朋友们可能都听说了，最近美国那边的媒体又在传一个说法，说什么中国"停止抛售美债"，美联储"无奈让步"。听起来挺刺激 的，好像咱们在金融战场上取得了什么重大胜利似的。 事情真的是这样吗？咱们不妨把这个话题掰开了、揉碎了好好聊聊。 说起美债这事儿，就得从最基本的数字说起。根据美国财政部2025年2月18日公布的最新数据，中国持有美国国债的规模已经降 到了7590亿美元。这个数字意味着什么呢？这是中国自2009年以来持有美债的最低水平。 回想一下，在2011年的时候，咱们持有美债的峰值是1.3万亿美元左右。从那时候到现在，总共减持了约5500亿美元，降幅超过 40%。单是2024年一整年，就减持了573亿美元。更有意思的是，2024年全年12个月里，有9个月都在减持，只有4月、6月和11月 增持了一点点。 这些数字告诉我们什么？中国确实在持续减持美债，而且这个趋势已经延续了好几年。从2022年4月开始，咱们持有的美债就一 直保持在1万亿美元以下，每年都在稳步下降：2022年减持1732亿美元，2023年减持508亿美元，2024年减持573亿美元。 那美媒说的"停止抛售"是怎么来的呢？仔细分析一下就会发现，这个说法 ...

可见那些抛出或将要抛出的"美债"的钱,都早就被央行"悄悄"地收了,现在就藏在了央行的"仓库"里了，这就好比你将自己的钱交给了银行,银行既能保证你的 钱的安全，还能给你高的存款利息，那么你就真真切切地把自己的钱交给了银行，也就真真切切地将自己的钱交给了银行的"仓库"里了!在近11个月的连续 增长背景下，截至2025年9月，中国的黄金储备已再次刷新了新高，达到了惊人的7406万盎司（合约2304吨的黄金）。 随着西方的出手一纸制裁令，俄罗斯的3万亿美元的海外资产几乎都被瞬间给"冻结"了起来，俄罗斯的经济又一次经受了西方的打击。但更不幸的是，这笔 巨款不仅把本金都扣了个精光，就连从中产生的利息也都被一并转给了乌克兰。 但这场"金融闪电战"却让全球各国都在背后为自己的钱都能不能"冻"而发抖：今天能把俄罗斯的钱都给冻结了，明天就不知道会不会轮到我自己的钱 都"冻"了呢？ 中国行动快得惊人。美国财政部最新数据显示，中国持有的美债规模已跌至7307亿美元，创下2009年以来新低。光是2025年7月一个月就抛了257亿美元。这 不是偶然操作，而是一场持续数年的战略撤退——相比2013年时中国手握1.3万亿美元美债，如今规模几 ...

Core Insights - The Trump administration's financial support to Argentina raises concerns about the "weaponization" of the dollar and its implications for global financial stability [1][2][3] Group 1: Nature of Financial Support - The financial support provided to Argentina is characterized as a loan from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) rather than a traditional central bank swap arrangement [2][3] - This support is politically motivated, aimed at improving the political prospects of President Javier Milei's party following poor performance in local elections [1][2] Group 2: Implications for Global Financial Stability - The use of ESF for political purposes deviates from its historical role, which was limited to addressing unexpected external shocks or systemic crises threatening U.S. financial stability [1][2] - Concerns are growing regarding the reliability of the Federal Reserve in providing dollar liquidity during global crises, especially if political pressures influence its decisions [1][3] Group 3: Alternatives and Future Considerations - In the event that the Federal Reserve refuses to provide liquidity, alternatives are limited, with other central banks unable to match the speed and conditions of dollar liquidity [4] - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) could serve as a last resort, but its capacity is constrained by the size of its resources, which may not be sufficient during significant market shocks [4][5] - A proposed increase in IMF quotas could enhance its ability to respond quickly and effectively in crises, but this requires approval from the U.S. Congress [5]

Core Points - Brazil's Finance Minister Fernando Haddad announced that Brazil may file a lawsuit in U.S. courts in response to the recent imposition of high tariffs on various Brazilian goods exported to the U.S. [1] - Haddad emphasized that Brazil will not engage in lobbying but will legally defend its national interests, stating that legal action will be taken if necessary [1] - He also mentioned that countries have the right to use their own currencies for bilateral trade, warning that the U.S. "weaponizing" the dollar could undermine its international influence [1] Tariff Details - The U.S. has imposed a 40% ad valorem tariff on Brazilian exports, with most products facing tariff rates as high as 50% [1]

Core Viewpoint - Brazil is considering legal action against the U.S. regarding high tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Brazilian goods, which could significantly impact its exports [1][2]. Group 1: Tariff Implications - Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad stated that Brazil may file a lawsuit in U.S. courts against the high tariffs imposed on its products [1][2]. - The U.S. has imposed a 50% tariff on a majority of Brazilian exports, including key products like coffee, beef, and sugar, effective from August 6 [2]. - Approximately 57% of Brazil's total exports to the U.S. are affected by these tariffs [2]. Group 2: Legal and Diplomatic Actions - Brazil has engaged the U.S. law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer to provide legal defense regarding the sanctions [2]. - The Brazilian government plans to utilize all available resources, including the World Trade Organization (WTO), to defend its interests against the U.S. tariffs [2]. Group 3: Trade Dynamics - The trade relationship between the U.S. and Brazil is characterized by a trade surplus for the U.S., with a projected total goods trade of approximately $92 billion in 2024 and a U.S. trade surplus of $7.4 billion [2]. - Brazil's President Lula has expressed strong opposition to the tariffs, asserting that the U.S. has no authority to impose such high tariffs on Brazil [2]. Group 4: Global Economic Concerns - Haddad noted that global leaders are feeling a lack of security regarding the U.S. and its future actions [3]. - He warned that the "weaponization" of the dollar could undermine its status as a reserve currency, suggesting that countries may increasingly engage in bilateral trade using their own currencies to reduce transaction costs [4].

Group 1 - The U.S. is applying pressure on China while simultaneously seeking access to its rare earth resources, highlighting a contradictory approach in trade relations [1][3] - China's trade with ASEAN surged by 15.8% in the first half of the year, while its trade share with the U.S. fell to a ten-year low, indicating a shift in trade dynamics [1] - The U.S. has imposed a 93.5% anti-dumping tax on Chinese graphite, raising the total tax rate to 160%, which directly impacts China's dominance in the electric vehicle battery supply chain [3][5] Group 2 - U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen threatened to impose a 100% "secondary tariff" on China if it purchases Russian oil, aiming to control China's energy imports [5] - China's response includes a strong stance against unilateral sanctions and a potential use of financial countermeasures, with the central bank governor joining the negotiation team [5] - The negotiation environment in Sweden, away from Washington, may reveal more genuine intentions from the U.S. government, despite underlying personal business interests linked to the Trump family [1][3]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the historical and current challenges faced by currencies like the Ruble, Yen, Euro, and the potential for the Renminbi to challenge the dominance of the US dollar in the global financial system [1][2][3][4][5][6][9][10]. Group 1: Historical Context of Currency Competition - The Ruble was once considered a competitor to the dollar until the economic weaknesses of the Soviet Union became apparent [1]. - The Plaza Accord in 1985 led to a rapid appreciation of the Yen, which contributed to Japan's asset bubble, but did not result in the Yen becoming a major global reserve currency [2][3]. - The Euro has faced significant challenges since its inception, particularly during the Eurozone debt crisis, which highlighted the lack of a unified fiscal policy among member states [3][4]. Group 2: Characteristics of Global Reserve Currencies - A global reserve currency typically requires military power to ensure its dominance, as seen with historical currencies of Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK [5]. - The US has maintained its position as the global reserve currency due to its military spending and the favorable external environment post-World War II [5][6]. Group 3: Current and Future Prospects for the Renminbi - The increasing global attention on the Renminbi is partly due to the erosion of trust in the US dollar under Trump's administration, leading to a search for alternative reserve currencies [6][9]. - The Renminbi's potential as a reserve currency is hindered by its limited circulation and the lack of liquid Renminbi-denominated assets [7][9]. - For the Renminbi to challenge the dollar, it must establish a settlement network, particularly in Asia, and build trust in its stability and convertibility [10].

Group 1 - The article emphasizes that the recent U.S. tariff increases are ineffective and that the trend of re-globalization is irreversible [1][3] - It discusses the anxiety in the U.S. regarding its declining global dominance, which has led to current tensions, particularly in the context of U.S.-China relations [3][4] - The article highlights that the U.S. has shifted from multilateralism to a more transactional approach, which reveals a lack of strategic coherence [3][4] Group 2 - It points out that the U.S. manufacturing sector's decline is not solely due to trade agreements but is a result of a deep transformation of American capital over the past 40 years [4][5] - The article notes that while the U.S. continues to produce high-end and advanced technology products, these sectors are capital-intensive and cannot replace the jobs lost in labor-intensive manufacturing [4][5] - It mentions that emerging economies are increasingly seeking alternatives to the U.S. dollar for trade, particularly in the context of regional trade agreements [5][6] Group 3 - The article concludes that the U.S.-China trade dispute reflects a broader historical trend towards multipolarity and diversification of global reserve currencies [5][6] - It asserts that the world is not experiencing de-globalization but is instead advancing re-globalization under new conditions and rules [5][6]

Group 1 - The core argument is that Elon Musk and DOGE have reportedly prevented the theft of $175 billion from American taxpayers, which was allegedly funneled to fraudulent companies benefiting political allies [2] - The article emphasizes the contrast between Trump's military spending and his portrayal as a peace president, suggesting that internal and external threats are manipulated for political gain [3] - It argues that as long as the dollar remains the world's reserve currency, the U.S. deficit is not a significant issue, as foreign central banks are happy to hold U.S. debt [4] Group 2 - The article highlights that the real danger to U.S. debt financing comes from sanctions, which have led to the rise of BRICS nations seeking alternatives to the dollar [5] - It warns that losing the status of the world's reserve currency could have catastrophic consequences, drawing a parallel to the decline of Britain post-World War II [6]