> The strength of these types of global payments systems is that they are global and neutral. If they stop being neutral soon enough they will stop being global.
Being global is far more important than being neutral, and countries will gladly sacrifice the latter if that is the cost to get the former.
Any meaningful global payments system requires access to the U.S. as European financial markets, either because of direct dealing with banks situated in these countries, or because of indirect dealings (virtually any other bank needs to deal with major U.S. or European banks eventually, and one can impose restrictions on the latter).
As a simple example: U.S. regulators can easily force the hands of major European banks, because every one of those banks needs access to the U.S. financial market, if only so their clients can deal there.
Want to buy Apple, Google, or Microsoft stock? Then neutrality is not an option.
Being global is far more important than being neutral, and countries will gladly sacrifice the latter if that is the cost to get the former.
Any meaningful global payments system requires access to the U.S. as European financial markets, either because of direct dealing with banks situated in these countries, or because of indirect dealings (virtually any other bank needs to deal with major U.S. or European banks eventually, and one can impose restrictions on the latter).
As a simple example: U.S. regulators can easily force the hands of major European banks, because every one of those banks needs access to the U.S. financial market, if only so their clients can deal there.
Want to buy Apple, Google, or Microsoft stock? Then neutrality is not an option.