英语论文网

/> For others, such as the economists Freedman (2000), Goodhart (2000), and Woodford (2000), the power to strike back lies not in the central bank's regulatory authority but in its continuing ability to influence interest rates. In Freedman's words: "Even in the extremely unlikely case... that the development of network money permitted alternative settlement services to be offered that effectively competed with central bank services, central banks would very likely be able to continue to influence the policy rate" (Freedman 2000: 4). Central banks, it is said, could retain influence over interest rates simply by conducting open-market or discount-rate operations in electronic monies as well as in their own state-sanctioned currency. But how easy might that be for policymakers, requiring transactions in currencies that they themselves do not create? Central banks would have no choice but to build up a war chest of e-currencies in the same way that they now hold foreign-exchange reserves. But that is still not the same as their traditional power to create national money at will. Interest rates might be influenced, but imperfectly at best.

The threat, in short, is indeed real. The risk is not that the power of the sovereign state will disappear -- at least not in the sense of the state's ability to control the supply of its own money. Rather it is that as the population of monies grows the power of the state, as Issing and King imply, will simply become more and more irrelevant. The autonomy of monetary policy will, gradually, just fade away. That is -- or should be -- as much a worry for the reserve centers as it already is for others. Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding, the dawn appears to be anything but false.

IV. Conclusion  结论

As indicated, my conclusions are more consistent with the spirit of the predictions of Kobrin and Friedman than with the sanguine view expressed by Helleiner and others. The anticipated era of electronic money, though an entirely natural development in the context of today's rapidly globalizing world economy, will indeed have a profound impact on the effectiveness of monetary policy - less so in countries with weaker currencies, where control of aggregate spending has already been compromised by the accelerating deterritorialization of national monies; definitely more so in the reserve centers, where domestic monetary monopolies will be seriously breached for the first time. The world will have circled back to a time when cross-border circulation of currencies was widespread and private monies were commonplace.
The irony of all this is hard to escape. For years, the followers of Friedrich Hayek have been calling for denationalization of money, to little avail. Governments have, quite understandably, been resistant to any voluntary surrender of authority. Yet what could not be achieved by intellectual persuasion now seems about to be produced instead by technological development and the rush of events. With the arrival of electronic money, money creation will become increasingly privatized. Hayek's vision of a world of unrestricted currency competition could, for better or for worse, soon become reality. (17)

There seems little doubt, therefore, that state dominance of money is seriously threatened. Like it or not, governments will have little choice but to look for new instrument本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。