There are two final and real variants to solve the problem:
First - carrying out of long-term investments of the releasing dollars into large projects in the zones of mutual influence of the USA and Europe (for example: reconstruction of the Transsib aimed at establishment of the united transport European-Asian line "London-Tokio"). As Russia still remains under political influence of the USA and under economic influence of Europe, sterilization of the extra dollars of the world in the territory of Russia will be for the USA an exchange of a part of its geopolitical influence to the short-term and medium-term economic safety.
This variant demands for not only constructive approach to the problem (for example: it corresponds to the demands of the overheating economy of Japan) but also consent of the Russian society for its deep healthening or at least readiness for it.
The second variant - taking a pause which may be gained after dollar runoff to the destabilizing "second economics" of the world for organization of the head-on competitive collision with the eurozone, first premonition of which could be found with non-united European economy in the September, 1992, and with only starting its trip to integration economy of the South-Eastern Asia in the second half of the 1997 year.
This scheme allows the USA to take the strategic initiative and make its own choice of time, sphere and the character for this collision that taking into consideration factor of abruptness gives the USA an advantage.
At static consideration of outlook for such collision based on comparison of the already existing resources, Europe has advantageous chances. But as compared on the point of view of dynamics taking into consideration level of expenses, increasing role of newest technologies and actually "natural" (after disintegration of the USSR) monopoly of the USA on holding its holding and development performed with taking into consideration cardinal differences of the American and European bureaucracy (the first one - creates, the second - exists) makes us to make our choice in favor of the USA if we have a long-term outlook for future.
Influence of "dynamic" factors of the technological quality and bureaucracy on the modern competition may be indirectly seen comparison of losses borne by European and American capitals in Russia and South-Eastern Asia: in both cases losses of Europeans were greater than that of the Americans from all points of view. Besides, if in the USA losses were borne only by structures, which do not make the main part of the national economy, with high risk possibility, but in Europe - losses were borne by the banks making the basic part of its banking system.
There is no reason to consider that in the nearest years proportion of effectiveness of two financial and governmental systems will change greatly.
Besides, the USA will always be able to carry out discrimination in this or that form of at least a cash part of dollars which are outside the USA. It may be performed for example under the slogan of struggle with international crime: first of all, this thesis is a standard method using by the USA in its international competitiveness, and then - it is true: turnover of the major part of the US dollars outside the territory of the USA in this or that form is connected with law violation, and, thus, the USA progress is based to a certain extent on lurking stimulation of the criminal activity outside the USA.
Of cause, such discrimination will abruptly limit the most important financial part of the economic power of the USA - usage of their national currency as an international reserve currency and that is why it may be used only as "the last means".
But in any case not depending on the result of the global financial confrontation between the USA and European Currency Union it will lead to the unfavorable event for the humanity: cardinal slowdown of the China economic development which may be followed by its destabilization, regress and even disintegration.
China mainly develops as an export oriented country integrated into the markets of Europe and the USA. Collision will reduce purchasing capacity of the outgoing party and correspondingly will reduce its import including from China. And this collision won't depend on the result of collision between Europe and the USA.
China will hardly bear such an abrupt reduction in its export, which will be the catalyst of all its internal problems, which are now in an inchoative stage. Destabilization of China will be such an event that will be able up to 2015 year set the whole world economy in chaos (except the winner: the USA or the eurozone).
Truly speaking, victory of the latter will be a Pyrrhic victory: leaving behind the competitors and together with them the whole world for a generation (of people and main technologies), it will loose the main sale markets for its products that will slowdown its own development.
In that case we will have a losing or at least conservation of the most advanced technologies: in the event of eurozone victory - because it does not know how to create them, and in the event of the USA victory - because ofabrupt reduction of the sale markets and realization of these technologies, that will weaken in cardinal way stimulus for their development an will reduce resources engaged for such purposes.
Thus, transformation of disagreement between the eurozone and the USA connected with integration of euro and release of the extra dollars to the level of negative competition will be followed by the possibility of slowdown of the development of the whole mankind.
III. GLOBAL REGULATION FOR GLOBAL COMPETITION
3.1. What will unite the world into "Economic UNO"?
Possibility of slowdown of the development of general human technical progress as it was shown in the previous paragraph is a minor point of the general rule: development may have only total character. Any attempt to force back the competitors disrupt the development making it narrower and poor and increasing the level of monopolization through reduction of sale markets to the products of the winner, and leads, thus, to the total slowdown of the development and stagnation.
It is quite evident: for the mankind itself problems of its own development has already become very difficult according to our traditional understanding. National states come across with such thing that their "habitat" is spontaneously formed by overnational structures (including overnational structures holding meta-technologies), which, thus, predetermine their actions and lead the mankind to serious cataclysms and abrupt slowdown of the development due to their egoistic motives.
If we do not want to allow the described consequences it is necessary to establish that very international economic regulation which was mentioned in practical terms after Lenin for the first time by G. Soros: "economic UNO", which differs from the already existing political economy with qualitatively smaller level of bureaucratization as financial processes have qualitative