iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ian Fletcher

GET UPDATES FROM Ian Fletcher
 

Why a Strong Dollar Is a Terrible Idea

Posted: 08/19/11 03:51 PM ET

I recently had an e-mail exchange with an extremely distinguished conservative commentator -- a familiar name to most -- who was worrying that the dollar isn't getting the "respect" it used to.

This is, of course, largely true. But it also embodies an absolutely terrible way of thinking about our economic troubles that really has to stop.

What my interlocutor wanted, as a lot of people (and not only on the right!) seem to want, was a "strong" dollar. A strong dollar, like a strong defense or strong democratic institutions, sounds like just a naturally good thing. It sounds like something every American should want -- so long, of course, as they're not some sort of pinko-commie-freak socialist who secretly doesn't want America to succeed.

But they're wrong. A strong dollar is an unwise goal.

Why? Begin by remembering that the word "strong," when applied to currencies, is only a metaphor. The dollar is never literally "strong" like an army or even a cup of coffee is. What it is, is expensive or cheap, like any other thing that is bought and sold. Therefore the dollar needs to be dispassionately evaluated for the costs and benefits of any particular price it bears, not misunderstood as a totem of national vitality.

Remember, for one thing, that a "weak" currency can, paradoxically, confer national advantage. Germany, Japan and China all have undervalued currencies right now -- and all three are making out like bandits from this fact. They're laughing, all the way to the bank, much too hard to care whether anyone "respects" their currency. And they're quite happy to let Uncle Sam, eternal sucker of the global trading system, pursue that objective, because it helps them keep their currencies down.

Now that we've gotten the misleading metaphor out of the way, we can start asking the real question: should we want a high or a low dollar?

This question is obfuscated by those who would prefer that the public regard the matter as much too arcane for mere voters to worry about. (Better to let our trusty friends in the financial markets and the Treasury Department take care of it.) But it is really no different than any other question about the price of a thing: whether you want the price to be high or low depends upon whether you're buying or selling. If you're buying, you obviously want the price to be low, and if you're selling, you want it to be high.

Because we, as Americans, both buy and sell things with dollars all the time, the right price of dollars is going to be a compromise between these two needs. If the dollar is too cheap, then imports -- starting with oil -- will be too expensive. This will lower our living standards and cause inflation. Conversely, if it is too expensive, then imports will be too cheap and our exports will price themselves out of world markets. We will import too much, running up a trade deficit and destroying jobs.

As a result, there's nothing intrinsically good about a "strong" dollar. (Or a weak dollar, for that matter.) What's good for us is having an appropriate price for the dollar. Pace a billion complexities, it is, roughly, the price that balances our trade so that we run neither a deficit nor a surplus.

Will the good ol' free market deliver this price for us automatically? No, for two reasons. First, because foreign governments manipulate the dollar values of their currencies, they manipulate the foreign value of ours. Second, because the free market doesn't intrinsically care about time horizons. It can quite easily, in a nation with a bias in favor of short-term consumption, optimize short-term consumption at the expense of long-term economic health. (I explored this latter issue, which is grossly underappreciated, at length in this article.)

Some people confuse a strong dollar internationally with the stability of the dollar's value here at home. These two issues are related, but they're not the same thing. They're related because imports are about 17 percent of our GDP, which means that a lower dollar tends to make that chunk of our economy more expensive. But they're not the same thing, as is clear from the fact that a number of weak-currency nations, like Japan and Germany, have lower inflation rates than we do. Why? Because a lot of other factors get thrown into the mix, like the fact that the cheap capital flows that prop up the dollar lead to inflation in asset prices. If it's domestic inflation you're worried about, it's domestic cost drivers you should be focusing on. And don't forget that an unsustainably strong currency (as ours is) is building up inflationary pressures for the day the currency slides.

One can perhaps argue for an artificially cheap dollar so the U.S. can run a trade surplus which will create jobs and start paying back our vast accumulated foreign indebtedness. The problem here is, against whom would we run it? We're such a big economy that a trade surplus big enough to be meaningful for us won't disappear in the rounding errors of the world economy. If such a surplus ever happens, it will be a big factor globally. But the other big economic powers are (unlike us) wise to this game and probably won't allow their markets to be flooded with our goods the way we allow our markets to be flooded with theirs.

So balanced trade is probably the best we can hope for. The price of the dollar isn't the only thing that determines this -- tariffs, other trade barriers, and controls on international flows of capital also have their effect -- but it's certainly the biggest lever within convenient reach.

There are other problems with pining for a macho dollar. For one thing, one can't demand a strong dollar and simultaneously condemn Chinese currency manipulation. China artificially lowers the yuan-dollar exchange rate, making its currency cheaper in dollars and ours more expensive in yuan, in order to boost its exports and suppress its imports. As many people have argued, this is unfair to American producers. That's why there's a bill pending in Congress with 189 co-sponsors to retaliate against China for doing this.

Trouble is, if you want a strong dollar, then you should be down on your knees thanking Beijing for its currency manipulation, as that is precisely what this manipulation delivers.

Ultimately, it's not the dollar that's the object of anyone's respect. It's the strength of the American economy as a whole. If our economy is sound, respect will flow as a matter of course, regardless of exchange rates. The world is dazzled to some extent by the symbols and totems of power, but in the long run, real power always wins out. That's what we should be caring about.

This post has been updated from its original version.

 
 
 

Follow Ian Fletcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IanFletcher

 
 
  • Comments
  • 121
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Scarran
08:57 PM on 08/23/2011
In a very general sense with numbers pulled out of thin air: if the dollar is 1% weaker then oil is 1% cheaper, but you earn 1% less money.

Yup agree, no point in talking about strong or weak dollar, let's talk about Tariffs; want them, need them, can't live without them. Everyone give a hand for the Tariff.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Scarran
08:49 PM on 08/23/2011
Yeah it really doesn't matter if it's a strong or weak dollar, so why write an essay on it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:52 PM on 08/20/2011
The value of the dollar and interest rates should be based on market fundamentals. We don't need a "strong" or "weak" dollar policy.
photo
realsurfin
Pardon me, can you help out a fellow American
09:26 PM on 08/20/2011
Clinton ran a strong dollar policy and we had lots of overseas investment and the world clamoring for greenbacks... then we turned the page to GWBush and his Manufacturing buddies like Alcoa and they pushed a weak dollar policy to spur exports for these corporations who were taking jobs to foreign countries and the world started to dump on the dollar... investments in America turned to Loan Sharking the American debt.

Now we see oil nations that have no exports other than oil calling for another currency because there is no respect for the dollar.

weak dollar might be great for exports but it does nothing for world investment. China on the other hand keeps their currency weak so they can keep hammering the US as they keep extracting cash out of this country.

the rules need to be balanced... and China needs to take its finger off the scale.
photo
LeftCoastEng
Obsessed with failed trade
09:15 PM on 08/20/2011
There you go making sense again, Mr Fletcher.
11:00 AM on 08/21/2011
This makes no sense at all. We have had a weak dollar policy in place for over a decade and it has helped destroy the middle class and nation.
photo
LeftCoastEng
Obsessed with failed trade
01:44 PM on 08/22/2011
The weak dollar over the last decade was an attempt to paper over the damage caused by failed trade policy. Create a bubble and make the economy look good...for a while. The root cause of our failing economy is our failed experiment with so-called free trade.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
08:05 PM on 08/20/2011
Once again we have people arguing monetary policy, when monetary policy is irrelevant. Tax policy is what is relevant. Reagan slashed taxes from 75% to 35% and the 15% (for capital gains).

America has never recovered. No another single year of double digit GDP growth in THIRTY years. A mountain of debt that they have no plan to pay off. Worrying about QE3 and printing money is like worrying about the engine temperature on the Titanic. A crash is coming unless and until you fix the steering.

WWII Tax rates NOW!
11:01 AM on 08/21/2011
Reagan is irrelevant. There are many problems including excess credit, way too much deficit spending, debt, jobs outsourcing, education bubbles and depleting natural resources. No one person or thing is responsible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
01:34 PM on 08/21/2011
Where do you think the deficit came from? Where do you think the debt came from?
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

Reagan is responsible. Fix the tax rates and eliminate tax expenditures, tax all foreign income, then watch what happens to the economy. It will soar like an eagle.

WWII Tax rates NOW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bob Kulong
02:17 PM on 08/20/2011
Most of you seem to see the causes for our economic plight lucidly, i.e. in terms of "free trade", and/or suplus cheap labor both at home and abroad. Nevertheless we all get bogged down in the establishment's poitical games, only seeing things in terms of donkeys or elephants. How anyone could passionately defend or champion the likes of BHO or Rick Perry is beyond me. Since both have advanced policies that actively work against American workers. Too bad Ross Perot can't do an encore.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WFWS
Proud Liberal
03:28 PM on 08/20/2011
Its a question of who's WORSE for the economy as it relates to ME. I agree, sometimes its hard to tell. Obama's relationship with Wall Street and his lack of support for real reform, his support for still more free trade agreements, and then there's Geitner and Larry Summers, who both believe in trickle down economics. That sucks. Obama sucks.
But Obama sucks because he believes in REPUBLICAN economic philosopies- What's good for Wall Street is good for Main Street; Regulation-ANY regulation- is bad; only businesses create jobs (aka trickle down), and the Free Market is always better. Obama sucks to the extent that he believes these things. Look at what he DOES, not what he says.
All these ideas are the problem- they are job killing ideas that didn't come from liberals. Liberals disagree with Obama, and with Republicans. Liberals don't believe in trickle down at all.
Its not something that can be understood purely in terms of political parties. But since elected politicians turn ideas into policies, electing Republicans, and those that ACT like Republicans, is, IMHO, NOT the way to go. Rick Perry is CLUELESS.
You are right- the reason is because these politicians are actively working against the American worker, no matter what they say. Just look at what they DO.
Thanks for a great post.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
08:06 PM on 08/20/2011
Rick Perry is worse that clueless. He's deliberately destructive.
09:31 AM on 08/21/2011
I agree with you Bob Kulong, "Neverthele­ss we all get bogged down in the establishm­ent's poitical games, only seeing things in terms of donkeys or elephants."

There's a saying,' Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants.'

The American people are nearly evenly divided into donkeys & elephants. One of the reasons why 2% of the population is able to call nearly 100% of the shots.

Maybe all of this will eventually lead to a Judgment of Solomon moment?

The Judgment of Solomon refers to a story from the Hebrew Bible in which Solomon ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child. It has become a metaphor referring to a wise judge who uses a stratagem to determine the truth, tricking the parties into revealing their true feelings. Specifically, the judge pretends that he will destroy the subject matter of a dispute, rather than allowing either disputing party to win at the expense of the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Solomon

Maybe the American people will someday realize it's not possible to thoroughly divide a people without causing irreversible damage?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Bartholomew
My micro-bio isn't empty.
02:16 PM on 08/20/2011
'Germany, Japan and China all have undervalued currencies right now...'

'Scuse me, but US$1.43950/€ doesn't feel very undervalued to me. My customers are German, Austrian, and occasionally Swiss companies trying to sell stuff in English-speaking countries like the US. When they have trouble doing that, I get less work. I'd like to see at least US$1.3333/€ before I start to consider the euro 'undervalued'.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
08:09 PM on 08/20/2011
Monetary policy doesn't matter. Tax policy matters. Monetary policy didn't create 16 trillion in debt. Monetary policy didn't destroy our economy. Bad tax policy and Bad investment policy crashed our economy. Time to pay your debts, with qe3 dollars or QE47 dollars.

WWII Tax rates NOW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Bartholomew
My micro-bio isn't empty.
01:40 AM on 08/21/2011
I wasn't commenting on monetary policy's effect on the USs' national debt or its economy. I was commenting on monetary policy's effect on my business.

I wouldn't recommend WWII tax rates unless the country is in the middle of WWII. Take a look at the table of historical marginal income tax rates for married people filing jointly between 1930 and 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States). The percentages are huge during the war years. To reinstate those rates now would be both immoral and illegal.

During WWII, our dear elected officials constitutional duties required them to impose the tax rates you see in that table. Today, there's no such constitutional sanction. The only legal and moral way to reduce the national debt now is to eliminate all and only expenditures that are unconstitutional, immoral or both. Those include chiefly, but not exclusively, the so-called entitlement programs and the illegal, immoral military adventures in which the country is presently embroiled.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Scarran
01:20 PM on 08/26/2011
WWII tax rates, and a cut in medicare and social security so those people who say, "our children and grandchildren will pay for our mistakes," will eat their words.
10:12 AM on 08/20/2011
Mr. Fletcher is the clearest, sanest voice I ever hear discuss these issues.
Many of the responders here either, did NOT read the article - simply reacting to the headline, or, they just are not that smart.

What do we have to do to get his voice heard on the Sunday "news" shows, as well as everywhere else?
When the President of the United States, who is supposed to be a smart guy, and claims to care about the plight of the American worker, is out there promoting "Free" Trade agreements that put us in the position that we are in, obviously Mr. Fletcher, and others of his ilk, are not being heard.
We, as Americans suffer, the corprotists laugh, and we go down the same hole.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
08:10 PM on 08/20/2011
Free trade is not the problem. Bad tax policy is the problem.

WWII Tax rates NOW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fred Scarran
08:50 PM on 08/23/2011
Free Trade is the problem (globalism in general).
06:31 AM on 08/20/2011
"eternal sucker of the global trading system" - R - US

The little guy who puts his money in a savings account as a rainy day or retirement fund doesn't come out very well. Might be better to invest in wheelbarrows to sell to others later when they'll need them to push their dollar bills to the grocery store.

Unbalanced trade is an underlying problem. It will continue not only because the Chinese want it but because the international corporate elite want to continue getting richer from it.

Economic diversity and self sufficiency are good things. As we continue facilitating free trade, we cover ourselves with economic kudzu.
02:12 AM on 08/20/2011
A strong dollar policy is a must. Our weak dollar policy has failed miserably. To suggest otherwise is silly.

"if you keep doing what you've been doing, you'll keep getting what you've been getting..."
06:56 AM on 08/20/2011
I think you said that if you're in a hole, stop digging.

I wonder if going to a gold or silver standard would help. Or eliminating the Federal Reserve with the Treasury issuing new money. It would be handy to be able to buy gold or silver through small banks and credit unions. The price of gold is a little high right now, but it reflects on the dollar's value.
08:47 AM on 08/20/2011
Well, thanks.

Remember - money is an artifice so there is no stable system over time.

Gold is a terrible idea because a country like Peru can mess with the value of our dollar by mining more or less gold.

Gold is also inflexible and should the economy ever grow, we would need to either mine exponential amounts of gold to keep up with gdp growth or we would have to debase our currency.

The Fed is run by the corporations (look at any board of directors at any fed bank). Dimon and Immelt help run the NY Fed.

So those who RECEIVE new money as it is created, are in charge of 'liquidity' so they will ALWAYS want there to be too much money!

Having gvmt print money would be WORSE as Barney Frank would LOVE to give people tons of cash to get elected. Gvmt would print gobs of cash and hand it out behind closed doors as well.
12:45 AM on 08/20/2011
This is very misleading piece. No matter how you low you take the dollar - THE OTHER SIDE CAN ALWAYS TAKE THEIR CURRENCY LOWER. This is called "Currency Wars" and it has been going on for many years. It's a well known fact, there is no excuse for promoting the falsehood that "low dollar helps" - it doesn't. Our experience confirms it.

Another problem is the increasing monopolization and crony regulation of the US industry and banks.

Only scaled tariffs or import certificates - as envisioned by the Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006 - can stop the global game of currency manipulation and restore the US and world economy.
10:00 AM on 08/20/2011
Better read the article again.
I think you missed...
EVRYTHING!
04:07 PM on 08/20/2011
Bar a few typos, I stand by my comment... Did you read it?

Just saying "EVERYTHING" is saying nothing - nothing to talk about...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bllnsinchnge
peace, markets, freedom
11:58 PM on 08/19/2011
1963 minimum wage was $1.25, but redeemable as a Silver dollar.

Today that would be $52.83 per hour.

If you ask me, the dollar is weak enough already.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CSDofNM
I speak lolcat
08:11 PM on 08/20/2011
Bad tax policy did that, not free trade.
photo
LunaPark
Don't believe it until it's officially denied
09:48 PM on 08/19/2011
In the last 30 years, the two times where our economy was strongest; the Reagan years and the Clinton years, we had a strong dollar.
photo
Si1ver1ock
the bread of wickedness, the wine of violence
09:00 PM on 08/19/2011
What would managed trade look like? Is a VAT a good idea? I hear a VAT can function as a tariff.
04:53 AM on 08/20/2011
VAT is a terrible idea. By taxing everything it would lower worker purchasing power. Exactly the opposite of what we need. Secondly it provides no competitive advantage against imports. The tax would apply equally to imports and domestic goods. It is also regressive in that it taxes what you spend, not what you earn.

If you want to rescue our economy, consider the following actions: Reduce outsourcing and imports by raising tariffs. Restore jobs eliminated by automation by shortening the work week.

Reduce our expense for imported oil and military intervention by a massive program to convert our transportation system to electric, natural gas and renewable energy.