On 2010-11-19, at 10:44 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>> MG: So it's an easy issue for the Republicans. They've historically represented creditors rather than debtors as the strong dollar party.
>
> Hmm. The petty bourgeoisie, many of whom are debtors, are reliably Republican. The National Association of Manufacturers, also mostly Republican, is a leader of the weak dollar lobby. How many times did Robert Rubin say that a strong dollar was in the interests of the U.S.? Most of Wall Street - aside from the right-wing hard money nuts in the Jim Grant circle - supports QE2.
Sure, these distinctions can be overdrawn, and the big bourgeoisie and small propertyholders are represented in both parties.
But, as John Gulick has already noted, Wall Street supports QE2 mainly because it's hoping falling bond yields will give a fillip to the stock and bond markets, and my impression is that the self-employed professionals and small businessmen/women who form the backbone of the Republican base are mostly providing services to local markets and are not producing manufactured goods for export. They would see QE as another example of federal profligacy and, if anything, worry about the higher costs for fuel and other imports resulting a falling dollar.
Industrialists in steel and other manufacturing sectors who are feeling the pressure from China and elsewhere are also reliably Republican, but in lobbying for tariff protection and a weaker dollar on Capitol Hill, they - together with their unions - get a more sympathetic hearing from Democrats. It seems to me NAM speaks for these struggling exporters. But it doesn't speak for Walmart, Apple, Caterpillar, Exxon, Dupont, Boeing, Coca Cola, GE, Ford and other leading American multinationals with highly profitable overseas operations who have benefited from a stronger dollar and have opposed Congressional legislation by Schumer and other Democrats to engage in a currency war with China.