The Undesired Crown: The Hidden Costs of Global Reserve Currency
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
The Undesired Crown: The Hidden Costs of Global Reserve Currency
No single country can sustainably provide basic global currency functions.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Zeus
Translation: Block unicorn
Introduction
For decades, economists and policymakers have described the global dominance of the dollar as an "exorbitant privilege"—a crown jewel of American power that grants the United States unparalleled economic advantages on the world stage. We're told that other nations eye this status enviously, plotting to overthrow the dollar and seize its privileged position.
Yet reality tells a different story. The truth is far more complex than intuition suggests: while a segment of the U.S. economy—particularly financial institutions and capital markets—benefits immensely from reserve currency status, these gains are highly concentrated, while the costs are widely dispersed across the nation. This structural imbalance makes the role of reserve currency inherently unsustainable in the long run, regardless of who holds it. What appears to be a privilege reveals itself upon closer inspection as a gilded cage—one whose advantages come with severe structural costs.
The Hidden Burden of Reserve Status
The fundamental problem with reserve currency status lies in what economists call the "Triffin dilemma," named after Belgian economist Robert Triffin, who articulated the concept in the 1960s. At its core is an irreconcilable conflict: to supply enough dollars for international trade and reserves, the United States must run persistent trade deficits, effectively exporting dollars in exchange for goods.
While these deficits are essential for global monetary stability, they gradually erode America's domestic manufacturing base, labor market, and the very economic foundation that made the dollar attractive in the first place. The issuing country of a reserve currency becomes trapped in a contradiction between domestic and international priorities—one that cannot be permanently resolved, only managed at ever-increasing cost.
The most visible consequence has been the dramatic hollowing out of American manufacturing. Since the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971 cemented the dollar’s uncontested reserve status, the U.S. has undergone a profound industrial transformation. Manufacturing’s share of GDP has declined from about 25% in the 1960s to less than 12% today. Entire regions once dedicated to production have been gutted, forming the infamous "Rust Belt" and bringing deep social upheaval along with this shift.
Less understood is that this transformation was not a policy failure but an inevitable structural consequence of the dollar’s global role. When a nation’s currency becomes the world’s primary reserve asset, it must mathematically consume more than it produces and import more than it exports. The result is a slow deindustrialization masked by consumer prosperity.
Export-Oriented Economies’ Calculations
It is commonly assumed that export powerhouses like Germany, Japan, and China would eagerly seize reserve currency status if given the chance. Their economic strategies center on export-driven growth, accumulating massive trade surpluses and foreign exchange reserves. Surely, they would want their currencies to occupy the privileged position now held by the dollar?
Yet these countries have consistently shown a curious hesitation to promote their currencies as true alternatives to the dollar. Even as China speaks of RMB internationalization, its actual policies remain cautious and limited in scope.
This reluctance is no accident—it reflects a clear-eyed understanding of the associated costs. For export-oriented economies, reserve currency status would be economically devastating. Rising demand for their currency would drive up its value, making exports more expensive and imports cheaper. The resulting trade deficits would undermine the export-led model that powers their economies.
Japan’s experience in the 1980s offers a cautionary tale. As the yen began to internationalize and appreciate, Japanese policymakers grew concerned about its impact on the export sector. The 1985 Plaza Accord triggered a sharp appreciation of the yen, ultimately ending Japan’s economic miracle and ushering in its “lost three decades.” China, closely observing this history, naturally seeks to avoid repeating such a fate.
For these countries, the current arrangement offers a better deal: they can maintain undervalued currencies to boost exports while recycling dollar surpluses into U.S. Treasury bonds—effectively lending money back to Americans so they can buy their products. This dollar recycling allows them to preserve export competitiveness while funding the American consumption that drives their own growth.
At the same time, they are spared the burdens of providing global liquidity, managing international financial crises, or struggling with contradictions between domestic needs and international responsibilities. They enjoy the benefits of the dollar system without bearing its costs.
Mounting Hesitation in the United States
Perhaps the strongest evidence that reserve currency status is not the generous prize it’s often portrayed to be comes from the United States itself. An increasing number of U.S. policymakers across diverse political factions are questioning whether the "exorbitant privilege" is worth its domestic costs.
The Trump administration clearly signaled this shift. Its tariff policies, reintroduced with greater force during his second term, directly challenge the mechanisms underpinning dollar hegemony. By imposing broad 10% tariffs on all imports (with higher rates for specific countries), the administration effectively declared that the U.S. is no longer willing to sacrifice its industrial base for the sake of reserve currency status.
When Trump called tariffs “the most beautiful word in the dictionary,” he marked a profound shift in American priorities. The goal was explicit: reduce trade deficits, even at the cost of undermining the mechanism that sustains dollar dominance.
This is not merely a Trump anomaly. Trade skepticism has increasingly become bipartisan consensus, with prominent figures across the political spectrum questioning orthodox free-trade doctrines and their impact on American workers. For decades, maintaining dollar hegemony justified domestic deindustrialization—but that consensus is now crumbling on both left and right.
Asymmetric Benefits
To understand why the current system persists despite no one wanting to occupy the core position, we must recognize the asymmetric benefits it creates for different actors.
For emerging economies, the dollar system offers a proven development path. By maintaining undervalued currencies and focusing on exports, countries from South Korea to Vietnam have advanced their industrialization. Manufacturing jobs lay the foundation for a growing middle class, while technology transfer accelerates modernization. These nations willingly accept dollar dominance as the entry fee for this development model.
For financial centers like Switzerland, Singapore, and the UK, the dollar system creates rich opportunities without requiring them to bear the full burden of reserve currency status. They can participate in global dollar markets, provide financial services for dollar flows, and capture significant value—all without suffering the kind of manufacturing decline faced by major reserve currency issuers.
Meanwhile, for the United States, the costs are partially masked by consumer benefits. Americans enjoy low prices on imported goods, easy access to credit, and lower interest rates than would otherwise exist. The finance sector centered in New York captures enormous value by managing global dollar flows. Historically, these visible benefits outweighed the less obvious but deeply consequential cost of industrial hollowing.
Inevitable Transition
History teaches us that no reserve currency lasts forever. From the Portuguese real to the Dutch guilder to the British pound, each global currency eventually yielded as its underlying economic foundation eroded. The current predicament of the dollar suggests this historical pattern continues.
What makes our moment unique is that no country seems eager to take on this burden. China, most frequently cited as a potential successor, has shown notable hesitation toward full RMB internationalization. Europe’s euro project remains incomplete without fiscal union. Japan and the UK lack the necessary economic scale.
This collective hesitation creates an unprecedented situation: the leading reserve currency shows signs of stepping back from its role, yet no clear alternative stands ready.
Trump’s aggressive tariff policies may accelerate this transition. By prioritizing domestic industry over international financial arrangements, the government signals that the U.S. will no longer accept the structural trade deficits required of a reserve currency issuer. But without these deficits, the world may face a dollar shortage, severely constraining global trade and finance.
Seeking a New Balance
If the current reserve currency arrangement has become unsustainable, what comes next? More importantly, how chaotic will this transition be?
We should acknowledge that historically, transitions from one global monetary order to another have often been disorderly—frequently accompanied by financial crises, political instability, and sometimes even war. The shift from pound to dollar was neither planned nor orderly—it emerged amid the chaos of two world wars and the Great Depression. We should expect no less turbulence in any future transition unless we consciously design for stability.
The most discussed alternative is a multipolar currency system, where several major currencies share reserve status. This would distribute both benefits and burdens across multiple economies, potentially relieving any single nation of the pressure to sustain excessive deficits.
However, a multipolar system brings its own challenges. Fragmented liquidity increases transaction costs and complicates crisis response. Coordination problems among competing monetary authorities worsen during financial stress. Most fundamentally, this approach merely shifts the Triffin dilemma onto multiple shoulders rather than resolving its core contradiction.
Principles for an Ideal Alternative
Rather than fixating on specific implementation designs, let us consider the principles an ideal reserve system—and its transition—should follow: a framework capable of resolving the central paradox—that the costs of reserve currency status are too great for any single nation to bear indefinitely.
1. Collective Governance Instead of Unilateral Control
The fundamental issue with national currencies as reserve assets is the unavoidable conflict between domestic needs and international responsibilities. An ideal system would separate these functions while allowing nations to remain stakeholders in the system’s governance.
This does not mean nations become powerless—in fact, quite the opposite. They would gain more meaningful collective influence within a structure serving common interests directly, rather than being subject to the domestic political pressures of a single country. Neutrality does not imply abandoning national participation; it means transforming how participation occurs.
2. Principled Supply Management
The current system contains one key feature worth preserving: the ability to expand the monetary base and export it to meet global demand. This capacity is crucial for global economic functioning. The problem is not expansion itself, but who bears its cost and how it is governed.
An ideal system would retain this expansiveness while adding what the current system lacks: symmetric contraction when appropriate. This balanced approach preserves the strengths of today’s system while addressing its structural weaknesses.
This isn’t about inventing entirely new mechanisms, but implementing principles understood for decades yet unrealized due to political constraints.
3. Absorptive Transition Rather Than Replacement
Perhaps the most important principle is that any viable alternative must absorb rather than attack the current system. The approximately $36 trillion in U.S. Treasury securities held by entities worldwide cannot simply be discarded—doing so would cause catastrophic damage to the global economy.
An ideal system would create sustained demand for these assets during transition, enabling gradual evolution instead of disruptive revolution. This isn’t about harming any nation’s interests, but ensuring continuity throughout the system’s transformation.
The current reserve currency issuer (the U.S.) would actually benefit from this approach—gaining the ability to rebalance its economy toward production without triggering a debt market collapse that harms everyone.
4. Crisis Resilience by Design
Financial crises are inevitable. What matters is how the system responds. The current arrangement relies heavily on discretionary interventions by central banks—especially the Fed—where political considerations often influence timing and scale.
An ideal alternative would incorporate pre-defined, transparent mechanisms to stabilize markets during stress—providing emergency liquidity, preventing panic contagion, and ensuring critical markets continue functioning even when individual self-interest might drive destructive behavior.
Importantly, this approach does not eliminate national-level discretionary crisis response. Sovereign currencies would retain their full toolkit—central banks could still conduct emergency operations, implement unconventional monetary policies, or respond to domestic financial stress as needed. The difference is that the international reserve layer would operate through more predictable, rule-based mechanisms, reducing dependence on unilateral decisions by a single nation to maintain global stability. This creates a complementary two-tier system: predictable international coordination alongside flexible national responses, each fulfilling distinct roles.
5. Managed Appreciation Trajectory
Notably, a stable but controllably appreciating reserve asset offers certain systemic benefits. It creates natural incentives for central banks to gradually increase holdings while still allowing export-driven economies to function normally. Since these export economies already manage their currencies relative to the dollar, they can continue doing so against the new reserve asset.
The Path of Transition
The most dangerous phase in monetary evolution is the transition period. Here, designing for stability is paramount. The shift might unfold across several stages:
Preliminary Adoption: Begin with complementary coexistence rather than replacement, allowing the new system to build credibility with minimal disruption.
Reserve Diversification: Institutions, especially central banks, would gradually include the new asset in their reserves, reducing dollar concentration without triggering market panic.
Settlement Function Development: As liquidity and adoption grow, the system could increasingly serve as a medium for settling international trade.
Mature Equilibrium: Eventually, a new balance emerges—national currencies retain their domestic functions, while international roles shift toward a more neutral system.
Throughout this process, the dollar remains significant—only gradually relieved of the unbearable burden of simultaneously serving domestic and international demands. This represents evolution, not revolution.
Transition Challenges
No matter how well-designed a theoretical alternative may be, transitioning from the current dollar-centric system faces immense hurdles. The dollar is deeply entrenched in global trade, financial markets, and central bank reserves. Sudden change could trigger currency crises, debt defaults, and market failures with devastating human consequences.
A responsible transition requires building bridges between systems, not tearing them down. Those advocating revolutionary approaches calling for dollar collapse risk precisely the kind of economic disaster the monetary system should prevent. Despite its flaws, billions still depend on its continued operation—even as alternatives develop.
The most feasible path forward is gradual evolution, not sudden revolution. A new system must prove its superiority through practicality, not ideology—gaining adoption through positive incentives rather than forced disruption.
Prosperity Considerations
The ultimate measure of any monetary system is not ideological purity, but its real-world impact on human prosperity. The asymmetric distribution of benefits and burdens created by the current reserve currency arrangement increasingly appears unsustainable. A well-designed alternative could foster more balanced prosperity by:
-
Allowing the U.S. to rebalance toward production without triggering a currency crisis
-
Providing export-oriented nations with a more predictable monetary environment, avoiding political entanglements
-
Shielding emerging markets from collateral damage caused by policies designed for other economies
-
Reducing geopolitical tensions arising from financial weaponization
Ultimately, prosperity hinges on balancing stability, adaptability, and fairness—creating a system that offers sufficient predictability for long-term planning, responds effectively to changing conditions, and distributes benefits more equitably than the current order.
Conclusion: A Burden No Single Nation Can Bear Alone
The truth about reserve currency status contains important nuance. It's not that no one wants it—certain segments of the financial sector undoubtedly benefit and thus support it. Rather, the benefits are concentrated while the costs are broadly distributed across the wider economy. This inherent structural imbalance makes the role unsustainable over time, whoever bears the burden.
Trump’s policies suggest the U.S. may no longer be willing to accept these diffuse costs to maintain its global role. Yet the system endures because, flawed as it is, everyone depends on someone fulfilling these functions.
The irony of history is that after decades of accusations that other nations “manipulate” their currencies to escape the dollar’s role, it may be the United States itself that ultimately sheds the burden of reserve currency status. This presents both danger and opportunity—both the risk of disorderly transition and the chance to design a fundamentally better system.
The challenge we face is not merely technical, but philosophical—to redesign the foundations of global finance to serve human prosperity rather than narrow national interests. If we succeed, we may finally resolve the paradox: no single nation can sustainably provide essential global monetary functions.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@ohmzeus
