Replies

You appear to admire the dollar's "flexibility" in changing value. I do not, because every change in the dollar's value burdens individuals and businesses with the task of adjusting prices and wages to maintain value. This is a great drag on economic growth. I am not arguing for a Fed with no rules. To the contrary, a money rule ought to be imposed on the Fed if it will not adopt one (presently the Fed uses what amounts to intuition to determine when it feels like the funds rate target has reached its "natural" level). The money rule ought to require the FOMC to drain liquidity by selling its Treasury securities until the gold price reaches $400/oz, and then add or drain liquidity as necessary to keep it there on a continuing basis.

You are talking about menu costs. The value of the dollar does NOT vary to the degree which leads you to bring up menu costs, and hopefully you really DO know this.

Here is what you stated in a previous post: "Fed Chairman Bernanke made clear months back that this move FOR US exports would be occurring. For this to "occur", the dollar must drop, making our produced goods more attractive to the buyer." Are you saying the dollar "must drop" unintentionally?

Intention or unintentional -- is irrelevant to what the market bears and the purchasing mentality of buyers.

You are talking about menu costs. The value of the dollar does NOT vary to the degree which leads you to bring up menu costs, and hopefully you really DO know this.

I'm not familiar with the "menu costs" phrase. From 1996 to 1999, the dollar gained nearly 50% in value relative to gold. It remained deflated to 2002, reached equilibrium in 2003, and has lost about 50% since then. Plenty of change in value to do a great deal of damage all over the world.

Intention or unintentional [changing of the dollar's value] -- is irrelevant to what the market bears and the purchasing mentality of buyers.

Whether the change in the dollar's value is intentional is very relevant, because it tells us whether the Fed can actually achieve what it is attempting to do with its monetary "instrument," the funds rate target. If it is unintentional, then the Fed is unable to do what it argues its funds rate instrument is intended to do. I think the dollar's weakened condition is unintentional, and that the funds rate target policy is doing the opposite of what the Fed intends it to do. If there is a run on the dollar, a jump in the funds rate would be precisely the opposite of what should be done.

After looking at your profile, we seem to agree on a number of things regarding foreign policy. But I'm surprised that you would be comfortable with the Fed managing what the markets will bear and the purchasing mentality of Americans.