Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Triffin's Dilemma

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Triffin's Dilemma

    09 October 2010

    US Dollar: Long Term Trend and Triffin's Dilemma
    AEIR
    Triffin’s Dilemma, Reserve Currencies, and Gold
    By Walker Todd

    Nearly 50 years ago, Yale University economist Robert Triffin identified the inevitable future deterioration of the dollar in his book, Gold and the Dollar Crisis: The Future of Convertibility (1960). Essentially, Triffin argued, under the Bretton Woods system in which the U.S. dollar was the world’s principal reserve currency (instead of gold, for example), the United States had to incur large trade deficits in order to provide the rest of the world with the liquidity required for functioning of the global trading system.

    Unfortunately, Triffin wrote, U.S. trade deficits eventually would undermine the foreign exchange value of the dollar because foreign accounts would hold an increasing quantity of dollars. Restating Triffin's argument in contemporary terms, as the proportion of dollar claims held abroad versus U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) increases, the foreign exchange value of the dollar must decline if dollar interest rates do not increase at about the same rate as the foreign dollar claims.

    Issuing the reserve currency gives domestic policy makers an advantage by making it easier to finance either domestic budget deficits or foreign trade deficits because there always is a ready bidders' market for any financing instruments from that issuer. Issuing the reserve currency enables the domestic population to consume more goods and services from whatever source than otherwise would be feasible. And issuing the reserve currency gives foreign policy officials of that nation the upper hand in determining multilateral approaches to either diplomacy or military action.


    This last reason probably is why U.S. policy makers clung to the original Bretton Woods format for about 10 years beyond the point at which it still was viable, with the whole apparatus finally collapsing in August 1971.


    Let us reconsider the effect of reserve currency issuance on domestic and foreign trade for a moment. Unless the issuing authorities can discover a way to allow their currency to depreciate more or less in proportion to the growing foreign trade deficits—by reducing interest rates or otherwise stimulating domestic inflation, for example—then a sustainable equilibrium becomes impossible.


    Either the currency remains overvalued (good for the reserve currency status) and the trade deficits continue to increase, or the currency maintains fair external value (implicitly, a proportional devaluation, which is bad for the reserve currency status) and the trade deficits either stabilize or shrink. This latter proposition is what Professor Triffin was writing about in 1960, and it has been called Triffin's dilemma ever since.


    Lewis Lehrman and John Mueller revived the discussion of Triffin's dilemma, without calling it that, in an article that appeared on December 15, 2008, in National Review Online. They suggested that the proper international reserve currency should be gold. I agree and wrote as much in a commentary, in the Christian Science Monitor, November 17, 2008.


    Lehrman and Mueller argue correctly that no country willingly should volunteer for the reserve currency role. Such an endeavor necessarily leads to the same pattern of persistent overvaluation and trade deficits that plagued the United States since European currencies became generally convertible in 1959. Our abandonment of the international gold exchange standard in August 1971 accelerated and intensified our external deficits and the volatility of exchange rates.


    Among advanced economies that were key members of the old Bretton Woods system, tolerating large amounts of external claims in their currencies always was a sore point because they wanted to avoid de facto reserve currency status and the curse (Triffin's dilemma) that accompanies it.


    In the last two decades, roughly since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, European countries have adopted the euro and allowed large external claims in euros to arise. The Japanese bubble of the 1980s finally burst and relieved the reserve currency pressure of large external claims there until the last couple of years. Recently prosperous nations like China, India, and Brazil linked their currencies to the dollar and managed exchange rates so as to avoid the accumulation of large external claims. Thus, none of the most likely candidates is volunteering for reserve currency status...



    Posted by Jesse at 11:11 AM

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot...-triffins.html

  • #2
    Re: Triffin's Dilemma

    What can you do with a Yen? You can buy Japanese stuff, made by Japanese workers. Peso.. same thing. What can you do with the dollar? You can buy stuff all over the world. You do not have to buy stuff produced by American workers. The mainstream media says losing reserve currency status is bad -> Sure, it may be bad for the government/military. However, I do not think it will be all bad (after the adjustment) for Americans.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Triffin's Dilemma

      Originally posted by aaron View Post
      What can you do with a Yen? You can buy Japanese stuff, made by Japanese workers. Peso.. same thing. What can you do with the dollar? You can buy stuff all over the world. You do not have to buy stuff produced by American workers. The mainstream media says losing reserve currency status is bad -> Sure, it may be bad for the government/military. However, I do not think it will be all bad (after the adjustment) for Americans.
      We've had a free ride of sorts - it's called the "exorbitant privilege." No one else can export inflation like we can under the current system.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Triffin's Dilemma

        Yes, but the Chinese can export deflation (at least until they let the yaun appreciate, then they will switch to importing deflation of the PCE not FIRE kind). It's all well and good until people start to question US sovereign debt.
        Last edited by jtabeb; October 09, 2010, 08:09 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Triffin's Dilemma

          Why can't foreign countries buy U.S. real estate with their excess U.S. dollars? I am thinking of maybe the Peoples' Bank of China buying parts of New York City --- not the slums, but the plumbs like the Empire State Building, Rockefeller Centre, Times Square, etc. Maybe if Americans wrote-out monthly rent cheques to the People's Bank of China, they might get the message that they have been mis-governed for too long.

          This is why we need a gold standard; i.e, the imbalance with dollars wouldn't get to this point. This mis-government was to let interest rates stay toooooooooooooooo darn low for tooooooooooooo darn long in the U.S. And this crap began secretly with the cheap dollar policy of Alan Greenspan and his prodigy, Ben Bernanke.

          Every student to-day in university should revolt. Shut-down their economics departments! Organize sit-ins. Speak-out!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Triffin's Dilemma

            Finally a piece to that points out that in a fiat world the reserve currency MUST run a deficit.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Triffin's Dilemma

              Originally posted by goadam1 View Post
              Finally a piece to that points out, that in a fiat world, the reserve currency MUST run a deficit.
              Bingo!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                Originally posted by goadam1 View Post
                Finally a piece to that points out that in a fiat world the reserve currency MUST run a deficit.
                Galbraith, I believe, has been all over this for a long time.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                  Why all the underlining, it's yelling. A point is better made if it isn't under a megaphone.

                  Isn't the Triffin Dilemma well understood? This is why America is being hollowed out. We did it to ourselves.

                  It's a double edged sword of the highest magnitude. Enjoy those plasma TV's and Jet Skis before they break down. There are a lot of driven educated Chinese who are going to take your place in the New Brave World. Hang on, because if you drop it is a bitch to get back up. The competition is better than it has ever been by an order of magnitude.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                    Originally posted by goadam1 View Post
                    Finally a piece to that points out that in a fiat world the reserve currency MUST run a deficit.
                    It's both a curse to the nation that has the reserve currency and a blessing. Looks like we understand the curse. But the blessing?

                    By having the world's reserve currency, we Americans have a unique global "assignment." That is, we are given the task of consuming everyone's economic output. We have to. I'm not saying that our economy is a fiction - all nations consume other nations' economic output - it's just that we Americans have a leg up on everyone else. If we don't (over)consume, the supply of money needed for growing world trade diminishes.

                    Take the reserve currency status away from the dollar, and the free ride I discussed goes away. I've been bringing up the Triffin Dilemma for some time now and the central bankers are aware of this and are addressing it:

                    http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...hlight=Triffin

                    The question is, does the average American have a clue about this? And when politicians say they will make America a great exporting nation - do they really mean it? Do Americans really want it? Is there really a choice when the reserve currency, if hosted by a nation, has it's own "self destruct" mechanism built in?

                    By the way, I speculated about currency wars in my second post in the thread -see the link above dated May 2010... looks like things are moving along in the direction of international conflict - not cooperation... which means gold by default in a global systemic breakdown, as EJ has also speculated. I'm chronicling this on my blog: www.fiatcollapse.blogspot.com - in this blog, I am focusing more on the geopolitical aspects of the crisis, as ultimately, that is what will affect gold the most. The market will push gold up, and then, sovereigns will have to react to it.
                    Last edited by gnk; October 09, 2010, 11:54 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                      Originally posted by Jay View Post
                      Why all the underlining, it's yelling. A point is better made if it isn't under a megaphone.
                      Agreed. Underlining was in the original article.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                        Please explain to me in SIMPLE ENGLISH o en espanol muy claro, WHY DOES THE U.S. NEED TO CONSUME?????????????????????????????? Also, please explain to me, WHY DOES THE REST OF THE WORLD NEED WHAT TRIFFIN CALLS, "LIQUIDITY"?????????????????????????

                        Let's take this Triffin's Dilemma from the top. Please explain it to me in nice short, simple, direct sentences: subject, verb, then any object. Give me maybe four sentences to explain this great economics theory from about 1959.

                        Being the slow learner here, I'll stay after class.......................

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                          Can I go outside and tag the side of the classroom building here: "Triffin's Dilemma courtesy of Yale University = "more liquidity, please" = more money printing = more consumption in America = more trade deficits = more inflation = more fuzzy thinking= more "greed is good," = modern economics thinking? "Buying a Hummer is good for America and good for the world, and we can buy it on credit thru GMAC." <--------Tag that over on top of the door to the Economics Department.
                          Last edited by Starving Steve; October 10, 2010, 12:14 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                            Originally posted by Starving Steve View Post
                            WHY DOES THE U.S. NEED TO CONSUME?????????????????????????????? ... WHY DOES THE REST OF THE WORLD NEED WHAT TRIFFIN CALLS, "LIQUIDITY"?????????????????????????
                            Well, we don't really NEED to. But if we don't, then we all get poorer and hungrier.

                            The global engine of stuff (minerals, food, clothing, houses, manufactured goods) depends on the global engine of money to keep the stuff moving from one person to another and to fund the investment capital to make or mine more stuff. The global engine of money in turn depends on a rising quantity of Dollars. Each year, more Dollars are required for debt service on the previous years debt.

                            Our banks create Dollars by lending them. Americans service their increasing Dollar debt by borrowing yet more. The rest of the world of the world funds its purchases of Dollar denominated oil, and services its increasing Dollar debt by borrowing more Dollars and by making or mining stuff to sell to Americans for more of their (borrowed) Dollars.
                            Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed stuff overcomes the fear of death debt.
                                 -- Quote modified from a T-shirt slogan on a motorcycling friend of mine.
                            We don't just have a Peak Oil problem. We also have a Peak Dollar problem.

                            We don't dilute our oil (give or take 10% ethanol), so a liter of petro is as good now as it was 50 or 100 years ago. It is just more expensive. Peak Cheap Oil.

                            We do dilute our Dollars. Peak Strong Dollar.

                            Of course, as Damon Vrabel notes in his latest YouTube video (posted by don here on iTulip last night) the world's debt are the bank's assets. Humanity is borrowing its way into debt servitude to the big banks and their wealthy controllers. The Argentina's of the world have already completed this transition. Now Europe and the U.S. are about to go through the rough phase, where an increasing number of citizens cannot afford the basics of food, shelter and clothing. This leads to civil unrest, a crack-down on civil liberties, and debt peonage.

                            So the Dilemma is that even if Americans do borrow to consume what others make or mine, we all still get poor and hungry. We're trapped on a treadmill of doom.

                            Cui bono? The controllers of the big banks are the benefactors. All our debts are their banks assets. However the joke may be on them. They may end up owning everything, only to find it is worth nothing.
                            Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Triffin's Dilemma

                              Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                              Well, we don't really NEED to. But if we don't, then we all get poorer and hungrier.

                              The global engine of stuff (minerals, food, clothing, houses, manufactured goods) depends on the global engine of money to keep the stuff moving from one person to another and to fund the investment capital to make or mine more stuff. The global engine of money in turn depends on a rising quantity of Dollars. Each year, more Dollars are required for debt service on the previous years debt.

                              Our banks create Dollars by lending them. Americans service their increasing Dollar debt by borrowing yet more. The rest of the world of the world funds its purchases of Dollar denominated oil, and services its increasing Dollar debt by borrowing more Dollars and by making or mining stuff to sell to Americans for more of their (borrowed) Dollars.
                              Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed stuff overcomes the fear of death debt.
                              -- Quote modified from a T-shirt slogan on a motorcycling friend of mine.
                              We don't just have a Peak Oil problem. We also have a Peak Dollar problem.

                              We don't dilute our oil (give or take 10% ethanol), so a liter of petro is as good now as it was 50 or 100 years ago. It is just more expensive. Peak Cheap Oil.

                              We do dilute our Dollars. Peak Strong Dollar.

                              Of course, as Damon Vrabel notes in his latest YouTube video (posted by don here on iTulip last night) the world's debt are the bank's assets. Humanity is borrowing its way into debt servitude to the big banks and their wealthy controllers. The Argentina's of the world have already completed this transition. Now Europe and the U.S. are about to go through the rough phase, where an increasing number of citizens cannot afford the basics of food, shelter and clothing. This leads to civil unrest, a crack-down on civil liberties, and debt peonage.

                              So the Dilemma is that even if Americans do borrow to consume what others make or mine, we all still get poor and hungry. We're trapped on a treadmill of doom.

                              Cui bono? The controllers of the big banks are the benefactors. All our debts are their banks assets. However the joke may be on them. They may end up owning everything, only to find it is worth nothing.
                              How about if I were to just retire in my house in East Sooke, British Columbia, and I would look at a gold coin all day while I save my beaver bucks and consume very little of anything? I just enjoy watching bears walk-by. I love the sound of rainfall. The trees are beautiful outside. And no worries........No spouse. No divorce lawyers. No feminists. No unknowns, and no surprises. During the night, my savings would earn a few dimes at the bank. My oil and gas trusts would earn a few dollars. What is wrong with that?

                              And everything would be real. The savings would be real. The gold would be real. The house would be real. This kind of living, this lifestyle, really upsets the economists to-day, doesn't it?

                              But by saving, I have more money to invest. That helps Alberta, and that investment helps me, too. So why do these economists (like Bernanke) want to tinker-around with markets and force me to do what I do NOT want to do? I want to save, NOT spend. I do NOT want to consume.

                              And when I consume less, prices for goods and services would tend to fall. So what is wrong with that? Falling-prices make the standard-of-living of the world RISE. Did you hear that, Mr. Bernanke? Falling-prices help the world's people, and falling-prices give the people of the world a higher standard-of-living.

                              Forget about the freaken bird-habitat issues......... FORGET THAT ECOLOGY CRAP. Falling prices are desirable because the standard of living of human-beings goes UP. That is what economists should want, not inflation.
                              Last edited by Starving Steve; October 10, 2010, 02:31 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X