This book is a collection of studies written from 1993 to 2017 by economists who worked or are still working at the National Bank of Romania. Specifically, the book contains nine such studies, of which eight make up the bulk of another book published in Romanian. I had the honour of being asked to write the forewords for both works. For this reason, the foreword to this book is vastly similar to the one worded for the book published in Romanian. The two forewords are different in that this one makes reference to the two papers that this book contains aside from the one in Romanian and, obviously, does not refer to the studies contained in the book published in Romanian but not included in this book, with three exceptions, about which I will warn the reader right before I refer to them. The reason why I will refer to those three studies, although they are not included in this book, is that they treat similar issues and are more recent. I will make the reader aware of the references to these three papers at the right moment.

Short time after the first financial crisis of globalization (2008-2009), a number of changes started to dominate the financial and banking world. Household and companies were confronted with a series of new rules and procedures aimed to protect both banks and the public. In most of cases they led to an increase of the lending cost and the requirements for money laundry avoidance and prevention of terrorist financing made access to money slower and hungry for paper. Technology and AI brought an alternative to the market, which proved to be faster, cheaper and with much less hurdles. They are all private initiatives, spined up by startups and the wisdom of putting IT knowledge to service the young entrepreneurs. The crypto assets, blockchain, fintech, digital payments and digital currencies are all part of the new developments. The emergence of technology as the new layout for banking led major financial powers and the international financial institutions to look more attentive to the challenges they face, and decide that official digital currency should not wait for too long. Currently, more than 70 central banks of the world are engaged in the process of preparing for the near future, among which ECB is a front runner.

The proposal by the European Commission for the regulation of crypto-assets (MiCA) is to be welcomed, as are similar measures envisaged by authorities in the USA, Great Britain and other countries.

In “Limits and pitfalls of QE in emerging economies”(OpiniiBNR, 14 August) I argued that, while central banks in advanced economies undertake quantitative easing (QE) in order to mitigate the shock of the Pandemic and the economic crisis, this kind of operations needs to be contemplated with caution in emerging economies. A reaction to my text suggested that the accumulation of net foreign assets (NFA) in emerging economies (EMEs) could be seen as a form of QE. I argue below that this is not an appropriate analogy. But first, I reiterate my view as to why EMEs have to treat QE with much caution.

The pandemic caused by COVID-19 has shocked the whole world and is another huge blow to the world economy after the financial crisis that erupted in 2008. A sanitary crisis is interweaving with a very severe economic and social crisis. Although most economies seem to have got out of the deep hole caused by The Shutdown, a steady recovery is likely to be difficult and painful, surrounded by big uncertainties and contradictory effects. Much of economic activity is badly hit, not a few companies may not be able to survive, unemployment has been growing rapidly[1], and repair efforts will be time consuming.

Three words can mean a lot, both in someone’s love life and in financial markets, especially when it comes to major central banks. These words are “Whatever it takes” and they were voiced by former ECB President Mario Draghi back in July 2012, in a bid to persuade investors that the European economy was not in such dire straits as it seemed.

In addition to major health issues, Covid -19 creates major economic problems. The risk of a deep global recession is very high. It is a shock that reduces supply, especially through the shock on the labor force, through illness or social distancing, resulting in the closure of many activities in different industries.