VoxTalks Economics

A radical macroeconomic experiment is under way at exactly the moment the US external position is showing signs of real stress.
Gilles Moëc, Chief Economist at AXA, has written a chapter in the fourth Paris Report, published jointly by CEPR and Bruegel, on stablecoins: what they are, why the US government is so keen to promote them, and what risks they carry. His argument is that stablecoins are a fast-growing digital asset backed almost entirely by short-dated US government debt. When investors buy a dollar stablecoin, they are effectively buying into a US T-bill at zero interest; the platform keeps the yield. 
The US government likes this because it draws global savings into dollar assets at minimal cost, extending the dollar's reach and helping fund the deficit. But the regulatory framework has a three-year grace period and leaves supervision partly to the states, which compete to attract platforms. And there’s the historical parallel: find out how the National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 give us an insight into the attraction, and risks, of using stablecoins in this way.
The report discussed in this series of episodes:
Rey, Hélène, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (eds). 2026. The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Free to download at cepr.org.
The chapter discussed in this episode:
Moëc, Gilles. 2026. "Stablecoins and global imbalances: Attempting to preserve the US exorbitant privilege." In Rey, Weder di Mauro, and Zettelmeyer (eds), The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Chapter 9, p. 210.
To cite this episode:
Phillips, Tim, and Gilles Moëc. 2026. "Stablecoins and Global Imbalances." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.

About Paris Report 4

The fourth Paris Report, The New Global Imbalances, is a joint publication of CEPR and Bruegel. It was edited by Hélène Rey (London Business School and CEPR), Beatrice Weder di Mauro (Geneva Graduate Institute and CEPR, and President of CEPR), and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (Bruegel and CEPR). The report examines how, in a high-debt and fragmented world, excess savings, rising surpluses, and rising deficits pose a risk to stability and undermine the global trading system. It is free to download at cepr.org.
About the guest

Gilles Moëc is Chief Economist at AXA and Head of AXA Research. He previously held senior roles at in the French civil service, Banque de France, and Bank of America Merrill Lynch. His research covers macroeconomics, monetary policy, and the European economy.
Research cited in this episode

Stablecoins are privately issued digital tokens whose value is pegged to an existing fiat currency, typically the dollar, and backed by safe and liquid assets, typically short-dated US Treasury bills. Unlike most cryptocurrencies, they are designed to maintain a stable exchange rate with the pegged currency. Platforms issue the tokens and invest the cash received in T-bills, keeping the interest for themselves; holders receive no yield. Stablecoin platforms may have absorbed roughly twenty to twenty-five percent of net US T-bill issuance.
The GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins) is the US federal legislation organising the stablecoin market. It requires platforms to hold back-to-back liquid assets as reserves and establishes common minimum standards across states. Regulatory competition across states means platforms can seek the most permissive jurisdiction. European regulation, MiCA, is more detailed and already in force but has not yet generated European platforms.
Exorbitant privilege describes the advantage the US gains from issuing the world's dominant reserve currency. For decades, foreigners were content to hold low-yielding dollar assets while Americans invested in higher-returning foreign assets; the result was a positive US income balance despite a large trade deficit. In 2024, for the first time in modern records, the income balance turned negative: the US was paying more on its foreign liabilities than it was earning on its foreign assets. 
The National Banking Acts of 1863 and 1864 created a system of private national banks that issued dollar banknotes backed by US government bonds. The structure is the closest historical parallel to today's stablecoin framework: private platforms issuing dollar-denominated tokens backed by government debt. The system required over-collateralisation (one hundred and ten dollars of bonds for every one hundred dollars of notes) and included a Treasury backstop. Milton Friedman, in his Monetary History of the United States, identified the key flaw: money supply became tied to the quantity of public debt rather than the needs of the economy. The system was replaced by the Federal Reserve in 1913.
De-dollarisation refers to the trend in some countries toward conducting trade and holding reserves in currencies other than the dollar. Moëc notes examples such as Iranian demands for non-dollar payments for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Stablecoins work against this trend by making dollar access easier and cheaper for people in developing countries with weak or distrusted domestic financial systems; rather than buying dollars directly, they can buy a dollar-pegged token through a digital platform. 
More VoxTalks Economics episodes

This episode is the second of two published simultaneously to mark the launch of Paris Report 4. In the first episode, Maurice Obstfeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics examines the history of global imbalances and what today's policymakers can learn from previous episodes. 
For an interview with two of the report's editors, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer, on the problem of global imbalances, listen to The Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast. Available at bruegel.org.

Three times since the 1970s, global imbalances have grown large. In the 1980s, the US trade deficit ballooned under Volcker's tight money and Reagan's tax cuts and military spending. In the 2000s, a global savings glut and then a US housing credit boom pushed the deficit to 6% of GDP. Today, the imbalances are back. The US current account deficit stood at 3.9% of GDP in 2025. 
The policy medicine this time: tariffs.
Maurice Obstfeld of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and CEPR has written a chapter in the fourth Paris Report, published jointly by CEPR and Bruegel, examining that history, how policymakers responded, and what it can tell us about the effectiveness of policy remedies in 2026. He tell Tim Phillips that blaming foreigners misdiagnoses the problem if the US saves too little and invests heavily. The gap has to be financed from abroad. Good policy for the new global imbalances would requires three actors to move together: fiscal consolidation in the US, stronger consumption in China, and more investment in Europe. All three would benefit, none are close to doing it. The longer the can is kicked, Obstfeld warns, the greater the risk that the resolution arrives the way it always has: not through policy, but through crisis.
The report discussed in this series of episodes:
Rey, Hélène, Beatrice Weder di Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (eds). 2026. The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel. Free to download at cepr.org.
The chapter discussed in this episode:
Obstfeld, Maurice. 2026. "Global imbalances redux." In Rey, Weder di Mauro, and Zettelmeyer (eds), The New Global Imbalances. Paris Report 4. CEPR Press and Bruegel.
To cite this episode:
Phillips, Tim, and Maurice Obstfeld. 2026. “Global imballances redux”, VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.

About Paris Report 4

The fourth Paris Report, The New Global Imbalances, is a joint publication of CEPR and Bruegel. It was edited by Hélène Rey (London Business School and CEPR), Beatrice Weder di Mauro (Geneva Graduate Institute and CEPR, and President of CEPR), and Jeromin Zettelmeyer (Bruegel and CEPR). The report examines how, in a high-debt and fragmented world, excess savings, rising surpluses, and rising deficits pose a risk to stability and undermine the global trading system. It is free to download at cepr.org.
About the guest

Maurice Obstfeld is Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and a Research Fellow of CEPR. He served as Chief Economist of the International Monetary Fund from 2015 to 2018. His research spans international finance, exchange rate economics, and macroeconomic policy. He is a former member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Obama.
Research cited in this episode

The Plaza Accord (1985) was a joint agreement between the US, West Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Japan to intervene in foreign exchange markets to depreciate the US dollar. It was negotiated because a surging dollar, driven by Volcker's tight monetary policy and the Reagan fiscal expansion, had pushed the US current account deficit to then-unprecedented levels and created severe competitive pressure on US manufacturing. The accord moved the dollar, but did not resolve the underlying imbalances; those were corrected by German reunification and the Japanese asset bubble, which were not planned by anyone.
The Louvre Accord (1987) was a follow-up agreement among the same countries to stabilise the dollar once it had depreciated far enough. Obstfeld uses both episodes to illustrate that exchange rate agreements address the symptom, not the cause, and tend to sidestep the hard political decisions about fiscal policy.
The global savings glut hypothesis, associated with Ben Bernanke, holds that rising savings outside the US in the early 2000s, particularly from Asian economies building dollar reserves after the Asian financial crisis and from oil exporters, depressed global interest rates and drove capital into US assets. Obstfeld argues that from around 2002 onward the better explanation is US demand pulling capital in: loose Fed policy, the housing boom, subprime lending, and equity extraction from rising home values all drove US spending higher, and the current account deteriorated as the dollar fell rather than rose.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is US tax legislation that prevents the expiration of tax cuts that had been written into law, effectively delivering a tax reduction. Obstfeld points out that by lowering national saving it pushes the current account in the opposite direction to what the administration wants, partly undoing whatever modest deficit-reducing effect the tariffs might have through their revenue.
The Draghi report and the Letta report are European policy documents calling for deeper integration, more investment, improved competitiveness, and a completion of the EU's capital markets and banking unions. Obstfeld cites them as pointing in the right direction for reducing Europe's current account surplus, alongside the defence spending increases that European countries are now pursuing.
More VoxTalks Economics episodes

This episode is the first of two published simultaneously to mark the launch of Paris Report 4. In the second episode, Gilles Moëc, Chief Economist at AXA, explains why the US government is so keen to promote stablecoins and the risks they may pose to the financial system in the US and Europe.
For an interview with two of the report's editors, Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Jeromin Zettelmeyer, on the problem of global imbalances, listen to The Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast. Available at bruegel.org.

On 2 April 2025, the United States imposed tariffs on almost every country on earth. The next day, China responded with export controls on the entire world. In the space of one week, world trade had been weaponised as it has never been in peacetime.
Richard Baldwin of IMD Business School, the founder of VoxEU and a former president of the Centre for Economic Policy Research, wrote World War Trade to make sense of the events of the last 12 months. The dramatic April salvos have settled into a trade Cold War; US tariffs and Chinese export controls are lodged in place, with neither side expecting the other to back down. 
And yet world trade grew in 2025; exports from every country rose except from the US, which recorded its largest trade deficit. The rest of the world is self-organising a new order. When one country joins a rules-based regional agreement, the cost of staying out rises for the next. EU-Mercosur and EU-Australia deals, stalled for years, crossed the line. An expanding CPTPP and early alignment talks between the EU and CPTPP blocs are pulling more partners in. The old system was a cathedral built and maintained largely by the US; the architect burned it down. Something else is being built in its place.
The book discussed in this episode:
Baldwin, Richard. 2026. World War Trade: Conflict, Containment, and the Emergent World Trading Order. Rapid Response Economics 6. CEPR Press. Free to download from CEPR Press.
To cite this episode:
Phillips, Tim, and Richard Baldwin. 2026. "World War Trade." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.

About the guest

Richard Baldwin is Professor of International Economics at IMD Business School in Lausanne. He founded VoxEU, the Centre for Economic Policy Research's policy portal, and served as president of CEPR. His research spans trade policy, globalisation, and the political economy of trade; he is one of the architects of modern thinking on global value chains and the "second unbundling" of production. World War Trade is the sixth book in the CEPR Press Rapid Response Economics series.
Research cited in this episode

TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) began as a joke in finance markets as a description of the pattern in which the US president announces aggressive trade measures and then partially or fully reverses them when markets react or negotiations begin. Baldwin argues that financial markets eventually priced in a TACO floor; once they believed Trump would back down before a full market meltdown, they stopped reacting to his escalations as if they were terminal. The dynamic makes tariff threats simultaneously more frequent and less credible.
Domino regionalism describes the self-reinforcing logic by which regional trade agreements attract new members. When one economy gains preferential access to a large market, the cost of staying outside that agreement rises for its trading partners; that pressure brings in the next country, which raises the cost for the next, and so on. Baldwin identified this mechanism in the regional trade wave of the 1990s and argues it is now operating again, accelerated by the uncertainty created by US and Chinese trade weapons. The EU-Mercosur deal unblocking was the trigger; EU-Australia followed within weeks.
G-0 world is a concept developed by political scientist Ian Bremmer to describe a world in which no single country or group of countries provides consistent global leadership. Baldwin draws on this framework to explain why regional conflicts and trade disputes have become harder to contain since the US began stepping back from its hegemonic role; the trade cold war is one expression of that leadership vacuum, but so is the reduced capacity to broker deals in the Middle East or manage the Black Sea grain corridor.
CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) is a rules-based regional trade agreement covering eleven countries across Asia and the Pacific, including Japan, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, and the United Kingdom. It operates without US or Chinese membership and maintains deep disciplines on intellectual property, investment, and trade in services. Baldwin identifies it, alongside the EU, as one of the two main "pools of predictability" around which the new post-war trading order is forming. The two blocs have opened alignment discussions that, if concluded, would bring a very large share of world trade under compatible rules.
RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is a large but shallower regional agreement covering much of Asia, including China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the ten ASEAN nations. It involves Chinese leadership and does not carry the depth of disciplines found in CPTPP. Baldwin notes that it is rules-based and that as long as China plays by those rules it could enlarge; but it has not attracted the same wave of new joiners as CPTPP and the EU framework.
The EU Anti-Coercion Instrument is a European Union mechanism, adopted in 2023, allowing the EU to retaliate against third countries that use trade or economic measures to coerce member states into changing their policies. Baldwin cites it as an example of the "building bunkers" response adopted by many economies; rather than retaliating directly against US tariffs, countries are changing their domestic laws to give themselves tools to counter future coercion without breaching WTO rules.
More VoxTalks Economics episodes

This is the second time Richard Baldwin has discussed the 2025 trade upheaval on VoxTalks Economics. He appeared alongside Gene Grossman of Princeton in What's Next for Trump's Tariffs, broadcast in January 2026, which covered the seismic moves of 2025 as they were unfolding.

"When you look at the world now, does it look more uncertain or less uncertain?" In December 2025, the Bank of England's Financial Policy Committee (FPC) answered that question by cutting the equity capital requirement for UK banks. David Aikman (NIESR) and John Vickers (University of Oxford), two former senior Bank insiders who helped to design the regulatory framework post-GFC, think the committee got it wrong.
The FPC lowered the benchmark capital requirement from 14% to 13% of risk-weighted assets, a move that could free up roughly £30 billion of capital across the UK banking system. Aikman and Vickers see no compelling economic reason for the change. They argue that the 2015 benchmark was already set too low, built on questionable assumptions about how well resolution frameworks would work. Since 2015, Brexit, the pandemic, and a sharply stretched fiscal position have all increased the likely cost of a future crisis. The practical effect of the loosening may not even be more lending, but higher dividends and share buybacks. And the December decision may signal a weakening of the leverage ratio backstop, the constraint that limits bank borrowing regardless of how risk weights are applied.
The research behind this episode:
Aikman, David, and John Vickers. 2026. "The Bank of England's Capital Mistake." VoxEU, 15 January 2026. 
To cite this episode:
Phillips, Tim, David Aikman, and John Vickers. 2026. "The Bank of England's Capital Mistake." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.

About the guests

David Aikman is Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR). He worked at the Bank of England from 2003 to 2020, where he served as Technical Head of Division in Financial Stability and was centrally involved in the creation of the Financial Policy Committee. His research spanning macroprudential regulation, systemic risk, and the macroeconomics of financial crises has made him one of the leading academic voices on bank capital policy in the UK.
Sir John Vickers is Warden of All Souls College and Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford. He served as Chief Economist and a member of the Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England, and chaired the Independent Commission on Banking from 2010 to 2011, which recommended substantially higher capital requirements than those subsequently adopted. His research spanning industrial economics, competition policy, and financial regulation has shaped UK banking policy for two decades.
Research cited in this episode

Equity capital requirements specify the minimum proportion of a bank's assets that must be funded by shareholders' equity rather than borrowed money. Equity is the only form of funding that can absorb losses without triggering insolvency: if a bank suffers unexpected losses, its shareholders bear them first. In the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis, some large institutions held equity equivalent to as little as two or three percent of their total exposures, implying leverage of up to forty times; a small shock was enough to render them insolvent. The post-crisis repair effort was designed to ensure that could not happen again.
Risk-weighted assets (RWAs) are the denominator against which capital requirements are measured. Rather than applying the capital ratio to the raw value of all assets, the framework deflates each asset by an estimated risk factor: a mortgage backed by collateral is treated as less risky than an unsecured corporate loan, for example. Capital requirements are then expressed as a percentage of this risk-adjusted total. The approach creates significant complexity and depends heavily on the accuracy of the risk weights; much of the story of 2008 was that regulators allowed banks to attach implausibly low risk weights to their exposures, understating the true leverage in the system.
The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) is the Bank of England body responsible for macroprudential oversight of the UK financial system. Created in 2013, it sits above the individual regulators to take a system-wide view of whether risks are building and whether the financial system as a whole has adequate resilience. One of its primary tools is setting the overall capital requirement benchmark for UK banks. In 2015 it set that benchmark at 14% of risk-weighted assets; in December 2025 it reduced it to 13%.
The leverage ratio is an alternative measure of bank capitalisation that does not apply risk weights. It expresses equity as a simple percentage of total assets, regardless of what those assets are. The UK leverage ratio backstop currently stands at around 3 to 4%, implying maximum leverage of roughly twenty-five to thirty times for systemically important banks. Vickers and Aikman note that for some UK banks the backstop has become the binding constraint, which they regard as a warning sign: it suggests that risk-weighted measures are understating actual leverage, not that the backstop should be relaxed.
Resolution frameworks are the legal and operational mechanisms that allow regulators to manage the failure of a bank without a taxpayer bailout, by imposing losses on shareholders and creditors in an orderly way. A central assumption in the FPC's 2015 capital benchmark was that resolution would work effectively in a future crisis, which justified a lower capital requirement. Vickers and Aikman are sceptical: the experience of Credit Suisse in 2023, which required a state-assisted rescue despite the existence of resolution plans, illustrates that orderly resolution of a major institution cannot be taken for granted.
Basel 3.1 is the latest package of international banking regulatory standards agreed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, designed to address weaknesses in how risk weights are calculated. Its implementation in the UK is scheduled for 2027, nineteen years after the 2008 crisis. The FPC's December 2025 decision is partly contingent on Basel 3.1 being implemented as planned; Aikman notes that there have been repeated international delays and rollbacks, and that the UK's ability to move ahead unilaterally is constrained by what other major jurisdictions do.
The 2023 banking stress saw three US regional banks (Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic) fail in quick succession in March 2023, followed by the forced rescue of Credit Suisse by UBS. These events occurred in what was, by historical standards, a relatively stable macroeconomic environment. Vickers cites them as evidence that banking sector vulnerabilities have not been eliminated by post-2008 reforms, and as a caution against complacency about the effectiveness of current safeguards.
More VoxTalks Economics

Making banking safe Our financial system is supposed to be more resilient than before the global financial crisis, but that didn’t save Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank or First Republic. So what went wrong, and can we fix it? Steve Cecchetti and Kim Schoenholtz suggest how regulators can make banking safer.

Two explanations circulated immediately after the March to Save America on January 6, 2021 turned into a riot: a mob manipulated by a demagogue, or ordinary citizens defending democracy against a stolen election. Konstantin Sonin, David Van Dijcke, and Austin Wright have used anonymised location data from forty million mobile devices to investigate why the protests escalated so dramatically.
No surprise: partisanship was the strongest predictor of attendance, proximity to Proud Boys chapters and use of the far-right social network Parler also increased participation. But political isolation amplified the movement: the communities most over-represented among those who traveled to Washington were small Republican enclaves surrounded by Democrat-leaning areas, politically and socially cut off from their neighbours. And participation also spiked in counties that experienced a "midnight swing," where the reported vote count favoured Trump on election night before shifting to Biden as mail-in ballots were counted. These were precisely the counties where the "Stop the Steal" narrative landed hardest. 
The research behind this episode:
Sonin, Konstantin, David Van Dijcke, and Austin L. Wright. 2023. "Isolation and Insurrection: How Partisanship and Political Geography Fueled January 6, 2021." CEPR DP18209. 
To cite this episode:
Phillips, Tim, and Konstantin Sonin. 2026. “What triggered January 6?” VoxTalks Economics (podcast). 

Assign this as extra listening. The citation above is formatted and ready for a reading list or VLE.

About the guest

Konstantin Sonin is the John Dewey Distinguished Service Professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago. Born in the Soviet Union, he has spent his career studying how political institutions work under stress, with particular attention to how information and misinformation shape political behaviour, elections, and collective action. He is one of the leading economists working on the political economy of authoritarian and democratic governance, and his research on protest, polarisation, and political geography has made him a central figure in the study of democratic backsliding.
Research cited in this episode

Regression discontinuity design is a statistical method used to identify causal effects by exploiting a threshold or cutoff. Sonin, Van Dijcke, and Wright use two regression discontinuity designs: one exploiting the narrow margins by which Trump lost certain states, and one exploiting the gap between the election-night vote tally and the final certified result in individual counties. In both cases, the design allows them to isolate the effect of a specific trigger on protest participation, separating it from the general background of partisan feeling.
The "midnight swing" refers to the shift in reported vote tallies that occurred in many counties on election night 2020 as large batches of mail-in ballots were counted. Because mail-in voters skewed heavily Democratic, counties where in-person votes were reported first showed strong Trump leads that reversed overnight as the mail-in totals arrived. For professional observers and election administrators, this pattern was entirely expected; it followed directly from the different rules different states used to count mail-in ballots during the pandemic. For many voters, particularly those already primed to distrust the electoral process, it read as suspicious. The paper finds that communities exposed to larger swings sent disproportionately more participants to Washington on January 6.
Network Exposure design is a methodological innovation introduced in this paper. It measures how much exposure a given community had to election-denial signals flowing through its social networks, and distinguishes this from exposure arising simply through geographic proximity to other communities. Isolated communities proved hypersensitive to information traveling through their social networks, but not to information spreading through neighbouring areas. This suggests the amplification mechanism was social, not spatial.
Political isolation in this paper refers to being a minority political community within a larger, differently-leaning area. A small Republican-voting enclave inside a Democrat-leaning county or district is politically isolated in this sense. The paper finds that isolation of this kind was a strong amplifier of partisanship in predicting participation. Two other measures of isolation, one based on mobile device travel patterns ("locational isolation") and one based on Facebook connections ("social media isolation"), produce consistent results, suggesting the effect is not an artefact of how isolation is measured.
The Proud Boys are a far-right extremist organisation active in the United States. The paper finds that communities with a local Proud Boys chapter were over-represented among those who traveled to Washington on January 6, making proximity to the organisation a robust correlate of participation, independent of general partisan leanings.
Parler was a social media platform popular among far-right users in the United States during the period leading up to January 6, 2021. Communities where Parler usage was relatively higher were also over-represented among participants in the March to Save America, suggesting that the platform played a role in amplifying mobilisation signals within the networks most susceptible to them.
Collective action theory is the study of how individuals decide to participate in group action, particularly when the costs fall on participants individually but the benefits are shared. Sonin, Van Dijcke, and Wright contribute behavioural evidence on the specific role of political isolation and network-amplified grievance in driving participation.
More VoxTalks Economics

The Grievance Doctrine What if trade policy wasn’t really about trade at all? What if it was about revenge, power, and punishment, tariffs as tantrums and diplomacy as drama? Richard Baldwin on what is driving the US policy agenda. 
How protests are born, and how they die Every year we see thousands of protest movements on our city streets. Benoît Schmutz-Bloch explains why do some protests persist, and some disappear, and some remain peaceful, but others become violent.