Krugman: A dollar crisis?

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Sun Aug 1 22:07:00 PDT 1999


[The most recent article on his web site. Oddly, he doesn't list a magazine credit for it]

A DOLLAR CRISIS?

Time does fly. A year ago Asian currencies were plunging, hedge funds

were attacking, and the world seemed on the brink of crisis. Now Asian

currencies are if anything too strong, it's the dollar that's under

pressure - and the world is, possibly, on the brink of another crisis.

Is all the buzz - from investment newsletters, the Medley Report, and

so on - about a looming dollar crisis justified? The truth is, I don't

know: while the dollar is surely overvalued on any "sustainability"

calculation (see below), so is the stock market, and that bubble has

gone on for a very long time. But a Fed/Treasury working group has

reportedly assembled for contingency planning against the possibility

of a dollar plunge; and a bit of outside kibitzing can't hurt.

So let's run through four questions:

1. Why should we believe that the dollar is overvalued, and hence due

for a fall?

2. Why might a dollar decline turn into a dollar plunge?

3. Why would that be a bad thing?

4. What should be done about it?

1. Is the dollar overvalued?

The basic reason for believing that the dollar is overvalued is, of

course, that the United States is running very large current account

deficits, and that the possessors of other major currencies -

especially the yen - are correspondingly running large current

surpluses.

Now current account imbalances are not necessarily a warning sign.

Indeed, they are the necessary counterpart of any transfer of funds

from places with excess saving (Japan) to places with high returns on

investment (the U.S.). Still, massive current account imbalances mean

that the surplus countries are holding an ever growing share of their

wealth in the deficit countries, a process that cannot go on forever;

and (Herbert) Stein's Law reminds us that things that cannot go on

forever, don't. Eventually the U.S. deficit and the rest-of-world

surplus must be sharply reduced, perhaps even reversed; and while this

adjustment could take place in other ways, it is likely that much of

it will occur via a decline in the value of the dollar vis-a-vis the

yen, the euro, and so on.

The "sustainability" question - which as far as I know I first posed

back in 1985, in a paper titled "Is the strong dollar sustainable?" -

is whether the market seems to be properly allowing for that required

future currency decline. If not, the dollar is doing a Wile E. Coyote,

and is destined to plunge as soon as investors take a hard look at the

numbers. (For those without a proper cultural education, Mr. Coyote

was the hapless pursuer in the Road Runner cartoons. He had the habit

of running five or six steps horizontally off the edge of a cliff

before looking down, realizing there was nothing but air beneath, and

only then plunging suddenly to the ground).

And the numbers do have a definitely Coyoteish feel. True, interest

rates in the United States are higher than those in Japan or Europe,

which means that the market is in effect predicting gradual dollar

decline. But inflation is also a bit higher in the United States; the

real interest differential on long-term bonds is probably only about 2

percent vis-a-vis Japan, less vis-a-vis Europe. Thus investors are

implicitly expecting only a 2 percent per annum real depreciation of

the dollar against the yen over the long term; given the size of the

current account imbalance, that just isn't enough. Beep beep!

2. A dollar plunge?

There are, then, good reasons to expect a dollar decline, perhaps even

a sharp drop as markets start to pay attention to trade numbers again.

Remember that in 1985, when the U.S. current account deficit was about

the same share of GDP as it is today, a revision of market perceptions

caused a drop from 240 to 140 yen, from 3.3 to 1.8 Deutsche marks.

But there is also a new element, which could amplify dollar decline,

and cause a truly dramatic plunge: balance-sheet domino effects.

According to people who ought to know, the "carry trade" that did so

much to drive exchange rates last fall is back in force: a relatively

small group of highly leveraged investors have borrowed in yen (and

euros? the gossip is less clear) and invested the proceeds in

higher-interest dollar assets. Should the dollar fall sharply, they

will suffer losses - which will force them to contract their balance

sheets, selling dollars, and driving the currency lower still, in what

could be a massive overshoot.

Now Rube Goldberg effects - mechanical linkages via balance sheets,

producing predictable mispricing - aren't supposed to happen in an

efficient financial market. Efficient markets theory would tell us

that in the face of an excessive depreciation of the dollar investors

would recognize the long-term profit opportunity and buy greenbacks en

masse - long-sighted Buffetts compensating for the balance-sheet

problems of the hedge funds. Well, maybe - but maybe not.

3. Who cares?

Currencies rise, currencies fall. Isn't it a zero-sum game, and for

that matter aren't the stakes pretty small in any case?

In general, yes. And even if we are now facing an unsustainable dollar

overvaluation comparable to that of early 1985, those old enough

recall that despite grim warnings of an impending "hard landing", the

correction of that overvaluation was almost entirely benign. (Yes,

some claim that it led indirectly to Japan's bubble economy - but that

is a complicated story).

But matters are a bit different now, because we start from a different

place. Arguably, the state of the world economy right now is such that

a sharp dollar decline would be contractionary almost everywhere

(except Argentina and Hong Kong).

To understand why, bear in mind that a currency depreciation (or, more

strictly, a revision of expectations leading to a currency

depreciation - the exchange rate is, of course, an endogenous

variable) constitutes a positive demand shock and a negative supply

shock to the depreciated country. It is a positive demand shock

because the country's goods become more competitive on world markets;

it is a negative supply shock because import prices increase. And

conversely, of course, a currency appreciation is a negative demand

shock and a positive supply shock.

The reason to be concerned about a sudden dollar decline, then, is

that it so happens that the United States is currently a

supply-constrained economy, while much of the rest of the world is

demand-constrained. So the net effect is negative almost everywhere.

In the United States, where wages are finally beginning to reflect a

more-than-full-employment labor market, a sudden dollar decline would

at least threaten to produce a wage-price spiral - and the mere threat

would mean that the Fed would likely be forced to raise rates. Whether

this would lead to a substantial contraction is unclear - who the heck

understands aggregate supply behavior these days? - but a dollar

decline is certainly not positive for the U.S. right now.

As for the rest of the world, demand shocks from a currency

appreciation are normally easy to deal with: just cut interest rates,

which among other things limits the appreciation. But of course Japan

is firmly in a liquidity trap, and cannot cut rates; the euro-zone is

not in a liquidity trap, but a sufficiently sharp dollar decline could

put it into one. The only places that clearly benefit from a weaker

dollar are demand-constrained economies pegged to the dollar; and

Argentina and Hong Kong are just not big enough to change the general

picture.

Simple textbook open-economy macroeconomics, then, tells us that

starting from where we are right now - a U.S. economy at or beyond

capacity, a large part of the rest of the world well below capacity,

and in or near a liquidity trap - a drop in the dollar will be a

global contractionary force. How strong a force? Well, it depends on

the drop; if markets were to force the U.S. to move rapidly to current

account balance or beyond, the numbers would be very troubling. This

is unlikely, I think; but then serious crises usually are, ex ante.

4. What is to be done?

Can the disturbing scenario just sketched out be prevented?

The U.S. cannot, of course, relax its supply constraint. We've already

had a virtual miracle in our ability to expand this far before

inflation started to appear; it's not just silly but greedy to ask for

another.

Can intervention stabilize the dollar? If it is sterilized, or more

generally if it is not backed by some fundamental change in policies,

the answer is probably not. Intervention can sometimes turn around a

market panic, but it cannot sustain the unsustainable. Look at the

issue from Japan's side: as I argued repeatedly last year, a

liquidity-trap economy faces the persistent problem that it cannot get

its currency weak enough, because even at a zero nominal interest rate

its real rate is too high. You wouldn't expect sterilized intervention

- or any intervention that does not change expectations about Japanese

inflation - to work; and it won't.

What will work is radical monetary expansion in the demand-constrained

economies - Japan definitely, maybe also Europe if necessary. I don't

think I need to go through the logic again - it's all there in Japan:

Still trapped . But note that monetization will not only expand

domestic demand, but help to limit the dollar's fall (and relax the

"sustainability" constraint by increasing demand for U.S. exports).

These are the same effects that would flow from interest rate cuts in

the appreciating countries under normal circumstances.

And that is the main point. The last time we had a seriously

overvalued dollar, the inevitable correction did little harm, mainly

because the appreciating countries were easily able to expand domestic

demand. If the current situation looks more troubling, it is because

non-dollar countries cannot increase demand using conventional

policies, and are unwilling to contemplate unconventional policies.

That unwillingness, not the dollar per se, is the source of the

problem.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list