November 17, 2004
TRYING TOO HARD NOT TO BE BUSH:
The Dangerous Dollar (Robert J. Samuelson, November 17, 2004, Washington Post)
As in the 1950s, today's outflow of dollars stimulates the global economy. Unlike the 1950s, it involves huge U.S. trade and current account deficits. (The "current account" includes trade plus other "current" overseas payments, such as travel, freight costs and dividend payments.) In 1990 the U.S. current account deficit was $79 billion, or 1.4 percent of gross domestic product. In 2004, it's expected to hit an unprecedented $665 billion, or 5.6 percent of GDP, says economist Nariman Behravesh of Global Insight. The ballooning deficit has two basic causes.First, the American economy has grown faster than other advanced economies. Since 1990 U.S. economic growth has averaged 3 percent annually, compared with 2 percent for the European Union and 1.7 percent for Japan. America's higher growth sucks in imports; Europe's and Japan's slower growth hurts U.S. exports.
Second, the global demand for dollars props up its exchange rate, making U.S. exports more expensive and U.S. imports cheaper. Indeed, many countries, particularly in Asia, fix their currencies to keep their exports competitive in the U.S. market. Instead of allowing surplus dollars to be sold on foreign exchange markets -- lowering the dollar's value -- government central banks in Japan, China and other Asian countries have purchased more than $1 trillion of U.S. Treasury securities. Private investors have also bought lots of U.S. stocks and bonds. All told, foreigners own about 13 percent of U.S. stocks, 24 percent of corporate bonds and 43 percent of U.S. Treasury securities.
Up to a point, this arrangement benefits everyone. The world gets needed dollars; Americans get more imports, from cars to clothes. But we may now have passed that point. Hazards may outweigh benefits. The world may be receiving more dollars than it wants. A sell-off could spill over into the stock and bond markets and cause a deep global recession. Here's how.
Foreign traders and investors sell dollars on foreign exchange markets. The dollar declines in relation to the euro, the yen and other currencies. The dollar's decline means that the value of foreigners' investments in U.S. stocks and bonds -- measured in their own currencies -- is also dropping. So foreigners stop buying U.S. stocks and start selling what they have. The stock market drops sharply.
Presto: the makings of a global recession. The stock market slide causes American consumer confidence and spending to weaken. If foreigners also flee the bond market, long-term interest rates on bonds and mortgages might rise. Higher currencies make Europe's and Japan's exports less competitive. Their industries stagnate. The United States, Europe and Japan constitute about half the global economy. Their recessions would hurt the Asian, Latin American and African countries that export to them. Markets interconnect; weakness spreads. It's grim.
Note, however, that the dollar's vulnerability is a symptom of something else: the addiction of Europe and Asia to exporting to the United States. If their economies grew faster on their own, the massive U.S. payments deficits wouldn't have emerged. The dollar would have quietly drifted down. Foreigners would have invested less in the United States, because they'd have more investment opportunities at home. But Europe suffers from suffocating taxes and regulations. Japan has long favored export-led growth. And about 35 percent of China's exports go to the United States, says economist Nicholas Lardy.
President Bush has caused this problem but only indirectly: the steps the Europeans need to take are obvious enough but they can't take them because of anti-Bush politics. Tax cuts smack of Bushism and they artificially hiked the euro in order that a "strong" currency might hide their geo-political weakness. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 17, 2004 6:54 PM
I've often wondered what would happen if the US became a banana republic, and decided to renounce our foreign debt.
Would we nationalize all those foreign investments in the US, like other countries did to ours in the 1950s and 1960s?
All those German and Japanese car plants in Alabama and Indiana are belong to us now!
Posted by: John J. Coupal at November 17, 2004 10:14 PMWhy is anyone expecting the Europeans to go into massive debt just so they can consume as much as we do? They're not going to do it. The only way to get the deficit back in line is for Americans to borrow and spend less, and save more. Otherwise the dollar will keep dropping until it hits a level where we will.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 17, 2004 10:58 PMTheir debt is higher than ours.
Posted by: oj at November 17, 2004 11:00 PMThat's a mighty pretty theory Samuelson has there; only problem is, he didn't bother to fact check it against history.
Although it's remotely possible that foreign investors will decide en masse to withdraw their equity from American stock markets, and that such a selling frenzy would drive the markets rapidly and deeply downwards, such is not a net negative for Americans, quite the contrary.
Since Americans don't have any currency risks, and since the underlying companies will be completely undamaged, still producing whatever profits they were before the selloff, it'll only provide enormous buying opportunities for Americans.
It'll be a foreign panic, but an American bonanza.
Further, during the crash of '87, and the bear market of '00 - '03, consumer spending dropped off not at all, pace Samuelson.
Therefore, although a weak dollar might mean a recession in Europe and Asia, it won't hurt Americans much, as a whole.
Although the US will pay much higher nominal prices for imported commodities and raw materials, such as oil, millions of jobs will also be created in manufacturing and tourist-related service industries.
John J. Coupal:
It would be a disaster.
Not only would Americans have to start paying for our own Federal budget deficits, but since the US owes relatively little in the way of foreign debt, it'd be like declaring personal bankruptcy over debts totalling six months' wages.
Robert Duquette:
The US trade deficit isn't a sign of American weakness, it's a sign of foreign weakness, as Samuelson mentions in the posted article, and as I explained yestereve in the comments for the post about Europe complaining about the weak dollar.
Americans aren't running trade deficits to buy necessary food and raw materials; they're buying DVD players, plasma TVs, and gaming systems.
If the dollar gets too weak, Japanese and Korean companies will either open manufacturing and assembly plants in the US, or American manufacturers will take over the markets.
We don't depend on a strong dollar for survival.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 18, 2004 12:01 AMIf withdrawn from the US, where exactly would foreign investment move to? These sorts of articles love to point out the weak-points of the American economy, yet never metion what alternatives exist, let alone how they stack up in comparison. So, you're an investor who thinks the US debt is shaky, so you pull out and.. invest in China? What? Russia? Europe? India? Seriously?
I'm not sayin' I'm right, but am I alone in wondering about this?
Posted by: Mike at November 18, 2004 12:37 AMMike:
You are right, which is why a massive sell-off of foreign-owned American stocks is unlikely.
Even when foreign investors aren't making money in the American stock market, due to currency fluctuations, they still value the asset-preserving stability of the US economy and political system.
Plus, the prospects for economic growth in America, over the next twenty years, are far brighter than for Europe, Russia, or China.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 18, 2004 10:48 PM