SDRs are an alternative. That's if they can be implemented in time. The US would have done better to give China a seat at the IMF table, but by locking them out it has created a monetary adversary that stands against the SDRs adoption as a global reserve currency.
Although people inside and outside the U.S. decry the capriciousness of the US government and political process, as long as there is no better (or even comparable) alternative, the US dollar will retain its position of prominence.
I think that's a pretty misleading TLDR (as it suggests nothing will change which isn't at all what the article claims); The title is a better summary of the message.
The article is about as meaningful as you'd expect one that suggested "Democracy's primacy looks unsustainable", and is full of examples of things that don't mean anything.
> In recent months the prospect of even a tiny rate
> rise in America has sucked capital from emerging
> markets, battering currencies and share prices.
Sucking capital from emerging markets is not an attribute of a currency that's fading, so much as one whose primacy is in fact increasing after a lull...
> Foreigners own 20-50% of local-currency government
> bonds in places like Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico,
> South Africa and Turkey: they are more likely to
> abandon emerging markets when American rates rise.
And for what will they abandon it? It has a $ in the name.
> America increasingly uses its financial clout as a
> political tool
There used to be a great quote on Wikipedia's page about the Economist pointing out it's largely written by early-20s Oxford graduates. If they think America's use of its financial clout is increasing, it would seem their view of history starts circa 2001.
> All this suggests that the global monetary and
> financial system will not smoothly or quickly wean
> itself off the greenback
Oh look, even the article suggests the title is wrong!
