Strong and Weak Money

Vietnam recently decided to depreciate their currency, the dong, by 5%, raising concerns throughout Asia about the possibility of competitive currency depreciations. Vietnam has a strong export sector, which is facing heavy competition from other Asian producers, including China and Thailand. If labor costs cannot go lower, if productivity cannot be raised, why not make Vietnam’s exports cheaper by simply making the dong worth less, meaning a dollar or Euro goes further than it did before.
The contradiction of Asia is that every country wants their currency to be strong and weak at the same time. Strong currencies are viewed as stable, and attract investment. Yet weak currencies allow the country to export goods that seem cheap in other countries.


How will China respond to this move? They might like to depreciate the Yuan, which has strengthened 17% against the dollar since 2002. After all, that would make their exports more competitive with Vietnam’s exports. China has been marked by a very slow and consistent approach to foreign exchange. There do not seem to be any sudden changes when it comes to policy about the value of the Yuan. It’s been assumed by most observers that the strategy is simply to capture the American market with low prices (which they know we can’t resist).


China’s goal may be far more ambitious: to create a new global reserve currency. Could the Chinese Yuan be a contender for that illustrious role? Such a possibility seems unfathomable. The natural contender to the dollar is clearly the Euro, the currency of the world’s largest trading economy, the Eurozone. After the Euro perhaps is the Yen. But China’s growth is far more vigorous than that of the Eurozone or Japan. Investors of all kinds want to get in on China’s growing markets, exchanging Euros or dollars for Yuan, which steadily pushes up the value of the Yuan. Since the Yuan is stable (and in fact, standing behind it is the largest currency reserve the world has ever seen), investors have faith it will keep its value.
What does China do with it’s growing foreign exchange surplus? It’s much more than they need to stabilize the Yuan’s value. They buy assets of real value: gold, copper, rare earth elements, stocks, real estate, and of course, government bonds, many of them US Treasurys. As long as China’s growth continues to be vigorous, the Chinese economy will draw in more and more outside capital. The lion’s share of the world’s Foreign Direct Investment is in the Eurozone, but utilized FDI in China has increased 10% a year since 1999, on average.


It’s unclear whether China’s goal can succeed. But they seem to be pursuing it with some vigor, and if they cannot be the world’s reserve currency, they can at least be part of a few key currencies, finally accepted as a great industrialized power. It seems increasingly clear that the US dollar will lose its spot on that list, particularly with the recent decision to commit even more troops to Afghanistan, which will add billions to the US fiscal hole.

What Exactly Would a Stronger Yuan Do for the US Economy?

Obama’s trip to China was mostly photo-ops and talk about the importance of trade. The one topic on which Obama spoke sharply was the need for China to allow the Yuan (officially called the Renmimbi) to strengthen against the dollar. Many analysts are criticizing the Chinese government for ‘manipulating’ the Yuan, keeping it too low relative to other Asian currencies. Paul Krugman, perhaps the best-known economist in the US, calls it ‘outrageous’, and accuses China of making its export-oriented neighbors poorer through unfair currency manipulation. Leaving aside the obvious point that all currencies are manipulated—in a world of fiat currencies, no item of intrinsic value stands behind the dollar or the Yuan—let’s explore the question of how the US might benefit from an strengthening of the Yuan.


Back in 2005, the World Bank estimated the Yuan to be undervalued by 10%, based on purchasing power parity. Other economic analyses have concluded an undervaluation of 20 to 25%. Let’s take the upper end of the these estimates and assume the Yuan is undervalued by 25%, and that China, acting for the good of the world, allows the Yuan to appreciate 25% against the dollar. What would that do for the US economy?


The most obvious and immediate effect would be an increase in prices. Consumer price theory tells us that that increases in exogenous costs such as tariffs are not fully reflected in final prices, but the cost is shared by producer and consumer depending on the elasticity of demand. The increase in prices directly translates into increased prices for consumer goods, for apparel, electronic goods, raw materials, food items, etc. It’s hard to see how that rise in prices would benefit American households, who are feeling the effects of 10.2% unemployment and falling home prices. It’s more likely that increased consumer prices would bring significant hardship.


In theory, an appreciation of the Yuan should narrow the trade deficit between the US and China. But it’s likely that the trade deficit won’t fall much (if at all), because consumers driven by low prices are likely to select goods from other low cost producers (Thailand, South Korea, the Phillipines, or India, for example).


Would an appreciation of the Yuan cause an increase in American employment? It’s hard to see how. There aren’t many US industries that are in direct price competition with Chinese exporters. Overall, the US economy is in a process of shifting back toward productive activity (including manufacturing), but such a shift is the product of many structural economic forces, not simply the relative value of the Yuan and the dollar.


As Obama urged China to allow the Yuan appreciate, Zhou Xiaochuan, the head of China’s central bank, fired back that the US needs to get its fiscal deficits under control and raise interest rates. Zhou is clearly correct that currency manipulation (in whatever direction) cannot help the US economy out of its malaise. Only fundamental economic changes can do that. But cutting the deficit in this economy will require massive spending cuts, while raising interest rates will cut off the monetary stimulus, no doubt deepening the recession.

If only it were as easy as blaming China.

The 'Soft Budget Constraint' Hardens

The fate of the US empire depends on access to debt and the ability to service the existing debt burden at low rates. We could’ve chosen a different path. During the 2000 election, Al Gore spoke of paying down the entire public debt. Perhaps things may have gone a different way in the absence of the Bush/Cheney bloodless coup of 2000.

But now we seem to be committed to sky-high deficits, despite recent talk of health care being ‘deficit neutral’ and plans for reducing the deficit. Even the tough talk hints at the reality: we speak of reducing the deficit, not eliminating it, not running a surplus, not reducing the total debt outstanding. The only thing that qualifies as a plan is to increase the debt at a slightly slower rate than the economy expands, so that the debt burden becomes smaller in relative terms, while growing in absolute terms. The economist James K. Galbraith calls it a ‘soft budget constraint’. But how long can it remain soft?

The Fed has poured money into the US Treasury market, a practice called ‘monetizing debt’; this has made Treasury yields fall across the board. That makes the debt easier to service, but if taken too far, it makes US Treasurys unattractive relative to other investment-grade debt.

Fed chair Ben Bernanke criticizes China for having a ‘savings glut’. While they have been spending more, he warns them, don’t save too much! America, with the exception of government, is not following his advice. Americans have gone from being like the fabled grasshopper who fiddles all day long to the ant who works and saves. (If only finding steady work was that easy. There are now six job seekers for every available job.) A new culture of frugality is spreading to every corner of American society. Americans are planting vegetable gardens, learning to preserve food by home canning, even raising chickens. (Not that the average American is doing all this, but things spread from the leading edge to the center) Fashion designers are bringing out new looks inspired by the 1930s, as designers and artists embrace the new ‘rough luxe’ aesthetic, elevating old, vintage, weathered, used objects.

There is a lot of talk about recovery, but state unemployment figures for September indicate that payroll unemployment declined in 43 states. Pressure is beginning to mount on the Fed to raise rates. A recent Barron’s cover story argues that the Fed should raise the interbank lending rate from 0% to 2%. If the Fed does raise rates, we’ll see how strong the recovery truly is. If that rate increase takes place while states continue to trim spending, residential foreclosures continue to escalate, followed by increases in commercial foreclosures, that looks like the making of the return of the credit crunch of 2008, and the double-dip recession of 2010.

What Will It Take to Pay Off the Federal Debt of the US?

The US is awash in debt on every level: Federal, state, local, as well as households and businesses. But for the private part of the economy, there is a different consequence for bankruptcy than for the public side. If a private individual or business goes under and fails to pay their bills, the creditors lose money, of course. But when a government goes under, it tends to go under in a way that inevitably affects everyone, for it devalues the currency.

Of course no government destroys its own currency with malice aforethought, but the pressures that come to bear on governments are such that destroying the currency seems at the time to be the right thing to do, given other options. Circumstances are already headed in that direction now, and pressure on the dollar continues to build in the face of rapidly expanding Federal debt.

The current Federal debt is $11,659 bil, and with the stimulus and other unfunded expansions in Federal spending, it’s widely believed to expand by at least another $1,800 bil in the next year alone, and to nearly double in ten years. It’s an open question as to how the Federal government expects to get the funding for that level of debt, as our foreign creditors are already reducing their purchases and seeking to ‘diversify’ their assets. China is inking trade agreements with Brazil and Argentina to conduct trade in the Renmimbi rather than in dollars. China is also channeling more of its massive currency hoard into durable commodities like copper, gold, and oil. Every day it seems, the discussion of the status of the dollar becomes a bit more open, a bit more honest, as countries seem to feel increasingly free to point out that the dollar’s days as the reserve currency of the world are numbered. Dollar-denominated Treasury debt is like a game of musical chairs: in the end, not everyone will get a seat.

In the past, the US has relied on economic growth to reduce its debt. Is that possible now? Total Federal government revenue was $2,554 bil in 2008. Let’s say that average rates of US growth resume immediately (3% per year) and continue indefinitely. Say that Federal revenue increases at the same pace. Say we immediately run surpluses, so that we can pay the interest on the debt plus an additional 1% of Federal revenue to pay the principle. (In 2008, that combination would cost $451 bil in interest plus $25 bil in principle, instead of the $458 bil deficit that actually occurred). Even with these rosy assumptions, it would take about 90 years to pay back the debt. Ninety years of solid economic growth and perfectly balanced budgets (plus the 1% surplus). No government on earth has such a record. (This analysis doesn’t include all the unseen obligations the US government has, such as Social security and Medicare, which add up to trillions more).

It seems likely that at some point, the United States’ largest creditors will demand repayment in some other form than dollars. Perhaps they would demand payment in their own currency, but that seems unlikely. The traditional asset for international settlements is gold, so gold is the most likely candidate, especially given that our two largest creditors, China and Japan, have relatively low gold reserves, while the US has the largest gold hoard in the world.

Let’s consider what would happen if the debt would have to be paid off in gold. According to the US Treasury (www.fms.treas.gov), the US government is in possession of 261,498,899 Troy ounces (8,133 tonnes) of gold, which at a gold price of $964, is worth $252 bil. The US gold stock is unaudited, and since it is also routinely leased to other parties, how much of it is owned free and clear by the government is unclear. The way that gold is leased is through a kind of repurchase agreement called a gold swap, which gives the US Treasury cash in exchange for a firm commitment to buy back the gold at a specified point in the future. For example, Goldman Sachs may give the US Treasury $1 bil today, using the gold as collateral, to receive $1.05 bil in one year, whereupon the gold reverts to the Treasury’s possession, though the gold has never left the vault. While 5% isn’t a great return, I’d say that Goldman can use the contract as an asset, since it’s backed by gold and the full faith of the US Treasury, which allows Goldman to obtain a risk-free return on the $1 bil, and still put the money to work in other ways to obtain returns.

The Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) has estimated that the total amount of gold that is leased through gold swaps is between 12,000 and 15,000 tonnes, about half the total of all gold held by central banks. Individual nations don’t publish the extent of their gold swaps, but let’s say that half of the US Treasury’s gold has been leased, meaning that the gold is no longer an asset, but rather an obligation. If the Treasury really owns just half the gold in its possession, then it has about 131 mil Troy ounces of gold, worth $126 bil.

Now let’s imagine that a few of the large holders of US Treasury debt were to demand that the debt be repaid in gold rather than in dollars. The US Treasury holds its gold at a book value of $42.222 per Troy ounce, rather far below market prices. (If only one could buy a few ounces at that price!) Say that China and Japan (which own $1,477 bil) demand repayment in gold. Of course, these countries wouldn’t be so unreasonable as to ask for all the money all at once; let’s say they simply stop buying new debt, and ask for the interest on the debt outstanding to be paid in gold. If any large buyers were to stop or even slow their buying, yields would rise. Let’s say the yield rises only to the historical mean of about 6.5% (an event like this would probably push the yield far higher). At that yield, the interest would come to $96 bil a year, which would quickly drain the US Treasury’s entire gold stock. In fact, it would be gone in less than 18 months. If China and Japan started asking for gold, other countries would no doubt follow, as would large domestic holders, both institutional and individual. If the entire interest bill had to be paid in gold, it would come to $63 bil per month, and the Treasury would be out of gold in two months.

Now if there are no new buyers for Treasury debt, either the Federal government must immediately balance the budget, which seems unlikely, to put it mildly. More likely the Fed will step in and buy the debt directly, with money it conjures out of thin air. This leads to further depreciation of the dollar against gold, and would probably lead to a lot more demands for payment in gold, as creditors realize that their dollars will get less gold than before.

So we can’t grow our way out, and we can’t fall back on gold. The only other possible avenue is to depreciate the dollar. But how much depreciation would it take to reach the equilibrium that markets demand? If the situation arises where gold is sought for repayment rather than dollars, the question is, at what price? The US government will have give up the accounting fiction that the gold is worth $42.22 an ounce, and set an exchange rate between the dollar and gold. The rate chosen will not be below the market price, it will be well above the market price. How high is anyone’s guess—I’ll say $10,000 an ounce just to get the guessing started. This option allows the US to service its debt without the humiliation of an outright default, though it will still probably result in chaos, just as it did when the US last tried it, in 1933. It also creates a de facto gold standard. With gold at $10,000, the Treasury’s gold is worth $1,310 bil, and can now be used to pay the interest on the debt!

Where things go next is hard to foresee. But it’s clear that the debt is far too large to pay off, and that the United States’ creditors will demand payment in an asset that the US government can’t depreciate at will. The signal to investors is pretty clear: get out of Treasury debt and into gold. One way or another, the US will repudiate its debt. The other lesson is equally clear: the inevitable depreciation of the dollar simply follows the logic of the market, and cannot be denied by either money creation or fiscal stimulus.

China and Brazil Plan to Evade the Dollar

An important article in the Financial Times reveals that China and Brazil are working around the dollar.

It's interesting that the public denunciations of the dollar's reserve status are growing steadily more blunt, less circumspect, and now include China's unveiled ambition to replace the dollar. It is surprising indeed that the dollar has not reacted with more vigor to the news. Perhaps it's because it was not widely reported in the US, or because we seem to have a curious sense of denial about the future of the US$, which is clearly not bright.

In an earlier post, I discussed China's (non)-manipulation of the yuan, noting that Paul Krugman thinks China's position is weak. I wonder if it still seems so weak to him. Check out the chart of the dollar's recent performance in the broad dollar index, taken from Dow Theory Letters. Pretty exciting stuff - the dollar has fallen from 88 to 82 since March. It looks like the rally may not make it to 10,000 as I thought previously.

As I wrote recently, the status of the dollar is likely to be the next big blow to the financial system. When a currency depreciates, it causes severe stress on the financial sector, including panicked runs on banks, which are, of course, entirely rational given the fall in the value of the currency. Wouldn't you want to withdraw your assets from banks and put your money in some other currency, or even in commodities? Bank runs lead to bank failures, which lead to shocks to financial markets, and panicky interventions by authorities. Expect such interventions as we move into the next phase.

I've considered an ETF called UDN, which is comprised of dollar short positions, but I think that Seabridge Gold is the safer bet (and indeed, may have better upside potential), as it is a Canadian company, with assets in Canadian dollars, and perhaps more importantly, it is tied to gold which will almost certainly respond strongly and favorably to a decline in the dollar.

Obama: China Is Not Manipulating the Yuan

The Obama Administration has backed off from labeling China a currency manipulator.

All this back-and-forth on whether or not China's currency, the Renminbi, or Yuan (RMB) is being manipulated or not really starts to beg the question of what currency manipulation actually means. In a world of fiat currencies, it doesn't mean very much.

China is well aware that in order to defend the value of the RMB against the dollar and other major currencies, it must maintain a foreign exchange reserve, mostly composed of dollars, since the dollar is the reserve currency of the world. However, with China's foreign exchange reserve at around $2 tril, it is impossible for currency speculators to attack the RMB, as George Soros did with the British Pound back in 1992, when he broke the bank of England.

So China can credibly defend the RMB. But what is the intrinsic value of the RMB? Well, there is none. Fiat currencies do not have an intrinsic value, which is what makes their movements so unpredictable relative to each other. The charge that China is a currency manipulator is not only vacuous, but it serves no real purpose other than stirring up anti-China sentiment. Perhaps that is a useful tool for politicians who trade in fear and want to create a new enemy. It's good that the Obama Administration has not taken further steps down that path.

Footnote: Paul Krugman has written an interesting piece recently arguing that China's steps to move away from the US dollar are signs of weakness rather than strength.