• Comment (9)

Romney Doubles Down on Obama's Toxic Currency Policies

May 7, 2012 RSS Feed Print

James Rickards is a hedge fund manager in New York City and the author of Currency Wars: The Making of the Next Global Crisis from Portfolio/Penguin. Follow him on Twitter: @JamesGRickards.

On most issues, former Gov. Mitt Romney tries to distinguish himself from President Obama and set his policies apart from those of the current administration. Yet, in one area Romney is not only a clone of Obama but has doubled down and insisted that the president's policies be applied with even greater force. This area involves China and its alleged currency manipulation.

The exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and Chinese yuan is the main battlefield in the global currency wars. Romney demands that China be officially branded a currency manipulator and suffer retaliation in the form of taxes and trade sanctions from the United States. This is just a more extreme form of Obama's continual diplomatic pressure on the Chinese to revalue their currency upward.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Should Congress Interfere with China's Currency Policies?]

Some background on this is helpful. In his State of the Union Address in 2010, President Obama declared the National Export Initiative, the goal of which was to double U.S. exports in five years. What was clear to analysts at the time was the only way to double exports was to drastically cheapen the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies. In effect, the United States would have a "half-off sale" of its goods and services if it could cut the exchange value of the dollar in half.

It is true that China manipulates the exchange value of its currency—all countries do. Exchange rates are just another policy tool like interest rates, tax rates, and tariffs. But there is no greater or more persistent currency manipulator in the world than the United States. The U.S. policy of money printing by the Federal Reserve is best understood as a thinly veiled way to cheapen the dollar.

The appeal of a cheap dollar to politicians and big business is undeniable. Politicians think about increased exports and the jobs that come with them. Big business such as Boeing, General Electric, Microsoft, and many others think about increased sales of aircraft, wind turbines, software, and more as the dollar declines. Superficially it's hard to see anything wrong with this picture.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

In fact, there's a lot wrong with it. Other countries don't just sit there and let the United States cheapen its currency. They fight back by trying to cheapen their own currencies—this is the essence of the currency wars. Countries do this by lowering interest rates, easing bank reserve rules, and direct intervention in exchange markets.

Politicians overlook the fact that the United States imports more than it exports. A cheaper dollar may mean cheaper exports but it also means more expensive imports, which can destroy jobs in U.S. businesses that depend on imported parts and supplies.

This toxic brew of global monetary ease and more expensive imports brings inflation to the United States in the form of higher prices for oil, imported cars, electronics, textiles, and many other goods and services. This is exactly what happened when President Nixon cheapened the dollar in 1971. By the end of that decade, oil prices had quadrupled, inflation was over 13 percent, interest rates skyrocketed, the stock market collapsed and the United States suffered three recessions in seven years.

[Read the U.S. News debate: Has the Federal Reserve Overstepped its Mandate?]

A cheap dollar appeals to all of Romney's worst instincts. It favors big business over small business. It favors established export categories like heavy equipment over innovative new products. Romney desperately needs to appeal to younger voters and independents. His cheap dollar policies appeal instead to multinational corporations and those like banks and hedge funds who know how to bet on a declining currency.

Worst of all, Romney's cheap dollar policy will result in inflation imported from abroad. This inflation robs the savings of the elderly, retirees, and middle class Americans who rely on insurance policies, annuities, and bank deposits to protect their income security. A cheap dollar causes a wealth transfer from everyday Americans to the wealthy who can see inflation coming and know how to hedge against it. The cheap dollar policy is in keeping with the stereotype of Romney as a rich, out-of-touch elitist who does not share the concerns of his fellow citizens and does not suffer the consequences of his own misguided policies.

[Rick Newman: Why Washington, Not Europe, Will Roil Markets for Rest of 2012]

The currency wars that Romney has vowed to fight are a recipe for disaster. The right course is sound money as embodied in the King Dollar policies of Paul Volcker and Ronald Reagan. The way to compete in international trade is not with a cheap currency but with technology, innovation, education, good labor-management relations, and a business-friendly environment. This is exactly how the Germans succeed at the export game. Germany has had export success for decades even with a strong currency because they have a favorable business climate.

The United States needs to innovate, not cheapen, its way to export success. Romney should embrace the Reagan strong dollar model and reject the cheap dollar policies of Obama. If Romney sticks to the Obama cheap dollar policy, then the next election will guarantee increased inflation—regardless of who wins.

Tags:
Federal Reserve,
economy,
2012 presidential election,
interest rates,
China,
Barack Obama,
Mitt Romney

Reader Comments Read all comments (9)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

razzz,

"Interference" is the point.

Why do conglomerates like Apple conspire with lawmakers to write frivolous copyright laws that stunt innovation on a generational level?

Why does JPM play their regulation tricks that put insurmountable burdens on smaller banks over the breadth of the world?

Why do business leaders like Warren Buffet dole out "death penalties" to small business owners just to send a message not to get "uppity"?

Why?

Because among the elite, there is a popular sentiment, and therefore a propensity, to keep an economy in stagnation.

Why?

The the preference to sabotage the next generation, rather than outpace them, is a natural defense mechanism borne from human nature otherwise known as "laziness" or "complacency". Every elite "on top of the hill" wants the ability to STAY on top WITHOUT having to climb anymore – to compete. They include the likes of Steve Jobs, Warren Buffet, Barack Obama and even Mitt Romney. They try to stay on top by sacrificing the next generation, thinking it's easier, pretending “nobility”, protecting their "legacy", but forgetting that the people they're shackling and destroying are the very kinds of people America needs most, the kinds of people they used to be - and no longer are.

Because the greatest threat to the elite are up-and-coming upstarts - innovative, brash and often brilliant - who are all trying to reach the top and supplant the elite...they are the "new" elite. And when THEY become arrogant and complacent, they in turn are supplanted by another generation.

The "new elite" isn't satisfied with the horse-and-carraige so they build the Model-T. But then they lose their drive, saying "this is the top and NONE shall go farther" (nor use a different color). They soon become the "old elite". They become "used up" old men who try to peddle the lie that nobody should be allowed to surpass them and knock them off their perch.

But the next generation isn't satisfied with the Model-T (in black only lol) and develops the Chevrolet, supplanting the arrogant, lazy has-beens. Then this generation becomes lazy and arrogant....only to be supplanted yet again by a younger, hungrier, more vibrant generation.

I guess that explains Jim Rickards.

He’s a used-up old man, writing his last legacy, trying to protect it by saying “A trade war? This far and no farther! America can’t win a trade war! We’ll all lose!”

I like Jim Rickards for the most part; he’s contributed a great deal of insight into the current paradigm…but the truth is he has no idea what the next one is going to look like and he prefers to stay in his own ossified world….where he’s comfortable…where he belongs….where trade wars are never won.

What if he’s just like all those has-beens who told us that nobody could beat the Axis?

What if he’s just like all those used-up, worthless hacks who lived their entire lives during a Cold War they believed would not (and should not) end. People who – to this day – gnash their teeth and pull out their hair at any insinuation that America won?

Not because it was right.

Not because it was wrong.

But because it made them irrelevant.

Because to envision a possible outcome where their worldviews were no longer heeded –was worse than the possibility of a better future for the next generation.

Let’s be frank: what do old people like Rickards really care about the next generation’s future…as long as they can live just one more day in the sunshine of relevancy.

“Everyone loses in a currency war. Nobody wins in a trade war. You can't go into a trade war with the Japanese, Chinese, Europeans, etc. because everyone will lose. You can't win!"

To channel Ronald Reagan when the Soviets were supposedly unbeatable: "Awww....shut up!"

Terry of NY 3:47AM May 17, 2012

This is where I have to disagree with Rickards.

He assumes a static environment in which more expensive imports cannot/will not be replaced by cheaper imports from new sources or domestic suppliers. Something as simple as this never seems to enter the equation of his "zero-sum" game in currency wars - like a global warming alarmist refusing to account for the clouds or solar activity which sends his models awry.

And Ronald Reagan was a BIG advocate of a devalued dollar in the 1980s...yes, he talked a good game of the strong dollar but he devalued the currency and ran a record debt to increase the money supply which is where alot of "growth" came from. The blindspot in his strategy came by NOT applying a weak dollar and trade barriers to the Japanese and Chinese in partiucular and surrendering entire industries. Be careful not to allow advocacy to get in the way of the facts Mr. Rickards. Most of your analysis is spot on and does not require you to rewrite history to protect the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc from US "reciprocity".

If said nations want to create their own "bloc" in a trade war, that is their right. It was their right after all to close their markets and manipulate the flow of trade and services in their favor (they often find to their chagrin and apparently to your's that the US sometimes remembers that it also has this right).

That's what this is all about...because contrary to dogma, economics isn't about the exchange of "money" per se, but the exchange of "wealth"; more specifically, the exchange of goods and services. Also contrary to dogma, nations indeed DO win in trade wars (of which currency manipulation is only a part of). You sound like the economic version of a brainless anti-war hack in your insistence that "nobody wins in a trade war. Economics and trade wars are NOT conflicts in which nobody wins. The only people who claim that are selling something using smoke and mirrors.

As you well know, all trade wars come down to the ultimate question: can you survive and prosper on your own? In the grand scheme of things, if trade relations and more break down between the US and the other economies, the answer for America is "Absolutely" and we walk away.

The Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc meanwhile will be left to their own devices (if they're really comfortable with that) in a pre-WWII Asian geopolitical paradigm to sort out their differences amongst each other. No Soviet-American Cold War or Pax Americana to keep them from each others' throats. The same goes for the Europeans (to say nothing of the Arab World).

Americans would rejoice at this newfound freedom from upholding the current paradigm.

The rest? We'll know sooner or later, that's IF they think they can win a trade war against us.

Terry of NY 2:13AM May 17, 2012

Patience is the key while awaiting tomorrow's US statesman bringing forth the real possibility of a 'default'.

rbblum of TX 10:16PM May 09, 2012

Economic Intelligence

Insights, perspectives, and commentary on the economy. Follow it on Twitter @EconomicIntel.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement