• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Economist: The Mighty Dollar (3 DEC.)

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Mighty Dollar (Why a strengthening dollar is bad for the world economy)

Excerpt:
Novus ordo seclorum

America’s relative clout as a trading power has been in steady decline: the number of countries for which it is the biggest export market dropped from 44 in 1994 to 32 two decades later. But the dollar’s supremacy as a means of exchange and a store of value remains unchallenged. Some aspects of the greenback’s power are clear to see. By one estimate in 2014 a de facto dollar zone, comprising America and countries whose currencies move in line with the greenback, encompassed perhaps 60% of the world’s population and 60% of its GDP.

Other elements are less visible. The amount of dollar financing that takes place beyond America’s shores has surged in recent years. As emerging markets grow richer and hungrier for finance, so does their demand for dollars. Since the financial crisis, low interest rates in America have led pension funds to look for decent yields elsewhere. They have rushed to buy dollar-denominated bonds issued in unlikely places ... By last year this kind of dollar debt amounted to almost $10trn, a third of it in emerging markets, according to the Bank for International Settlements, a forum for central bankers.

When the dollar rises, so does the cost of servicing those debts. But the pain caused by a stronger greenback stretches well beyond its direct effect on dollar borrowers. That is because cheap offshore borrowing has in many cases caused an increased supply of local credit. Capital inflows push up local asset prices, encouraging further borrowing...

A strengthening dollar sends this cycle into reverse. As the greenback rises, borrowers husband cash to service the increasing cost of their own debts. As capital flows out, asset prices fall. The upshot is that credit conditions in lots of places outside America are bound ever more tightly to the fortunes of the dollar. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest losers against the dollar recently have been currencies in countries, such as Brazil, Chile and Turkey, with lots of dollar debts.

If the dollar stays strong, might protectionist pressure be defused by co-ordinated international action? Nascent talk of a new pact to rival the Plaza Accord, an agreement in 1985 between America, Japan, Britain, France and West Germany to push the dollar down again, looks misplaced. Japan and Europe are battling low inflation and are none too keen on stronger currencies, let alone on the tighter monetary policies that would be needed to secure them.

Stockmarkets in America have rallied on the prospect of stronger growth. They are being too cavalier. The global economy is weak and the dollar’s muscle will enfeeble it further.

Interesting times ahead for the new Secretary of the Treasury, from Goldman Sachs. Who better than Mnuchin to respond to the challenge the Economist seems to underscore above than someone who made his fortune funding films in Hollywood like X-men and Avatar.

Ladies and gentlemen, lift-off to orbit on November 18th. Please attach seat-belts (and keep them attached throughout the flight) ...
 
The Economist is the same rag that said a Trump presidency would be more dangerous to World Stability than Open Warfare with China over shipping lanes.
 
'Battling low inflation'.

:roll:

This is just about the dumbest new craze to enter into macroeconomic discussion over the last decade or so.

Anyone who believes that low inflation is bad is a macroeconomic ignoramus. Which means a lot of central bankers/most idiotic economists seem to believe this.


Yeah, I am sure consumers in the EU and Japan are saying 'Oh God...I hope my rent goes up this year by more than it did last year.'; or 'I sure hope gas is more expensive the next time I fill up'.


Again.... :roll:
 
'Battling low inflation'.

:roll:

This is just about the dumbest new craze to enter into macroeconomic discussion over the last decade or so.

Anyone who believes that low inflation is bad is a macroeconomic ignoramus. Which means a lot of central bankers/most idiotic economists seem to believe this.


Yeah, I am sure consumers in the EU and Japan are saying 'Oh God...I hope my rent goes up this year by more than it did last year.'; or 'I sure hope gas is more expensive the next time I fill up'.


Again.... :roll:
The economist is a rag. It's based on the notion that the dollars you borrow today will be less than what it's worth when you pay it back later. This is good for speculators and other investors and bad for the common people and it always has been. Inflation has been way too high for too long.
 
Yeah, I am sure consumers in the EU and Japan are saying 'Oh God...I hope my rent goes up this year by more than it did last year.'; or 'I sure hope gas is more expensive the next time I fill up'.

I would blame this sentiment on ignorance... but you've been corrected for ridiculous economic statements more times than i care to count. Consumers in the EU/Japan are saying, "I hope my wages go up this year by more than they did last year." It is through wage growth that desirable gains in consumption and investment are realized.
 
Inflation has been way too high for too long.

What level of inflation are you talking about, and for how long has it been too high?

This will be interesting :lol:
 
The economist is a rag. It's based on the notion that the dollars you borrow today will be less than what it's worth when you pay it back later. This is good for speculators and other investors and bad for the common people and it always has been. Inflation has been way too high for too long.

What is almost as pathetic is this notion amongst central bankers/idiot economists that short term deflation is akin to the plague. That people will stop buying things if deflation is 0.01% because they will hold their money in the belief that if they do the things they want will be cheaper later on.

This is so dense.

So the average consumer is going to wait an entire year to buy a $1,000 iPad for his child because at 1% deflation it will cost $990? He is going to wait an entire year just to save $10? No chance. Again...SOOO dense.

Sure, long term OR high deflation is bad. But short term, small deflation is fine.

Most economists are macroeconomic ignoramuses and almost all central bankers are nothing but glorified bean counters.
 
:peace
What is almost as pathetic is this notion amongst central bankers/idiot economists that short term deflation is akin to the plague. That people will stop buying things if deflation is 0.01% because they will hold their money in the belief that if they do the things they want will be cheaper later on.

This is so dense.

So the average consumer is going to wait an entire year to buy a $1,000 iPad for his child because at 1% deflation it will cost $990? He is going to wait an entire year just to save $10? No chance. Again...SOOO dense.

Sure, long term OR high deflation is bad. But short term, small deflation is fine.

Most economists are macroeconomic ignoramuses and almost all central bankers are nothing but glorified bean counters.

That is quite nice humor. :lamo
 

Of course a shift in the relative prices of labor and production assets to product price such that you need increasing amounts of produced goods to pay, will reduce the number of jobs and thus consumption in an economy with sticky prices for labor.
 
The economist is a rag. It's based on the notion that the dollars you borrow today will be less than what it's worth when you pay it back later. This is good for speculators and other investors and bad for the common people and it always has been. Inflation has been way too high for too long.
So, the guy who doesn't know enough about economics to realize that inflation has been extremely low in the US since around 1984, thinks The Economist doesn't know what it's talking about? lol

By the way, insult is not an argument. So, let's hear the argument shall we? Explain to us how it is beneficial for the dollar to continue to appreciate compared to other major international currencies.
 
Back
Top Bottom