A Question For Forum Braintrust

24 posts / 0 new
Last post
JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
A Question For Forum Braintrust

I'm was listening to a great Two Beers w/ Steve podcast (Looking Ahead and Looking For Opportunities - January 2nd, 2010) featuring an interview with Jason Hartmon today. In the interview, Hartman lays out a very good strategy to profit from the inflation that everyone is expecting in our near future. I really liked the strategy, but its effectiveness all hinges on the expectation that the Fed can successfully devalue the dollar.

My understanding of the US monetary system is that its a hybrid system, composed primarily of credit-money with a small fiat money component. Given this understanding I can extrapolate the following:

  • From a macro-economic perspective, In order to devalue the dollar by 50% the Fed/Banking System would have to double the amount of money in the system.
  • The private sector debt currently in the US is roughly $50 Trillion dollars.
  • If the money supply is doubled, under a credit-based monetary system the private debt must also double as well (as every dollar created also creates a dollar of debt).
  • So to devalue the dollar by 50%, the private sector must take on an additional $50 Trillion in debt, or 100% more debt.

By this understanding, devaluing the dollar to more easily pay-off debt doesn't work, because the process creates a proportional amount of additional debt.  And when the private sector becomes saturated with debt, the Fed looses its ability to increase the money supply and devalue the dollar.

Now obviously my understanding must be inaccurate and/or incomplete, because the Fed, and everyone else for that matter, believes it can devalue the dollar at will. Where did I go wrong with my hypothesis?

Can anyone explain to me how the dollar devaluation process actually works? Perhaps through the currency markets or the fiat-money component of our monetary system? 

Thanks in advanced....Jeff

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

Actually the debt is greater than the money created, because you have to pay interest on the debt.

 

Now, my riddle for you is:

How do we devalue the debt without devaluing the money?

Davos's picture
Davos
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 17 2008
Posts: 3620
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
docmims wrote:

Actually the debt is greater than the money created, because you have to pay interest on the debt.

 

Now, my riddle for you is:

How do we devalue the debt without devaluing the money?

Default on it.

drbubb's picture
drbubb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 8 2008
Posts: 77
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

The money need to crush the Dollar is already in existence.

All that needs to happen is this: those holding Dollars decide to exchange them for:

Gold, Oil, or even US stocks and other assets.  Then dollar prices of those items will rise.

What is not clear, is how that will help to boost incomes in the US.

Americans may find that a falling dollar is far from a blessing.  If they have to pay more for essentials, like food and energy, and their incomes are not rising much, it at all, they will be caught in a vicious squeeze.  Only those who have taken precautions and shifted their wealth into gold and other non-dollar assets will benefit.

This is not pure imagination.  Just look what is happening in Iceland...

Iceland, the first country Beyond Financial Collapse   

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
drbubb wrote:

The money need to crush the Dollar is already in existence.

This seems like a non-sensical argument to me, no disrespect intended. This argument implies that a shift of capital between one asset class to another creates a change in the money supply, which obviously in not the case from a macro-economic perspective.

From a market perspective, this argument overlooks the historical precedence of mean reversion in asset markets. Markets are moved by one endogenous force: How do I get you to give me your money? The perception of a "safe" investment is not only a fallacy, but an opportunity for someone to profit from your acceptance of such a perception. 

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

JAG wrote:

My understanding of the US monetary system is that its a hybrid system, composed primarily of credit-money with a small fiat money component.

Hello Jeff,  you're never afraid to offer an alternative view and I really enjoy your posts. On this one, hope you don't mind but I wanted to clarify/challenge  two things that you wrote.

  • "...composed primarily of credit-money" - by definition; we have no credit money, it's all debt money.  The two are totally different concepts (bookkeeping); 
    • credit =  an entry of payment or value received on the credit side (asset)
    • debt = something owed, such as money, goods, or services (liability)
  • "...with a small fiat money component" - it's all fiat money, or more specifically, notes and digital entries decreed to be legal tender.
    • The species of money is secondary to the way it is issued into circulation.  Sovereign credit allows us to monetize whatever we agree on, separate from private banks.  In fact, private banks may only create money if the sovereign nation agrees (in doing so, they become a client state). 

The U.S. monetary system is easy to fix mechanically; the problem is getting people to understand that we are borrowing our own money from a parasitic banking cartel that adds nothing of value while collecting unsustainable interest charges - and if the terms are not met, they seize the collateral for free. 

We are free to issue our own soveirgn credit - money without any national debt.  But instead we go into perpetual and ruinous debt by choice instead of necessity.  We pay income tax by choice, federal income tax is only needed to pay the interest on public debt - and the public debt is by choice!

Larry  

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

Larry, 

Thanks for the response.

I wasn't aware of the distinction between debt-based and credit-based money. Obviously, debt-based money is the more appropriate description here. Also, by "fiat-money component" I specifically meant money that is not backed by debt. I believe some aspects of QE may represent this type of money.

I'm sincere in my inquiry about the dollar devaluation process. Does anyone understand how it works?

DrKrbyLuv's picture
DrKrbyLuv
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 1995
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

Jeff,

Interesting stuff, thanks for the discussion.  I think a sovereign nation has the power to back a credit or debt based money system.  We choose to borrow our own money in a giant ponzi scheme known as the federal reserve - owned and operated by the international banking cartel.

Henry C.K. Liu does a great job in analyzing the difference: 

If fiat money is not sovereign debt, then the entire conceptual structure of finance capitalism is subject to reordering, just as physics was subject to reordering when man's worldview changed with the realization that the earth is not stationary nor is it the center of the universe.  The need for capital formation to finance socially-useful development will be exposed as a cruel hoax, as sovereign credit can finance all socially-useful development without problem.

Sovereign credit can finance an economy in which unemployment is unknown, with wages constantly rising to provide consumer buying power to prevent production overcapacity.  A vibrant economy is one in which there is persistent labor shortages that push up wages to reduce overcapacity.  Private savings are needed only for private investment that has no intrinsic social purpose or value. 

Savings require interest payments, the compounding of which will regressively make any financial scheme unsustainable.  The religions forbade usury for very practical reasons.

The relationship between assets and liabilities is expressed as credit and debt, with the designation determined by the flow of obligation. A flow from asset to liability is known as credit, the reverse is known as debt. A creditor is one who reduces his liability to increase his assets, which include the right of collection on the liabilities of his debtors. Sovereign debt is a pretend game to make private monetary debts denominated in fiat money tradable.  - complete article link 

Larry

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

Jeff,

The FRN has lost 98% of its value since inception, so clearly there must be a way for this mechanism to work.  As to how it works, I believe that was detailed in the CC.  I believe you are having trouble with understanding it in the context of debt deflation, and so should Ben Bernanke.

In a growing economy that has not hit critical debt limits (public and private), money can be added as long as goods and services are growing at a similar rate, without causing too much inflation.  Of course by "too much" I am referring by about the amount it takes to devalue the currency 98% over 97 years. 

After a credit bust, which I believe we can all agree we are in, the economy stops growing as all available free cash goes to pay off debt instead of into consuming.  Businesses stop borrowing as they find themselves with excess capacity and no need to expand (and therefore no need to indebt themselves further).  The government soon raises taxes to compensate for falling tax receipts.  That reduces the amount of free cash in private hands even further, making debt payoff even harder.  Consumers too stop borrowing as they find themselves with a scarcity of cash.

Somewhere along this downward spiral, Ben and his acolytes turn on the money tap.  First, they print money to buy "assets" of failing banks.  These "assets" are bad loans which the banks desperately need to be off their books since they really aren't worth the paper they are printed on.  The Fed buys them, exchanging worthless paper with real money (also worthless, but not until much later in the game).  The Fed also buys US Treasury bonds, in an effort to boost government spending power without actually borrowing pre-existing dollars from the private sector. 

These liquidity boosts inject real (well, as real as it gets post 1913) money into the system.  In the case of US Treasury bonds, the money injected becomes the government's debt, payable to the Fed.  Theoretically, the Fed later sells these bonds on the private market, thereby "sopping" up liquidity (I wonder when the last time that happened was).  In the case of asset purchases, we are told the banks must later buy those asssets back off the Fed, so we are supposed to believe those are "loans" also. 

So in a sense, you are right:  No matter how much "money" is created, it is all still debt, payable to the Fed.  The Fed can sell these assets back into the private market, and when it receives those funds, the money (well, what we call money -  it's really all FRNs) ceases to exist. 

But that is not what you asked. You asked how can the dollar be devalued in order to make paying off the debt easier, which is obviously related to the concept obvserved:  if it's all debt anyway, then how can creating more of it make it easier to pay it off?

The answer is I do not believe it can be unless interest rates are falling.  That is, the amount of debt that can be sustained is obviously related to the average interest rate being paid.  If you start out at high interest rates (which we had when we went off the international gold standard in 1971), and then gradually lower it over the course of 40 years, the amount of debt that can be sustained by the society on a per capita basis will be higher at the end than at the beginning, since the interest rate is lower (as it is now). 

Once zero interest rates have been arrived at AND the society can no longer bear anymore debt, well, you have a bit of a problem.  You can no longer lower interest rates further in order to carry more debt, and since all the money you print is debt you've reached a very dead end. 

So I think you're right.  We are screwed.  We can't even print our way out of this.  It is 2:45am and I may not be thinking straight, but that's what it looks like to me. 

 

 

 

docmims's picture
docmims
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 17 2009
Posts: 644
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
Davos wrote:
docmims wrote:

Actually the debt is greater than the money created, because you have to pay interest on the debt.

 

Now, my riddle for you is:

How do we devalue the debt without devaluing the money?

Default on it.

Good.  Now the next question.  Default on it to whom? Since we owe it to ourselves?  If we default on the debt, is the money still there, since the country still has assetts?  ie sorry federal reserve and world bank we'll pay you 10cents on the dollar for that worthless debt......

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
JAG wrote:

I'm sincere in my inquiry about the dollar devaluation process. Does anyone understand how it works?

Jeff

I think you've described the process of currency debasement, through inflation (backdoor devaluation), reasonably accurately. The only thing you might be overlooking, is that while inflation does require additional debt, it also makes it commensurately much easier to pay off existing, previously unmanageable debt, because it now can be paid back with considerably devalued dollars, of which there are therefore, a lot more. And of course, assuming the dollar can be successfully inflated (devalued) against foreign currencies, our foreign creditors all end up taking a haircut on their treasury holdings, since they're denominated in dollars - a huge break for us. So I would imagine that's the government's first choice, if they can pull it off. But It would also seem within the realm of possibility, if foreign governments don't cooperate (why would they!), that the government might eventually  feel compelled to simply mandate a devaluation, like FDR did in 1934. FDR devalued the dollar by 69% against gold (back in the days of the gold standard), when he raised the price from $20.67 to $35, overnight. Obama, or a future president could do the same thing today, by devaluing the dollar, presumably  against other currencies. As I understand it, the amount of devaluation is essentially equivilent to defaulting on that amount of debt.

Obviously this would be very good news for debtors, because they would get to pay back their debts with instantly inflated money, but it would be very bad for savers, because their savings would be robbed, on the spot, by the amount of the devaluation. But mostly, I would imagine, it's good for the government and bad for the people - the normal course of things! A friend of mine who lived through a major devaluation in Russia, told me, literally overnight, everyone became poor. It's very egalitarian, though. EVERYONE is equally broke! I would definitely be interested to know what the strategy for surviving this unscathed would be.

Best

Greg

drbubb's picture
drbubb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 8 2008
Posts: 77
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
JAG wrote:
drbubb wrote:

The money need to crush the Dollar is already in existence.

This seems like a non-sensical argument to me, no disrespect intended. This argument implies that a shift of capital between one asset class to another creates a change in the money supply, which obviously in not the case from a macro-economic perspective.

From a market perspective, this argument overlooks the historical precedence of mean reversion in asset markets. Markets are moved by one endogenous force: How do I get you to give me your money? The perception of a "safe" investment is not only a fallacy, but an opportunity for someone to profit from your acceptance of such a perception. 

Hmm.  Why is it non-sensical?

I think yours may be non-sensical, unless you can explain the following.  Huge amounts of money were added to supply over the last 12-18 months, but the dollar is higher.  How do you explain that?  My explanation is two-fold:

+ Currency was "destroyed" as bad loans and asset values were written down, and

+ Central banks, commercial banks, and others bought and held those dollars.

Now if those (somewhat reluctant) holders of dollars start exchanging them for Gold, Oil, and other assets, then the value of those other assets will go up, and the value of the dollar is likely to fall.  We do not need more massive money printing for that to happen.  Inflation is already backed into the cake for the long term IMHO.

But the rise in inflation & fall in the USD need not happen straight away.  

As I wrote in response to a similar query on GEI:

And I also think we will see a weaker Dollar - but not just yet.
It's all about timing. The weaker dollar will come after the spike up in the Dollar is done.
The next time the dollar falls, it could get very messy indeed

Farmer Brown's picture
Farmer Brown
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Nov 23 2008
Posts: 1503
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

drbubb and Greg,

I do not think Jeff is questioning whether or not the FRN can be devalued.  He is questioning whether such a devaluation makes it easier to pay off the debt.  Increasing the amount of FRNs in circulation does not make it easier to pay off pre-existing FRNs, since the aggregate debt (total FRNs) is increased in doing so.  Since all FRNs are debt, it is impossible to print more of them (increase the debt) in order to to lower the debt.

The only thing that is possible is to increase the per-capita debt burden via interest-rate reductions.  Well, we're basically at zero interest rates already, so there is no where else to go.  The Fed will find it has nothing else to do but print.  And print they shall.  However, that will only exacerbate the problem while buying scant time, and keep some of the sheep from stampeding by maintaining them in a liquidity-induced stupor.

This does not automatically mean we will see currency debasement and hyperinflation just yet.  It just means the final outcome is certain.  When that will be is anyone's guess.  My guess is it will not be soon, and it will probably happen when it is least expected, even by people on forums like this.

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

I would also add to this argument:

At what point does intentional dollar devaluation run head long into social/political blowback from the general population?

As they government crashes the dollar to pay off its debt then (as Greg mentioned) the general public becomes impoverished. So on a sliding scale how far down to zero will the public ride the devaluation train before thing erupt into chaos?

bklement's picture
bklement
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 26 2009
Posts: 108
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

If I wanted to lower the value of the debt (not nessicarrily the amount) I would first manipulate the CPI so that it would show a lower amount of inflation that what really exists, and then take any unfunded liabilities I had and base their increases due to inflation on the manipulated CPI number, and then print money like crazy.  Yes, debt would be created but unfunded liablilities would be wiped out over time.

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

Thanks everyone for the thought provoking replies.

I need to clarify a few things in my initial post:

Regarding Greg's points:

  • For simplicity sake (so that we can avoid the need for calculus) lets assume the Fed could double the money supply overnight: from a hypothetical $100 in circulation to $200 in circulation. This would effectively cut the purchasing power of the dollar in half.
  • Yesterday, lets assume that the total private debt was $100, after the overnight devaluation, it would only take 1/2 the money supply ($100 of the $200) to pay-off that debt today.
  • But the doubling of the money supply also added another $100 of debt to the total private debt. Thus the proportion of money supply to debt remains a constant. Therefore it seems futile to try to devalue the currency in a debt/credit based monetary system.

Now if the Fed decide to devalue the dollar against another currency by outright decree, then this gives the US an unfair advantage in world trade. In this situation it seems logical that the other country would respond with their own devaluation decree, to preserve the viability of their international trade.

Listen to the podcast for details on the strategy, I think its a good strategy if inflation is indeed in our future.

Dr.Bubb,

There is a reason that the Chinese purchase and hold the dollar, to preserve their currency peg to the dollar. If they were to suddenly to take those dollars and buy commodities with them, their currency would appreciate against the dollar and destroy their remaining export market. And for every dollar that they could hypothetically spend on commodities, that dollar simply changes hands, therefore it has no effect on the money supply.

Because every dollar is backed by debt, when that debt is paid-off or defaulted on, that money is removed from the money supply. So to me, it seams like deflation, not inflation, is baked in the cake for the long term.

If the dollar is higher now than it was before all this QE got started, then it simply proves that macro-economics are a poor indicator for explaining and projecting moves in a market. Markets, including the currency market, have endogenous forces that explain and predict their movement to a much more higher degree of certainty than macro-economic forces.

FB,

So if the desired solution to this debt overhang is to "inflate the debt away", how do they do it? It must involve increasing the money supply without increasing the debt somehow. But its hard for me to accept that a central bank can inflate the money supply via direct printing to the degree that it can neutralize 30-50% of the debt that it took the entire Fractional Reserve banking system decades to create. And in this case, their is no money multiplier effect because the debt overhang nullifies the profit motivation for the banks to make loans and for the private sector to want loans.

If the Fed tries to "manipulate" the currency markets to achieve their desired devaluation, the market will eventually mean revert, nullifying any progress that the made in the years prior (like 2008).

I remained unconvinced that the Fed can "inflate the debt away" at this point in time. The only viable way I see to deal with this debt overhang is to default on it, something that the private sector is doing in spades this past year. But I'm open to any new ideas or critiques of my thought process.

Thanks again everyone for the great discussion.

(edit:sp)

drbubb's picture
drbubb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 8 2008
Posts: 77
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
Johnny Oxygen wrote:

I would also add to this argument:

At what point does intentional dollar devaluation run head long into social/political blowback from the general population?

As they government crashes the dollar to pay off its debt then (as Greg mentioned) the general public becomes impoverished. So on a sliding scale how far down to zero will the public ride the devaluation train before thing erupt into chaos?

As Gerald Celente says:

"When people lose everything, they lose it."

He thinks the frustration and anger at both political parties will spill over into a third party movement.

And I think he may be right.  How soon?  The election of a Republican into "Ted Kennedy's seat",

suggests it could be sooner that many would have expected.

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

JAG

I know what your getting at about devaluing the dollar. I don't know if I have an answer but here is how FDR did it. Maybe that could shed some light on it.

In 1933, through a series of gold-related acts, culminating in the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, America realized a dollar devaluation of 41% when the price of gold was adjusted from $20.67 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce. America, like the others before, had its economy bottom and recover as a result. Of the larger economies, only the French and Italians continued to adhere to the gold standard, and their economies remained depressed until finally, in 1936, they allowed their currencies to devalue, and their economies then recovered.

More at: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/vronsky/2009/0403.html

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

Dr.Bubb,

There is a reason that the Chinese purchase and hold the dollar, to preserve their currency peg to the dollar. If they were to suddenly to take those dollars and buy commodities with them, their currency would appreciate against the dollar and destroy their remaining export market. And for every dollar that they could hypothetically spend on commodities, that dollar simply changes hands, therefore it has no effect on the money supply.

Here is a good rebutle to this.

Why China's About to End Dollar-Peg

http://seekingalpha.com/article/184229-why-china-s-about-to-end-dollar-peg

Clearly, many of the factors which existed at the beginning of China's dollar-peg have changed considerably. China is now the world's second-largest economy – having leapfrogged nations such as Japan, and the world's other exporting-powerhouse: Germany. With this economic growth being largely based upon manufacturing, this means that there has been a great deal of additional wealth created in China's economy, further boosting both incomes and savings (i.e. cash-flow, and investment capital).

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

 

JAG wrote:
  • For simplicity sake (so that we can avoid the need for calculus) lets assume the Fed could double the money supply overnight: from a hypothetical $100 in circulation to $200 in circulation. This would effectively cut the purchasing power of the dollar in half.
  • Yesterday, lets assume that the total private debt was $100, after the overnight devaluation, it would only take 1/2 the money supply ($100 of the $200) to pay-off that debt today.
  • But the doubling of the money supply also added another $100 of debt to the total private debt. Thus the proportion of money supply to debt remains a constant. Therefore it seems futile to try to devalue the currency in a debt/credit based monetary system.

Jeff

I agree, in a debt/credit based monetary system, the proportion of money supply to debt is inherently constant, since money IS debt. But what CAN change, very importantly, as I understand it, with inflation, or a devaluation, is the value of liabilities, relative to assets. So for example, in a 50% devaluation (or 100% inflation), a mortgaged $100k house becomes worth $200k, but the existing mortgage remains unchanged - still only $100k. So if a homeowner decides to take on new debt to pay the mortgage off, he/she gets to pay off an entire house, while taking on new debt equivalent to only half of a house - a great deal for debtors! I'm pretty sure that's it in a nutshell. (famous last words!) But obviously, this is a terrible deal for savers. In the above scenario, a frugal person who has painstakingly saved $100k to buy a house has just had half their money stolen.

Quote:

Now if the Fed decide to devalue the dollar against another currency by outright decree, then this gives the US an unfair advantage in world trade. In this situation it seems logical that the other country would respond with their own devaluation decree, to preserve the viability of their international trade.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what would happen. But the important thing is, whoever is the most in debt stands to benefit the most. ... Gosh, I wonder who that might be? Smile

Quote:

Listen to the podcast for details on the strategy, I think its a good strategy if inflation is indeed in our future.

I definitely plan on it. Thanks for the tip

Greg

GregSchleich's picture
GregSchleich
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 16 2009
Posts: 187
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust
Johnny Oxygen wrote:

 

In 1933, through a series of gold-related acts, culminating in the Gold Reserve Act of 1934, America realized a dollar devaluation of 41% when the price of gold was adjusted from $20.67 per ounce of gold to $35 per ounce. America, like the others before, had its economy bottom and recover as a result. Of the larger economies, only the French and Italians continued to adhere to the gold standard, and their economies remained depressed until finally, in 1936, they allowed their currencies to devalue, and their economies then recovered.

More at: http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/vronsky/2009/0403.html

Johnny

I also mentioned this in my earlier post:

Quote:

… the government might eventually  feel compelled to simply mandate a devaluation, like FDR did in 1934. FDR devalued the dollar by 69% against gold (back in the days of the gold standard), when he raised the price from $20.67 to $35, overnight.

But I see from your post, I had my numbers wrong. Yours, from financialsense.com are the right ones. It was in fact a 41% devaluation - not 69%. It was a 69% INFLATION. ...  Oops. ... And where did I get my wrong figures from? Also from Financialsense.com, of course!  http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2010/0122.html

You can't trust anyone, these days!

Greg

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

JO,

I think comparing the dollar devaluation process when we were on the gold standard versus now its like comparing apples to oranges. I'm not sure how anyone could redefine the inherit value of the dollar when the dollar is not currently representation of anything of inherit value. I guess you could say that the only value that the dollar (FRNs) represents is the ability to pay US taxes.Laughing

Johnny Oxygen's picture
Johnny Oxygen
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 9 2009
Posts: 1443
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

IMO being on or off of a gold standard isn't relevant to the argument. My argument is this, if a government continues to print its fiat currency then it will devalue that currency. When that happens people will flee to safe havens and one of those would be PM's. What happens is a shift in what is considered real money and that is the important point that I think may have been missed here.

Can anyone explain to me how the dollar devaluation process actually works? Perhaps through the currency markets or the fiat-money component of our monetary system?

Through a shift in what is considered real money, i.e. gold.

Now if the Fed decide to devalue the dollar against another currency by outright decree, then this gives the US an unfair advantage in world trade. In this situation it seems logical that the other country would respond with their own devaluation decree, to preserve the viability of their international trade.

Yes that's true and historical. But remember this is what is happening to what used to be considered real money.

So if the desired solution to this debt overhang is to "inflate the debt away", how do they do it? It must involve increasing the money supply without increasing the debt somehow.

With the 'new' money (gold or toothpaste or hickory nuts, etc) being decoupled from the 'old' money ( fiat currency) you don't need to inflate the (fiat)money supply any longer, the old money has been abandoned. Now you can devalue old money as much as you want and pay off your debts that were negotiated in old money while keeping your real wealth in the 'new' money. Another reason why Uncle Sam will want your gold or toothpaste or hickory nuts, etc.

drbubb's picture
drbubb
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 8 2008
Posts: 77
Re: A Question For Forum Braintrust

"There is a reason that the Chinese purchase and hold the dollar, to preserve their currency peg to the dollar. If they were to suddenly to take those dollars and buy commodities with them, their currency would appreciate against the dollar and destroy their remaining export market."

Sure. I live in Hong Kong.  And we here are a little familiar with that argument.

At the moment, the Chinese are trying their best to diversify away from the Dollar, without pushing the currency down.  They have been doing this, buy purchase commodities for stockpiling, and buying companies engaged in commodity related businesses.  Almost 2-3 times a week there seems to be another story in the press here about how the mainland Chinese have purchased another foreign company, and they are often in commodity-related businesses.  I imagine they sometimes use their dollar reserves to make those purchases, or have the companies borrow in US dollars to grow their businesses.

Jeff Nielsen makes an argument about Why China is about to end the Dollar Peg.  Anything is possible, but I dont see it happening this year.  An experiment is underway in HK to use Rmb in trade transactions, and I think they will continue to test the systems for using the Rmb a bit longer.  Having said this, anything can happen.  And it make come earlier than I think.

 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments