(This is the second in a series: the first, How The Economy Worked In the Clinton Era, was about the Clinton economy)
The Bush team came into office faced with basically the same problem that Clinton had – how to pay for foreign goods. The Clintonian solution had been to sell intellectual property; to keep the dollar high; to offer equity investment options; to use labor arbitrage and to use the IMF, World Bank, WTO and other such organizations to keep commodity prices low. (All of this is gone over in more detail in the first article).
When Bush took power the wheels were coming off. The NASDAQ crash had finally occurred and the price of oil had begun to rise (though the price was still relatively low). A recession was clearly on the way and neither could nor should be stopped, the question was what sort of economy should come out of that recession.
Labor arbitrage presented a double edged sword, as it had in the nineties. On the one hand it was a source of deflationary pressure which could be used to keep inflation under control. On the other hand because labor costs were so much lower overseas pumping money into unprotected sectors of the economy – those subject to foreign competition, risked simply having the money and jobs created overseas.
In the 90’s this had been dealt with by time pressure and clustering. The problem with outsourcing and offshoring is that it isn’t suitable for quickly changing projects and services. When products aren’t relatively standardized, when they’re still bleeding edge, it isn’t price that sells them – it’s having the newest and best. Having the cheapest 486’s on the market does nothing for you if your competitor is selling Pentiums and the new killer app requires those Pentiums. Likewise in a rapidly changing field you need to be near a bewildering variety of small suppliers who are capable of quickly adapting to changing demands. Those suppliers tend to cluster geographically and feed off of each other. The knowledge and skill base grows so swiftly that those outside of the area have a hard time keeping up – there is great value to being near the center of the revolution.
The tech crash erased that option. The liberal solution would have been to try and find a new tech boom, which in the case of the Gore administration would almost certainly have either been a micro and alternative energy boom or a telecom boom.
The Bush solution was different. The decision was made to base the economy on the real estate market. Record low interest rates flooded money into the mortgage market and the housing market boomed. The Treasury department structured its bonds to encourage money to flow into the housing market (by dropping the 30 year bond, and by flipping most of their debt into short duration bonds they made the mortgage market about the only place people who required longer term income could go to get it.)
Money flowed into the housing market not only from the US but from overseas in huge floods. But it wasn’t enough. Housing wasn’t nearly as enticing as the possibility of buying the next Microsoft, Amazon or EBay while it was cheap. Tech stocks had always had the possibility of explosive growth – mortgage backed bonds were much more limited and with the possibility of currency devaluation, more risky than they appeared on the surface.
The solution to that was typically Bush. They played a game of chicken. They made a bet that the major exporting economies of the far east would simply lend the US the money, even knowing that it would most likely be repaid at cents on the dollar. They were correct; Japan, South Korea and China ponied up and bought enough dollars to keep the US dollar from collapsing. All three are export driven mercantilist economies, and China in particular, using the mercantilist route to industrialize, was willing to pay the price later for the jobs, technology transfer and production facility transfer now.
The next problem to be solved was the commodity problem. Commodity prices had spent thirty years declining, but that downward trend had swung to the upside, led by oil and the energy sector in general.
Oil drives inflation, because it can’t be easily substituted away from. In 2001 the Bush administration looked at the world and what they saw was that the only oil that could be easily brought into the market was Iraqi oil. Iraq had become the world’s swing producer – or it would be, if all that oil could actually be gotten onto the market. There were two ways to do this, remove the sanctions, or invade. The Bush administration didn’t trust Saddam with all the money which removing sanctions would give him. So they found an excuse to invade.
The invasion had a number of non-economic ideological bonuses for the primary foreign policy constituency in the administration, but economically it had two main benefits – the release of oil onto the market to drive prices down and undercut inflation; and a boost in jobs in a protected market – the military and the military/industrial/mercenary complex. Because of security concerns those are jobs, and money, both in the military and in the military industrial sector, which can’t be shipped overseas.
The money that flooded into the economy through the military and through military procurement of goods and services did have a stimulative effect. Unfortunately the failure to secure the oil fields and pipelines meant that the price of oil didn’t drop. In fact it increased and the net effect of the military stimulus was to increase oil demand and massively increase market volatility. Increased market volatility made the oil market a good place to park money for traders and investors and that’s what they did for much of the last 4 years.
The reason is that those traders and investors had a lot of excess cash, and not a lot of investment opportunities. The basic trend of the last twenty five years has been to tax the rich less and to tax investment income less than earned income. Bush pushed this to an extreme, passing a package of tax cuts aimed primarily at rich individuals and corporations. Because there were few productive investment opportunities as there was no new boom, corporations passed most of their profits on to their shareholders – so the wealthy kept more of their money than ever before and received a great deal of money from dividends.
But their problem was the same as the corporations which had passed them money – other than the protected sectors: real estate, healthcare and the military, there was nowhere to put their money. Although those sectors were experiencing reasonable growth returns on investment were generally quite low because there was too much money chasing the investment opportunities.
The growth economy in the world at the time was (and is) China, but China’s investment market was effectively closed, and investment possibilities there were extremely limited. So there was a great deal of money sloshing around, seeking high returns, with nowhere to get them.
That money seized on the commodity markets as a place to find returns, and money flooded into oil and other commodities, helping drive the prices up.
The end state of the Bush economy was commodity inflation, with production good deflation. The deflation was in goods that the US typically sells to the rest of the world, manufactured goods, and because of that decline in prices margins were shaved to the bone. Those decreasing margins made labor arbitrage to low cost domiciles such as China an obvious play – there was simply no reason pay inflated US wages.
But the basic nature of the real estate boom was that it was driven by oil. New subdivisions are created further out from metropolitan centers. Each push out, each new subdivision, created more commuters who had to have oil – or rather gas, to get to and from their jobs.
As long as property prices continued to increase that dynamic was sustainable. While a combination of labor arbitrage and anemic demand which made expanding capacity pointless had meant that wage growth under the Bush administration was virtually nonexistent for most Americans, increased spending had been funded through increases in housing prices, which Americans were able to borrow against at record low rates.
That meant that the Bush economy was driven primarily by rising real estate prices. It was sustained by them and they were required in order to maintain basic demand.
And with oil prices rising each new subdivision becomes more and more economically infeasible – the cost of commuting is to work becomes more than the expected value of the house can support.
More than that the rise in oil prices slowly strangles the economy. Because people cannot easily substitute away from oil, it drives out all other forms of spending.
Which means consumer spending. As oil (and natural gas) prices increase, consumer spending must drop unless housing prices are increasing enough to make up the difference.
The Bush Economy was really the housing boom. Many months during the Bush administration, if housing related jobs had been removed from the list, there would have been an absolute loss of jobs (not just less than the population growth rate, but actually fewer gross jobs.)
Its fate is tied to the housing boom, and the housing boom was squeezed out by increases in energy prices, which both increased inflation and thus forced the Fed to increase interest rates (and therefore mortgage rates); and made farther subdivisions uneconomical. When housing prices collapse, that will mean reduced consumer spending which will make margins even thinner, making the case for labor arbitrage even stronger. A real collapse in consumer spending could eventually also lead to the far East mercantile economies deciding that the benefit of lending Americans money to buy their goods (jobs and industry now) is outweighed by the cost of doing so in losing most of the value of the money they have effectively loaned to the US.
And that is how the Bush economy works, or rather, worked. What you're witnessing right now is most likely the collapse of the Bush economy. Both Congress and the Fed are trying to prop it up and keep it going till the next election, but odds are they aren't going to manage it, because odds are they can't reinflate the housing bubble. And without the housing bubble there is no Bush economy. Meanwhile the Saudis have signaled that they, at least, aren't willing to take losses just to prop up the US economy, and the Chinese are edging for the door and diversifying out of the dollar. This leaves the Fed in a classic bind - on the one hand they need to tighten to stop the dollar from deflating and inflation igniting. On the other hand, if they tighten right now they won't just tank the economy and the markets - they'll drive a stake through their hearts. (The odd thing is that doing so is probably the right thing to do, for all the pain it will cause. More on that another week.)
And the price of oil keeps rising.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Ian!
zed
WOW!
WHEN oh when will we learn that we must free ourselves from dependence on oil?
Thank you Ian for another outstanding post.
Ok… I am on my 400th trip up and down the stairs because I am building my new home office and the tools are in the garage…. need a different drill bit…. down I go…. find the damn thing and back up I go….
Thanks Ian, boy were they really analyzing the US economy when I was in Europe this summer. Their International financial news had their panties in a wad.
Thanks for this Ian. Hope you will give us the benefit of your wisdom about the Saudis losing interest in holding dollars. That one might hurt.
What about the Dubai purchase?? How will that play out??
Ian,
You make the case: Why would anyone want to be the next U.S. president?
Hi Ian!
So… we are to conclude that Greenspan is right? That the Iraq attack was mostly about oil?
egregious @ 6
To something you asked the other day.
I went throug a terrible Big-D several years ago. Started on 09/12/2001.
The therapist is met with for a while told me, “the best revenge is Go. Make. A Better. Life.
Ian, I seem to remember Greenspan spouting adjustable rates good and people have to much tied up in their houses. Now he’s backpedaling and blaming it all on gov’t spending.
Why don’t other people see this? Why isn’t it on the news?
It was always about oil.
What kind of economy should the next president promote?
Only one problem with the Bush housing driven economy theory - The most recent boom started in 1997.
I meant 09/12/2001.
He said, I’m not coming home.
And, it was hell. But, it’s better now.
Let time pass.
Learn from what today give’s you.
Love to you.
It’s not easy. But strong people can make it throgh.
LS @ 7
Well, the thing is, every time the oilarchies want to buy something significant, some parties in the US say “you can’t buy that”. And they think “they why the heck am I holding all these US dollars if I can’t buy what I want?”
Hmmmm?
BTW, Snarkita, I left you an answer to your question end of last thread.
this really struck me, I had no idea it was ALL housing.
Some argue that we are headed for an economic depression. Assuming they are right, how best to right things?
egregious @ 6
If they’re really serious it means a dollar collapse. If they slowly diversify it means a year or two of a relentless decline in the dollar. Assuming it doesn’t cause a panic. That means increased inflation, since the US buys so much overseas. Which puts Bernanke in a real bind since on the one hand he wants to prop up the economy, otoh, having the dollar tank and inflation go through the roof is bad too.
“the housing boom was squeezed out by increases in energy prices, which both increased inflation and thus forced the Fed to increase interest rates (and therefore mortgage rates)”.
If you mean by ’squeezed out’ that it ended, is this not rather due to the currently very shaky derivatives market, the fact that banks did not keep their loans on their books, the fact of years of criminal behaviour and fraud from appraisers and loan industry.
I must say that in all this discussion of the housing situation, I have hardly ever heard the increase in oil prices as an argument - although I personally have wondered for years how people can be so blind, and so willingly buy houses in the exburbs.
As long as investments and not work drive an economy it will always be some sort of inflated bubble which attracts investment, artificial value and then it deflates… one sector after the next.
But the guys who run things don’t work… they invest and so all they are interested in are these artificial market and investment “instruments”.
They’re nothing but blood suckers extracting wealth on the backs of labor.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 10
It was mostly about oil for some people, anyway. I don’t know that the neocon idiots with their “democracy” fetish cared about that, but I think it was important to Cheney and various others. And if Iraq didn’t have oil, Iraq would not have been invaded, for sure. Remember which ministry was the only one to get protected in the first few days after Baghdad fell.
And so. If the war in Iraq is about oil, can we then conclude our troops are dying and being wounded and maimed for life, for the price of a gallon of gasoline?
James Howard Kuntsler writes about the nexus of oil and the sub and exburbs. He’s an interesting read.
Elliott @ 21
The job gains weren’t all housing. But if you take them out gains in other sectors alone wouldn’t have been enough to offset job losses in various sectors (especially manufacturing).
Oklahoma kiddo @ 26
so THEY can make money when WE buy gas
Ian, for Americans seeking to protect their retirement funds from the Bushies’ economic explosion, might you have any specifics on how to transfer IRA assets to foreign-demoninated accounts (in overseas banks, if possible)?
This isn’t for me (I’m a direct action enviro…no assets to be seized), but for the folks I know who see the coming currency crash.
Oil is the lifeblood of America… without it we are in the tank. That’s a fact and one that no one wants to say.. no one on the right that is.
Great Piece
Thank you!
Ian Welsh @ 22
I don’t see any alternative other than high inflation, talking double digits, to wipe out our debts, but you have previously argued that deflation can work too. Would you mind explaining how that would work its way thru the system.
cahuenga @ 16
The bubble (not the boom) took off when Greenspan dropped interest rates through the floor and with the take-off of various types of CDOs etc… And that didn’t happen till the 2000’s.
The Clinton economy was not /based/ on the housing boom, the Bush economy was and is based on the bubble.
How can we expect a soft landing? We’re not talking about twenty-somethings’ bubblicious options in vaporware companies — we’re talking about people losing their homes. How can this end well?
is there anything china could do to help prop up the usa consumer temporarily (if they wanted to)?
since china, at the moment, depends so much on our consumption, i’d think they wouldn’t want to see everything go to hell in a hand basked until after the olympics next summer.
mulligatawny @ 23
The Fed pushed interest rates up to 5.25, primarily based on fears of inflation, and those fears were driven primarily by the price of oil. Oil demand is driven by continuing to push people out further and further so they have to drive more and more. The value of a house in the Exurbs is related to the cost of driving back and forth to where the work is, and it’s very rarely actually in the exurban tract wastelands.
Great post. My only quibble is that you make the ‘Bush economy’ sound like a plan. I think it was more a decentralized improvisation. I think Bush administration economic thinking did not extend at all beyond short run electoral calculations, and Cheney’s attitude that grabbing as much dough for his constituency was “our due.” The administration has most control over fiscal policy, and the fiscal policy had been self destructive, from the Bush adminstration’s point of view (at least, they would have seen that had they been rational).
The initial signals were that the recession that started in 2000-2001 was quite mild, a minor consequence of the stock market bubble. What made it not minor, and produced the worst recovery in the post-WWII economy was the the extreme inefficiency of the administration’s fiscal policies, at least as it worked as a remedy for recession. Some economist did a calculation that more than one dollar of government revenue stimulus was spent for every dollar lost due to the recession. This bizarre and self-defeating approach to fiscal policy produced a very slow meager recovery, which was then used as evidence of how bad the recession really was, and an excuse for more bad fiscal policy (more tax cuts for the wealthy sold as effective fiscal stimulus).
Of course the policy was very efficient at stuffing more dough into rich’s pockets, and I believe this is all they were thinking about.
I think monetary authorities improvised.
Your point about the glut of capital and lack of investment opportunities was absolutely true.
I am not sure about this:
“But the basic nature of the real estate boom was that it was driven by oil. New subdivisions are created further out from metropolitan centers. Each push out, each new subdivision, created more commuters who had to have oil – or rather gas, to get to and from their jobs.”
That sounds more like the real estate investment during the savings-and-loan scandal/bust of a few decades ago.
Anyway, I guess my main quibble is that I do not think there was enough coherent economic or financial thinking going on to label anything as the Bush ‘plan’ or ‘economy’. But I agree with your analysis of what acutally played out.
The rich want these absurd ROIs on their so called investments… which are not investments at all. They’re what used to be called “savings” for most people.. parked in a savings account. How quaint. They all want in to the market and the big ROIs.
Bushconomics is ruining us.
TeddySanFran @ 35
I doubt there will be a soft landing. However, the question is this - what money can the US find, borrow, beg or steal to inject into the economy? If they can steal/borrow enough from foreigners or the future, maybe they can pull it off. That’s what happened in the 2000’s, in essence.
One newer answer was to steal SS money (so called privatization, which would cause a stock market bubble) - but that failed.
The Saudis have a choice besides selling dollars. They can peg their oil price to Euros or a basket of currencies. As the dollar weakens against the new peg, inflation will flow through the US markets and weaken the dollar further. Some people think they won’t do that because of some relationship with the US that is more important. But with the disaster in the Middle East playing it’s horrid self out, that rationale will evaporate.
A very good analysis, IMHO, but let us not forget the kicker that made this strategy so irresistible to the Bushies. The oil price is set worldwide. We learned from the first Gulf War that just the threat of gunfire in the Middle East would create enough of a risk premium to double or triple oil prices all by itself. But for the Bush buddies who drill their oil domestically, that risk premium had no relevance, and they could continue to extract their oil at the same low price that preceded the risk premium. They had no increased risk, so all that extra money translated directly into pure profit REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE WAR WENT WELL OR WENT BADLY! A guaranteed jackpot for the Bush buddies. The proof is the stunning magnitude of the record profits that were immediately logged by domestic producers even though no significant additional oil was coming from the Mideast, where the risk was located. I believe that with this heavy thumb on the cost-benefit scales, the choice the Bushies made to start the war was inevitable. And they don’t consider it a failure because that goal of instant guaranteed no-risk profit has been realized in spades. And will continue to be realized as long as we stay in the Middle East with armed forces.
selise @ 36
They can keep printing money and buying greenbacks. Most economists are betting that’s exactly what they’ll keep doing.
We’ll see. At some point they may figure the giant’s falling anyway. There are advantages to them long term to destroying the US, after all.
I think we are seeing in slo mo what would normally be a crash. IT is rather an enormous beast… the world economy and so it has a lot inertia… but the pace is picking up.
Soft landing? I doubt it. It will only get worse… and faster.
How damaging is it to the US economy if Iran stops using the dollar in their oil market?
We are to conclude that ‘labor arbitrage’ is a polite way of saying bye, bye to American jobs and an adjustment to a downward spiral of the standard of living for most in this country?
We’ve pretty much put most of america up to the highest bidder. Much of our premier real estate is owned by foreigners.
They’ll be picking up some bargains now.
Ian Welsh @ 28
Thanks Ian
One of the problems counting jobs lost in housing here in CA is most of the labor is from the from Mexico and there are no numbers. This to me is race to the bottom and with the Brits and EU seeing problems in Banking already I doubt it will be long before CW, Wash Mutal and few other go by-by.
jo6pac
Thanks again for bring this important subject to FDL
Clarification of jargon:
“more than one dollar of government revenue stimulus was spent for every dollar lost due to the recession.”
“revenue stimulus” includes money put into private economy throgh income tax cuts.
Ian Welsh @ 43
thanks…. i just wonder if we won’t see a change in china’s policy vis-a-vis us after the olympics.
I don’t know what I’m saying here exactly, but…if the Bush’s want a New World Order (per Poppy’s speech)…is there a chance that the dollar could become the Euro? In other words, could they change over to a kind of global currency? If not, fine. If so, then that would be playing right into their ultimate plan of one world government.
It’s outsourcing to drive wages in the USA down.
kirk murphy @ 30
I’m not a markets guy. But a good broker should be able to advise on how to do this. In general (and remember, you take advice some guy on the internet and it doesn’t work out, don’t come crying to me) I suggest that people should diversify out of the US dollar as much as they can. Remember - your earnings, your house, etc.. are in the dollar. If the US economy crashes you’re already screwed.
But this can vary greatly by individual circumstances - so don’t just do it, sit down with a good broker and figure it out.
The best thing people can do really, are:
1) cut expenses as much as they can.
2) make sure you’re in good relations with your family
3) Make sure you get along well with neighbours and friends.
Ian, the Bushies seem to have successfully bludegeoned Iran out of dollar-demoninated oil trades.
Couldn’t even the Bushies see the cost to the US economy of pushing the dollar out of oil trading?
Or do the Bushies have an ideological bias against the dollar as global reserve currency?
Of all the Bushies’ stupidities and self-inflicted wounds, this one puzzles the most.
Is it as bad as it looks, or I am just missing the point?
By the way…
The economic crash is one of the best hopes for a non capitalist economy rising up.
Capitalism is in its last throes.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 46
We’re in the last major period of labor arbitrge, I’d say. If the next Congress isn’t massively protectionist, the one after that one will be.
kirk murphy @ 54
They’re fools, fundamentally. They are in a death bet - the US going down hard hurts almost everyone in the world economy. So they’ve spent the last 6 years playing chicken with all the other major economic actors.
They don’t think the others will go, and figure Iran doesn’t matter that much.
We’ll see.
Labor arbitrage seems a fanciful way for corporate America to say to it’s workers, ‘look, either work for less money, be more productive, and get less benefits, or your job will be eliminated’. And as to unions? Don’t make us laugh.
masaccio @ 42
Iraq and Iran wanted to sell their oil for Euro, see what happens. So did Venezuela.
What we are seeing is the inevitable end of capitalism with all these bubbles and artificial markets which have little to do with production of good and services.
What do the people in the financial sector create? Schemes for extracting money for the economy for doing absolutely nothing.
What if we are already low income and already live in the same apt with our relatives? Will we end up super poor?
Also, if the economy crashes will it be like the great depression?
And will colleges still have scholarships?
“Protectionism”. What will that do to prices?
Ian Welsh @ 34
Um, I bought a home in San Luis Obispo, CA back in 1994 - IIRC, the 30 year fixed was hovering around 5 - 5.125 back then, a friend of mine got a 4.875 on a 30 fixed the same year.
Interest rates have been relatively low ever since.
Another do nothing industry is insurance and re insurance… they create nothing.
All these commission industries like mortgage and real estate brokers… create nothing.
It’s capitalism.. create wealth from nothing!
I would personally rather sum up the shrub economy more nastily–
cheap money
keep the currency cheap and worthless, keep debt — both consumer and corporate — cheap and interest rates low, all conspiring to encourage bad choices, bad investments and abandonment of all concept of fiscal discipline
It’s like bread and circus, with cheap money playing for role of “bread” and the various wars and fear-mongering epidemics the “circus”
SnarKassandra @ 61
Scholarships are usually paid for by endowments, so most should survive. University is an excellent place to park yourself in a recession or depression.
Don’t know if this’ll be a recession or depression. I’m guessing a stagflation period like the late 70’s (high inflation, high unemployment) but that’s just an educated guess.
Poor people are often reasonably well placed to stand work downs IF they aren’t marginally employed.
selise @ 51
It’s impossible to predict what they’ll do. They managed to get the head of Mattel to apologize to them for the quality control and design flaws in their toys, after Mattel blamed them for lead paint.
I think the Olympics could be used to provoke an international incident.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 62
Increase them. But you might have a job. Depends how it’s done, smart or stupid. Protectionism worked out ok for Argentina compared to the other options.
The sad thing is that we don’t need wealth creation for our country… we need an increasing standard of living. Who gives a rat’s about wealth creation? Oh I forgot.. republicans.
Ian,
If the U.S. starts suffering badly economically, what’s to prevent some president (current or future) from using our trump card, an overwhelming military, to deal with the problem?
(gulps)
Thanks, Ian.
Thanks also for your answer on retirement savings (and I totally agree with you about the core role of non-monetary factors).
The older folks I know looking at shifting funds are all looking at Norwegian currency (oil/gas), Swiss currency, and the Euro. They look for non-US banks because they fear their own government would seize private accounts (over a certain size) when fiscal crisis hits.
When I think of the Bushies trying to sell off Social Security to do exactly that, these older people make perfect sense.
TeddySanFran @ 68
Mattel apologizing was a big WOW for me.
If every potential qualifying college student applied for a scholarship, would there be enough scholarship money? The view here, is no.
People like car and truck mechanics will be OK right? Cause if people are getting poor they need to keep the car or truck longer and get it fixed more, right?
mulligatawny @ 60
Hi
They have already done so and that’s the fear that the rest follow. The Iranians have been working on setting up there own oil exchange so they don’t have to go through London or NY.
jo6pac
The other night here, someone said the FED could fail, i.e. go bankrupt. Is that scenario even possible?
Jonathan @ 70
It won’t work. See: Iraq. But they may try. Typically hegeomonic powers go to rest in a series of cataclysmic and massive wars.
My solution is a tax on capital. As Ian says, the problem was too much money chasing investments, and demand for high returns, as SanderO says. The administration saw to it that the most promising new technologies were stopped in their tracks. I’m speaking of the obvious ones, like stem cell research where we had a huge lead, and all of the gasoline alternatives, where we were at least competitive. Cheney’s foolish insistence on continuing our reliance on petroleum led us into a war so draining that we have no money to invest in the future industries.
Our stupid education policies insure we will not produce the brains we need to lead the world, and our smart people will emigrate. This point really bothers me. There are counties in Tennessee where only half the kids entering high school graduate. To deal with this, we are adopting the rote learning system that the Asian countries are dropping. As Phoenix Woman pointed out earlier today, kids don’t read books.
A tax on capital will enable a thoughtful new administration (wishful thinking?) to redirect that stupid rich money into useful investments, in infrastructure, education, and research.
China has the USA by the short hairs now… you’ll be seeing some interesting kabuki and kow tows from the suits.
kirk murphy @ 71
Petro currencies that aren’t just petro currencies, aren’t a bad place to park. But there will be a downturn eventually in a recession where oil prices will drop. They need to be ready for that.
Some say the Fed is the problem. What would getting rid of it do?
Jonathan what would the military do?
SnarKassandra @ 75
Good Trades people will always eat
jo6pac
46 Elliott says September 22nd, 2007 at 4:28 pm:
How damaging is it to the US economy if Iran stops using the dollar in their oil market?
—
It’s Ian Welsh’s post, and I would like to hear his opinion. But I cannot resist on this topic: in short term it would make no difference at all. There is not other currency than dollar that could be used to finance all the hedging (and hedging requires speculation on other side) needed for a well functioning market.
Over the long run, and I am talking several decades) if Euro was successful enough, it could start being used as a reserve currency to finance petroleum market, and that would produce similar situation as England experience in middle of 20th century. US Treasury would have less room to set terms of trade for T-bills.
But for short and medium term, it would mean that traders would pay for oil in another currency and then immediately trade that currency for dollars for hedging and investment purposes.
I think if there is interaction with devaluation of the dollar, well, if the US has been pursuing an irresponsible monetary policy, it would be just a coincidence that a move to another currency to peg and trade some of oil market caused some problems. If that hadn’t intervened to aggravate dollar problems, something else would have.
For conspiracy buffs, an Iran oil non-dollar bourse would account for 5% to 7% of world trade in oil. And losing that would put a minor dent in Bush US financial and oil trader constituency’s profits. But that is the only short term effect I can think of.
mulligatawny @ 76
Since they can print money, effectively, no. What could happen is they become powerless in a hyperinflation (Weimar republic) scenario or even a stagnation (Japan) scenario.
Jonathan @ 71
Isn’t that what W has already done? And broken it?
SanderO @ 80
Actually, I’d say that the USA has the USA by the shorthairs and shrub is on the trigger. We did this to ourselves… or shrubco did this to us.
masaccio @ 78
What I want is an end to capital flows between countries that aren’t used for trade or tourism (and maybe some FDI). Too big to go into in a comment, but that’s the real problem with the structure of the world economy today, imo.
The Fed is just prints money and controls the money supply and the cost of money.
The heat up the economy with lots of money and low rates and then cool it down by cutting the money supply and raising interest rates. That’s all they do.
What effect would protectionism have on Mexico? And NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO.
Ian Welsh @ 81
Thanks Ian, I will pass that on.
(again, no responsibility on your end for results).
As you look at non-dollar currencies from relatively transparent economies, which currencies would you expect to continue to fare well against the dollar as our decline slips into (global?) recession?
89 Ian Welsh says September 22nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I want is an end to capital flows between countries that aren’t used for trade or tourism (and maybe some FDI)
—–
That kind of talk got Stiglitz booted out of the World Bank. Watch out!
SnarKassandra @ 83
I’m not sure.
What I know is (a) the U.S. can blow away any opposing military force not mixed in with the civilian population, and (b) every U.S. president knows it.
wesgpc @ 84