Re: (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' of money commodity?

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Wed Nov 24 2004 - 15:17:14 EST


At 1:02 AM -0800 11/24/04, Rakesh Bhandari wrote:
>
>Hasn't the world been on a dollar rather than gold standard? And the
>US the beneficiary of exorbitant privileges? If we say that gold is
>still world money, then we are discouraged from understanding what
>has allowed to dollar to usurp that role to this day. And whether
>that usurpation is unravelling before our eyes.
>
>Rakesh


Claus and Paul B, this is the article that I had in mind.
rb


The dollar and the deficit
Sep 12th 2002
From The Economist print edition

Why the dollar still rules the world-and why the world should be grateful
THE dollar is looking vulnerable. It is propped up not by the
strength of America's exports, but by vast imports of capital.
America, a country already rich in capital, has to borrow from abroad
almost $2 billion net every working day to cover a current-account
deficit forecast to reach almost $500 billion this year.

To most economists, this deficit represents an unsustainable drain on
world savings. If the capital inflows were to dry up, some reckon
that the dollar could lose a quarter of its value. Only Paul O'Neill,
America's treasury secretary, appears unruffled. The current-account
deficit, he declares, is a "meaningless concept", which he talks
about only because others insist on doing so.

The dollar is not just a matter for America, because the dollar is
not just America's currency. Over half of all dollar bills in
circulation are held outside America's borders, and almost half of
America's Treasury bonds are held as reserves by foreign central
banks. The euro cannot yet rival this global reach. International
financiers borrow and lend in dollars, and international traders use
dollars, even if Americans are at neither end of the deal. No asset
since gold has enjoyed such widespread acceptance as a medium of
exchange and store of value. In fact, some economists, such as Paul
Davidson of the University of Tennessee and Ronald McKinnon of
Stanford University, take the argument a step further (see references
at end). They argue that the world is on a de facto dollar standard,
akin to the 19th-century gold standard.

For roughly a century up to 1914, the world's main currencies were
pegged to gold. You could buy an ounce for about four pounds or
twenty dollars. The contemporary "dollar standard" is a looser
affair. In principle, the world's currencies float in value against
each other, but in reality few float freely. Countries fear losing
competitiveness on world markets if their currency rises too much
against the greenback; they fear inflation if it falls too far. As
long as American prices remain stable, the dollar therefore provides
an anchor for world currencies and prices, ensuring that they do not
become completely unmoored.

In the days of the gold standard, the volume of money and credit in
circulation was tied to the amount of gold in a country's vaults.
Economies laboured under the "tyranny" of the gold regime, booming
when gold was abundant, deflating when it was scarce. The dollar
standard is a more liberal system. Central banks retain the right to
expand the volume of domestic credit to keep pace with the growth of
the home economy.

Eventually, however, growth in the world's economies translates into
a growing demand for dollar assets. The more money central banks
print, the more dollars they like to hold in reserve to underpin
their currency. The more business is done across borders, the more
dollars traders need to cover their transactions. If the greenback is
the new gold, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, is the
world's alchemist, responsible for concocting enough liquidity to
keep world trade bubbling along nicely.

But America can play this role only if it is happy to allow
foreigners to build up a
huge mass of claims on its assets-and if foreigners are happy to go
along. Some economists watch with consternation as the rest of the
world's claims on America outstrip America's claims on the rest of
the world. As they point out, even a dollar bill is an American
liability, a promise of ultimate payment by the US Treasury. Can
America keep making these promises to foreigners, without eventually
emptying them of value?

According to Mr Davidson, the world cannot risk America stopping.
America's external deficit means an extra $500 billion is going into
circulation in the world economy each year. If America reined in its
current account, international commerce would suffer a liquidity
crunch, as it did periodically under the gold standard. Hence
America's deficit is neither a "meaningless concept" nor a lamentable
drain on world savings. It is an indispensable fount of liquidity for
world trade.

Spigot by nature

But is the deficit sustainable? Many of America's creditors, Mr
McKinnon argues, have a stake in preserving the dollar standard,
whatever the euro's potential charms. In particular, a large share of
America's more liquid assets are held by foreign central banks,
particularly in Asia, which dare not offload them for fear of
undermining the competitiveness of their own currencies. "Willy
nilly," Mr McKinnon says, "foreign governments cannot avoid being
important creditors of the United States." China, for one, added $60
billion to its reserves in the year to June by ploughing most of its
trade surplus with America back into American assets.

This is not the first time America's external deficits have raised
alarm. In 1966, as America's post-war trade surpluses began to
dwindle, The Economist ran an article entitled "The dollar and world
liquidity: a minority view." According to this view, the build-up of
dollar claims by foreigners was not a "deficit" in need of
"correction". Rather, the American capital market was acting like a
global financial intermediary, providing essential liquidity to
foreign governments and enterprises. In their own ways, Mr Davidson
and Mr McKinnon echo this minority view today. A "correction" of
America's current deficit, they say, would create more problems than
it would solve. Whether the world's holders of dollars will always
agree remains to be seen.


"Financial Markets, Money and the Real World" by Paul Davidson.
Edward Elgar 2002.

"The International Dollar Standard and Sustainability of the U.S.
Current Account Deficit" by Ronald McKinnon 2001. Available on
www.stanford.edu/~ mckinnon/papers.htm



Copyright  2002 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All
rights reserved.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 29 2004 - 00:00:01 EST