Posted on 11/29/2007 7:11:00 PM PST by LowCountryJoe
Pat Buchanan's recent attempt to diagnose the sinking dollar demonstrates that ignorance of basic economics is not limited to the Left. Buchanan points out the plummeting value of the dollar relative to other currencies and major commodities such as gold (up 24% this year) and oil (up over 50% in 12 months). He then declares that "the prime suspect in the death of the dollar is the massive trade deficits America has run up" to "maintain her standard of living and to sustain the American Imperium." This diagnosis offers a tantalizing glimpse of the truth, yet shatters it with protectionist bromides.
First, let's deflate the protectionist rhetoric. What are trade deficits and surpluses?
A trade deficit means that in sum, American dollars are going abroad in exchange for foreign goods. Consider what this means. If foreigners never cashed in those dollars, Americans would essentially be getting foreign goods free of charge. Protectionists like Buchanan condemn this as "borrowing," but this is actually a form of investment — both in US industry and in US dollars. Foreigners have been investing in the United States for decades for two primary reasons: the superior returns due to the growth potential of American capitalism, and the dominance and (relative) stability of the US dollar, which made them useful as a means of exchange apart from their purchasing power of US goods. Americans are not living "beyond our means," as Buchanan claims; we are simply a more profitable investment, with a more stable currency, than the foreign investors' own countries.
A trade surplus on the other hand, means that in sum, US goods are being sent abroad in exchange for foreign currency. A trade surplus is a form of investing in other countries, since (fiat) foreign currency is only worth the foreign capital it can purchase. This happened after World War II, when the United States sent capital to shattered foreign economies and reaped returns as the value of their economies — and thus their currencies — grew.
So are trade deficits preferable to trade surpluses? In a narrow sense, yes. A nation that has strong economic prospects will attract foreign investment and therefore experience trade deficits. Conversely, when the domestic economy is stifled by regulations and monetary manipulations, investors will send their savings abroad and their country will run a trade surplus. (This explains why the US deficit has consistently fallen during recessions and grown during periods of expansion.) However, the broader lesson is that trade inequalities indicate the net flow of foreign investment, and the benefit of the inequality is ultimately validated by the profitability of those investments. Profitable foreign investment results in GDP growth and positive currency valuations, whereas unprofitable foreign investment erodes economic growth and devalues the currency of the investment's recipient. Could a sufficiently large and wasteful investment be responsible for the current dollar crisis?
A large part of the US trade deficit comes from the bonds (treasury securities) the US government has been selling to foreigners to finance the growing federal budget deficit. The value of these bonds depends on both the strength of the US economy and the loss of value caused by expansion of the money supply. When the US Treasury sells bonds to individuals, it diverts savings from private investments; this diversion is a form of taxation. When it sells bonds to the Federal Reserve, it exchanges bonds for newly created dollars, which is a form of monetary expansion (inflation). Additionally, when the government sells debt to foreigners, it creates a liability against the US economy. Foreigners buying deficit debt are in essence betting on the ability of the government to provide a return on the investment in the form of positive economic growth. What happens when the investment fails to turn a profit?
The primary reason for the $9 trillion federal deficit is the so-called "War on Terror," including the spending on Homeland Security, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Unless you believe these funds averted an economic meltdown due to terrorism, these funds represent a near-total loss. Tanks, bombs, and bureaucratic paper pushers consume vast funds, yet they contribute nothing to the economy, aside from benefiting military contractors. This economic destruction is one of the biggest reasons for the declining dollar. (Perhaps the major reason is the credit bubble created by the inflationary policy of the Fed since the early 2000s, which is now collapsing and making the economy less attractive as an investment target.)
The falling dollar will make it increasingly expensive for the US government to accumulate more debt. Eventually, it will be forced to either cut spending, explicitly shift costs to US citizens by increasing taxes directly, or (most likely) increase taxes through higher inflation. Investors have already anticipated this and flocked to other currencies and to gold as a refuge. The slide will likely continue until some kind of budget reconciliation is evident.
The overwhelming response to the problems created by the government's financial irresponsibility has been to call for more protectionism, as Mr. Buchanan is doing. Because it creates barriers to trade and investment, protectionism makes the US dollar less valuable to both foreign consumers and investors, thus accelerating the fall of the dollar. Investors have certainly anticipated this as well — but don't blame them for betting on the gullibility of Americans to the protectionist rhetoric of economic ignoramuses like Paul Krugman and Pat Buchanan.
If we can avoid the protectionist trap and reconcile the budget, the falling value of the dollar will eventually attract investors and stimulate exports. As the developing world becomes richer and freer, the US dollar is unlikely to enjoy the unchallenged superiority it once had, but maturing foreign markets will attract products and services designed in America, and we will once again become a recipient of foreign investment. Free markets and American ingenuity made the United States the greatest economy in the world. They are the only way we will keep it that way.
The power of compounding...
87% decline means a dollar is 13 cents, approximately one-eighth of what it was 57 years ago.
That’s being cut in half approximately three times; or being cut in half every nineteen years.
By the rule of 72, that’s between 3 and 4 percent devaluation (inflation) per year.
What would these numbers have been with the Carter years removed?
Cheers!
********************
What that graph shows me is, Carter (D) created a big inflation slope. Starting with Reagan (who wasn’t a free trader), the inflation returned to a more acceptable slope.
What the graph doesn’t show is deflation, which is exactly the claims of cheap-foreign-labor are. “Price of goods will go down.”
Lowered prices of goods = deflation. There is absolutely no indication of that.
------
I hope Dobbs 17 other viewers are all as impressed as you.
Hank
“Lou Dobbs is a master propagandist. “War on the middle class” Brilliant! He blames Republicans for what Democrats do on immigration.”
I hope Dobbs 17 other viewers are all as impressed as you.
Hank
“This administration” Dobbs
“This administration” Dobbs
“This administration” Dobbs
Have you ever heard Lou Dobbs blame Democrats for overwealmingly voting for amnesty? The free-traders are politically naive, they allow Democrats to EASILLY demagogue “War on the middle class” mantra.
Republicans are being set up for a big lose.
Hunterite,
Your own words have hung you.
I’m a slaver? Why, because I manage an office?
You’re a small-minded jerk who can do nothing but call names and react hysterically to every post that doesn’t toe your party line. I’m through trying to actually engage you in intelligent debate. Go crawl back into your little hole of apparent self pity and anger.
If wishing to see this country grow and succeed and continue to dominate the world is traitorous, then I am glad to carry that name.
A pitiful man is one who clings to the past and tries to ignore the future. Live in the past and live in the margins with Buchanan and others.
I pray to God that someday you’ll let loose your anger, it will eat you from inside...
I’m through trying to actually engage you in intelligent debate.
**************
Then stop manipulating statistics and lying like a Democrat.
Count the “insult” of slaver as a badge of pride; the communists used to call the owners of business “masters” who oppressed the proletariat. Some people are inherently jealous of the successful, and will attempt to use class division and charges of oppression and slavery to make themselves feel better.
You and I know that trade helps both sides; small-minded failures refuse to acknowledge their own failings. I know that I employ extremely well paid, happy Americans who like to come to work. And I know that the factories I work with are employing people who view the job they have as a miracle, and massive step up over ajbect poverty on a farm.
I for one will simply shrug; I’d rather be John Galt than try to hold to the end as James Taggart, demanding that others give their own life energy to keep me in the style to which they live.
--------
Oh, no! Not a BIG LOSE! Anything but a BIG LOSE!
You're a big snooze.
You talk like some of the dopey union people I know. Some of 'em are still spending their days sitting in bars in the Quad Cities, prayinging that their jobs with John Deere and International Harvester are coming back some day and cursing management for replacing them. Well the unions chased those jobs to Mexico and elsewhere.....and they AIN'T COMING BACK.
Making $20/hour for totally unskilled labor wasn't enough. They had to go on strike year after frigging year. So what used to be the world capital of agricultural machinery is now a shell of itself. And the idiots that ran those unions sounded just like "Hunterite."
Change your nick to "Luddite." It would be more apropos.
Hank
...John Deere and International Harvester ...Making $20/hour for totally unskilled labor wasn’t enough...
******************
You, free-trader, just accused 99% of Americans for being unskilled and obsolete.
People like YOU are giving elections away to Democrats with your anti-American attitude. Then people like YOU turn around and praise Communist China for being business friendly.
When Republicans lose it is because of YOU. Look in the mirror.
------
ROFLMAO!!!!
You, Luddite, have just added "delusional" to "bitter" and "troll" as traits you should add to your profile.
That's if you really think I said that. If not, you aren't delusional, you're just a garden-variety liar. Like Bill Clinton and lots of your fellow Union-loving Democraps.
Hank
(Oh, by the way. If you're looking for a charitable donation this holiday season, may I suggest you check out these guys:
I've given them lost of $ over the years, and felt much better for it!)
ROFLMAO!!!!
In reality you are a hard core Marxist. Marx himself loves free trade, you praise Communist China.
------
You're such a cute troll. But not a very smart one.
First, I never said a single word about Communist China. Not a word. Just as I never said that "99% of Americans for being unskilled and obsolete." Don't you think it's just a bit pathetic that you have to make stuff up to argue against, rather than what I actually say?
Second, Marx is dead. Has been for, oh, well over a hundred years.
Third, Marx didn't love free trade. Though I'd LOVE to see your quote to back this claim up.
Finally, you know what Marx DID love? More than anything else? UNIONS! Like the TEAMSTERS!
Hank
Exactly. And if you read Marx’ speech about free trade, he advocated for it since it was disruptive to society in the late 1800s; tariffs were the status quo, and Marx sought to use ANYTHING new to change society and further a revolution.
He was NOT enamored with free trade from an economic sense; he was enamored with free trade because it was such a radical idea it offered a chance to create a revolution.
Inherently, Marx was a collectivist in which trade was meaningless, as “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” essentially obviates the need for trade.
Exactly. And if you read Marx’ speech about free trade, he advocated for it since it was disruptive to society in the late 1800s; tariffs were the status quo, and Marx sought to use ANYTHING new to change society and further a revolution.
*******************
How do I know that is not your agenda? How do I know your not a closet Marxist? It seems to me, destroying the American middle class would create allot of anarchy and “disrupt society.”
It’s quite obvious to me you don’t even know what Marx’ philosophy was, and if you don’t know what Marxism is how can you recognize it?
You very well may be right on your point about voting power; namely that besides the 2 million employed heavy truck drivers, there's also a million employed light truck drivers, and we can add retired/employed-elsewhere plus truck drivers' dependents who also vote, so you've probably got your 10 million voter impact.
For me this stuff is a lot easier done after a good night's sleep with a beautiful new day with the sun shining, even if nobody else is on line at this hour and I'm talking to myself --while you get to have everyone coming right back at you.
Bottom line is I could complain you're being anti-American saying bad stuff about the US that's not true is, but the fact is that you and I are the US, and there's no arguing with success because America prevails. Just like this forum; everyone can say you're wrong, but this place would be dead without guys like you to fight with.
Cheers!
-where the hell's my coffee...
And why not demagogue the “War on the middle class”? They have SoCons like yourself eating out of the palm of their hands. Seriously, you're not very bright and about as closed minded as I've ever seen for a FReeper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.