Credit Downgrades and Europe

The problem is the free flow of capital throughout most of the world. 

When capital flows freely you cannot escape the consequences of your actions.

What is called the “trilemma” problem of international economics makes this very clear.  The “trilemma” problem states that a country can only choose two of the following three options.  The three options are to be a part of world capital markets where capital flows freely; have a fixed exchange rate; or, be free to run an independent economic policy.

If there is a free flow of capital internationally, then the choice is reduced to just one of the two remaining options.  But, there are consequences to either choice.

First, if a country choses to run its economic policy independently of all other nations, then it must let it currency float in the foreign exchange markets.  Generally, a nation that wants to run an independent economic policy has particular domestic economic goals it wants to achieve and so wants to be able to choose an independent economic policy that supports these goals.

The goals most often chosen in the latter part of the twentieth century have been full employment and social welfare programs like government jobs, early retirement, substantial amounts of vacation, and high pension levels.  The means of achieving these goals has often been a policy of public sector credit inflation. 

If a country chooses the path of credit inflation then the price of its currency in foreign exchange markets must be allowed to float.  And, if credit inflation becomes extreme, the value of the currency in the foreign exchange markets will decline.  And, this will bring on other problems. 

This is one reason John Maynard Keynes wanted restrictions on the international flow of capital in the 1920s and 1930s. (http://seekingalpha.com/article/167893-john-maynard-keynes-and-international-relations-economic-paths-to-war-and-peace-by-donald-markwell)   A limited flow of capital internationally was a reality when Keynes helped to craft the Bretton Woods agreement that created the rules for the post-World War II international monetary system.  This agreement also included fixed exchange rates between the currencies of the participant nations. 

The purpose of this system was to allow member countries to follow their own economic policies aimed at achieving high levels of employment in their own country.  Therefore, a policy of credit inflation could be followed in each country without disrupting changes in foreign currency rates.

The Bretton Woods system fell apart as international capital markets opened up in the 1950s and 1960s and the credit inflation created in the United States in the 1960s resulted in a situation where the United States could not maintain its fixed exchange rate.  On August 15, 1971, President Nixon choose to float the value of the U. S. dollar.

A second choice, given the unrestricted flow of capital internationally, is to choose a fixed exchange rate.  But, if a nation chooses a fixed exchange rate then it must give up its sovereignty with respect to running an economic policy that is independent of other nations. 

This is what the European nations did when they choose to form a monetary union based on a single currency, the euro: in essence, they choose to have a fixed exchange rate between member nations.  But, the nations forming the union did not want to give up their sovereignty with regards to the formation of their government budgets. 

Oh, they allowed for budget deficits to be run, but they were to be limited in scope.  This, they felt, gave the included nations some flexibility in creating their budgets, but, they were not supposed to exceed the set limits.  The problem was that these limits were unenforceable. 

Which brings us to the current time.  Budget limits have been grossly exceeded and the nations forming the European currency union and these eurozone nations are unable…or unwilling…to give up the sovereignty of running their own economic policy or abiding by the rules of the union.

The “trilemma” analysis states very clearly that in circumstances like this the monetary union must be broken up and the countries must form a central budgetary unit or must once again establish their own currency units whose price will be floated against the other currencies of the former eurozone countries. 

The ultimate cost of running independent economic policies and trying to run a single currency monetary union will be the destruction of the sovereign political bodies as we know them in Europe or the euro, as we know it now, will have to become history.

Current events now relate to the break down of solvency talks, which had been taking place between the Greek government and private investors in Greek debt.  An “unrealistic” proposal has been rejected by the debt holders.     

Furthermore, the credit downgrades of France and other nations, which took place over the past week, were expected, yet no one really exhibited any sense of urgency.   Now that the downgrades have taken place a downward spiral seems to be starting.

“Both events are important because they show us the mechanism behind this year’s likely unfolding of events.  The eurozone has fallen into a spiral of downgrades, falling economic output, rising debt and further downgrades.  A recession has started.  Greece is now likely to default on most of its debts and may even have to leave the eurozone.  When that happens, the spotlight will fall immediately on Portugal, and the next contagious round of downgrades will begin.” (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/987fd2fe-3ddc-11e1-91ba-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1jd5VycTs)

The European Financial Stability Facility has also been downgraded and this means that its effective lending capacity has been reduced.  The ability to “bailout” distressed countries has declined.  And, the European Central Bank cannot resolve the longer-term issues.  There is very little still available to the European officials to “kick the can down the road” any more.

I just do not see the European countries at this time getting over their resistance to form “a strong central fiscal authority with power to tax and allocate resources across the eurozone.”  Hence, I don’t have much confidence for the continued existence of a common currency for Europe, except maybe, on a much more limited scale.  Right now, I don’t see alternatives to the downward spiral mentioned above.

The bottom line is that the conditions of the “trilemma” problem seem to hold.  Given that capital is flowing freely throughout the world nations cannot just totally ignore the consequences of their choice of economic policy.  And, if the consequences of that economic policy are not realized immediately, the evidence shows that they will be realized sooner or later.  This is a lesson in macroeconomic decision-making that all countries need to take into account when determining what economic policy they should be following.  Are you listening America?     

One-Way Bets for Traders

Government interventions are taking place all over the world from the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program to the efforts to prevent debt write-downs in Europe to South Korea’s currency intervention.

Will governments ever learn?

Wise advice: “Today’s eager interventionists should take note. Far more than they realize, they are setting up one-way bets for traders.”

The reason: sooner or later, markets “revert to the mean”: markets ultimately adjust to their underlying economic value.

“Hedge funds know that South Korea’s won is being artificially held down by the government and is therefore more likely to rise than to depreciate, so they are hosing Seoul with capital and compounding the problem of hot inflows that Korea is desperate to alleviate.”

Both of these quotes come from “Currency Warriors Should Consider India” by Sebastian Mallaby in the Financial Times. (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0f26703c-f105-11df-bb17-00144feab49a.html#axzz15Rw49cE9)

In other words, international investors, like hedge funds, are pouncing on the opportunities governments set up for them.

The won situation is just the reverse side of the classic George Soros “bet” against the British Pound in 1992. The British government tried to keep the value of the pound above an agreed lower limit in agreement with the policies of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. “Black Wednesday” refers to the events of September 16, 1992 when the value of the pound was allowed to drop toward its underlying economic value. Soros, who had been selling the pound short is reported to have made over one billion dollars on this effort of the government to intervene in the market. The government set up a “one-way bet” for traders.

But, this is happening all over. Karim Abdel-Motaal and Bart Turtelboom, portfolio managers at GLG Partners, write this morning: “…emerging markets are being flooded with freshly minted dollars. No matter how much sand is thrown in the wheel in the form of intervention, transaction taxes or capital controls, these capital inflows will get through.” (See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81dd24ea-f0c9-11df-8cc5-00144feab49a.html#axzz15S17R06s)

Preparations to take advantage of these “one-way bets” are not limited to one part of the world. “Asia’s financial firms are on the prowl—for deals as well as for new investors. Even as they continue to strengthen their capital base through stock offerings, Asian banks, insurers and other financial firms are converting the floods of capital in the region into firepower for acquisitions.” (See http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703670004575616162768312620.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_2&mg=reno-wsj)

Financial capital is being built up around the world to take advantage of the incentives that exist within the current environment. And, governments are creating some of the most attractive incentives going!

With these huge amounts of capital available, governments can only maintain their interventions for a limited amount of time. Eventually, the markets win!

In trying to overcome the market, the “one-way bets” are created that make certain traders enormously wealthy, as in the case of George Soros. That is, these governments are underwriting Wall Street and not Main Street, just what they say they don’t want to do!

This seems to be what is happening to the debt markets in Europe. Earlier this year the European Union pulled together to avoid a collapse of the debt markets and save the Euro. It has become apparent that these efforts just provided a temporary escape from the underlying economic realities alive in Europe.

Europe, once again, seems to be approaching the edge of the abyss. Now, participants in the financial markets are calling for a debt re-structuring in many nations and not just a financial “safety net” to help support existing debt levels. Investors seem to be insisting that Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece, Italy, and even, possibly France, write down their debt and begin anew.

The earlier efforts did not produce the result desired. The earlier efforts did not achieve the path to the real underlying economic realities that exist.

Speaking of debt, let’s shift to the debt situation in the United States. I was taught that the Federal Reserve could only really control short-term interest rates because they had short-term maturities. The Fed could impact longer-term interest rates but only for a limited amount of time because these investments provided cash flows for a longer period of time than the Fed could dominate the markets. Thus, longer-term interest rates could be held below real economic values for the short-run, but the “bets” of the financial markets would come to dominate over time and the longer-term interest rates would either rise back to the levels market conditions warranted or could even rise above levels the market was once happy with because inflationary expectations would overcome and offset the efforts of the central bank to hold down long-term interest rates.

In other words, in attempting to artificially keep long-term interest rates low, the Fed will be creating a “one-way bet” that market participants can take advantage of and make lots and lots of money.

This is a “reversion to the mean” argument and is the basis for “Value Investing.” Over the longer run, markets adjust to economic realities. The risk associated with this conclusion is connected to the length of time it takes for the market adjustment to take place. This is the problem that Long Term Capital Management ran into. The “reversion to the mean” did not occur soon enough.

Eventually, the long-run is achieved and many investors make a lot of money!

Large amounts of cash have been accumulated to take advantage of these “one-way bets.” If it is observed that governments have set up “one-way bets” and will set up even more “one-way bets” in the future, capital will rush to take advantage of the free gift of the governments. The more the government’s attempt to maintain this intervention, the more money there is to make.

The underlying question concerns how much the government is willing to pay to maintain its intervention. In the Soros case described above, it has been revealed that the British government expended £3.3 billion in its attempt to keep the value of the pound above the lower limits. These are 1992 values and not 2010 values.

Who knows how much governments in Europe and the United States have spent in order to try and maintain their interventionists policies. The basic guess is in the trillions.

And how much have investors made taking advantage of these interventions? The Fed has kept its Federal Funds target close to zero for two years. This policy has put trillions of dollars into the hands of the already wealthy. So much for a more equal distribution of wealth in the world!

Governments never seem to learn.

Is the United States on the Right Track?

The debate rages on: is the economic policy of the United States on the right track? On one side of the argument we hear that not enough has been done by the government to get the economy going again and to reduce unemployment. On the other side we hear that the government is creating too much debt and that most attention needs to be given to the reduction of the looming federal deficits.

Which argument is correct?

Well, if we look at the value of the dollar for an answer to this question, it seems as if investors are leaning a little more on the side of the latter.

This chart shows the value of the United States dollar against other major currencies in the world. The grade that is being given the economic policies of the United States government is not a good one. It should be noted that this index includes the Euro and the British Pound, two currencies that have been quite weak against the United States dollar recently.

Since January 2001, the value of the United States dollar has declined by about 26% against these major currencies. At one time, in 2008, the value was about 32% lower than in January 2001, but the ‘flight to quality’ during the Great Recession allowed the dollar to recover somewhat, but it then declined again to its current level as confidence rebounded.

Even with the situation in Greece (and Portugal and Spain and Ireland and…) investors in international markets still seem to believe that the United States government is on the wrong path with respect to its fiscal and monetary policies. Federal deficits totaling at least $15 trillion over the next ten years connected with a monetary policy that is keeping its target interest rate close to zero for an unknown length of time is not a combination that builds much confidence.

It could be argued that these international investors are giving the Obama Administration about the same grade it gave the Bush (43) Administration. If it were not for events going on in other countries, the value of the dollar could be even lower.

In fact, the recent performance of the dollar indicates that the international financial community sees little difference between the performance of the current administration and that of the administrations that preceded it over the past forty-five years of so, going back to 1961. Yes, different administrations pursued different specific policies that represented what they thought was best for the country, but in terms of aggregate policies, there has been little difference overall. The general thrust has been more federal debt and more private credit. The result: an almost constant increase in credit inflation.

Now, there is the threat of a debt deflation as a consequence of the Great Recession, but world currency markets don’t seem to think that a debt deflation is the most likely prospect.

With a government whose gross debt doubled since January 2001 and is projected to double again within the next decade and with a Federal Reserve that has injected $1.1 trillion of excess reserves into the banking system, little confidence exists among international investors that the United States government can “exit” this situation without losing control.

You can say all you want to about the policy differences of the different administrations over the last fifty years, but if you look at the aggregate economic data, very little separates the performance of the Republican and Democratic Presidents. President Nixon, perhaps, spoke for all Presidents of the past fifty years: “We are all Keynesians”.

One could argue that the Clinton Administration was the exception in terms of fiscal policy. And, Paul Volcker had to overcome the fiscal prodigals, Carter and Reagan, to achieve some credibility for the United States in international financial markets.

This relatively steady performance has weakened the United States internationally and the continued weakness in the dollar indicates that investors think that the current direction of policy will weaken the United States further going forward. This decline, connected with the ascension of the BRICS and other emerging areas in the world, is shifting power relationships all over the globe. The move from the G8 to the G20 captures this change.

The thing is, power cannot stand a vacuum. If the United States is wobbling a little, China, Brazil and others are there to fill in the spaces. Other nations will not stand still so as to allow the United States to dig itself out of the hole that Bush (43) put it in. In fact, by pursuing the same kind of aggregate economic policies that were followed by the Bush (43) Administration, large deficits and extremely loose monetary policy, the Obama Administration, in many ways, just seems to be digging the hole deeper.

Ben Bernanke is even calling for the Obama Administration to produce an “exit” strategy to reduce future federal deficits. But this just highlights the problems that this administration faces. The government must “exit” both an excessively loose monetary policy as well as an excessively prodigal fiscal policy stance. It will be a truly exceptional performance if this administration can pull it off.

Right now, I believe that world markets think that they cannot pull it off. The place to watch is the foreign currency markets: keep your eye on the value of the dollar!

Uncertainty: The King of the Market and what to do about it

This is a time that is particularly conducive to impulsive or instinctive behavior. It is a time that behavioral economists love because it proves their case about irrational human behavior. People react and they react on the basis of a gut feeling or a snap judgment.

These researchers tell us that this type of behavior is what has helped the human species survive. However, it is not necessarily the kind of behavior that leads to decisions or actions that are in our best interest when investing. “Relying only on intuition in finance can lead to very bad outcomes, not only for individuals but also for markets.” (This quote comes from David Adler’s new book “Snap Judgment”: see my post that reviews this book, http://seekingalpha.com/article/145660-book-review-snap-judgment-by-david-e-adler.) Yet we humans, individually and collectively continue to perform in this way.

Right now, the concern is whether or not the economy is bottoming out and starting to recover. We get “green shoots” here, but then some other indicator of economic activity comes in worse than expected. Alcoa puts up better than expected loss numbers but retail sales come in lower than expected. Sales of existing homes improve yet we get wind of another wave of subprime mortgage problems. (See “Subprime Returns as Housing Woe,” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124709571378614945.html#mod=todays_us_money_and_investing.) And, what about the problems in commercial real estate, credit cards, and Alt A mortgages?

Then there is the question about whether or not there should be a second round stimulus bill. Paul Krugman has argued for a long time that the first stimulus bill was not enough. Yesterday Laura Tyson indicated that she thought that there needed to be a second round. Now the debate is all over the place. But, wouldn’t another stimulus bill add more to the government budget deficit going forward? And, there are questions about the possibility that the government has already committed to too much debt.

So the Dow Jones average goes up from 6500 and looks very strong approaching 9000 and then goes into a swoon. The price of crude oil was approaching $40 a barrel in February and then shot up to above $70 but now has returned to the $60 range. The yield on the 10-year treasury issue was nearing 2.00% in December 2008, jumped up to around 3.90% in the middle of June and traded at 3.30% yesterday. An index relating the value of the dollar against major currencies was around 70 in July 2008, popped up to the mid-80s in March 2009 and has since declined to about 77.

When the economic indicators seem strong the price of oil goes up as does the stock market and the price of bonds and the value of the dollar decline. When the economy seems weaker we get just the opposite movements. And, my bet is that it is going to continue this way for a while. So, uncertainty, and hence volatility, rule the marketplace.

This is the short run. Recently, however, I have been writing more upon the long run, what deficits do to long term interest rates and to the value of the dollar. Over the longer run, historically, some patterns repeat themselves over and over again. This, of course, brings to mind the statement made by John Maynard Keynes, “In the long run we are all dead!” Still, we need to take the long run into account.

This is where we need to take heed of what the behavioral economists advise. We, as investors, must not rely on intuition or gut reactions. We must not over react to the environment we now find ourselves in. Research has shown that acting in this way is not necessarily in our best interest.

The research also indicates that investing based on fundamental economic reasoning does work. Therefore, it seems as if now is a time for discipline and hard work. And, it is a time for patience.

But, this does not mean that one needs to totally ignore the short run. It is perhaps impossible to expect that most people will just sit out this stage of the economic cycle and invest their funds in safe, low-yielding assets. So, what kind of strategy might work here? My suggestion is that one needs to segment one’s portfolio, allocating some money to playing in the current market volatility, but allocating a larger share of the funds to potential future fundamental investment choices.

The smaller part of the portfolio can be allocated to playing both sides of various markets. Obviously, getting into the market near a “bottom” would be very profitable, but selling short near a “top” would also work. But, by all means consider any investments here as short term in nature because it is highly likely that the “bottom” may not turn out to be a “bottom” at all. Likewise for a “top.” So, one must be very agile in investing this way. Don’t hang onto losses, but let gains ride. Behavioral finance tells us that people tend to operate in the opposite way hanging onto losses hoping for the best and quickly selling gains to have something to show for their efforts. This is where discipline and focus are crucial.

Furthermore, remember that, on average, the expected returns on trading are zero: and there are still fees that need to be paid. But, using part of your funds in this way keeps you “playing the game” while still keeping the major part of your portfolio available for “value” investing to take advantage of longer run opportunities.

As research has shown, the fundamentals do apply over longer periods of time. Perhaps, however, it is not quite time to commit to some of these “value” propositions. People are worried about the potential inflation that may come about due to the large government budget deficits and the possibility that the Federal Reserve will have to monetize a substantial amount of the debt created. But, there are many people who think that deflation is going to be more of an issue in the near term. Hence, it is perhaps a little premature to put funds into investments that will prosper from a future period of high inflation. This part of the portfolio should be kept safe, but also should be able to be accessed when the time is right to commit to the longer run fundamentals. Research, however, has shown that it is alright to be a little early on these types of investments because the possible returns on such a commitment to fundamentals are substantial enough that being a little early is not harmful.

It is also important that an investor should stay in the areas of the market that they know best. If your skills lend themselves to the technology sector of the stock market then stay there. If your skills are in the government bond market then stay there. If your skills are in the foreign exchange market then stay there. Again, discipline and focus are all important.

Uncertainty is going to remain with us for quite some time in financial markets and commodity markets. The behavioral economists have warned us that this is a dangerous time to act in just an impulsive or instinctive manner. So, if being methodical is not your “cup of tea” then beware for the statistics are not with you. Chasing every “green shoot” or market reaction is not going to produce happy results. Acting in a focused and disciplined way may be very difficult for us to achieve but we need to try. That is what humans have learned they must do in activities like investing in financial or commodity markets.

The Fed Moves to Monetize

The Federal Reserve shocked the financial markets yesterday. The Fed released the results of its just-ended Federal Open Market Committee meeting and the response was immediate—stock market indices went up—and the value of the dollar went down!

The reason—the Open Market Committee approved a plan to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities over the next six months. This is in addition to a plan to increase the Fed’s purchase of up to an additional $750 billion of agency mortgage-backed securities.

The stock markets took this surprise as a positive sign that the Fed was being true to what Chairman Ben Bernanke had indicated in recent speeches and interviews—“the Federal Reserve will employ all available tools to promote economic recovery.” (Oh, he also added “and to preserve price stability.”) Good news—right? Well, the stock market seemed to be “mixed” today.

The foreign exchange markets took another view and the value of the dollar dropped sharply, and the selloff was “widespread” according to the Wall Street Journal. Bad news—right? Well, the value of the dollar continued to decline today.

It is a complex story. I have been one that has continuously expressed concern over the long term prospects for the dollar in foreign exchange markets. See for example my post “The Obama Stimulus Plan and the Dollar: Is There a Connection (http://seekingalpha.com/article/114310-the-obama-stimulus-plan-and-the-dollar-is-there-a-connection). The concern is over the huge United States budget deficit and how this deficit is to be financed in future years. The long-run view of such large deficits is that a substantial portion of them will have to be monetized by the central bank. The fundamental effort of all Keynesian fiscal policy is to inflate or reflate the economy.

There are some complicating factors to this simple story. Through all the financial and economic turmoil of the past six months the dollar has not declined in value but has actually strengthened. If participants in the financial markets are so concerned about the deficits of the United States government and the possibility that the Federal Reserve will monetize a bunch of the debt, why has the value of the dollar gone in the direction it has? Why hasn’t the value of the dollar tanked, instead?

For one, the United States dollar is the “world” currency and it still is the currency of choice in times of uncertainty and turmoil. Thus, the strength of the dollar has, to a large extent, been the result of a “flight to safety” on the part of many investors in the world. It will, undoubtedly, continue to be a “safe haven” for much of the world’s wealth for a long while into the future.

Second, because most of the whole world is in some kind of a recession and are following similar fiscal and monetary policies, it becomes difficult to discern which currencies throughout the world are going to be the worst off. If changes in the value of currencies are a result of changes in the relative prospect for future inflation in different countries, then the exchange rates will ultimately be dependent upon just how each of these countries handles the pressures created by their own stimulus packages.

As for the United States dollar, the most important factor determining its value in the near term is going to be the “safety” factor. Still, other factors, like the aggressive posture of the Federal Open Market Committee cannot be ignored. And, this seems to be what is happening right now in foreign exchange markets. I would argue that even though this latter movement might be a short-run phenomenon, a person concerned with the future health of the United States economy should not ignore what the foreign exchange market might be telling us.

I continue to go to this statement of Paul Volcker: “a nation’s exchange rate is the single most important price in the economy.” (Paul Volcker and Toyoo Gyohten, “Changing Fortunes: the World’s Money and the Threat to American Leadership,” (New York: Times Books, 1992), p. 232.) Consequently, what is happening or will happen to this price should be of major concern to investors. This price will carry with it the view of the world investment community about how the United States is conducting its fiscal and monetary policies.

This is something that the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve System need to pay attention to. The most recent example of ignoring information like this came during the years of the Bush administration. In 2001 a tax cut was passed by the government that took the government budget from a surplus to a deficit position. This was followed by increasing expenditures that went to support several military engagements around the world. The fundamental market response to this was that the value of the dollar began to decline early in 2002.

In addition to this the Federal Reserve System kept short term interest rates at very low levels (the effective Federal Funds rate was below 2% from early in 2002 until the beginning of 2005) for an extended period of time which resulted in negative real rates of interest during this interval. Participants in foreign exchange markets continued to put pressure on the value of the dollar into the summer of 2008. Even though officials in the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve System claimed that they were watching the value of the dollar and maintaining its value was an important goal, little or nothing was done about this decline and the market value continued to sink.

The value of the dollar is something that we need to continue to watch closely. The concern over the monetary and fiscal policies of the Obama administration is not misplaced. A warning shot was issued this week by the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao when he indicated that he was a “little bit worried” about the safety of the U. S. Treasury bonds that his government owns. The reaction of the foreign exchange market to the Fed’s announcement about their plan to buy up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury securities is another. And, there is also the concern of some analysts that the real financial and economic issue facing the United States is one of “too much debt” and that this debt overload is exacerbating the economic slowdown. As the historian Niall Ferguson, author of “The Ascent of Money” (see review at http://seekingalpha.com/article/120595-a-financial-history-of-the-world), has stated, “the solution to the problem of having too much debt around is not creating more debt.”

Is the decision of the Federal Open Market Committee to purchase up to $300 billion of longer-term Treasury issues the next step in the monetizing of the debt? Will the release of this information contribute to a further decline in the value of the dollar? There are, of course, a lot of “known unknowns” and “unknown unknowns” at this time. Obviously, it is a very risky time. However, in my view, eventually the value of the dollar will continue to erode. History has shown that this is what eventually happens in situations like the one we are in.

The Declining Dollar

The decline in the value of the dollar has gotten increasing headlines since the Federal Reserve Board of Governors released its new monetary policy efforts on Tuesday. Many short run reasons are being given for the recent decline in the value of the dollar, especially against the Euro and the Yen.

The most intriguing explanation for the decline, however, is a longer term reason. In this explanation, analysts argue that the decline in the value of the dollar is just a continuation of the trend which began in early 2002 and continued through until early August 2008.

The story that accompanies this explanation is that a series of events in 2001 and 2002 convinced international markets that the United States government had forfeited any discipline it had established over its fiscal and monetary policies. First, there was the huge Bush (43) tax cut that moved the government’s budget from one of surplus to one of deficit. This was followed by the war on terror and the Iraq invasion which exacerbated the amount of the budget deficit.

In addition to this the Greenspan Federal Reserve cut the target Federal Funds rate to very low levels, around 1% or so, for a period of about two years. Mr. Greenspan’s concern, apparently, was fear of an extended recession following the burst of the dot.com bubble in the stock market. The result was the creation of the housing bubble as well as smaller bubbles in other areas of the economy, including commodity prices.

As a consequence of these actions, massive amounts of debt were created. Fortunately for the United States…at the time…was that over 50% of this debt…both private and public debt…was financed outside of the United States…large amounts being placed in China, India, and the middle east…although as we found out…banks all over the world acquired huge quantities of mortgage-backed debt.

The interesting thing that was learned from this period is that consumer inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index) could be kept in check while inflation ran rapid in asset prices (particularly in housing prices and commodity prices at this time). The monetary authorities concentrated on consumer prices and did nothing with respect to asset prices.

The thing is that “self-reinforcing expectations” can get built into asset prices leading to a massive increase of financial leverage. Consumer credit can be expanded for purchases of the items individuals purchase, but this credit expansion cannot match the possibilities for increase that exist as asset prices go up substantially, year-after-year.

Foreign exchange rates capture the relative expectations of people that operate in these markets. The specific ‘relative expectations’ that are relevant here pertain to how market participants judge how the economies of different countries are expected to perform. Performance in this instance relates to the state of the economy, performance of government’s in terms of their conduct of their economic policies, and expected inflation.

In this respect, Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, has stated that the price of a country’s currency is the most important price in its economy. The value of a country’s currency is, in a real sense, the “grade card” of the country’s economic and monetary policy, relative to the rest of the world.

Thus, as the value of the United States dollar fell more than 40% from early 2002 to August 2008, participants in international financial markets were indicating a belief that the government of the United States was showing little or no discipline over its budget and this was connected with an extremely “loose” monetary policy. To these market participants, the United States would have to “pay the piper”, sooner or later.

As the story continues, when the financial markets fell apart in September, the United States dollar became the “quality” asset in the world and investors flocked to the dollar as they repatriated assets from all over the globe in order to invest in U. S. Treasury securities. As a consequence of this rush to quality the value of the United States dollar rose.

This latter movement has apparently come to an end. There seems to be a number of short-run reasons for the recent decline in the value of the United States dollar…one of them being a move on the part of foreign investors to get back into their own currencies to dress up their year-end balance sheets.

But, there is another reason given for the drop in the value of the dollar and this is connected with the decisions of the Federal Reserve that were announced on Tuesday and the projected rise in the deficit of the federal government. For all intents and purposes, the target Federal Funds rate is now approximately zero. In addition, the Fed said that it would buy financial assets, long term U. S. Treasury issues and mortgage backed bonds and so forth in order to flood the financial markets with liquidity. And, they warned, they will continue to do this for as long as necessary…whatever “necessary” means. On top of this, the Obama team seems to be talking about adding roughly $1.0 trillion in expenditures to the federal budget to get the United States economy going again.

One can easily draw from this the assumption that the world will be flooded with dollars…millions and millions of dollars. How should one react to this in terms of the value of the dollar?

One could argue that this is exactly what world financial markets have been predicting would happen since early in 2002. (They did not, and could not, predict precisely the path of the collapse.) This is exactly the reason why the United States dollar has declined by about 40% since then!

The problem is that there are no “good” decisions left for the United States. This is the dilemma that must be faced when discipline in lost. When one sees the consequences of a lack of discipline, one does what one needs to do in order to get one’s life back in order. Getting discipline back into one’s life is a matter of one step at a time.

In terms of priorities…getting the economy going and avoiding a cumulative collapse is number one. Until this is accomplished, we may just have to see the value of the dollar continue to decline.

What About Inflation and the Dollar?

Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, has written that “a nation’s exchange rate is the single most important price in its economy; it will influence the entire range of individual prices, imports and exports, and even the level of economic activity.” (Paul Volcker and Toyoo Gyohten, Changing Fortunes, Times Books, New York, 1992, page 232.) If “a nation’s exchange rate is the single most important price in its economy” one really has to be concerned that the United States has allowed the value of the dollar to decline so precipitously over the past six years or so. Volcker alludes to all kinds of things that can happen to the nation that lets its exchange rate decline, but he doesn’t even mention one other possibility, a situation that has arisen since he wrote the quotation presented above, and that is the situation, like the one that has arisen, in which a country’s assets become so cheap that foreign interests can acquire them at historically low prices.

It is important to see just how badly the United States Dollar has declined in value to get some appreciation for the problem. From the year 2001 through the year 2007, the Dollar has declined at a compound rate of over 7% per year to the Euro. In terms of the British Pound, the Dollar has declined at a compound rate of over 5.5% per year. The same is true of an index of major currencies against the Dollar as compiled by the Federal Reserve System. An index that includes a broader range of currencies produced by the Federal Reserve shows a more moderate rate of decline of about 3.3% per year. However you measure it, though, the United States Dollar has not fared well in world markets during much of the Bush Administration.

These market results are important because they indicate how world financial markets are betting on relative rates of inflation in the different countries. If one works with what is called the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) Theory for exchange rates in its pure form, one can argue that the change in any nation’s currency against the currency of another nation can be represented by the difference in the expected rates of inflation between the two countries. In this were the case, it could be argued that the difference in expected rates of inflation between the United States and England is in excess of 5.5 percentage points. That is, whatever the market expects the rate of inflation to be in England, they expect the rate of inflation in the United States to be 550 basis points higher.

Since the PPP Theory does not work exactly, we cannot just extrapolate the figures presented above and apply them to differences in expected rates of inflation. However, we don’t need to do this. We can just argue that the differences presented above provide some ballpark ‘guesstimate of anticipated relative rates of inflation. If one argues in this way, the conclusion can be drawn that, whatever the real estimates are, participants in world markets believe that inflation in the United States is much worse than it is in other countries or areas in the world. If the differences were just 1% to say 1.5%, it could be argued that the differences were non-existent or too small to worry about since the PPP Theory was not exact. However, at the magnitudes that have existed over the past six years, the differences, I believe, cannot be ignored. Market participants believe that inflation is expected to be much worse in the United States than it is in other areas of the world! The only country that is not listening to this is the United States.

Why is this happening to the value of the United States Dollar?

Let’s step back for a minute. At one time it was assumed that the United States government could run any kind of economic policy that it wanted and not have to pay for it to any degree in world financial markets. The reason for this was that the United States was a ‘big’ country and was not subject to the same pressures that ‘small’ countries were. Much of International Macroeconomic Theory relates to ‘small’ countries, but theorists and practioners, historically, have generally argued that because of its dominating size, the United States could act in a way that the ‘small’ countries of the would could not. They could get by doing what they wanted to do without much regard to international financial markets.

What happens to the ‘small’ countries when they try and do this? Well, they were kept in hand by that amorphous, unidentifiable, shady group of people called ‘international bankers’. If a ‘small’ country conducted its fiscal policy in a way that ran substantial deficits (for that county) and did not have an independent central bank, thereby increasing the possibility that the inflation rate in the country would rise, these ‘international bankers’ would sell the currency of that country in the foreign exchange markets, the foreign exchange rate would decline and the government would have to back track and reduce or eliminate the deficit and make its central bank independent of the national government.

The argument was put forward that this clandestine band of ‘international bankers’ usurped the sovereignty of nations so that the nations could no longer run their own economic policies. During this time we saw leaders, like Francois Mitterrand of France, a militant socialist, back off from combating the ‘international bankers’. They made their central banks independent of the government and began to conduct a more conservative fiscal policy. For example, Mitterrand freed the central bank of France making it independent of the national government. And, in the 1990s and the early 2000s, many other nations followed suit, making their central banks independent and mandating inflation targets for the conduct of monetary policy. But, these were all ‘small’ countries.

Now we come to the United States. After balancing the Federal budget, the United States Government, under the leadership of President George W. Bush, created massive Federal deficits through the implementation of major tax cuts and the expenses related to fighting a foreign war. In addition, the Federal Reserve System, led by Alan Greenspan, acted as a complacent component of the Federal Government and kept its target for the Federal Funds rate below 2% for over two years and at 1% for approximately a year during this time. In the past, the United States government could ignore the ‘international bankers.’ No more!
Just like any ‘small’ country in a similar situation, the international bankers’ began to sell Dollars and continued to sell them as the large deficits persisted. Yet, the Federal Reserve remained seemed to ignore the decline. The result? The United States does not seem to be a ‘large’ country anymore! Globalization has come back to hit the United States!

Still the price indices produced in the United States do not reflect this perceived inflation…at least up to this time. But, there are those that believe these price indices understate the true rate of inflation. See, for example, the perceptive article “Inflation May Be Worse Than We Think” by David Ranson of H. C. Wainwright & Co.: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120407506089695263.html?mod=todays_us_opinion. Furthermore, we see in the commodity markets that wheat, oil and gold have all hit new highs. And, the Euro rose above $1.50 for the first time. Maybe the United States needs to put aside ideology and listen to what the market is telling us.

And, there is one piece of anecdotal evidence that maybe needs to be mentioned. In the early 1920s, John Maynard Keynes wrote about the ‘profit inflation’ that existed in England. This was a situation where profits had risen but the real wages of the worker had not. He was concerned with the restlessness in the country that had arisen due to the resulting redistribution of incomes. What I would like to point out is that all of the major candidates campaigning to become the Democratic nominee for President of the United States have taken a more and more populist position on economic policy as the campaign has progressed. Ohio is a prime example of how this message has resonated with a fairly large portion of the population. The question therefore is…has inflation really been a problem for the United States over the past several years? The magnitude of this inflation has not yet surfaced in the statistics, but it may have been experienced and felt by participants in the financial markets and by workers and by households.