然而，在特朗普的战略棋局中，库克仅仅是一枚棋子。其真正的目的，在于夺取对美联储的控制权。美联储理事会共有七个席位，在库克被解职前，由特 朗普任命的理事占据两席（米歇尔·鲍曼和克里斯托弗·沃勒），而由拜登任命的理事则占据四席（库克、库格勒、博斯蒂克、布雷纳德）。一旦成功解除库 克的职务，特朗普便可提名新人填补空缺，从而使己方阵营在理事会中占据多数席位，掌握更大的话语权。这无疑是一招釜底抽薪之计。 特朗普此举的背后，隐藏着他对美联储现行货币政策的不满。他一直对美联储主席鲍威尔的加息政策颇有微词，认为高利率政策扼杀了房地产市场，加重 了普通民众的购房负担，同时也对整体经济造成了负面影响。他希望美联储能够尽快降息，以刺激经济增长，并为自己2024年的总统竞选铺平道路。然 而，美联储的独立性使其难以受到总统的直接干预。为了达到自己的目的，特朗普选择冒险出击，试图通过掌控理事会多数席位的方式，迫使美联储改变 政策方向。 在全球金融界掀起轩然大波的，莫过于前总统唐纳德·特朗普解雇美联储理事莉萨·库克一事。此举如同平地一声雷，打破了美国百年来的政治惯例，撼动了 美联储作为独立央行的根基。要知道，美联储的独立性，向来被视为美国 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the paradox of the United States' growing national debt of $37 trillion, highlighting how the country continues to spend aggressively on military and other expenditures without apparent concern for its debt levels, suggesting a unique financial strategy that turns debt into a tool for maintaining global influence and military power [3][6][20]. Group 1: Debt Dynamics - The U.S. national debt reached $36.5 trillion by March 2025, with over 70% held by domestic entities such as the Social Security system and the Federal Reserve, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of debt management [7][9]. - The article illustrates a metaphor where owing money to family members is likened to the U.S. borrowing from itself, suggesting that this internal borrowing creates an illusion of economic strength [9][10]. Group 2: Global Economic Influence - The U.S. dollar accounts for 70% of global trade settlements, and over half of central bank reserves worldwide, establishing a dependency on U.S. debt for international economic participation [10][11]. - Countries like Japan continue to purchase U.S. debt despite their own financial struggles, driven by the fear of economic instability if the dollar falters [14][15]. Group 3: Military and Economic Interplay - The U.S. military budget exceeds $1 trillion annually, which supports numerous defense contractors and political interests, creating a cycle where military spending is justified by job creation [21][23]. - The article posits that U.S. aircraft carriers serve not only as military assets but also as enforcers of dollar dominance, reinforcing the idea that military power is intertwined with economic strategy [23]. Group 4: Future Considerations - There is a noted decline in global central banks' holdings of U.S. debt, dropping from 51% in 2000 to 38%, indicating a potential shift away from reliance on U.S. financial instruments [23]. - The article raises questions about the sustainability of the U.S. debt strategy, suggesting that as more countries become disillusioned with the current system, the U.S. may face challenges in maintaining its financial dominance [23].

Group 1 - The core issue is the unsustainable growth of U.S. national debt, projected to reach $37 trillion by August 2025, with each American carrying over $100,000 in debt, while the median household income is around $70,000 [3][10] - U.S. military spending accounts for over $900 billion annually, representing one-third of global military expenditure, alongside rising social welfare and healthcare costs, leading to a significant budget deficit [3][10] - Tax revenue has been reduced due to various tax cuts, including a $1.5 trillion reduction during the Trump administration, exacerbating the debt situation [3][10] Group 2 - The narrative that cheap Chinese exports are responsible for U.S. debt is misleading; the real issue lies in domestic spending habits and fiscal irresponsibility [5][10] - If the U.S. were to default on its $37 trillion debt, it would lead to a collapse of global financial markets, undermining the credibility of the U.S. dollar and causing investors to flee [6][10] - The U.S. dollar currently holds over 40% of the international settlement market share, and a loss of trust could lead to a rapid decline in this share, impacting the U.S. economy significantly [8][10] Group 3 - The U.S. has limited options to address its debt crisis: either control spending, which is complicated by political gridlock, or stimulate economic growth, which has been stagnant with GDP growth below 3% [10][11] - The relationship between the U.S. and China is complex, with mutual dependencies; while the U.S. criticizes China, it cannot afford to sever financial ties, especially if China continues to reduce its holdings of U.S. debt [10][11] - The overarching concern is how the U.S. will manage its escalating debt without resorting to drastic measures that could destabilize its economy and global financial systems [11]

Core Viewpoint - The legalization of stablecoins in the U.S. through the "Genius Act" is seen as a strategic move to enhance the liquidity of the dollar and potentially increase its dominance in the global market [1][2][3]. Group 1: Stablecoin Legitimization - The "Genius Act" passed by the U.S. House of Representatives signifies the formal acceptance of stablecoins, moving them from a gray area to a regulated status [1][3]. - The act is interpreted as a tool for the U.S. to solidify the dollar's supremacy and ensure its share in global dollar payments [5][6]. Group 2: Liquidity Implications - The relationship between the dollar and stablecoins suggests that one dollar can generate multiple dollars in purchasing power through the issuance of stablecoins [24][28]. - The potential for stablecoins to create a multiplier effect on the dollar's purchasing power could lead to a significant increase in liquidity, estimated to reach $4 trillion from a stablecoin market of $2 trillion within three years [42]. Group 3: Impact on Monetary Policy - The introduction of stablecoins may allow the U.S. government to bypass traditional monetary policy mechanisms, effectively creating a "shadow central bank" that operates similarly to the Federal Reserve [31][40]. - The shift in the issuance of currency from the Federal Reserve to stablecoin issuers could lead to a scenario where stablecoins replace the dollar, diminishing the need for the Federal Reserve's involvement [39][40]. Group 4: Market Effects - The influx of liquidity from stablecoins is expected to impact asset prices significantly, potentially leading to bubbles in dollar-denominated assets [48][50]. - The U.S. government's strategy of leveraging stablecoins for debt issuance may have long-term implications for global capital markets, particularly for countries reliant on dollar transactions [46][47].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of former President Trump's actions against the Federal Reserve, suggesting that his attempts to undermine its independence could threaten the stability of the U.S. dollar and the broader financial system [1][5][10]. Group 1: Trump's Actions and Motivations - Trump has been pressuring the Federal Reserve, including the dismissal of board member Lisa Cook, to lower interest rates in an effort to stimulate the economy and reduce debt costs ahead of the midterm elections [1][4][10]. - The urgency behind Trump's actions is linked to rising inflation and unemployment in the U.S., as well as the significant national debt of $36 trillion, which incurs over $1 trillion in interest annually [4][10]. Group 2: Federal Reserve's Independence - The Federal Reserve was established in 1913 to prevent financial crises, designed to be an independent entity that balances power between the government and private banks [7][8]. - The independence of the Federal Reserve is crucial for maintaining confidence in the U.S. dollar and preventing inflation, as historical instances of political interference have led to severe economic consequences [9][11]. Group 3: Potential Consequences - Trump's actions could lead to a loss of confidence in the Federal Reserve, prompting global investors to sell off U.S. dollars and bonds, which could destabilize the financial system [10][12]. - The article warns that undermining the Federal Reserve's independence for personal political gain could have dire repercussions, as seen in past instances where political pressure led to rampant inflation [11][12].

Group 1 - The U.S. has canceled the tax exemption policy for packages valued under $800, effective from the 29th of this month, which will significantly impact cross-border e-commerce, particularly affecting Chinese companies [1][3] - Seven countries, including New Zealand, India, Germany, France, Belgium, Austria, and Denmark, have announced a suspension of parcel shipments to the U.S., complicating the operations of small cross-border e-commerce businesses and limiting the influx of consumer goods into the U.S. market [3][5] - The U.S. aims to pressure China to halt imports of Iranian oil, using sanctions against two Chinese companies accused of facilitating Iranian oil transport, which reflects a broader strategy to weaken Iran's economic position [5][7] Group 2 - The cancellation of the tax exemption policy is designed to undermine the competitive edge of small and medium-sized e-commerce businesses in China, allowing U.S. companies to maintain their market position against cheaper foreign products [7][9] - The U.S. is leveraging its economic and trade policies to isolate Iran while simultaneously targeting China's energy import needs, indicating a strategic approach to both economic warfare and geopolitical maneuvering [9][11] - The current U.S. actions are seen as a response to domestic economic challenges, with the Federal Reserve's inaction on interest rates creating a backdrop for these aggressive trade policies [11][15] Group 3 - China is expected to respond with flexible strategic measures, enhancing multilateral economic cooperation and reducing reliance on oil imports, indicating a long-term resilience against U.S. pressures [13][15] - The international community is increasingly wary of the U.S.'s unilateral sanctions and policies, which are perceived as detrimental to global trust and cooperation [13][15]

Group 1 - The trade war between the US and China began in 2018 and has intensified, with both sides facing domestic economic pressures and international scrutiny [1] - The US perceives China's economic rise as a threat to its dominance, particularly in manufacturing and technology, while China views the US actions as an attempt to suppress its development [1][3] - The US has implemented tariffs on Chinese goods, citing issues like intellectual property theft and trade deficits, leading to escalating tariff rates from 10% to 145% [3] Group 2 - China's exports have been hindered due to the trade war, resulting in a slowdown in economic growth, with a GDP growth of 5.2% in Q2 2025, supported by government subsidies [4] - The trade war has led to increased inflation in the US, with PCE inflation expectations rising to 2.7% in 2025, while China faces weakened employment and domestic demand [6] - The ultimate goal of the economic conflict is for the US to maintain its dollar hegemony and global economic order, while China aims to establish a new global economic system and enhance its manufacturing capabilities [6][7] Group 3 - The trade war is seen as a decisive factor in determining the new world order, with potential outcomes affecting the dominance of the US dollar and the global trade landscape [7] - Both countries are currently in a stalemate, with the US struggling with domestic issues and military strength, while China maintains a relatively stable social environment [7]

Core Viewpoint - The recent $1.39 trillion trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU, while appearing to be a significant victory for the U.S., reveals underlying challenges and potential weaknesses in the U.S. dollar's dominance in global markets [1][3]. Trade Agreement Details - The agreement includes commitments from the EU to purchase $750 billion in U.S. energy products and $400 billion in AI chips by 2028, along with an additional $600 billion in investments from European companies into U.S. strategic sectors [1]. - However, the actual projected energy imports from the EU to the U.S. for 2024 are only $64.55 billion, falling significantly short of the annual target of $250 billion [1]. Tariff Adjustments - The U.S. will reduce tariffs on EU automobiles from 27.5% to 15%, while the EU will eliminate tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods, with a 15% cap on tariffs for key products like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals [3]. - Economists criticize this as a superficial exchange, suggesting that the EU is making significant concessions without receiving equivalent benefits [3]. Federal Reserve Dynamics - Following the trade agreement, President Trump nominated Stephen Milan, a proponent of weakening the dollar, to the Federal Reserve, which could lead to a significant shift in U.S. monetary policy [3][4]. - The market reacted strongly, with a 91.1% probability of a rate cut by September indicated in federal funds futures, leading to a decline in the dollar index [3]. Political Influence on the Federal Reserve - Tensions within the Federal Reserve are escalating, with Trump pressuring for the removal of Biden-appointed board members, which could result in a majority of Trump-aligned members on the board [4]. - Milan's proposals for reforming the Federal Reserve could undermine its independence, potentially leading to a repeat of past economic crises [5]. Global Market Reactions - The potential loss of independence for the Federal Reserve has raised alarms in global markets, with warnings from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and the IMF about the risks of politicizing central banks [5]. - A decline in the dollar's credibility could lead to a sell-off, increasing the attractiveness of gold and other currencies, while also distorting trade flows due to high tariffs [5]. Economic Philosophies Clash - The trade agreement reflects a clash between the U.S.'s unilateral approach under Trump and China's multilateral "Belt and Road" initiative, with implications for global supply chains [7]. - Short-term benefits may arise for risk assets, but long-term consequences could include rising inflation and economic friction with the EU and Switzerland over the U.S.'s weak dollar strategy [7].

Core Viewpoint - The article argues that the U.S. dollar's hegemony is not diminishing but is being undermined by the U.S. government's excessive debt issuance and the politicization of its "safe asset" status, which erodes global investor confidence in U.S. Treasuries [2][27][28]. Group 1: Foundation of Dollar Hegemony - The foundation of dollar hegemony lies in the consensus around U.S. Treasuries as a "safe asset," characterized by long-term value retention, liquidity, and negative beta properties during crises [3][6]. - The concept of "exorbitant privilege" refers to the unique advantages the U.S. enjoys as the issuer of the world's primary reserve currency, allowing it to issue debt to cover trade deficits without significant repercussions [4][11]. Group 2: Manifestations of Dollar Hegemony - Dollar hegemony manifests in three key privileges: low-interest financing, the ability to roll over debt without repayment, and enhanced fiscal space during crises [9][10][13]. - Low-interest financing results from the high liquidity and quality of U.S. Treasuries, leading to a "convenience yield" that lowers the cost of borrowing for the U.S. [10][11]. - The U.S. can sustain high levels of debt without immediate repayment obligations, effectively engaging in a "Ponzi-like" financing model, as long as interest rates remain below economic growth rates [13][14]. Group 3: Current Status of Dollar Hegemony - The current status of dollar hegemony is challenged by the U.S. government's excessive debt issuance, which has pushed the debt-to-GDP ratio above 120%, raising concerns about fiscal sustainability [27][28]. - The politicization of U.S. Treasuries, exemplified by the freezing of foreign reserves, has created uncertainty about their status as a "safe asset," potentially leading to a loss of confidence among global investors [28][29]. - The absence of "ultimate buyers" for U.S. debt, as countries diversify their reserves away from Treasuries, poses a significant risk to the maintenance of the dollar's hegemonic status [30].

Core Viewpoint - China's central bank has been steadily increasing its gold reserves for nine consecutive months, reaching a total of 73.96 million ounces (approximately 2300 tons), amidst speculation that this trend may soon halt due to external pressures, particularly from the U.S. [2][4][9] Group 1: China's Gold Accumulation Strategy - The Chinese central bank's approach to gold accumulation is characterized by a steady and methodical increase, purchasing 50,000 to 100,000 ounces monthly since November, which has resulted in a significant accumulation of hard currency [4][7] - Unlike other countries, China's gold purchases are all repatriated, enhancing its domestic reserves rather than relying on foreign storage [7][9] - China's gold reserves currently account for only 7% of its total reserves, significantly below the global average of 15%, indicating potential for further accumulation [9][11] Group 2: Impact of U.S. Tariffs on Gold Prices - The U.S. has imposed a punitive 39% tariff on Switzerland, which is expected to affect gold prices due to Switzerland's role in the global gold supply chain [4][11] - This tariff could lead to a situation where U.S. gold becomes more expensive compared to other countries, as Switzerland refines 70% of the world's gold [11][13] - The imposition of tariffs reflects a broader strategy by the U.S. to maintain dollar dominance, but it may inadvertently strengthen the position of gold as a reliable asset [11][15] Group 3: Global Monetary Dynamics - Central banks worldwide are accumulating gold at an unprecedented rate, with 95% indicating plans to continue buying in the coming year, signaling a shift in global monetary dynamics [11][15] - The rise in gold accumulation is seen as a preparation for potential instability in the dollar system, with countries like China reducing U.S. Treasury holdings while increasing gold reserves [15][16] - The evolving landscape suggests that gold is becoming more than just a safe-haven asset; it is emerging as a key player in the reconfiguration of the global financial order [16]