« The Internet Destroyed My Mind. | Main | Requests Thread »

Request: The Dollar

13 Jun 2008 11:41 am

The people want discussion of currency prices: "I'd like a bit of coverage on the policies that have made the U.S. dollar so weak, what either candidate has to say about those policies and the dollar, and the impact that the weak dollar has had on the price of a barrel of oil." And also, because it's actually related: "I'd be interested to see more attention given to the future structure of the US economy, particularly whether we will continue to do any manufacturing at all. Everyone talks about specific policies like NAFTA or the FTA with Colombia, but a wider perspective would be worthwhile."

My understanding is that the right way to think about the currency situation is that for a long while the value of the dollar was being kept high by the fact that foreigners were eager to invest in American assets. This strong dollar was good for Americans looking to take a vacation in Europe, and also made it cheap to buy things made abroad. Consequently, we found ourselves running a large trade deficit. Usually a trade deficit leads to a weak currency which leads to a reduction in imports and a rebalancing of the deficit. But because foreigners were buying American assets, it didn't happen, and Americans kept buying foreign-made goods (indeed, this is part of the reason the PRC was investing in so many American assets) and the deficit stayed high.

More recently, this process has halted. The dollar has declined in value, our imports of manufactured goods have slowed down, and we've started exporting more. Indeed, employment in the exports sector has offset a ton of the lost jobs in the building trades and prevented our economic problems from being worse than they were. Our trade deficit remains large mostly because we import so much oil (oil-exporting countries tend to plow the money back into western assets):

oildeficit%201.png

In the long run, I think we should expect Americans to continue manufacturing goods. The idea that manufacturing was shedding jobs primarily because of trade with low-wage countries is something of a misunderstanding. There's less cheap labor in Europe than in the USA but there's plenty of manufacturing over there -- rich countries just tend to manufacture higher-end goods. Even during the manufacturing drought, Americans were still "manufacturing" plenty of buildings. But the economics of cheap mortgages + construction boom + strong dollar + large trade deficit weren't sustainable over the long run and now we need to rebalance toward manufacturing fewer buildings and more stuff to sell abroad.

That will be fine over the long run. The problem is that the short-run involves lots of foreclosures, unemployment, income drops, etc. and the policy challenge is to make the short-run as short and painless as possible.

Share This

Comments (47)

You forgot to include that government deficit spending also does a great deal to lower the dollar's value.

a strong dollar also helps make it easier to have strong growth without a lot of inflation--see, e.g., the second half of the 1990s. The weaker dollar helps on the growth front, but is also inflationary.

To be fair, the process hasn't actually "halted". Foreigners are still buying plenty of American assets and such actions continue to "artificially" prop up the dollar. The situation now is that they aren't buying enough to actually prop up the dollar (or strengthen it, as in the 90s); rather, they're just cushioning the decline.

This is ridiculous.

A huge amount of the dollar's weakness is attributable to Easy Alan's and Helicopter Ben's interest rate policies.

The government is essentially printing lots of money to cover its debts.

How you can have a blogpost on the weakness of the dollar and nowhere mention the policies of the Fed, I do not understand. I've said this before, but you clearly never took an economics class in Cambridge.

If you did, then it confirms the universal view of the professors here at Obama U of the uselessness of the Harvard Economics Dept.

I really like this request feature. Keep it up.

I have to agree with Kolohe. Tossing it all aside as, "free market supply and demand," ignores real policy changes between the 90s (strong dollar) and the 00s. The biggest being the budget surplus vs. budget deficit. I'm not sure foreigners are investing any less now than before either. The increased amount of government debt available to all buyers lowers the value of alternative forms of investment.

It's like watching a bear trying to trampoline.

Hey, great post!

You might add that rising transport costs (expensive oil) will make it more economical to manufacture heavy stuff here in the U.S.

Another point: I wonder if Europe's and Japan's continued excellence in high-value-added manufacturing might not be due partly to their urban structure. Having big dense cities might help manufacturing more than other industries. Not quite sure about that, though.

As Mr. Noah points out, increasing shipping costs is already prompting some companies to move their manufacturing back to the US, which could further weaken imports. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting cover story on this trend today.

"A huge amount of the dollar's weakness is attributable to Easy Alan's and Helicopter Ben's interest rate policies."

To be fair to Alan and Ben, they were fighting deflationary trends in the economy and the possibility of the collapse of the global financial system. I wonder if hardasses like you would complain as much if there were a massive global depression instead? Perhaps we are heading that way anyway?

(Interesting bit of trivia: Jason Furman and Joseph E. Stiglitz wrote a seminal paper on the East Asian financial crisis of the 90s.)

What's Obama U?

I agree with Kolohe in post #1, even though interest rates were fairly low, foreigners didn't mind mopping up dollars back in the 90s because we kept our fiscal house in order, we were 'sane,' so it was a good place to park your money.

Cheney's "deficits don't matter" attitude killed this (along with the need for war financing) and down the dollar went.

Can anyone answer why Greenspan, who I thought was an architect of the 3-legged Rubinomics plan (low tariffs, low interest rates, low budget deficits that although leads to job losses in some areas, also leads to the ability of the american consumer to buy anything) embraced the Bush tax cuts? He helped kick out one of the legs that held the whole thing up. Why?

"He helped kick out one of the legs that held the whole thing up. Why?"

Because like certain members of the Supreme Court, he's a partisan Republican who feels surpluses are bad b/c government spending is bad (or, tax cuts favor the rich elite, gov spending helps the hoi polloi, i.e. the majority of the citizenry).

"He helped kick out one of the legs that held the whole thing up. Why?"

That's easy, he's a free-market ideologue.

Brad Setser on trade, globalization, and exchange rates. Probably one of the best and most important posts I've read in weeks.

Rather than trading US made goods for goods made in the emerging world, the US has – over the last say thirty years – financed the growth in its imports from the emerging world by selling US financial assets. That has to have had an impact on the composition of output in the US - -and the distribution of gains on globalization. It has favored those who generate financial assets (and import goods) over those who produce goods, for example.

And it seems increasingly difficult, at least to me, to maintain this pattern is entirely the product of the operation of free markets. Not so long as key governments are intervening so heavily in the foreign exchange market – and hoarding most of the oil windfall.

See also:Thomas Palley on "Financialization"

Matt has it basically right. The only thing missing is that the trade deficit is largely attributable to the US's chronically low saving rate (to which the government budget deficit contributes). A smaller pool of available savings in this country drives domestic interest rates up (all else equal) which leads foreign investors to buy up US assets. This drives the value of the dollar up, which pushes the trade deficit up.

Trade deficits are sustainable as long as foreigners keep snapping up your financial assets, but with the recent subprime implosion and loose monetary policy (which I think is justified) our assets aren't looking so good now. So the dollar falls.

Matt has it basically right. The only thing missing is that the trade deficit is largely attributable to the US's chronically low saving rate (to which the government budget deficit contributes). A smaller pool of available savings in this country drives domestic interest rates up (all else equal) which leads foreign investors to buy up US assets. This drives the value of the dollar up, which pushes the trade deficit up.

Trade deficits are sustainable as long as foreigners keep snapping up your financial assets, but with the recent subprime implosion and loose monetary policy (which I think is justified) our assets aren't looking so good now. So the dollar falls.

To be fair to Alan and Ben, they were fighting deflationary trends in the economy and the possibility of the collapse of the global financial system.

No, they were using what should have been short-term temporary stimulus measures to prop up the stock market and GDP figures for political purposes.

Here's a graph that shows GDP "growth" with and without Mortgage Equity Withdrawal. Basically, without the funny money pulled from overinflated home prices, GDP averaged out to about 0% from 2001-2005. The "Bush Boom" was entirely dependent on the illusion of wealth created by bad interest rate policy.

Here's a post that shows how much "wealth" has come from inflation of real estate via mortgage rates, a trend that one would think the Fed would be capable of recognizing.

Alan "we need more ARMs" went way beyond fighting deflation. This post chronicles the Fed's repeated (intentional?) failures to stop the sub-prime mess.

The GOP has killed the dollar, deliberately and effectively.

Patrick and Greg,

US gov't debt 38% of GDP

France 64%

Germany 63.2%

Japan 195.5% of GDP

So again, it's our defict spending? If that is the case why is the yen worth anything at all...

Don't forget the rise of the Euro as a reserve currency.

Sigh. It is painful to read discussions like these because everyone seems to miss the most important factor effecting currencies: Interest rate differentials. In other words, if our interest rates (set by the Fed) are low, and interest rates in other countries (such as the EU) are higher, demand will increase for the latter's currency and decrease in the former. The result, is the value of the dollar goes down and the value of the latter goes up. The opposite was the case in the 1990s (Europe's interest rates were lower than the US) and so the dollar was higher.

A very common fallacy to assume that the level of the currency is some statement on the policies of that country. Yes, that can happen (I wouldn't touch the Venezualan Bolivar right now, for example), and other factors such as a budget deficit certainly impact it, but the main driver is the interest rate differential. And if you don't believe me, ask anyone who manages a currency portfolio in a hedge fund.

The rising cost of shipping everything from industrial-pump parts to lawn-mower batteries to living-room sofas is forcing some manufacturers to bring production back to North America and freeze plans to send even more work overseas.

"My cost of getting a shipping container here from China just keeps going up -- and I don't see any end in sight," says Claude Hayes, president of the retail heating division at DESA LLC. He says that cost has jumped about 15%, to about $5,300, since January and is set to increase again next month to $5,600.

HOMEWARD BOUND
Mr. Hayes says the company was lucky to have held onto its manufacturing machinery. "What looked like an albatross a year and a half ago," he says, "today looks like a pretty good asset."

From today's WSJ

Think Twice:

That's basically right, but as you probably know, the US is an exception to that rule. Since the dollar has been unofficially the anchor currency to the world system (Bretton Woods II), it does benefit from an "exorbitant privilege."

http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/2003_archives/001993.html

Think Twice:

I hope you'll excuse my asking an ignorant question, but: how do higher interest rates result in increased demand for a currency? Higher interest rates mean it costs more to borrow the currency in question, right? I don't understand how that would increase demand.

thanks for any explanation

live:

You have to think like an investor. If I have Euros and the Fed raises interest rates it means I get a higher interest rate when I buy, T-bills say, and that is appealing to me so I buy more.

Also, if you are really interseted check this out:

http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~obstfeld/182_sp06/c16.pdf

Thanks, David. Thinking like an investor has not been one of my strong suits, historically.

LFC:

"The GOP has killed the dollar, deliberately and effectively."

I agree with what you wrote, however, I was thinking about different periods.

In the late 1990s, there was the East Asian financial crisis, where foreign funds were pulling out of Thailand, Indonesia, etc, then even Russia and Brazil were caught in the contagion. And the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management collapsed. Greenspan kept rates low to keep the global economy from seizing up in the panic. (This also helped Bill Clinton singlehandedly create the bestest economy evar!)

Same with Bernanke after the morgage crisis and the shady behavior of banks and investment banks and the collapse of Bear Stearns.

Even after 9/11, the financial markets seized up, so Greenspan lowered rates to keep the engine humming.

For some reason I find it funny when supposed liberals start lecturing everyone on the needs of prudent fiscal conservatism. There was a reason Cheney though deficits don't matter, b/c in a certain respect they don't.

Live,

Have you ever heard of the Carry Trade?

The Japanese Prime Rate (the rate banks charge their best customers) is currently 1.8%. 30 day German Gov't Bonds pay 4.24%. You borrow Yen at 1.8% in Japan sell those Yen and buy EUR putting your new EUR in Bunds (German Gov't Bonds) that pay 4.24. The 2.44% less taxes and fees is yours to keep.

The problem is, all those people selling yen to buy EUR causes the EUR to rise and the yen to fall.

Matt,

You missed the most important part of the story. The prinicpal reason for the massive accumulation of U.S. assets big the rest of the world is the efforts by a number of Emerging Market countries, especially China, to maintin dollar pegs to promote their exports. Since China does not have a Euro peg, the scale of their intervention versus the Euro has been far less extensive and the damage to European manufacturing has thus not been as severe. Dr. Setser has written extensively about this and you really should check his work out.

Obama U = University of Chicago. Obama's at our law school, and a lot of his advisors come out of Hyde Park, most notably Austen Goolsbee.

JMO, Greg never said it was the debt (or deficit spending, you seem to confuse the two - hint the latter causes the former) that has whacked the dollar. He said it was Bernanke effectively firing up the printing presses. Greg is correct of course.

Oh, good luck getting that Japanese Prime Rate loan..

JMO, Greg never said it was the debt (or deficit spending, you seem to confuse the two - hint the latter causes the former) that has whacked the dollar. He said it was Bernanke effectively firing up the printing presses. Greg is correct of course.

Exactly.

JMO, the problem is that, unlike these other countries, we are paying off our debt by printing lots of money. That obviously causes inflation and results in currency depreciation.

I have to agree with Kolohe. Tossing it all aside as, "free market supply and demand," ignores real policy changes between the 90s (strong dollar) and the 00s. The biggest being the budget surplus vs. budget deficit. I'm not sure foreigners are investing any less now than before either. The increased amount of government debt available to all buyers lowers the value of alternative forms of investment.

hankest:

Please explain what this means: "The government is essentially printing lots of money to cover its debts."

The government isn't printing money to cover its debts, it's printing money to cover the debts of delinquent mortgagors.

Peter K. said... Even after 9/11, the financial markets seized up, so Greenspan lowered rates to keep the engine humming.

I disagree. One only has to look at the refusal of the Fed and the Bush administration to properly regulate during that time to see that 9/11 was an excuse to deregulate as much as possible, all in the name of "saving" the economy. The problem is that when the avoidable excesses finally collapsed under their own weight, we suddenly needed a bailout to "save" the economy.

The problem with the current GOP and their business supporters is that they want free market gains and socialized losses. And now McCain has Phil Freakin' Gramm as a senior financial advisor and is all set to further the policies that have failed us so badly. They are operating on the premise that if some (tax cuts, deregulation, etc.) are good, more must be better. GOP fiscal thinking is all short-term.


For some reason I find it funny when supposed liberals start lecturing everyone on the needs of prudent fiscal conservatism.

Not sure if I'm viewed as one of those "liberals", but I've been a fiscal conservative all of my life. (LFC = Lifetime Fiscal Conservative). I was a registered Republican for years because I once viewed them as the party of fiscal responsibility.

I voted for Reagan and gave him a chance, and while he secured some much needed flattening of the tax rate curve, he allowed spending and deficits to skyrocket. He also "saved" Social Security and immediately gobbled up every surplus dollar. So did Bush I, who I voted for the first time, but I gave up on him on his second run.

I gave "tinkle down" economics a chance, found it to be a fraudulent concept which only worked in the presence of absurd and continuing deficit spending. I now refuse to support any candidate who preaches it. That means McCain is out for me.

In recent history, only Clinton didn't spend like a drunken sailor. This was true in his first two years when the Dems controlled Congress as well as the last 6, so you can't give credit to the GOP Congress. (And I'm talking about spending, not revenue which the Internet boom helped out on a LOT.) The one year of balanced budget also came about partly because of reasonable tax rates, something the GOP demonized and used to ride to victory in '96. If they had gotten their way, Bush type tax cuts would have occurred earlier and we never would have been in surplus.

I don't have real high hopes for the next president. It will take over a decade to repair the damage done by the GOP in pursuit of short-term gains. As Cheney put it, deficits don't matter to the GOP. I vehemently disagree and my votes have reflected view that for many years.

No, they were using what should have been short-term temporary stimulus measures to prop up the stock market and GDP figures for political purposes.

I don't think any serious economist cares about the stock market as an economic indicator (other than in a package of leading indicators), and if anything, the Fed would rather the stock market grow steadily and not get inflated by speculation (remember Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" speech?).

But as for propping up GDP-- that's the Fed's job! They are supposed to keep the economy growing as fast as possible consistent with low inflation and long-term security. And countercyclical monetary policy not only leads to immediate stimulus, but also gets us more long-term confidence in the economy as investors and consumers see that the Fed is "doing something".

Sure, it weakens the currency somewhat. But a strong currency is somewhat overrated-- you don't want massive inflation, but gradual weakening of the currency increases exports, as Matt notes.

JMO, you aksed: "Please explain what this means: 'The government is essentially printing lots of money to cover its debts.'"

I never said that. Monetary policy (which is to say "money printing" in crude terms) is not set by the gov't, it's set by the fed.

Gov't sets fiscal policy, which lately has been deficit spending. Gov't likes to fund that spending with cheap interest rates.

To get those cheap rates, Benanke has to run the presses. Print more Ben! Print some more. That a boy...

That makes the gov't spenders happy! It also makes people invested in equities happy! and real estate speculators! Yeah, everyone's happy.

Well everyone except the poor schmucks who save money in banks, or who live on fixed incomes. You know working fools.

See Weimer Republic, act 2.

But who cares about working stiffs? As long as stocks are bubbling Ben is doing his job.

Greg and hankest,

If our 2.0% fed funds rate is our way of "paying off our debt by printing lots of money." What to you make of the BOJ's 0.50% rate?

See Weimer Republic, act 2.

It's true, 3.2(ish)% inflation is basically the same as hyper-inflation. Pretty much. If you believe that I have a GOLD-obsessed candidate from Texas to sell you.

Greg and hankest,

If our 2.0% fed funds rate is our way of "paying off our debt by printing lots of money." What to you make of the BOJ's 0.50% rate?

I don't think any serious economist cares about the stock market as an economic indicator...

Agreed. Hence my belief that the GOP is populated with unserious people when it comes to the economy.


But as for propping up GDP-- that's the Fed's job! They are supposed to keep the economy growing as fast as possible consistent with low inflation and long-term security.

I agree somewhat about the Fed's job when you use the words "long-term security", but that is not what the Fed has done over the past 7 years. Instead, they have created and fostered a bubble which, unlike the Internet craze of the 90s and the biotech craze of the 80s, they actually had quite a bit of control over. It was a short-term stimulus technique turned into long-term policy, which was the antithesis of long-term security. And now it's blown up in our face.


Sure, it weakens the currency somewhat.

Somewhat? SOMEWHAT? Check out this downhill ski run of Olympic proportions.

That chart explains 1/3 of the price of a barrel of oil compared to what the European Union is paying, since oil is traded almost exclusively in U.S. dollars. And the price of oil has vastly more impact than cheaper prices for our exports. Exports will never make up the difference in advantage that a stable dollar has over the historically pummeled dollar we have now.

I wanted to answer a question I had regarding what percentage of the current gasoline prices is due to the decline of the dollar? It appears to me in the last 24 months when I look at the dollar vs the euro the decline is about 25%. At that rate with average price per gallon of $4.00 $1.00 of that is due to the decline of the dollar. Considering the ripple effect of gasoline prices on everything in our economy, that is huge.

My next question is why has the dollar lost so much of it's value and it seems to me that reading this thread there are likely a number of contributing factors. So the final question is what one action would have the most impact on restoring value?

Seems to me pegging the dollar to the gold standard should be right up there with "the one thing I would do " list. OK all the brilliant economist on this thread please be kind by indicating what one action would you take if you think my suggestion is nuts after you educate me as to why it is.

Steve Pohlit
http://www.stevereports.com

I wanted to answer a question I had regarding what percentage of the current gasoline prices is due to the decline of the dollar? It appears to me in the last 24 months when I look at the dollar vs the euro the decline is about 25%. At that rate with average price per gallon of $4.00 $1.00 of that is due to the decline of the dollar. Considering the ripple effect of gasoline prices on everything in our economy, that is huge.

My next question is why has the dollar lost so much of it's value and it seems to me that reading this thread there are likely a number of contributing factors. So the final question is what one action would have the most impact on restoring value?

Seems to me pegging the dollar to the gold standard should be right up there with "the one thing I would do " list. OK all the brilliant economist on this thread please be kind by indicating what one action would you take if you think my suggestion is nuts after you educate me as to why it is.

Steve Pohlit
http://www.stevereports.com

I wanted to answer a question I had regarding what percentage of the current gasoline prices is due to the decline of the dollar? It appears to me in the last 24 months when I look at the dollar vs the euro the decline is about 25%. At that rate with average price per gallon of $4.00 $1.00 of that is due to the decline of the dollar. Considering the ripple effect of gasoline prices on everything in our economy, that is huge.

My next question is why has the dollar lost so much of it's value and it seems to me that reading this thread there are likely a number of contributing factors. So the final question is what one action would have the most impact on restoring value?

Seems to me pegging the dollar to the gold standard should be right up there with "the one thing I would do " list. OK all the brilliant economist on this thread please be kind by indicating what one action would you take if you think my suggestion is nuts after you educate me as to why it is.

Steve Pohlit
http://www.stevereports.com

Re: but I still think it's a bit crazy to be moving a 3000lb car just to get a 200lb driver to and from work.

Working people do not live on fixed incomes. Their incomes can and do go up in periods of inflation. Even retirees do not live on fixed incomes since Social Security increases with inflation.

The best way for us to get out of the slump we're in now...is to stop funding $12 billion/month on the war(s). That will put the biggest stop on the printing presses.

Then, raise the interest rates to a level where inflation is put back into check. Now, wait for the speculation bubble to pop in the energy markets...and hang on for the ride until we clear out of this mess.

Anyone who is looking for a short-term fix, is a politician. We have to live with our decisions for more than just the next year or two...possibly consider long-run fiscal and monetary policies?? Who would of ever thunk that one??

JonF, that is why the BLS has been systematically understating inflation.


Comments closed June 27, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.