Strengthening Dollar A Bad Thing?

cawacko

Well-known member
Kind of surprising article from The Economist. I'm far from an expert on the dollar but I've always been under the impression a strong dollar is better than a weaker one and our economy has responded better to a stronger dollar. The Economist is a support of free markets so this is not the position I would expect them to take.



The mighty dollar

Why a strengthening dollar is bad for the world economy

The rise of the greenback looks like something to welcome. That is to ignore the central role the dollar plays in global finance



THE world’s most important currency is flexing its muscles. In the three weeks following Donald Trump’s victory in America’s presidential elections, the dollar had one of its sharpest rises ever against a basket of rich-country peers. It is now 40% above its lows in 2011. It has strengthened relative to emerging-market currencies, too. The yuan has fallen to its lowest level against the dollar since 2008; anxious Chinese officials are said to be pondering tighter restrictions on foreign takeovers by domestic firms to stem the downward pressure. India, which has troubles of its own making (see article), has seen its currency reach an all-time low against the greenback. Other Asian currencies have plunged to depths not seen since the financial crisis of 1997-98.

The dollar has been gradually gaining strength for years. But the prompt for this latest surge is the prospect of a shift in the economic-policy mix in America. The weight of investors’ money has bet that Mr Trump will cut taxes and spend more public funds on fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure. A big fiscal boost would lead the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at a faster rate to check inflation. America’s ten-year bond yield has risen to 2.3%, from almost 1.7% on election night. Higher yields are a magnet for capital flows (see article).

Zippier growth in the world’s largest economy sounds like something to welcome. A widely cited precedent is Ronald Reagan’s first term as president, a time of widening budget deficits and high interest rates, during which the dollar surged. That episode caused trouble abroad and this time could be more complicated still. Although America’s economy makes up a smaller share of the world economy, global financial and credit markets have exploded in size. The greenback has become more pivotal. That makes a stronger dollar more dangerous for the world and for America.

America’s relative clout as a trading power has been in steady decline: the number of countries for which it is the biggest export market dropped from 44 in 1994 to 32 two decades later. But the dollar’s supremacy as a means of exchange and a store of value remains unchallenged. Some aspects of the greenback’s power are clear to see. By one estimate in 2014 a de facto dollar zone, comprising America and countries whose currencies move in line with the greenback, encompassed perhaps 60% of the world’s population and 60% of its GDP.*

Other elements are less visible. The amount of dollar financing that takes place beyond America’s shores has surged in recent years. As emerging markets grow richer and hungrier for finance, so does their demand for dollars. Since the financial crisis, low interest rates in America have led pension funds to look for decent yields elsewhere. They have rushed to buy dollar-denominated bonds issued in unlikely places, such as Mozambique and Zambia, as well as those issued by biggish emerging-market firms. These issuers were all too happy to borrow in dollars at lower rates than prevailed at home. By last year this kind of dollar debt amounted to almost $10trn, a third of it in emerging markets, according to the Bank for International Settlements, a forum for central bankers.

When the dollar rises, so does the cost of servicing those debts. But the pain caused by a stronger greenback stretches well beyond its direct effect on dollar borrowers. That is because cheap offshore borrowing has in many cases caused an increased supply of local credit. Capital inflows push up local asset prices, encouraging further borrowing. Not every dollar borrowed by emerging-market firms has been used to invest; some of the money ended up in bank accounts (where it can be lent out again) or financed other firms.

A strengthening dollar sends this cycle into reverse. As the greenback rises, borrowers husband cash to service the increasing cost of their own debts. As capital flows out, asset prices fall. The upshot is that credit conditions in lots of places outside America are bound ever more tightly to the fortunes of the dollar. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest losers against the dollar recently have been currencies in countries, such as Brazil, Chile and Turkey, with lots of dollar debts.
The eye of providence

There are lurking dangers in a stronger dollar for America, too. The trade deficit will widen as a strong currency squeezes exports and sucks in imports. In the Reagan era a soaring deficit stoked protectionism. This time America starts with a big deficit and one that has already been politicised, not least by Mr Trump, who sees it as evidence that the rules of international commerce are rigged in other countries’ favour. A bigger deficit raises the chances that he act on his threats to impose steep tariffs on imports from China and Mexico in an attempt to bring trade into balance. If Mr Trump succumbs to his protectionist instincts, the consequences would be disastrous for all.

Much naturally depends on where the dollar goes from here. Many investors are sanguine. The greenback is starting to look dear against its peers. The Fed has a record of backing away from rate rises if there is trouble in emerging markets. Yet currencies often move far away from fundamental values for long periods. Nor is it obvious where investors fleeing America’s currency might run to. The euro and the yuan, the two pretenders to the dollar’s crown, have deep-seated problems of their own. The Fed, whose next rate-setting meeting comes this month, may find it harder than before to avoid tightening in an economy that is heating up.

If the dollar stays strong, might protectionist pressure be defused by co-ordinated international action? Nascent talk of a new pact to rival the Plaza Accord, an agreement in 1985 between America, Japan, Britain, France and West Germany to push the dollar down again, looks misplaced. Japan and Europe are battling low inflation and are none too keen on stronger currencies, let alone on the tighter monetary policies that would be needed to secure them (see article).

Stockmarkets in America have rallied on the prospect of stronger growth. They are being too cavalier. The global economy is weak and the dollar’s muscle will enfeeble it further.


http://www.economist.com/news/leade...k-looks-something-welcome-ignore-central-role
 
there will always be positives and negatives to it. Just like when we pointed out that having a weak currency is not bad because it makes your products more competetive.

You can make an legitimate article out of either side.

I havent checked but im willing to bet whichever entity you got that from endorsed hillary and was very critical of trump during the campaign.
 
there will always be positives and negatives to it. Just like when we pointed out that having a weak currency is not bad because it makes your products more competetive.

You can make an legitimate article out of either side.

I havent checked but im willing to bet whichever entity you got that from endorsed hillary and was very critical of trump during the campaign.

Isn't a weak dollar the food that feeds inflation....guess its a matter of perspective...:clink:
 
With all the debt america has, rising interest rates should be bad for the $. But none of that matters since financial markets no longer exist. It's just computers talking to computers.
 
Kind of surprising article from The Economist. I'm far from an expert on the dollar but I've always been under the impression a strong dollar is better than a weaker one and our economy has responded better to a stronger dollar. The Economist is a support of free markets so this is not the position I would expect them to take.

The mighty dollar

Why a strengthening dollar is bad for the world economy

The rise of the greenback looks like something to welcome. That is to ignore the central role the dollar plays in global finance



THE world’s most important currency is flexing its muscles. In the three weeks following Donald Trump’s victory in America’s presidential elections, the dollar had one of its sharpest rises ever against a basket of rich-country peers. It is now 40% above its lows in 2011. It has strengthened relative to emerging-market currencies, too. The yuan has fallen to its lowest level against the dollar since 2008; anxious Chinese officials are said to be pondering tighter restrictions on foreign takeovers by domestic firms to stem the downward pressure. India, which has troubles of its own making (see article), has seen its currency reach an all-time low against the greenback. Other Asian currencies have plunged to depths not seen since the financial crisis of 1997-98.

The dollar has been gradually gaining strength for years. But the prompt for this latest surge is the prospect of a shift in the economic-policy mix in America. The weight of investors’ money has bet that Mr Trump will cut taxes and spend more public funds on fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure. A big fiscal boost would lead the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at a faster rate to check inflation. America’s ten-year bond yield has risen to 2.3%, from almost 1.7% on election night. Higher yields are a magnet for capital flows (see article).

Zippier growth in the world’s largest economy sounds like something to welcome. A widely cited precedent is Ronald Reagan’s first term as president, a time of widening budget deficits and high interest rates, during which the dollar surged. That episode caused trouble abroad and this time could be more complicated still. Although America’s economy makes up a smaller share of the world economy, global financial and credit markets have exploded in size. The greenback has become more pivotal. That makes a stronger dollar more dangerous for the world and for America.

America’s relative clout as a trading power has been in steady decline: the number of countries for which it is the biggest export market dropped from 44 in 1994 to 32 two decades later. But the dollar’s supremacy as a means of exchange and a store of value remains unchallenged. Some aspects of the greenback’s power are clear to see. By one estimate in 2014 a de facto dollar zone, comprising America and countries whose currencies move in line with the greenback, encompassed perhaps 60% of the world’s population and 60% of its GDP.*

Other elements are less visible. The amount of dollar financing that takes place beyond America’s shores has surged in recent years. As emerging markets grow richer and hungrier for finance, so does their demand for dollars. Since the financial crisis, low interest rates in America have led pension funds to look for decent yields elsewhere. They have rushed to buy dollar-denominated bonds issued in unlikely places, such as Mozambique and Zambia, as well as those issued by biggish emerging-market firms. These issuers were all too happy to borrow in dollars at lower rates than prevailed at home. By last year this kind of dollar debt amounted to almost $10trn, a third of it in emerging markets, according to the Bank for International Settlements, a forum for central bankers.

When the dollar rises, so does the cost of servicing those debts. But the pain caused by a stronger greenback stretches well beyond its direct effect on dollar borrowers. That is because cheap offshore borrowing has in many cases caused an increased supply of local credit. Capital inflows push up local asset prices, encouraging further borrowing. Not every dollar borrowed by emerging-market firms has been used to invest; some of the money ended up in bank accounts (where it can be lent out again) or financed other firms.

A strengthening dollar sends this cycle into reverse. As the greenback rises, borrowers husband cash to service the increasing cost of their own debts. As capital flows out, asset prices fall. The upshot is that credit conditions in lots of places outside America are bound ever more tightly to the fortunes of the dollar. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest losers against the dollar recently have been currencies in countries, such as Brazil, Chile and Turkey, with lots of dollar debts.
The eye of providence

There are lurking dangers in a stronger dollar for America, too. The trade deficit will widen as a strong currency squeezes exports and sucks in imports. In the Reagan era a soaring deficit stoked protectionism. This time America starts with a big deficit and one that has already been politicised, not least by Mr Trump, who sees it as evidence that the rules of international commerce are rigged in other countries’ favour. A bigger deficit raises the chances that he act on his threats to impose steep tariffs on imports from China and Mexico in an attempt to bring trade into balance. If Mr Trump succumbs to his protectionist instincts, the consequences would be disastrous for all.

Much naturally depends on where the dollar goes from here. Many investors are sanguine. The greenback is starting to look dear against its peers. The Fed has a record of backing away from rate rises if there is trouble in emerging markets. Yet currencies often move far away from fundamental values for long periods. Nor is it obvious where investors fleeing America’s currency might run to. The euro and the yuan, the two pretenders to the dollar’s crown, have deep-seated problems of their own. The Fed, whose next rate-setting meeting comes this month, may find it harder than before to avoid tightening in an economy that is heating up.

If the dollar stays strong, might protectionist pressure be defused by co-ordinated international action? Nascent talk of a new pact to rival the Plaza Accord, an agreement in 1985 between America, Japan, Britain, France and West Germany to push the dollar down again, looks misplaced. Japan and Europe are battling low inflation and are none too keen on stronger currencies, let alone on the tighter monetary policies that would be needed to secure them (see article).

Stockmarkets in America have rallied on the prospect of stronger growth. They are being too cavalier. The global economy is weak and the dollar’s muscle will enfeeble it further.


http://www.economist.com/news/leade...k-looks-something-welcome-ignore-central-role

Speaking only to the point about infrastructure, it must always be "worth the cost".
 
Kind of surprising article from The Economist. I'm far from an expert on the dollar but I've always been under the impression a strong dollar is better than a weaker one and our economy has responded better to a stronger dollar. The Economist is a support of free markets so this is not the position I would expect them to take.

The mighty dollar

Why a strengthening dollar is bad for the world economy

The rise of the greenback looks like something to welcome. That is to ignore the central role the dollar plays in global finance



THE world’s most important currency is flexing its muscles. In the three weeks following Donald Trump’s victory in America’s presidential elections, the dollar had one of its sharpest rises ever against a basket of rich-country peers. It is now 40% above its lows in 2011. It has strengthened relative to emerging-market currencies, too. The yuan has fallen to its lowest level against the dollar since 2008; anxious Chinese officials are said to be pondering tighter restrictions on foreign takeovers by domestic firms to stem the downward pressure. India, which has troubles of its own making (see article), has seen its currency reach an all-time low against the greenback. Other Asian currencies have plunged to depths not seen since the financial crisis of 1997-98.

The dollar has been gradually gaining strength for years. But the prompt for this latest surge is the prospect of a shift in the economic-policy mix in America. The weight of investors’ money has bet that Mr Trump will cut taxes and spend more public funds on fixing America’s crumbling infrastructure. A big fiscal boost would lead the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates at a faster rate to check inflation. America’s ten-year bond yield has risen to 2.3%, from almost 1.7% on election night. Higher yields are a magnet for capital flows (see article).

Zippier growth in the world’s largest economy sounds like something to welcome. A widely cited precedent is Ronald Reagan’s first term as president, a time of widening budget deficits and high interest rates, during which the dollar surged. That episode caused trouble abroad and this time could be more complicated still. Although America’s economy makes up a smaller share of the world economy, global financial and credit markets have exploded in size. The greenback has become more pivotal. That makes a stronger dollar more dangerous for the world and for America.

America’s relative clout as a trading power has been in steady decline: the number of countries for which it is the biggest export market dropped from 44 in 1994 to 32 two decades later. But the dollar’s supremacy as a means of exchange and a store of value remains unchallenged. Some aspects of the greenback’s power are clear to see. By one estimate in 2014 a de facto dollar zone, comprising America and countries whose currencies move in line with the greenback, encompassed perhaps 60% of the world’s population and 60% of its GDP.*

Other elements are less visible. The amount of dollar financing that takes place beyond America’s shores has surged in recent years. As emerging markets grow richer and hungrier for finance, so does their demand for dollars. Since the financial crisis, low interest rates in America have led pension funds to look for decent yields elsewhere. They have rushed to buy dollar-denominated bonds issued in unlikely places, such as Mozambique and Zambia, as well as those issued by biggish emerging-market firms. These issuers were all too happy to borrow in dollars at lower rates than prevailed at home. By last year this kind of dollar debt amounted to almost $10trn, a third of it in emerging markets, according to the Bank for International Settlements, a forum for central bankers.

When the dollar rises, so does the cost of servicing those debts. But the pain caused by a stronger greenback stretches well beyond its direct effect on dollar borrowers. That is because cheap offshore borrowing has in many cases caused an increased supply of local credit. Capital inflows push up local asset prices, encouraging further borrowing. Not every dollar borrowed by emerging-market firms has been used to invest; some of the money ended up in bank accounts (where it can be lent out again) or financed other firms.

A strengthening dollar sends this cycle into reverse. As the greenback rises, borrowers husband cash to service the increasing cost of their own debts. As capital flows out, asset prices fall. The upshot is that credit conditions in lots of places outside America are bound ever more tightly to the fortunes of the dollar. It is no coincidence that some of the biggest losers against the dollar recently have been currencies in countries, such as Brazil, Chile and Turkey, with lots of dollar debts.
The eye of providence

There are lurking dangers in a stronger dollar for America, too. The trade deficit will widen as a strong currency squeezes exports and sucks in imports. In the Reagan era a soaring deficit stoked protectionism. This time America starts with a big deficit and one that has already been politicised, not least by Mr Trump, who sees it as evidence that the rules of international commerce are rigged in other countries’ favour. A bigger deficit raises the chances that he act on his threats to impose steep tariffs on imports from China and Mexico in an attempt to bring trade into balance. If Mr Trump succumbs to his protectionist instincts, the consequences would be disastrous for all.

Much naturally depends on where the dollar goes from here. Many investors are sanguine. The greenback is starting to look dear against its peers. The Fed has a record of backing away from rate rises if there is trouble in emerging markets. Yet currencies often move far away from fundamental values for long periods. Nor is it obvious where investors fleeing America’s currency might run to. The euro and the yuan, the two pretenders to the dollar’s crown, have deep-seated problems of their own. The Fed, whose next rate-setting meeting comes this month, may find it harder than before to avoid tightening in an economy that is heating up.

If the dollar stays strong, might protectionist pressure be defused by co-ordinated international action? Nascent talk of a new pact to rival the Plaza Accord, an agreement in 1985 between America, Japan, Britain, France and West Germany to push the dollar down again, looks misplaced. Japan and Europe are battling low inflation and are none too keen on stronger currencies, let alone on the tighter monetary policies that would be needed to secure them (see article).

Stockmarkets in America have rallied on the prospect of stronger growth. They are being too cavalier. The global economy is weak and the dollar’s muscle will enfeeble it further.


http://www.economist.com/news/leade...k-looks-something-welcome-ignore-central-role

Speaking only to the point about infrastructure, it must always be "worth the cost".
 
Weak helps exports which was helpful when domestic sales were dead.
With the rest of the world tanking strong is better as we want to lead the world wide recovery. It also helps keep the greenback as the reserve currency.
These things are situational
 
i think the dollar has leeway on both ends because of the number of moving parts in the economy.

but if your something like greece i think weak currency is the best fit.
 
We had a strong dollar under Reagan as well as under Clinton and a weaker one under W. Yes there are good and bad that come with a strong dollar. Part of the reason today for the strong dollar is the poor performance by other economies around the globe.

Will be interesting to see if President Trump speaks out specifically on this topic.
 
Weak helps exports which was helpful when domestic sales were dead.
With the rest of the world tanking strong is better as we want to lead the world wide recovery. It also helps keep the greenback as the reserve currency.
These things are situational

^Best answer; as a primarily importing nation, a strong dollar is good for us. From an export situation, not so great. If you are traveling abroad, also great.
 
We had a strong dollar under Reagan as well as under Clinton and a weaker one under W. Yes there are good and bad that come with a strong dollar. Part of the reason today for the strong dollar is the poor performance by other economies around the globe.

Will be interesting to see if President Trump speaks out specifically on this topic.

indirectly. He is speaking out on china manipulating their currency to appear weaker than it actually is so he knows the value of a weak currency.
 
A strong dollar is always better because it gives America more influence in every other matter. The Economists only cares about the short-term bottom line of investors, and those investors can invest anywhere, not just the US.
 
A strong dollar is always better because it gives America more influence in every other matter. The Economists only cares about the short-term bottom line of investors, and those investors can invest anywhere, not just the US.

Unless one is in the export business doofus.
 
Unless one is in the export business doofus.

Hardly. Foreigners buy US made products because they are better, not because they are cheaper. Examples: Boeing, Harley Davidson, Coke, Jack Daniels, Marlboro, Apple. Any loss in exports of commodities is more than made up by a net gain in our influence.

Of course, being a liberal, you don't understand or appreciate the positive effect of the US being influential in geopolitical events.
 
Hardly. Foreigners buy US made products because they are better, not because they are cheaper. Examples: Boeing, Harley Davidson, Coke, Jack Daniels, Marlboro, Apple. Any loss in exports of commodities is more than made up by a net gain in our influence.

Of course, being a liberal, you don't understand or appreciate the positive effect of the US being influential in geopolitical events.

Eat shit
 
Back
Top