Department of "Huh?!?!?!?!": Hopelessly Muddled Monetary Economics Edition

Benn Steil and Manuel Hinds's claim that the loss of the dollar's status as principal reserve currency would be a very big deal:

The Federal Reserve would now be forced to operate under external constraints comparable with those imposed by the classical gold standard, under which the US needed more gold to create more dollars.... [T]he US would no longer be able to cover its current account deficits just by conjuring dollars, it would also have to issue debt in euros...

But... but... but... but...

The euro is not the principal international reserve currency. Neither is the pound, Nor are Australian dollar, the Canadian dollar, the Swiss franc, or quite a number of other currencies. Yet the eurozone, Britain, Australia, Canada, and Switzerland are very able to issue their own debt in their own currencies. And they are in no wise "forced to operate under external constraints comparable with those imposed by the classical gold standard." Not at all.

It's just not true that if your currency is not the world's principal reserve currency that you cannot issue debt in your own currency. Not true at all.

It's just not the case that if your currency is not the world's principal reserve currency that you are "forced to operate under external constraints comparable with those imposed by the classical gold standard." It's just not the case.

Why would anybody claim that these things are true?

Why would the Financial Times ever print any claims that these things are true?

I do not understand it...