Thursday, May 14, 2009

Will Leftists Launch "Currency Trutherism" Against Nouriel Roubini?

You know, I'm no economist, but I'd say Nouriel Roubini is vindicating some of my recent economic analysis on the role of the dollar as the international reserve currency. In a couple of posts, especially, "Leftists Launch "Currency Trutherism" Against Bachmann," I showed that Representative Michelle Bachmann's concerns over the replacement of the dollar as the world's reserve currency were well founded. As I noted:
Bachmann's proposed resolution to protect the dollar as the country's sovereign unit of exchange is perfectly justified in light of monetary history and the outlandish comments from Secretary Geithner. Advanced economies are not inoculated from supranational pressures toward monetary homogenization or unification, as the case of the European Union indicates. Once Ms. Bachmann refers to "One World Currency," the only logical reference point is to a national currency unit that would replace current dollar hegemony worldwide.
So, I'm frankly getting a kick out of Nouriel Roubini's essay at the New York Times this morning, "The Almighty Renminbi?", via Memeorandum.

Roubini's made a big name for himself recently with a series of prescient articles on the scale of economic collapse (see, "
The Coming Financial Pandemic," from Foreign Policy, March/April 2008). He's something of a "Chicken Little" if you ask me, but my interest here is whether leftist airheads will start attacking him for his "black copter" currency conspiracies:

THE 19th century was dominated by the British Empire, the 20th century by the United States. We may now be entering the Asian century, dominated by a rising China and its currency. While the dollar’s status as the major reserve currency will not vanish overnight, we can no longer take it for granted. Sooner than we think, the dollar may be challenged by other currencies, most likely the Chinese renminbi. This would have serious costs for America, as our ability to finance our budget and trade deficits cheaply would disappear.

Traditionally, empires that hold the global reserve currency are also net foreign creditors and net lenders. The British Empire declined — and the pound lost its status as the main global reserve currency — when Britain became a net debtor and a net borrower in World War II. Today, the United States is in a similar position. It is running huge budget and trade deficits, and is relying on the kindness of restless foreign creditors who are starting to feel uneasy about accumulating even more dollar assets. The resulting downfall of the dollar may be only a matter of time.

But what could replace it? The British pound, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc remain minor reserve currencies, as those countries are not major powers. Gold is still a barbaric relic whose value rises only when inflation is high. The euro is hobbled by concerns about the long-term viability of the European Monetary Union. That leaves the renminbi ....

The renminbi, rather than the dollar, could eventually become a means of payment in trade and a unit of account in pricing imports and exports, as well as a store of value for wealth by international investors. Americans would pay the price. We would have to shell out more for imported goods, and interest rates on both private and public debt would rise. The higher private cost of borrowing could lead to weaker consumption and investment, and slower growth.
See also Clusterstock, "Roubini: The Dollar's Dead, China's Renminbi is the World's New Reserve Currency."

17 comments:

repsac3 said...

In answer to professor Douglas' question, no, I don't think many will suggest Roubini is touting a "black copter" currency conspiracy," because what Roubini says is quite possibly true; If we don't improve the security of the dollar, other countries may start moving their reserve currencies away from the dollar and to other currencies playing on the world market. There is only so much we can do to prevent other countries from changing the reserve currency they choose to use, other than to make the dollar as attractive as possible on the world stage.

Bachmann on the other hand, was suggesting that the US was going to change it's own currency. She offered a congressional resolution against the replacement of the dollar by a foreign currency as the unit of exchange >in the United States, something no US politician or government official supported in the first place. That is what made her sound like a conspiracy theorist.

That Donald Douglas cannot understand the difference surprises me no end.

R. Stanton Scott said...

The United States has no divine right to world leadership. Our policies and interactions with other states and foreign businesses are to blame for any shift from the dollar as a world currency.

Part of this is domestic fiscal policy and profligate spending by both individuals and government. But part of this is our failure to lead. We had a chance to construct international legal, trade, financial, and governance regimes that reflect our capitalist and democratic system (see for example Ikenberry's After Victory), but we neglected international cooperation to placate domestic reactionaries who worried themselves too much over the necessary compromises of US sovereignty.

Now we're in a pickle because the balancing, both hard and soft, that Waltz would predict is beginning. This did not happen until the US became a revisionist state.

AmPowerBlog said...

Wrong, RepMasterBarebacker3!

The dollar, now the leading currency the world over, circulates as a replacement currency inside many nations, and the Canada has even considered using the dollar.

As I have said before:

"Bachmann's proposed resolution to protect the dollar as the country's sovereign unit of exchange is perfectly justified in light of monetary history and the outlandish comments from Secretary Geithner. Advanced economies are not inoculated from supranational pressures toward monetary homogenization or unification, as the case of the European Union indicates. Once Ms. Bachmann refers to "One World Currency," the only logical reference point is to a national currency unit that would replace current dollar hegemony worldwide. There is no alternative for circulation within borders for everday tendered transactions. More abstract currency units, for example, the IMF's "SDRs", do not circulate as legal tender within nations - they are accounting units for central bank transactions. For something to displace an indigenous legal tender as a means of domestic exchange, an international reserve currency would be introduced into local markets for stability and confidence. This is not unusual, as the dollar now routinely serves as the local unit of exchange in transitioning economies. If anything is outlandish in all of this, it's the idea that Americans should take seriously the notion that China has the economic power to replace U.S. as the world's leading economic power. This is the administration's stupidity, not Representative Bachmann's. She's simply putting in place legislative protections against this administration's transnationalists, those who are willing to consider the replacement of the dollar of the world's reserve currency. See the discussion, for example, at the Wall Street Journal, 'The Chinese Yuan: The Next World Currency?'"

Roubini supports my analysis, RepMaster...

R. Stanton Scott said...

Quoting Bachmann's legislation:

"The President may not enter into a treaty or other international agreement that would provide for the United States to adopt as legal tender in the United States a currency issued by an entity other than the United States."This is a prohibition on the US joining an international currency regime, or accepting as legal tender in the US of notes issued by a foreign central bank (e.g., the Euro).

It has nothing to do with, and would not stop, "transnationalists...who are willing to consider the replacement of the dollar of [sic] the world's reserve currency" from achieving this goal.

repsac3 said...

Offered and answered, Donald... ...no matter how many times you quote that same paragraph.

I stand by my previous comments, here and elsewhere, in reply to your oft-repeated bit of prose.

"RepMasterBarebacker3"---

Really, Donald? Is this low level of "intellectual" discourse really where you want others to find you?

AmPowerBlog said...

RepMasterBarebacker3!

Actually, you've never responded to the point. Geithner said he was open to the dollar being replaced by a world currency. Since reserve currencies are indeed exchanged for goods in transactions inside nations, Bachmann legislation is perfectly logical.

You've simply attacked her as a crank, not intellectually countered her legislative proposals.

Next case ...

Jordan said...

Scott, you're actually lamenting that the US did not become a democratic revolutionary imperialist power?

Wow.

repsac3 said...

The problem, Donald, is your inability or unwillingness to read.

Contrary to your claims, Geithner never said he was "open to the dollar being replaced by a world currency," or (the claim the last time you made it) that he "specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange."

You're making it up, Donald.

I replied to this exact point last time you offered it, in the previous update at my blog. (same leftist and airhead links as in original post).
I said:
----

Also, see if you can spot professor Douglas' lie about what Geithner said.

Donald sez in his All Fool's Day post:

"Indeed, Geithner specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange. Check the links, folks."Check it, indeed, because Donald doesn't quote it... Anyone wonder why?

Here's why:

"...Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China’s central bank, suggested on Tuesday that the world needs a new global “supercurrency” to replace the dollar.

Geithner, who had not read the proposal, did not immediately dismiss the idea during his talk on Wednesday. He said the governor was “very thoughtful, pragmatic.” He added, “Anything he is thinking about deserves consideration.”"
Donald: Geithner "specifically claimed" what, again?
Donald's Dear Readers: Does Donald's link say what he claims it does?
-----------

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, Donald...

Please quote and cite where Geithner said he was "open to the dollar being replaced by a world currency," or "specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange."

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But until you show your hand, I'll stick by the my response to both your April 1st and May 14th claims. The quote doesn't match your "facts," professor.

R. Stanton Scott said...

No imperialism to it, Jordan. The only real way to protect our way of life is to construct capitalist and democratic international institutions, and get others used our way of doing things. If we really believe we have it right, we won't have to build an empire--that is, force others to join--to accomplish this.

By showing others that we can live by our own rules, we can get them to accept our norms. Thereafter, hegemony matters less.

Read Ikenberry's book--he makes a strong claim that our failure to do this could come back to haunt us.

AmPowerBlog said...

RepMasterBarebacker3!

I deleted the anonymous comment (sockpuppet?). But since I'm being called dishonest by someone, here you go:

From Financial Times:

"The dollar fell briefly yesterday after US Treasury secretary Tim Geithner said he was open to exploring a Chinese proposal to reduce reliance on the US dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Mr Geithner told the Council for Foreign Relations that he had not studied the proposal by Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan for greater use of Special Drawing Rights in international reserves, but said "we are quite open to that."

And then, from Ben Smith:

"Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is "open" to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar...

"We’re actually quite open to that suggestion – you should see it as rather evolutionary rather building on the current architecture rather than moving us to global monetary union," he said.

'The only thing concrete I saw was expanding the use of the [special drawing rights]," Geithner said. 'Anything he’s thinking about deserves some consideration.'"

That was enough to send world financial markets into a temporary tailspin, from Bloomberg:

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner sent the dollar tumbling with comments about China’s ideas for overhauling the global monetary system, only to drive it back up by affirming that it should remain the world’s reserve currency."

If anyone's dishonest, it's you RepMaster!

repsac3 said...

Maybe you misread the challenge, Professor:

I said, "Please quote and cite where Geithner said he was "open to the dollar being replaced by a world currency," or "specifically claimed that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange."---

None of your cited articles backs either of those claims, Donald, although I will grant you that FT does interpret his remarks as suggesting he was looking to replace the dollar, even though he specifically said otherwise in his comments that same day, which FT also reported in that same article. (Which calls their reporting into question a bit, don't you think?...)

All of these articles clearly refer to the possibility of increased use of SDRs, which is not a currency in use anywhere in the world, let alone a world currency. Aside that, every article either of us has cited makes it clear that Geithner has no interest in replacing the dollar with any other currency, either at home, or anywhere in the world market.

Donald... Is there some reason you didn't include any of the links, like you usually do?

More from the Financial Times: FT.com / UK - Dollar dips as Geithner's "loose talk' hits world's reserve currency:

"He said increased use of SDRs should be thought of as an 'evolutionary' step rather than a step towards 'global monetary union'. The SDR is a synthetic currency unit maintained by the International Monetary Fund that represents a basket of actual currencies."---

And further on:

"The Treasury secretary said: "I think the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency". The dollar subsequently recovered much of its losses.

Although Mr Geithner had said the dollar would remain the dominant currency providing the US put its fiscal house in order once the financial crisis was over, analysts were quick to chide him."
---

Ben Smith's Blog: Geithner "open" to China proposal - POLITICO.com: "Geithner, at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the U.S. is 'open' to a headline-grabbing proposal by the governor of the China's central bank, which was widely reported as being a call for a new global currency to replace the dollar, but which Geithner described as more modest and 'evolutionary.'"---

Is there a reason you didn't include that whole sentence, either... & skipped over the paragraph that follows it?

""I haven’t read the governor’s proposal. He’s a very thoughtful, very careful distinguished central banker. I generally find him sensible on every issue," Geithner said, saying that however his interpretation of the proposal was to increase the use of International Monetary Fund's special drawing rights -- shares in the body held by its members -- not creating a new currency in the literal sense."---

Bloomberg too, needs to be read more closely than your single paragraph allows: Geithner Remarks on IMF Currency Roil Foreign-Exchange Market - Bloomberg.com:

"Geithner was asked at a Council on Foreign Relations event in New York yesterday about People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan’s call for a new international reserve currency. He said while he had not read Zhou’s proposal, he understood it as a plan “designed to increase the use of the IMF’s special drawing rights. And we’re actually quite open to that.”"---

And further down in the article:

"“I’d like to ask one final question, in effect on behalf of the market,” said Altman, founder of Evercore Partners Inc. “Let me ask the question this way. Do you see any change over the foreseeable future in the basic role of the dollar as the world’s key reserve currency?”

Geithner responded: “I think the dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency.” In an interview with CNBC broadcast after the event, the Treasury chief said that a “strong dollar” is in “America’s interest.”

In his earlier answer, Geithner said increased use of SDRs should be “rather evolutionary, building on the current architecture, rather than moving us to global monetary union.” SDRs are a unit of account at the IMF used for member countries’ reserves with the fund.

Geithner’s remarks don’t indicate Geithner favors moving to a system with the SDR as a reserve currency, strategist Lee Hardman at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Ltd. wrote in a note.

“That was the big concern amongst the confusion,” London- based Hardman said. “A move to an SDR-linked system away from the dollar would naturally lead to a reduction in the dollar’s share of global reserves.”
Believe as you will, Donald. But even your own articles contradict your claims.

repsac3 said...

"sockpuppet?"Um, no.

While I can understand how a person like you would be more likely than most to assume that anyone disagreeing with you &/or agreeing with me MUST secretly be me in sockpuppet drag, in fact, that is not the case.

But if anonymous comments (or perhaps just, "anonymous comments that don't agree with you") are going to lead you to such paranoid claims, why don't you change your "comment settings" so that one must be registered (with Blogger or with OpenID) to comment? That way, you wouldn't have need to indulge in such unsubstantiated claims, or to delete the anonymous comments that don't pass muster.

Just something to consider...

(In case anyone cares, I posted the anon comment that Donald deleted here.)

AmPowerBlog said...

Ah, hello?

"Geithner said he was open to exploring a Chinese proposal to reduce reliance on ..."

No wonder you're RepMasterDenialistBarebacker!

And ...

"In case anyone cares, I posted the anon comment..."

Obssessed just a bit, RepMaster?

Geithner said what he said. Markets don't care about all the qualifications or what not, and the Secretary would not have back-tracked in the days following had he not screwed up.

Man, you're really invested in this ... !

repsac3 said...

DD: "Geithner said he was open to exploring a Chinese proposal to reduce reliance on ..."---

Offered and answered, Donald. That isn't what Geithner said, but what the Financial Times (and you, apparently) interpreted his words to mean. Not the same thing.

I addressed that quote here: "None of your cited articles backs either of those claims, Donald, although I will grant you that FT does interpret his remarks as suggesting he was looking to replace the dollar, even though he specifically said otherwise in his comments that same day, which FT also reported in that same article. (Which calls their reporting into question a bit, don't you think?...)---

Talk about denialism...

DD: "Markets don't care about all the qualifications or what not,..."---

And neither do I. Yes, Geithner said what he said; but he didn't say what you said he said.

He never said "he was open to the dollar being replaced by a world currency," nor did he "specifically claim that the world economy needed a "new global supercurrency" as a unit of international commerce and exchange."

---

He did say something stupidly open-ended (obviously), which is why he had to clarify his remarks, which he initially & quite clearly did that SAME day, for those paying attention. He did say something that briefly sent the markets into a tizzy.

But he didn't say anything about replacing the dollar, or that the world needs a new "super-currency." Your claims about what Geithner said, both in your 4/1/09 post and this one earlier today, do not withstand scrutiny, which is what I said from the outset.

All that stuff about the reaction of the markets or his screwing up don't pertain to our conversation. Those factors don't support your claims about what he did and didn't say (or mine, for that matter,) which is all we were discussing.

DD: Man, you're really invested in this ... !---

No more or less "invested" than you are yourself, professor... So whatever it is you're intimating, your intimating it about us both...

AmPowerBlog said...

Repsac3:

Why do you lie and distort.

Here's the quote, exactly:

"As I understand it, it's a proposal designed to increase the use of the IMF's Special Drawing Rights. I am actually quite open to that suggestion ..."

SDRs are the IMF's international reserve currency unit, used to augment dollars in financial transactions and balance of payments accounting. Investors took the statement for what is was and drove down financial markets. No doubt they understand something that you simply cannot, blinded by your stupidity and ignorance.

YOU can interpret Geithner's comments any way you like. But the world interpreted them just as I'm discussing ...

See, "Geithner: 'Quite Open' to Idea of Global Currency".

This thread is done ...

repsac3 said...

Leaving aside all the unsubstantiated allegations about me and the ad hom seasoning you cannot seem to help but sprinkle into every comment you make, my earlier comments here reply to / rebut pretty much all of the on topic verbiage you offer in your final comment.

Therefore, I stand by what I already wrote, and consider your final comment (& perhaps the whole post and commentary thread) replied to before it was ever written.

As you decree, this thread is done... ...unless anyone else wishes to discuss it further.

Jordan said...

"No imperialism to it, Jordan. The only real way to protect our way of life is to construct capitalist and democratic international institutions, and get others used our way of doing things. If we really believe we have it right, we won't have to build an empire--that is, force others to join--to accomplish this.

By showing others that we can live by our own rules, we can get them to accept our norms. Thereafter, hegemony matters less."
The idea of creating ideologically homogeneous international bodies with the intent of spreading said ideology is imperialist, albeit less British Empire and more United Federation of Planets.

While I sympathize with your view on how to free the world, there is no way you can think exclusive clubs for capitalists and democracies will start turning the Mullahs or Putin into new, internationalist democrats. This goes against basic human tribal instinct. Look at the EU. They've got zig-zagging treaties and such, but they can't even pass a constitution in the countries that wrote it. The people like their nationalism and the people will always like their nationalism.