Exchange rate disputes G20 around not past Campo

Exchange rate disputes into the Group of twenty (G20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting of the primary core issues. The meeting reached a consensus on this issue, "members undertake to avoid currency devaluation, the current account balance". Was previously a clamour of "exchange rate war" could this quell? analysts believe that the United States adhere to the current account balance setting quantitative targets, which means that in the middle of November will be held in Seoul, Korea's G20 Summit, the members of the exchange rate of a controversy in the face of the scene will continue.

United States Treasury Secretary Geithner said on 23 October, the US hopes that the G20 members on the Seoul Summit will current account imbalance of specific limit rule to reach an agreement.

During the G20 Finance Ministers ' meeting, the United States and Korea urged the members agreed that the current account surplus or deficit States gross domestic product (GDP) ratio is limited to a specific range. Geithner said the new destination set will make the global exchange rate system more conducive to economic adjustment and balance. But the meeting eventually failed to set the current account balance quantifying targets enshrined in the joint notice.

United States Treasury Department official 23, said that the United States are not expected to be at this Conference, the current account balance quantitative objectives, although the programme was Japan, and other members of the opposition, but it helps to focus the discussion.

China Industrial Bank Senior Economist, robust political Commissar 23, pointed out that the US dollar devaluation of the currency in the current round of "enemies", even if the United States at the Seoul Summit refer to current account balance quantitative objectives, the programme was adopted unanimously by the prospects are not optimistic, Germany, Japan and the oil-exporting countries are unable to reach this target. However, this indicates that the surface of the G20 in "compromise" is still "essential differences", future conflicts will still exist.