Bill Mitchell — Trade and finance mysteries – Part 2

I was running late yesterday and the blog post was already rather long so I left some matters concerning central banks for today. The question we address briefly today is what is the role of central banks in all these trade transactions. Does an export surplus country face an ever increasing money supply as central banks provide the counterparty service to traders who sell in a foreign currency but want their own currency (such as a manufacturer who incurs costs in say Yen but sales revenue in $AUD – as per our example yesterday)? There appears to be confusion on that front as well. So while I am not typically going to write a detailed blog post on a Wednesday, in the interests of continuity, here is Part 2 of the series on trade and currencies.

Parts 1 & 2 are must-reads. Also see the comments of Neil Wilson and Alan Longbon.

Foreign exchange, trade, and their relationship are areas of MMT that are somewhat complicated, and it takes some study to get it straight.  These posts will rank with Bill's posts on fiscal deficits in significance with respect to understanding the basic MMT POV.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Trade and finance mysteries – Part 2
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Bill Mitchell — Trade and external finance mysteries

I have received many E-mails and direct twitter messages overnight and today following the ‘debate’ on Real Progressives yesterday, where trade issues and related financial transactions were discussed. I saw that section of the debate (after the fact) and concluded that only one of the guests knew what happened when nations exported and imported. But it appears that readers of this blog who listened to the debate were confused by what they heard. So, today, by request, I aim to clarify a few of these issues.

They are in fact fairly simple to understand once you trace through the transactions carefully, so it is a surprise that basic errors were expressed in the ‘debate’. So here is the way Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) helps you understand trade transactions.

There appears to be a lot of confusion about the external economy in a fiat monetary system. Many economists do not fully understand how to interpret the balance of payments in a fiat monetary system.

So it is no surprise that the general public struggles in this domain...

If you don't read billyblog regularly, this is one you probably should. Also see Neil Wilson's comments.

Bill Mitchell – billy blog
Trade and external finance mysteries
Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Since Trump's election, US dollar has eroded badly

Trump has been bragging about the stock market's gains, but what we don't hear about is the fact that the US dollar has eroded badly. Since his election the dollar has fallen to a 3-year low.

Trump is destroying the US dollar.

I called this at the time of the election and I said it was based, at the time, on two things. 1) Trump's  proposed expansion of fiscal stimulus. (More spending and tax cuts.) And, 2) the ongoing rate hike campaign of the Fed, which is inflationary and therefore NOT bullish for the dollar contrary to what most people believe.

Since then a new and far more corrosive element has entered the picture and that is the Trump Administration's aggressive use of sanctions. This is what I have called the "weaponization" of the US dollar.

This has set in motion an irreversible trend of "de-dollarization." The Rest of the World has no other choice. The USA's use of sanctions designed to limit or completely shut entities or entire nations out of the global, dollar-based transaction and clearing system is too great a risk. Even US allies can be indirectly affected by the sanctions' policy.

Alternatives will be sought. We see this in the rise of new, bilateral trade and clearing arrangements (Russia-China, China oil trading in yuan, etc.) We also see this in rise of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, which I believe, reflects this trend toward de-dollarization and it will continue.

Trump will go down as having presided over the greatest period of dollar depreciation in history. Watch.

Steve Wang — China FX treasure chest restored to more than US$3 trillion

China’s foreign exchange reserves unexpectedly peeked back above the closely watched US$3 trillion level in February, ….

So much for dumping the dollar.

Asia Times
China FX treasure chest restored to more than US$3 trillion
Steve Wang

Leonid Bershidsky — The Strong Ruble Doesn't Mean a Russian Recovery

Now Leonid Bershidsky is posturing as an expert in currencies and the foreign exchange market. What's next? He seemingly has no limitations on his understanding of how the world and Russia work.

Bloomberg View

The Strong Ruble Doesn't Mean a Russian Recovery
Leonid Bershidsky

Neil Wilson — The Limits of understanding of MMT

I've got a good amount of time for LK's blog. It is my 'goto' blog for good sense on many a topic. But I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed at the latest missive on foreign trade. It still has the usual straw men in it. I really don't understand why PK people can't get their head around the dynamics of floating rate exchange systems and still stick to fixed exchange analysis based around apparent Kaldorian views.

Bill has already debunked the Kaldorian points in his post of a few weeks ago.

I'll take the points in LKs post one at a time.

3spoken
The Limits of understanding of MMT
Neil Wilson

Izabella Kaminska — Bearers

Who knew. The Bank of England still issues bearer bonds — in foreign currencies. Izzy finds that curious.

Dizzynomics
Bearers
Izabella Kaminska

Philip Pilkington — Understanding the Current/Capital Account and the Value of the Currency

One thing that I notice on the blogs is that I don’t think I have ever seen anyone give a clear description of the external trade account of a country. Nor have I seen anyone give a clear explanation of what determines the value of a given currency….

Fixing the Economists
Understanding the Current/Capital Account and the Value of the Currency
Philip Pilkington

Randy Wray — MMT And External Constraints

Randy agrees with Brian and Neil.

Economonitor — Great Leap Forward
MMT And External Constraints
L. Randall Wray | Professor of Economics, University of Missouri at Kansas City

Steven Perlberg — Here's Everything You Need To Know About The Growing Investigation Into Rigging The Global Currency Market

We'll start with the basics. The foreign exchange market — "forex" — is the biggest market in the world, though it doesn't get as much mainstream press as its stock and bond brethren. Traders buy and sell money on the forex market.

"The FX market is like the Wild West," one forex expert told Bloomberg. "It's buyer beware."

That's in part because the market is lightly regulated and a ton of currency trading happens in the shadowy realm outside of exchanges.

This particular currency rigging story has been going on for some time, with Bloomberg reporting in June that traders at some of the world's biggest banks had been toying with rates by pushing through trades before the 60-second window when the FX benchmarks are set.

Business Insider
Here's Everything You Need To Know About The Growing Investigation Into Rigging The Global Currency Market
Steven Perlberg

Matias Vernengo — The dollar has NOT depreciated since the 1970s?

Mike Norman had an intriguing graph a while ago ... showing that if one uses the broad, rather than the major currencies, index for the US trade weighted exchange rate, then the dollar did not depreciate.... I decided to explore the issue....

... the real indexes are quite similar, and by all measures the dollar has depreciated in real terms from the early 1970s, with two big swings associated to the Reagan and Clinton (asset bubble driven) booms. The point is that in countries with higher inflation than the US depreciated their currencies in nominal terms significantly (in part that explains their higher inflation rates), and in nominal terms the US currency appreciated, but once inflation is taken into consideration the index looks very much like the major currencies one, with an overall depreciation of about 20% or so in real terms.

Naked Keynesianism
The dollar has NOT depreciated since the 1970s?
Matias Vernengo

Philip Pilkington interviews John Harvey — Exchange Rates and Modern Trade Theory

The focus of discussion is John's book, Currencies, Capital Flows and Crises: A Post-Keynesian Analysis of Exchange Rate Determination

Naked Capitalism
Exchange Rates and Modern Trade Theory
An Interview with John Harvey, Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University, by Philip Pilkington

Ramanan comments on operation reality in fx

One will always find government debt in foreign currency for a nation having external issues. After the Bretton Wood system broke down and nations freely floating their currencies, they realized it is actually difficult to just float and let the fx markets find the clearing price. Hence there is official intervention in the currency markets, issuance of debt in foreign currency, holding of foreign reserves etc. Most people look at official intervention as the central bank preventing the price from falling too much but it’s more than that. It clears markets and prevents a prophecy to build up. For example if the currency falls, it may lead to expectations building leading to further outflows. So I saw STF in the mikenormaneconomics thread saying that the government didn’t behave in an MMT prescribed way and such – but it is impossible for the Treasury of most nations to behave that way. It’s “operational reality”.

Ramanan in a comment at Modern Monetary Realism

According to MMT, there are two constraints on a currency sovereign, inflation rate and fx rate. There continues to be disagreement over the conception of the fx rate, in that the MMT position is generally understood to be that in a non-convertible flexible rate monetary system, floating rates are self-correcting so that markets will always clear for a currency the issuer of which does not take on foreign debt or fix its fx rate. While some qualifications are added, opponents do not believe they are sufficient and a more detailed analysis is necessary.

Ramanan and others dispute the MMT stance, holding that it needs to be carefully qualified with respect to the general case and specific instances, with the US being a special case that cannot be extended to many other countries, and that even the US cannot presume to enjoy its "special privilege" forever without capital flight and therefore exogenous pressure to raise interest rates to attract capital and curtail demand in order to decrease imports.

I hope I summarized both positions correctly. Please correct me if I did not.

Mundell-Laffer on the External Sector; c.1975

Tom posted a link to an article he came across from the late Jude Wanniski's Polyconomics which was a review of a paper written by Mundell and Laffer in 1975. I was a subscriber to Wanniski's analysis some years ago until his sudden passing.

It is titled "A New View of the World Economy", and provides what they believed was an operative description of the external sector in 1975. This was just a few years after the US completely abandoned the gold standard so perhaps at that time, people were very eager to come up with some new ideas as to what a new framework for understanding the global economy would be. Here is an interesting excerpt:

Going a step further, Mundell has revived the proposition, and Laffer has documented empirically, that money, like apples and gold, is also subject to these international forces of supply and demand. When, for example, there is an excess demand for money in the United States relative to the rest of the world, we will import money and run a balance of payments surplus -- i.e., more money will be coming into this country than is going out. When there is an excess supply of money in the United States, we will export money and run a balance of payments deficit. This idea also has its roots in earlier centuries, but is still a minority view among economists everywhere. Balance of payments deficits are thought to represent not a market phenomenon but a structural problem -- i.e., "capital flight" or "undercompetitiveness." Laffer has further demonstrated that when a country`s growth rate accelerates relative to the rest of the world its balance of trade worsens; and vice versa. (As a child grows, it consumes more than it produces.) But such a deficit is not cause for alarm. What is then happening is something perfectly natural. As long as its government does not speed up its own money creation, the country will export bonds to pay for its deficit in trade. All that is occurring is that the rest of the world has decided the country in question, with its higher growth rate, is a good place in which to invest. (Just as parents invest in their growing children).

Some observations:

The authors seem to treat all "money" as a singular fungible commodity, seemingly ignoring the fact that there are different currencies in every country; and the relative value of each (as indicated by an exchange rate) can change over time. Ignoring "Hickey's Law" ;) that a currency must stay in it's currency zone.

They state that a country with a higher growth rate will exhibit a balance of trade that "worsens", implying exports: good, imports: bad. This flies in the face of our current global situation where China has had MUCH higher growth than the US while at the same time running an external surplus with the US that is unprecedented in the entire history of human civilization.

Mundell and Laffer posit that a country can EXPORT bonds to "pay for" real imported goods; and that the country taking possession of a foreign country's bonds looks at such a transaction as an "investment".

These are bizarre descriptions of international transactions. This was written in 1975, just a few short years after the US dropped the gold standard in full so perhaps some understanding is in order as the authors may have been "brainstorming" to try to come up with a new framework.

But Wanniski's affirming review of these claims was written in 2005, and I am not led to believe that either Laffer or Mundell have significantly changed their perception of reality. Both Mundell and Laffer are still influential within economic policy circles. These beliefs may still influence policy recommendations they are making to this day.