㈠ 最近的中美匯率戰爭是什麼回事
中國囤積了大量美金外匯，但美金由美聯儲發行，不由國家控制，且不與實物（黃金）相掛鉤，所以當美國想減少自己債務的時候便貶值，其他國家自然就得到廢紙一堆，，相當於你買一橘子五塊，想賣出去的時候發現就值三塊了，你賠錢賣出，美國一收，在提高匯率，再以五塊往外賣，就是在賺錢，損傷外匯儲備國經濟
㈡ 求《貨幣戰爭》全集電子版.要txt格式的。
鏈接:
《貨幣戰爭》是2007年6月宋鴻兵創作的著作，由中信出版社出版發行。
㈢ 請問最近匯率變動幅度最大的國家是哪個國家 並簡單說明一下理由 謝謝了~在線等
亞洲各經濟體央行紛紛入市干預，以遏制本國貨幣升值，因美元匯率持續走低引發了亞洲各國對出口商競爭力的擔憂。交易商表示，據猜測，韓國、印度、馬來西亞、台灣、菲律賓以及新加坡的央行都在積極干預外匯市場。
不過，沒有人暗示，亞洲各經濟體央行周三的舉動是協同的。各方認為，這只是政策制定者在對美元走弱作出單方面回應。但分析師們表示，這一趨勢將增強。「看看有多少家央行出手干預吧，」 Strategic Alpha的莫里斯?鮑莫瑞(Maurice Pomery)表示，「如果各家央行實行購買鄰國債券、以降低鄰國競爭力的政策，那麼局面將一團糟。
「如果美聯儲(Fed)啟動第二輪定量寬松政策（它肯定會這么做），那麼情況將變得更糟，美元將走低，從發達國家撤出投資、轉而投入新興經濟體的趨勢將會加強。」
弱於預期的美國經濟數據令市場預測，美聯儲將在年底前延長其定量寬松計劃。對於央行將出手干預的預期已推低美元匯率，同時大量資金湧向亞洲以及南美的新興市場，尋找發達經濟體無法提供的收益率。
的確，巴西財長吉多曼特加(Guido Mantega)周一曾表示，隨著全球各國政府競相壓低本幣匯率，一場「全球匯率戰爭」已打響。然而，亞洲各經濟體央行的行動只是減慢了該地區貨幣的升值速度
㈣ 匯率戰爭對世界經濟局勢的影響
美聯儲實際上是世界的中央銀行，美元的霸主地位沒有哪種貨幣能撼動，美國印發大量紙幣美元來掠奪世界的財富，因為美國是世界上最大的經濟體，任何一個可能挑戰他的地位經濟體都會回受到美國的打擊，日本二戰後經濟發展很快，20世紀80年代，日本的人均國民生產總值一度超過美國，美國迫使日本使日元升值，結果日元升值了，日本經濟90年代被稱為'失去的十年「；同樣歐盟經濟上21世紀初有所發展，歐盟的經濟總量和美國 差不多，歐元相對於美元比較強勢，有挑戰美元地位的趨勢，美國通過衍生品等導致歐洲有些國家出現債務危機，歐元一度成為燙手山芋，一蹶不振。現在又想讓人民幣升值，進而打壓中國經濟，防止或減緩中國在經濟上挑戰美國的可能，總之，美國挑起匯率戰爭的目的是打壓其他可能挑戰他的經濟霸主地位的經濟體，繼續維持美國在經濟上的霸主地位。
㈤ 什麼是匯率戰爭
基本抄是樓上的意思，但我要做點襲補充，你以為美國人逼人民幣升值目的那麼簡單？恐怕你連什麼是匯率都沒搞懂吧？你知不知道美國剛開始是要把我們定位匯率操縱國？但是後來為什麼轉變策略壓人民幣升值了呢？
因為，如果把我們定位了匯率操縱國，那麼就可以對中國產品徵收27.5%的關稅，我們的製造業基本上就完了，但是這樣一來，中國政府肯定會對美國徵收報復性關稅，這樣是中國經濟重傷，美國經濟輕傷，可是美國人現在連輕傷都不想受，它只想讓中國經濟重傷，那它應該怎麼辦呢?就是現在這樣，逼人民幣升值，因為這是你自己升值的啊，跟美國政府無關，你沒有報復的借口
這樣一來，中國產品所具有的價格優勢就會盪然無存，巨大的勞動力資源優勢被匯率上升所抵消
一個字一個字打的，望採納
㈥ 匯率戰爭對中國和世界的影響
好處：
1。伊拉克戰爭給中國上了一節戰爭課，讓我們從傳統的大規模戰爭中醒來，信息化戰爭才是現在的戰爭。
2。美國深陷中東泥潭，減少了對東亞的影響和戰略資源的調動。
3。讓它成為恐怖主義勢力的襲擊目標（但不一定，就對我們有利。）
壞處
1。美國加強了對中東的控制，也是對別的國家的戰爭訛詐。使中國的能源被約束。另外讓別的小國更不敢不隨從它。減少了中國的影響。告訴世界，美國現在依然是唯一的超級大國。
2。證明了美國是一個隨時戰備的國家，戰爭對他們來說是必須品。而我們不是。（可能也是好處，提醒我i們）。使美國和其他西方國家的盟友關系不被和平年代淡忘，使盟友關系更鞏固。軍隊得到訓練。
3。使美國控制世界經濟的能力加強。
㈦ 有關匯率方面的書籍推薦
匯率風暴、匯率戰爭、匯率與國際金融
㈧ 產生匯率戰爭的原因
都是為了提示本國的產品的競爭力，增加出口，促進國內的就業
㈨ 請提供關於"匯率戰爭影響"的英文資料!!謝謝!!
Exchange rates disorder harmful to global financial stability
-- Talking about Canada's stand on the upcoming G20 summit in Seoul next week, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said high volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates have adverse effects on global economic and financial stability.
The two-day summit will be held while the global economic recovery is only proceeding slowly, with heightened tensions in currency markets and risks associated with global imbalances, and just days after the newly announced second round of quantitative easing by the U.S. government, which further weakens the U.S. dollar.
"Exchange rates are a critical adjustment mechanism in the global economy, and continued inflexibility distorts trade flows in a manner that is inconsistent with underlying economic fundamentals," Flaherty told Xinhua in a recent interview.
Although the depreciation of the U.S. dollar will harm the export-oriented Canadian economy, Flaherty said the Bank of Canada does not seek to ensure "some specific value" on foreign-exchange markets.
After the United States announced to buy 600 billion U.S. dollars more in Treasury bonds to boost the sluggish economic growth, he said, "The Canadian government and Bank of Canada monitor fiscal and monetary issues carefully."
To ensure a strong, sustainable and balanced recovery, he said, advanced and emerging economies need to make necessary adjustments, while advanced economies must follow through on the Toronto summit commitment to halve their deficits by 2013 and stabilize or rece government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016.
He praised China's decision prior to the Toronto summit to proceed with further reforms to its exchange rate as "an important step."
"The G20 Framework establishes a process where we can collectively discuss and agree on policy actions, including exchange rates, to help us achieve our shared objectives of strong, sustainable, and balanced growth," the finance minister said.
Regarding the achievement reached in the G20 financial meeting on the IMF governance reform, Flaherty said the shift of over 6 percent of the IMF quota to emerging or underrepresented countries and the increase of representation of these countries at the IMF Executive Board are significant as they make the governance of the IMF "more representative" of today's global economy.
"Further reforms need to be carried out to help enhance the effectiveness, credibility and legitimacy of the IMF," he added.
He suggested that ministers and governors should be more involved in the Fund issues since they play a primary role in establishing the strategic direction of the Fund.
"The roles and responsibilities of various bodies in the IMF governance structure should be clarified to enhance the accountability of the Executive Board and Fund management," he said. "An open, transparent and merit-based management selection process should be introced regardless of candidate nationality."
He stressed that Canada opposes protectionism and is willing to defend free and open trade on the world stage, since free and open trade and investment are vital to the international response to the global economic crisis.
Flaherty said Canada remains committed to the multilateral process of the World Trade Organization (WTO), continues to seek a broad and ambitious outcome to the Doha Round of negotiations, and supports the WTO's work in reporting on the financial and economic crisis and trade-related developments.
He also said the G20 should follow through on measures to safeguard the recovery and promote strong and sustainable global growth in order to rece poverty. "The G20 Framework is an important tool in this respect," he said.
Flaherty believed that recent lending reforms at the IMF represent a substantial strengthening of global financial safety nets. However, any further IMF lending reform should be carefully calibrated to avoid spurring reckless risk-taking, or "moral hazard."
He said more work needs to be done towards smarter and more effective regulation that will rece the risk of contagion from one area across the entire global financial system.
"We must follow through on our commitment to develop effective resolution rules for all types of financial institutions that are in line with the principle that taxpayers shouldn't bear the costs of louts of financial institutions," he added.
As for the establishment of a G20 secretariat, Flaherty suggested that it is not necessary since the G20 will be more like an international organization, and its flexibility would be inevitably undermined by doing so.
"The secretariat functions should rest with each hosting nation," he said.