZX50 ended down only -0.1%.
The price of gold will start today at just under US$2928/oz and down -US$3 from yesterday.
Oil prices are up +US$1 at just over US$72.50/bbl in the US and the international Brent price is now at US$76.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar is now at 57.1 USc and up +10 bps from yesterday. Against the Aussie we are also up +10 bps at 89.9 AUc. Against the euro we are up +20 bps at 54.8 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today just over 67.2, and up +30 bps from this time yesterday, also partly helped by a gain against the yen.
The bitcoin price starts today at US$96,136 and up +1.4% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been modest at +/- 1.8%.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
90 Comments
Relax Kraken, do not worry!
It said consumer price inflation in New Zealand was expected to be volatile in the near term, due to a lower exchange rate and higher petrol prices.
"The net effect of future changes in trade policy on inflation in New Zealand is currently unclear. Nevertheless, the committee is well placed to maintain price stability over the medium term."
Orr-some has it under control…it’s safe as ummm houses…🤔😉🤣
If the second part of a trade war (tariffs) causes wallets to snap shut on a near global basis, the impact on business everywhere will be significant. Debt will go from being a business supporter, to being a noose that cannot be serviced.
Once the quoted 25% tariffs start being thrown left and right, exit debt and hold onto your hats.
Popcorn with orange hot sauce.
And the nightmare builds momentum as Trump works to consolidate his power while he also calls Zelensky a dictator and effectively accuses him of starting the war. I read the comment he made and what he really says is the war is essentially Zelensky's fault. And that can only be because he failed to surrender to Russia immediately.
one has to wonder if the world can endure four years of Trump 2.0? The first time he was a clown, a dangerous one but still a clown. Now he is on a mission with the benefit of hindsight.
Ukraine is about to be sold down the river, the Dnieper. As suggested when Trump was re-emerging Ukraine is likely to find its eastern border now to be that. Fortunate in someways for them that it is there as a historical and formidable natural barrier. Putin is off the hook and understandably emboldened can commence regathering and rearming for the next campaign. Kharkov will then be exposed to pincer attack, fnorth and south, and once taken, Kiev and the west of Ukraine is wide open. This war plan was in fact described quite clearly and early on by Prigozhin before he was neutralised. In fact if they hadn’t ignored their own hard won military history and concentrated their forces in the north rather than the south, they may have got all of that before now.
In my opinion Ukraine was sold down the river by the west when they continued to be told they could be a member of NATO by people who had no ability to back up or enforce that claim without spilling the blood of hundreds of thousands of young Ukrainian men - and even then, the best outcome and most probable outcome after all this blood is in the soil is that Ukraine remains a neutral state and they lose even more of their territory.
Such a ridiculous war that was easy preventable but would require the west to acknowledge that Ukraine must remain neutral - but we are (and many still are) to ignorant/arrogant admit or accept that. To them - ‘Putin must lose this conflict at any means necessary’ - including the endless loss of life for young Ukrainians and stupid amounts spent on weapons - which given the debt levels of many western nations - is not at all a wise way to deficit spend taxpayer $$.
Agreed in principle. At the beginning Audaxes posted on here a paper by Henry Kissinger emphasising exactly those parameters and explaining, in depth, why. Haven’t been able to search it again unfortunately.
ps. search : Henry Kissinger - How the Ukraine Crisis Ends, March 6, 2014.
Absolutely not.
Kissinger completely walked backed that view and admitted it was wrong.
In January 2023, however, Kissinger, addressing the Davos World Economic Forum, expressed "admiration for the president of Ukraine and for the heroic conduct of the Ukrainian people." And in September, he met in Washington with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and conceded that the continuing Russian aggression had altered his thinking.
"Before this war, I was opposed to the membership of Ukraine in NATO because I feared that it would start the very process that we are seeing now," he told Zelenskiy. "Now that this process has reached this level, the idea of a neutral Ukraine under these conditions no longer makes sense."
https://www.rferl.org/a/henry-kissinger-evolution-views-russia-ukraine-…
Yes well it had changed a bit between 2014 and then hadn’t it. The very war he was warning as being prospective, actually started. Of course the status changed and so to his reasoning, it could hardly remain preventative could it. The last paragraph you quote of his remarks, makes all of that abundantly clear.
No, read the article. He said his analysis in 2014 was wrong, Ukraine being neutral is not a possibility. It wasn't then and it isn't now, which is the point both you and IO are making.
You cannot stay neutral against an aggressive neighbour, Kissinger is very clear that Russia is an active aggressor not reacting to aggression.
Apologies if my initial post was insufficiently definitive. Basically my point was that Kissinger in 2014 was identifying the risk of potential conflict with Russia should Ukraine not remain neutral to the satisfaction of Russia regardless of whether or not Russia had any right to that degree of influence. He foresaw joining NATO would be a provocation that Russia would likely view as being compelled to respond to, militarily. And he has been proven right even if only on the prospect of that happening. Now it is hardly ridiculous to suggest that Putin has used what is only a perceived prospect, therefore without any actual justification, as what he considers to be an irreversible provocation to start a war, already well in mind for a multitude of reasons, be it imperialism, megalomania or simply more territory and bounteous resources. There has been no intention on my part to excuse the invasion of a nation’s sovereignty, just that a widely experienced and elderly expert on world affairs troubled himself to issue a warning of what certain measures taken, would likely result in.
Yes but he took back that view, and acknowledged that Ukraine joining NATO would not have been a provocation to Russia, Putin had already made it's mind up to invade, you can't provoke someone who is already intent and preparing to destroy you.
Joining NATO would have been the better course of action than remaining neutral as it would have forced Russia to militarily engage NATO rather than just Ukraine.
Victoria Nuland - married to a Kagan, say no more - was in there in 2014. So too were Biden junior, even Harris did a fly-by. Murray 86 perpetually misses the fact that the US is - was - the hegemony du jour. It is - was - the thug of all thugs. But internal propaganda always makes 'us' the 'good guys'.
Putin reacted, just as those who voted for Trump, reacted.
The need is to pragmatically ask of such reactions - what to? And why?
So many don't.
Months back we shared comment on my fleeting experience in London 1980s, Armand Hammer - Occidental Petroleum, poised to test extraction of Ukrainian resources. The collapse of the Soviet Union obviously stymied that. Even so the problem was more than that as the resources would not be at all easy to extract. But now we have here unfolding a good illustration of the conflict between increasing demand versus declining resources, globally. Thus easy stuff first as you would put, then out of necessity onto the hard stuff. Players on their marks.
No PDK I don't. For the US diplo corps fiddling, Putin is still solely responsible for pushing this invasion. It is his ego, and vanity in his effort to be Putin the Great.
None of the rationales to justify the war stand up to any depth of scrutiny, especially the 'NATO' BS.
100% agree Murray. I completely agree with PDKs assessment re: energy and material blindness and the consequences but on International relations he's way off.
Even Kissinger, one of the biggest Putin apologists with any sort of credibility walked back his previous statements just before he died, see link above.
Yeah, Putins fascist state are the good guys. 25 years of dead opposition and journalists, invasions of neighbours lands. You really are clueless if you believe Putins regime are the "good guys". The best news is, your opinion is becoming more aligned with the planets movers and shakers.
Russia is the poor mans hegemony, but they seem to have successfully colonised the planet on a limited budget, judging by social media. Must be those long winter nights with nothing to do but play chess, drink vodka and plot?
Yeah, it's a stupid war, but your being an apologist for Putins choice to impose butchery on a sovereign state shows a lack intellectual rigour in your position.
Ukraine must remain neutral? As in under the dictator Putins control? Would you feel the same way if it was NZ being attacked for wanting self determination from an oppressive dicatorship?
You seem to have been exposed to too much Russian flooding of the information zone with sh!t!
Dire scenario by Oliver Hartwich:
The day the West died: The world that emerges after Trump hands victory to Putin in Ukraine will be darker, more brutal and more dangerous than most people imagine
https://newsroom.co.nz/2025/02/18/the-week-the-west-died/
It's pragmatic to redraw the border to some extent. A deal needs to be made. There's no chance of Ukraine getting Crimea back under the current situation. I'm of the view that if an enemy cannot be absolutely vanquished it needs to be given what is perceived as a small win. This is psychologically very helpful for the prospects of long term peace. Otherwise you will have simmering resentments. Especially if the population of the territory in question largely supports the enemy. There are historical precedents for this. Happens all the time.
My pragmatism would focus on my country's long term interests. Negotiations and concessions go on all the time and it's not always a "peace in out time" moment. Germany in 1938 had achieved territorial gains in the Sudetenland with very few casualties whereas the Ukraine invasion has been very costly for Russia. It's hard to imagine Russia being a major threat to Europe in a conventional military sense.
Also, what if the result of not making concessions is further territory lost and catastrophic casualties resulting in a rout when the country's ability to defend itself reaches a tipping point? No one can really predict what will happen after a concession so it is all a bit of a gamble.
Russia, economically, militarily and socially is not the force it was at the beginning. Even then, given the subsequent battlefield performance(s,) it looks to have been overrated. Western intelligence will have a good fix on all of that yet the European nations seem to persist with a conviction that they have insufficient strength, even collectively, to risk any direct conflict with Russia. The situation mirrors the state of Europe in 1938 on the part of Germany but with that lesson being ignored. Just as Hitler was, after reoccupying the Rhineland , and then going on to annex Austria & Czechoslovakia, Putin cannot fail to be emboldened and back on track for the full occupation of Ukraine and more.
On this topic I think you and I see the situation through a very similar lens.
The ‘Putin must lose at all costs’ mentally seems to go in hand with the Trump Delusion Syndrome. Ie Trump ending the war in Ukraine is so bad because he’s selling out to Putin. No he’s just stopping the west from spending billions and billions of dollars on a pointless conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands of young people. But one must remember that Trump wants to end the war and the killing but he is also Hitler and an evil dictator! I mean if he stops the fighting and brings an end to the war he should probably get the peace prize - but instead will get called a Nazi. From this you realise how badly parts of society have lost their ability to see the world rationally. Those who want to war and killing to go on call the guy who wants it to end Hitler/a Nazi.
Trump is only in it for himself. He has no allegence to anyone, but himself. From entertaining Nazis at Mar a Lago, Nick Fuentes, to having a Nazi running government, Elon Musk, Nazi Jack Posobiec handed a position handling talks with Ukraine, hosting self proclaimed Nazi and idiot, Kanye West, Trump sure associates with some distasteful individuals. Is Trump himself a Nazi? No, he can't hold a thought long enough to really be an ideological zealot, but he is the enabler!
Germany didn’t need to fight for those territories. It was quick and easy. Russia though has not heeded its own history, the civil war and WW2 which demonstrated that it is almost impossible to invade Ukraine northwards through the Donetsk industrial belt and yes that has bogged them down. But if Russia now gains territory sufficiently north of there, then they can set up a further campaign of far less difficulty. My point is really this is but the first step, and it seems it may now be delivered to them without much more fighting.
This may lead to Europe taking its own defence more seriously and stop them from relying on the US to protect them. This is a good thing. Relying on the US has made them weak. Look at them crying over Vance's speech.
Germany did get involved in a little bit of fighting prior to the Munich Agreement. The Sudetenland Freikorps operated from German territory and within Czechoslovakia however only for a number of weeks with low casualties.
Aye the Freikorps were a mean and nasty bunch. Activities in Lithuania in the 1920s were particularly cruel. The Czechs themselves post 1945 inflicted brutal revenge on the remaining Germans . Apologise too my earlier post, 1938 was not an ideally accurate date to pin it on, but I believe you got my drift.
Your first paragraph is the point I've been making. Trump might find out that if other countries are more capable without US backing, he then holds less sway with them. He won't like that I think. As that capability builds the US is gonna get invited to a lot less parties.
The era of globalisation is winding down. The problem Europe has is its lack of natural resources. Could it go it alone? Certainly, but it would need to realise its limitations and end the ridiculous exponential growthist nonsense.
European slow response to the Ukraine war was about its desire to get on with neoliberalism and an inability to acknowledge the end of BAU. War can be inconvenient though.
Can Europe go it alone with an aggressive Russia as neighbour? Again yes, but the standard of living would drop and I don't know if a "decades of soft living populace" would agree to that? Russia has burned through its cold war stock piles, much of the populace live in poverty (which they complain about, but nothing more), its demographics are terrible and it barely runs as a functional state, apart from its security apperatus.
The war is not over yet. How long do you think it will take for the whole of Ukraine to fall when Trump pulls all support and potentially backs Putin ? Ukraine needs to pull the plug now and just settle for the current land lost, they were never going to win the war.
Putin has no intention of ending this war. You think signing a piece of paper will stop him coming back for another visit to the trough? It's like having the mongel mob as a neighbour. They might tell the police they'll improve their behavior, but a week later the beer bottles will be flying across the fence again!
A pause will see the hybrid war gather steam again. Putins aim is to make Ukraine ungovernable, dysfunctional. Social cohesion has prevented this from happening so far, once the bullets stop flying, the war for minds will step up pace!
They are not getting any of the occupied territory back. Aljazeera reported there is something like $16 Trillion dollars worth of rare earth minerals under that ground. Zelensky started that war, they poked the Bear along the border since 2014 and then threatened to join NATO, the outcome was inevitable. Biden fuelled the war telling Zelensky they would back him with arms, well bad luck time has run out and Trump is about to end it.
Let's go over this analogy a bit more. There's an aggressive bear over there. I see it looking at me and snarling, so I check I've got a spear handy and ask a couple of mates if they've got my back if the bear charges.
The bear attacks me, and you say it's my fault for talking to my mates. Perhaps if the bear didn't think I'd have backup in the future, it would never have attacked?
And now the bear is coming for the next 'mate' along, and the others also run away. And then the next mate, and then last mate thinks 'maybe if we'd all stood together against the bear back at the beginning we could have kept it at bay' as it crunches through his skull.
Carlos, we know you'd drop your panties at the first sight of Russian troops but that doesn't mean you wouldn't still get f****.
That has always been my take Zwifter. From the outset, during devolution under Gorbachev, Russia was clear Ukraine must never join Nato. Biden has some connection with Ukraine. How does his son, a drug addled no-good letch, get on the board of their largest oil and gas producer?? They are funding the war for the rebuild contracts and resources. Huge amounts of money are released to flow into various accounts. Meanwhile the sons of Russia and Ukraine lose their lives.
It's not a popular opinion amongst the left. Someone needs to end it and this is always going to upset the vested interests.
If Russia wants a de-militirised zone maybe they should use their own land?
If my neighbour came over to me and said I feel intimidated you being able to get so close to my lawn and I'd like you to not get closer than 10m to your side of the fence, I'd tell them to fuck right off. Unless it was a gang member in which case I'd be looking to get some help.
There is some next level fuckwittery in this analysis that somehow paints Ukraine as the aggressor.
In terms of missiles being too close to Russia that is a complete crock of shit. The US has more than enough firepower where it is to absolutely destroy Russia, and Russia could do the same to the US. Putting more missiles on the border with Russia would achieve no bigger advantage for either side.
The US has never taken any land from Russia. Russia has invaded and taken land from it's neighbours on multiple occasions since the fall of the Soviet Union.
The threat to Russia is and always has been the threat of democracy spreading, not military threats. The Soviet Union and East Germany fell due to the population rejecting their ideas not due to democracies invading. The oligarchs are terrified of that and that alone.
The point re Finland pre WW2 is that it would have been nonsensical wouldn’t it to create a demilitarised zone on your own land as that would in no way position the perceived enemy’s artillery any further away. PDK is referring to the deployment of missiles in Turkey in the 1960s a totally different ball game to that of today. Logically, if they had had then the intercontinentals of today, then sites on neither Turkey nor Cuba would have been needed.
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and now Finland are all pretty close to Moscow too. Does Putin need to invade those countries as well?
All the noise around Russia security is BS, Russia has nukes, no one is invading Russia. I laughed when I heard how there is this flat land corridor through Ukraine that horse armies used to travel on the invade Russia a 1,000 years ago and Putin needs to secure these. What a bunch of BS, Russia has nukes, no one is invading it. The land grab of Ukraine is Putin's ego wanting a legacy to be remembered (the Emperor who grew Russia and returned the stolen land of Ukraine back to the motherland - he will now be known as St Putin the Great by the Russian Orthodox Church).
The BoE forecasts that consumer price inflation will peak at 3.7% in the third quarter of 2025, driven mostly by higher energy costs and regulated tariffs for items such as domestic water supply.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-ons-says-inflation-was-30-january-2…
I can't imagine any rate cuts this year from BoE
I reckon the Government's 'Everyone Must Go' tourism campaign could have been named better. Seems tone deaf amid the ongoing net emigration situation in NZ.
Even foreigners are picking up on this and our opposition leaders openly criticising the campaign. Link
Either way, tourism hurts our economy more than it helps as obvious in statistics. Tourism jobs contribute 33% less to GDP than the NZ average (which is low by international standards to begin with).
Fact checking Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Both Freddie and Fannie used to be private companies, they were only brought under Govt conservatorship in 2008 because of the fallout of the GFC. It was never intended to be permanent, and it was always intended that they eventually be returned to the private market once they had repaid their Treasury loans.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/heres-what-happen…
I am not wrong. Please do some basic research. You really expect people to pay to be able to correct the misinformation trotted out by this site? I guess you will be happy remaining uncorrected in your left leaning, echo chamber of disinformation come March.
https://www.fanniemae.com/about-us/who-we-are/history
In the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act, Fannie Mae became a private shareholder-owned corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress. After being removed from the federal budget, Fannie Mae funded its operations through stock and bond markets.
To provide competition for the newly private Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mac
They were both listed on the Stock Exchange for god's sake. FNMA and FMCC. You can still buy shares in them now (OTC) as many people have done, while awaiting their return to being released from conservatorship. So if Trumps "billionaire supporters" wanted to buy them, they would already have bought them (I mean, why would they want to pay more in the future when they could have bought them for peanuts at any time over the last 17 years? Fannie Mae's share price was $1 before Nov, now its $7.70)
https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-invest/stocks/how-to-invest-in-fa…
US data shaky as US policies grow increasingly unstable
And today it gets shakier, with the latest Executive Order;
Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
It's a "fire government servants at will" and "we (POTUS and his AG) are the law".
The coup by the executive branch really is complete as the Supreme Court will (in all likelihood) go along with this.
What a bizarre comment. The President is elected to run the country, not the faceless bureaucrats in government agencies. Public servants serve at the whim of the President, that's why over 10,000 of them are replaced every time the President changes.
Trump is delivering on what the American people elected him to do. How completely loopy do you have to be to think that making Govt agencies accountable for their spending is "a coup"?
Only some Executive Orders require Senate approval, and since Republicans control both the Senate and the House of Congress, he is within his authority to do what the Republicans will pass. Again, the Americans elected Trump, and all the Republican Senators and Congress Members to do exactly what he is doing. If not, they can vote them out in 2026 (midterms) and 2028.
He is within his authority to work with the Senate and Congress, where his party has a majority, to make whatever changes are within their collective power. But that doesn't seem to be what is happening - he is riding over the top with his executive orders and challenging the judiciary to stop him. That showdown will decide what happens next, and essentially whether Trump is de facto Emperor at least until the next elections.
But then, if he defeats the judiciary and the other branches are subordinate, what is going to force a fair election?
The Democrats are just engaging in their usual lawfare. So far, they have lost the DOGE challenges. I also dont think that will win them any votes, when the general populace realise that their tax cuts and DOGE checks are being held up by a bunch of bureacrats trying to protect their taxpayer funded fiefdoms.
Some EOs are designed to go to the Supreme Court - like the citizenship by birth question. This was always intended to end up there as its a Constitutional interpretation, much like the Roe v Wade issue.
Some EOs require legislative amendments, and will go through the House and Senate committees to achieve implementation. Others can be implemented straight away as they are merely procedural. Some like Pardons, are actual Executive Branch powers.
The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, as well as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive departments—each led by an appointed member of the President’s Cabinet—carry out the day-to-day administration of the Federal Government. They are joined in this responsibility by other executive agencies such as the CIA and Environmental Protection Agency, the leaders of which are under the full authority of the President.
The President has the power either to sign legislation into law or to veto bills passed by Congress, although Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Executive Branch conducts diplomacy with other nations, and the President has the power to negotiate and sign treaties, which must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The President can issue executive orders, which direct executive officers or clarify and help implement existing laws. The President also has unlimited power to extend pardons and clemencies for federal crimes, except in cases of impeachment.
What, did you think it was an honorary position like the King of England? Some people really are thick as two planks.
An alternative reserve currency to rival or displace the almighty Dollar has been talked about for long enough without any sign of a credible alternative emerging. But perhaps an opportunity now presents itself as the US becomes increasingly unstable.
Could China and Russia come up with a gold backed alternative with the support of the Saudis and others. Is that possible or not?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.