So, are you saying that this is a good thing? I don't quite follow. Care to give a TL;DR explanation for those of us with more programming sense than fiscal sense?
I'm saying it's the reality of an emerging "economic war" between China and the US. In the article, Kenneth Rogoff (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/), a Harvard economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says "A weak dollar isn’t necessarily a bad thing -- it can make the United States more competitive, bolster exports and help domestic companies that are vying against imported goods here in the United States."
The article goes on to say, "[Devaluing the dollar] effectively would be playing the China card against China in a battle for manufacturing jobs...Many fund managers say the only way out of that box is a weaker dollar, reducing the value of the massive amount of U.S. debt held by foreigners and increasing the value of American investments abroad, such as Buffett’s.
"'Countries like the United States do race to the bottom,' said Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Gross), though he added that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner would never say so. A weaker currency 'makes them more competitive and reduces the burden of debt,' Gross added. Americans own about half of the outstanding federal debt, but Gross said the rest is owed 'as Tennessee Williams would say, to strangers, outside the U.S. If the United States can devalue the value of those dollars that they owe, then all the better.'"
What makes it a "race" if the US can just halve it's dollar value tomorrow by simply printing money? Isn't the value arbitrarily set by the feds using inflation and supply?
Too much state looting (and printing money is a way to loot) discourages production and investment besides causing political trouble. So there's a limit to how much any state can devalue.
To illustrate, your employer could make itself more competitive by cutting wages. But if it cuts wages too much you would stop working for it and find other employment. So there's a limit to how competitive you employer can be by cutting wages. The better, easier way to competitiveness is to increase productivity by enticing more productive workers with higher compensation.
By devaluing money, a government effectively cuts wages for the entire population, thus making the country as a whole more "competitive," i.e., foreigners can afford to buy more of the country's goods and services. But, just like cutting wages in a single firm is not generally effective, so inflation is not the best way to become nationally competitive.
The better, easier way to competitiveness is to increase productivity by enticing more productive workers with higher compensation.
It's a great time for startups because it looks like investors are encouraging another Internet "bubble" -- the US economy boomed in the last one, and it was a significant contributor to the record economic surpluses we had under Clinton (http://pragcap.com/visualizing-the-destruction-of-the-clinto...).
"Races to the bottom can be described in game theory by the prisoner's dilemma game. This is an exercise where the optimal outcome for the entire group of participants results from cooperation of the participants, but is put in danger by the fact that the optimal outcome for each individual is to not cooperate while the others do cooperate.
An economic example of racing to the bottom is tax competition between governments. Each government may benefit from higher tax revenues by having a high tax on corporate profits.
However, governments can benefit individually with a lower corporate tax rate relative to the other governments in order to attract businesses away from the jurisdictions of other governments. This action would hurt all governments except the one that undercut the others. In order to maintain the equilibrium, each of the other governments would have to lower their corporate tax rates to match the "defector" (the government that first lowered the tax rate). The end result is that each government adopts a lower corporate tax rate and thus collects less revenue overall. The optimal option for all governments would be an agreement to maintain tax harmonization" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom).
As an aside, Robert Axelrod's famous and fascinating book "The Evolution of Cooperation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation) on game theory and the "prisoner's dilemma" presents an algorithm called "Tit for Tat" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) that describes an approach to interaction that promotes generosity and forgiveness while not to being exploitable, and it so simple that it can be understood by everyone (which is to say, it's easy for others to understand your actions and adapt theirs to yours so that you both get the most benefits).
Comments
So, are you saying that this is a good thing? I don't quite follow. Care to give a TL;DR explanation for those of us with more programming sense than fiscal sense?
I'm saying it's the reality of an emerging "economic war" between China and the US. In the article, Kenneth Rogoff (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/), a Harvard economics professor and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says "A weak dollar isn’t necessarily a bad thing -- it can make the United States more competitive, bolster exports and help domestic companies that are vying against imported goods here in the United States."
The article goes on to say, "[Devaluing the dollar] effectively would be playing the China card against China in a battle for manufacturing jobs...Many fund managers say the only way out of that box is a weaker dollar, reducing the value of the massive amount of U.S. debt held by foreigners and increasing the value of American investments abroad, such as Buffett’s.
"'Countries like the United States do race to the bottom,' said Gross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Gross), though he added that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner would never say so. A weaker currency 'makes them more competitive and reduces the burden of debt,' Gross added. Americans own about half of the outstanding federal debt, but Gross said the rest is owed 'as Tennessee Williams would say, to strangers, outside the U.S. If the United States can devalue the value of those dollars that they owe, then all the better.'"
What makes it a "race" if the US can just halve it's dollar value tomorrow by simply printing money? Isn't the value arbitrarily set by the feds using inflation and supply?
Too much state looting (and printing money is a way to loot) discourages production and investment besides causing political trouble. So there's a limit to how much any state can devalue.
To illustrate, your employer could make itself more competitive by cutting wages. But if it cuts wages too much you would stop working for it and find other employment. So there's a limit to how competitive you employer can be by cutting wages. The better, easier way to competitiveness is to increase productivity by enticing more productive workers with higher compensation.
By devaluing money, a government effectively cuts wages for the entire population, thus making the country as a whole more "competitive," i.e., foreigners can afford to buy more of the country's goods and services. But, just like cutting wages in a single firm is not generally effective, so inflation is not the best way to become nationally competitive.
The better, easier way to competitiveness is to increase productivity by enticing more productive workers with higher compensation.
It's a great time for startups because it looks like investors are encouraging another Internet "bubble" -- the US economy boomed in the last one, and it was a significant contributor to the record economic surpluses we had under Clinton (http://pragcap.com/visualizing-the-destruction-of-the-clinto...).
"Races to the bottom can be described in game theory by the prisoner's dilemma game. This is an exercise where the optimal outcome for the entire group of participants results from cooperation of the participants, but is put in danger by the fact that the optimal outcome for each individual is to not cooperate while the others do cooperate. An economic example of racing to the bottom is tax competition between governments. Each government may benefit from higher tax revenues by having a high tax on corporate profits.
However, governments can benefit individually with a lower corporate tax rate relative to the other governments in order to attract businesses away from the jurisdictions of other governments. This action would hurt all governments except the one that undercut the others. In order to maintain the equilibrium, each of the other governments would have to lower their corporate tax rates to match the "defector" (the government that first lowered the tax rate). The end result is that each government adopts a lower corporate tax rate and thus collects less revenue overall. The optimal option for all governments would be an agreement to maintain tax harmonization" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_bottom).
As an aside, Robert Axelrod's famous and fascinating book "The Evolution of Cooperation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation) on game theory and the "prisoner's dilemma" presents an algorithm called "Tit for Tat" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat) that describes an approach to interaction that promotes generosity and forgiveness while not to being exploitable, and it so simple that it can be understood by everyone (which is to say, it's easy for others to understand your actions and adapt theirs to yours so that you both get the most benefits).