面对欧洲的抢劫，普京正式开始反击了，一旦欧洲动用俄罗斯的主权资产，俄罗斯一定会对等报复，反正光脚的不怕穿鞋的。 终于，普京这次狠狠的反击了，欧洲做初一，俄罗斯就做十五，敢抢俄罗斯的主权资产，俄罗斯就敢反抢欧洲的主权资产！ 当地时间12月15日，俄罗斯央行干了一件大事——直接把总部设在比利时的欧洲清算银行告到了莫斯科仲裁法院，索赔金额高达18.2万亿卢布，差不多相当 于2300亿美元。 有意思的是，这个数可不是随便拍脑袋想出来的，它正好对上欧洲那边冻结的俄罗斯主权资产本金，再加上这几年滚出来的利息总额。 很明显，俄罗斯这回是正式动手反击了。 普京政府早就放话：只要欧洲敢动那些被冻结的资产，俄方的对等措施一定会跟上，说到做到。 要弄明白这件事，得先说说欧洲为什么要冻结俄罗斯的资产。 2022年俄乌冲突之后，欧盟那时就决定动手冻结俄罗斯留在海外的资产。 最初有个规矩：每过半年，必须27个成员国全部同意，才能继续冻着。 然而就在12月12日那天，欧盟突然变了卦——直接宣布把这些资产无限期冻结，以后连定期投票都省了。 说白了，这就是把俄罗斯的资金彻底摁在欧洲，不让动了。 被扣住的资产可不是小数目，总共大概值2100亿欧 ...

【邀请诺贝尔奖、图灵奖得主、两院院士、各行业专家，请联系五洲名家智库】 2023年6月，第十四届夏季达沃斯论坛于天津重启线下议程，全球政商学界精英云集，共探"企业家精神：世界经济驱动力"之大命题。北京大学国家发展研 究院张维迎教授应邀出席多场高层活动，就金融稳定、宏观政策、技术演进与绿色转型等核心议题发表主旨论述。其发言立基于市场过程理论与制度经济学 范式，对全球经济碎片化风险、中国经济结构性挑战及人类技术前景作出系统性阐释，被视为论坛期间最具理论纵深与政策穿透力的中国声音之一。 一、以"政策连续性"理念校准全球金融预期 当前，世界主要经济体货币政策分化加剧，跨境资本异常波动，全球金融稳定遭遇制度性侵蚀。张维迎在公开论坛指出，货币当局短期化、相机抉择式的政 策操作，是放大全球外溢风险的首要制度根源。其呼吁重建"规则优先、连续稳定"的国际货币伦理，通过多边机制约束政策冲动，为实体经济保留可预期的 金融环境。该主张以制度经济学视角揭示全球金融碎片化之深层病灶，为G20等多边平台完善宏观政策协调提供了学理支撑，亦契合国际机构对"重建全球 金融秩序"之警示。 二、以"企业创造力"逻辑重塑债务风险认知 面对部分国际舆论 ...

俄罗斯方面随即给出了强硬的回应。次日，俄外交部发言人扎哈罗娃便公开对冯德莱恩的提议予以批评，称 其"不当"，并预言欧盟将面临"惊喜"。这种表态，一方面以含糊的威胁制造心理压力，另一方面却未明确具 体的反击措施，给外界留下了巨大的猜测空间。 尽管俄罗斯的具体反制手段仍不明朗，但普遍认为，一旦莫斯科下定决心，其行动绝不会仅停留在口头层 面。俄欧之间错综复杂的经济账早已累积，此次若真撕破脸皮，其潜在后果难以估量。 欧盟内部在此问题上也并非铁板一块。最大的阻力来自比利时，因为高达90%的被冻结资产均存放在布鲁塞 尔的欧洲清算银行。若该方案得以实施，比利时将首当其冲，承担巨大的法律和金融风险，自然不愿充当"出 头鸟"。因此，比利时正积极寻求欧盟其他成员国的共同分担。 此外，匈牙利等国也明确表达了反对立场，显示出欧盟内部在这一问题上的分歧并非儿戏。支持乌克兰是一 回事，但为了援助乌克兰而牺牲数十年积累的金融信誉，却是任何国家都必须审慎权衡的。 归根结底，这场风波的本质远非仅仅是一千亿美元的归属问题。欧盟若执意迈出这一步，将可能在全球金融 秩序上留下难以弥合的裂痕。长期以来，西方国家以"产权神圣"和"法治至上"为标榜，如今 ...

Core Insights - The surge in gold prices is attributed to the unprecedented challenges facing the dollar's dominance, which has been a longstanding global financial system [1][10] - The current geopolitical tensions are not the sole cause; rather, the erosion of the dollar's credibility is a significant underlying issue [3][8] Group 1: Economic Context - The U.S. national debt has reached approximately $40 trillion, translating to over $110,000 per citizen, growing at an alarming rate of 8.5% annually, outpacing the economic growth rate of 2.3% [3][5] - The total U.S. national debt was only $900 billion in 1985, indicating a dramatic increase and a shift from being viewed as a safe asset to a source of global risk [5][10] Group 2: Central Bank Actions - Global central banks are increasingly shifting their reserves from U.S. Treasury bonds to gold, with the total value of gold reserves surpassing that of U.S. debt for the first time in 25 years [5][12] - China has reduced its holdings of U.S. debt by over $50 billion, while Japan has cut approximately $30 billion, reflecting a broader trend among nations to diversify away from dollar dependency [6][12] Group 3: Strategic Shift to Gold - The current gold purchasing trend among central banks is a strategic move to mitigate risks associated with over-reliance on a single currency [8][10] - Gold's unique characteristic as a non-debt asset makes it an attractive alternative, as it cannot be frozen or devalued by any single nation [12][20] Group 4: Future Implications - The potential for the U.S. to devalue the dollar or create a new digital currency could significantly impact the global financial order, leading to a re-evaluation of existing debt structures [13][15] - The ongoing shift towards gold reflects a broader societal consensus on the value of trust and stability in an era of rampant credit expansion [22]

Group 1 - The core issue revolves around the financial battle between Russia and the EU, with Russia quickly establishing a countermeasure against Western sanctions in just 10 days, while the EU's frozen Russian assets amount to €200 billion, becoming a contentious issue [1][14] - Russian President Putin signed a decree on September 30 to significantly simplify the process for selling state-owned assets, reducing the approval time from months to just 10 days, which is seen as a strategic move to counter potential EU asset seizures [3][14] - Russia has labeled the EU's freezing of its assets as "theft," with reports indicating that since 2022, Russia has frozen €12 billion worth of EU assets within its territory, involving major companies like Siemens and Total [4][14] Group 2 - The EU is experiencing internal conflict regarding the handling of the €200 billion in frozen Russian assets, with key leaders like Belgian Prime Minister De Wever and French President Macron opposing the seizure, citing legal and reputational concerns [6][9] - Concerns about legal ramifications are significant, as the EU lacks UN authorization to use sovereign assets, and there are fears of potential court losses if private assets are seized [9][8] - The asset dispute is intertwined with complex energy and trade interests, as Russia remains a crucial natural gas supplier to the EU, and any escalation could severely impact the EU's winter energy reserves and economic relations [11][14] Group 3 - The asset conflict has broader implications for the global financial order, with countries like the US and Canada supporting direct deductions from Russian assets, while developing economies like Brazil and India oppose such actions due to fears of disrupting the existing financial system [12][14] - Despite facing severe sanctions, Russia is attempting to maintain some connection with the global financial system, as indicated by Putin's remarks that Russia is not pursuing a "de-dollarization" strategy but is forced to use its own currency for transactions [12][14]

Group 1 - Russia may nationalize foreign assets within its territory and sell them quickly as retaliation against any European seizure of Russian overseas assets [2][3] - President Putin signed a decree allowing for expedited sales of state assets, aimed at accelerating the sale process for both Russian and foreign companies [3][4] - The decree limits pre-sale valuations to 10 days and accelerates ownership registration, with Promsvyazbank designated to handle such transactions [4] Group 2 - Hundreds of Western companies, including Unicredit, Raiffeisen Bank, PepsiCo, and Mondelez, continue to operate in Russia despite the geopolitical tensions [3] - The EU is gaining support for a plan to use frozen Russian central bank assets to provide €140 billion (approximately $164 billion) in loans to Ukraine [3][4] - Kremlin spokesperson Peskov labeled the EU's asset plan as "illegal seizure of Russian property" and warned that Western actions could disrupt the global financial order [4]

Core Points - The recent conflict between the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve has drawn global attention, highlighting the tension between political power and institutional independence [1][3] - Trump's actions, including the dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Cook, reflect a significant shift in the relationship between the presidency and the Federal Reserve, raising concerns about the independence of monetary policy [3][5] - The potential implications of this power struggle could destabilize not only the U.S. economy but also the global financial system, as the credibility of the Federal Reserve is crucial for global asset pricing [5][7] Group 1 - The Trump administration's approach to the Federal Reserve has been characterized by direct intervention and pressure, undermining the traditional independence of the central bank [1][3] - Trump's dismissal of Cook, based on unsubstantiated allegations, exemplifies a new precedent where presidential authority overrides established legal norms regarding the removal of Federal Reserve officials [3][5] - The political motivations behind these actions are evident, as they are aimed at consolidating power and influencing the upcoming 2026 midterm elections [5][7] Group 2 - The response from international figures, such as ECB President Lagarde, indicates widespread concern over the potential risks posed by Trump's interference in the Federal Reserve [5][7] - The current political landscape, with the Republican Party controlling both houses of Congress, limits the effectiveness of opposition voices, allowing Trump's agenda to proceed with minimal resistance [7][8] - The ongoing struggle between the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve reflects deeper societal conflicts and could lead to significant shifts in the U.S.'s position as a global financial leader [7][8]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of Trump's push for a legal stablecoin plan, suggesting it may undermine the Federal Reserve and shift the currency issuance power to private enterprises closely linked to Trump's family [2][5][12]. Group 1: Legalization of Stablecoins - Trump's team is promoting a legal stablecoin plan as part of the economic strategy for the 2024 campaign, aiming to integrate it into the dollar system [2][4]. - The stablecoins currently in circulation are primarily dollar-pegged, but this is seen as a facade, as they are actually backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, which rely on the Federal Reserve's credit [5][7]. Group 2: Implications for the Dollar System - The move to legalize stablecoins is perceived as a way to transfer the dollar's currency issuance authority from the Federal Reserve to private companies, many of which have ties to Trump's family [5][12]. - The U.S. national debt has surpassed $36 trillion, with annual interest payments exceeding $1 trillion, raising concerns about the sustainability of the dollar-backed stablecoins [7][10]. Group 3: Global Financial Dynamics - The article draws parallels between the current U.S. situation and historical instances in China, suggesting that the U.S. is attempting to create a new financial order while other countries, particularly China, are distancing themselves from the dollar system [10][12]. - China's reduction of U.S. Treasury holdings from $1.3 trillion to under $700 billion indicates a significant shift away from reliance on the dollar [10]. Group 4: Future of Stablecoins - There is speculation that stablecoins may eventually detach from the dollar and anchor to other assets, leading to a shift in global financial dynamics from rule-based to trust-based systems [12][14]. - The emergence of cryptocurrency companies linked to Trump's camp suggests a potential privatization of the global financial order, raising questions about the trustworthiness of such initiatives [12][14].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the declining confidence in U.S. Treasury bonds, highlighting China's recent sale of $18.9 billion in U.S. debt, reducing its holdings to $765.4 billion, and the implications of this financial maneuvering in the context of global economic stability [1][3][18]. Group 1: U.S. Economic Challenges - The U.S. economy has not fully recovered since the 2008 financial crisis, with GDP growth remaining weak and manufacturing shrinking [5][7]. - The U.S. government faces escalating fiscal deficits, with national debt approaching astronomical figures, raising concerns about potential bankruptcy [7][9]. - U.S. policies, including sanctions and the weaponization of the dollar, have led to a loss of trust in the stability of the U.S. financial system, causing global investors to reconsider the value of U.S. Treasury bonds [9][10]. Group 2: China's Strategic Moves - China has been gradually reducing its holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds, with a recent sale of $18.9 billion reflecting a strategic shift to mitigate risk [18][20]. - The reduction in U.S. debt holdings is part of a broader strategy to diversify investments and avoid over-reliance on U.S. assets, as the global financial landscape evolves [22][24]. - China's approach indicates a keen awareness of global market trends, focusing on investments in emerging sectors rather than solely on U.S. debt [22][24]. Group 3: Japan's Dilemma - Japan holds a significant amount of U.S. Treasury bonds, but its economic position limits its ability to reduce these holdings without facing repercussions from the U.S. [16][26]. - Despite recognizing the risks associated with U.S. debt, Japan's dependence on the U.S. for military and economic support complicates its financial decisions [16][26]. - Japan's situation illustrates the challenges faced by countries caught between the need for economic security and the risks of holding U.S. debt [26][28].