Blogs

August 27, 2019

World Prices are Expressed in Dollars, so Isn't Dollar Realignment Pointless?

Question: Most international trade contracts are priced and settled in dollars. Doesn't that make the dollar's exchange rate irrelevant?


Quick Answer: No. International prices for U.S. exports may be expressed in dollars, but they are determined in competition with similar products from other countries at current market exchange rates. If the dollar is overvalued, the price of U.S. products may be too high to compete with similar products from other countries. 


Discussion: A common reason that many Americans think the dollar does not need to be devalued is that the price of made-in-America goods are always expressed in dollars in everything we read.


For made-in-America goods sold within the United States, this makes perfectly good sense because the dollar is the common currency of producers and consumers. However, made-in-America goods sold as exports are also commonly priced in dollars, and this is where the confusion starts.  Before getting into the complexities of crop prices, let's start with a simple example to illustrate the point - hammers.

The Case of Hammers: What is the "world price" of a hammer that you buy at the hardware store? A U.S. producer might produce one for $20, but a producer in China might produce an identical one for RMB 120 including shipment to America. If the exchange rate is RMB 6 per USD, the Chinese and American hammers will compete head-to-head with both priced at $20. That becomes the world price.

But if the exchange rate is RMB 7 per USD, the hammer priced at RMB 120 from China will only cost about $17 in the United States. Therefore, to compete, the U.S. producer must cut his profits or even take a loss so that he can sell his hammer that cost $20 for $17 – the "China Price" in the U.S.

Our imaginary hammers must be priced at $17 or less because this is the world price and hammers will be invoiced and paid for at $17. However, though expres­sed in dollars, the hammer's price in this simple example is actually determined by the RMB price of the hammer produced in China, converted to dollars at the prevailing exchange rate. The prevailing market exchange rate thus plays an important role in determining the world price.

Now let's take a far more important case, agricultural commodities, and see the importance of distinguishing between prices expressed in dollars as opposed to prices determined in U.S. dollars.

The Case of Agricultural Commodities: Many people think that, because the world price of agricultural commodities is always given in dollars, it should make no difference if the dollar itself is overvalued.


Soybeans and wheat are two important, widely exported American crops. In fact, American farmers suffer greatly when world prices of these crops fall. The following graphs show that both crops experienced serious price declines during the first decade of the current century. Some of this reflected fluctuations in soybean and wheat production among countries.

But between half and nearly two-thirds of the declines and subsequent increases in the prices of these two important crops can be explained by movements in the price of the dollar. The dollar's price as measured by its broad trade-weighted average exchange rate index[1] fell from the 170-180 range at the peak of the dollar's overvaluation at the end of the Tech Bubble to about 135 in the aftermath of the Crash of 2008. During this period of falling dollar prices, the prices of both soybeans and wheat rose sharply.

These two charts dramatically demonstrate the importance to America's farmers of moving the dollar back to a fully competitive exchange rate that balances imports and exports. Because the dollar has gone up, the price of their crops has gone down. When the dollar goes down to a more competitive exchange rate, the price of their crops will go up![2]



Conclusion: Although contracts for America's agricultural exports are written and settled in U.S. dollars, the exports themselves must be priced at a level which makes them competitive with exports of the same crops from other countries. Consequently, the higher the price of the dollar, the lower the price that farmers receive.

Good crop prices require a competitive dollar, not the bloated, overpriced dollar that farmers have faced for most of the past 40 years. No wonder the average American farmer is struggling so hard and earning so little.



[1] Note that these figures are an index number series indicating values of the dollar relative to its average value against the currencies of other countries in 1990. These are not exchange rates.
[2] In the two graphs, the right-hand axis showing the price indexes for soybeans and wheat are inverted – higher prices appear towards the bottom and lower prices towards the top of the vertical axis, thus making it easier to see the significant inverse correlation between the price of the dollar and the price at which U.S. farmers can sell their crops at home and abroad.


America Needs a Competitive Dollar - Now!

August 17, 2019

Major Progress on the MAC - Now the Centerpiece of a Bill in the Senate

Dear Friends,

A major milestone has just been reached in the battle to eliminate the U.S. trade deficit, stop the offshoring of U.S. industry, and put millions of Americans to work in well-paying jobs. Legislation for the Market Access Charge (MAC) has just been introduced in the U.S. Senate!

Senators Tammy Baldwin (D) and Josh Hawley (R) have just introduced their bi-partisan Competitive Dollar for Jobs and Prosperity Act (CDJPA). The full text of this act, which is the legislative vehicle for the Market Access Charge (MAC), is now available on the Congress.gov website as Senate Bill S.2357. The Senate press release is available here.

Within hours of the bill's presentation, the nation's news media and other organizations were commenting on the bill. One of the first notes came from the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), a bi-partisan group representing American farmers, ranchers and manufacturers that is strongly supporting the MAC. 

The CPA note was followed closely by coverage from the Washington Post (Lynch), The Hill (Scott of EPI), Barron’s (Klein),  Bloomberg (Pettis of Carnegie), and American Greatness (Bovard).  

The CDJPA has clearly generated a lot of interest and positive, thoughtful commentary from across the political spectrum in a very short time!

With the recent devaluation of China's currency below RMB 7/USD, introduction in the Senate of MAC could not have been more timely. The MAC offers a clear path forward to the goal of eliminating the US trade deficit by moving the US dollar to a fully competitive exchange rate -- one that will make it possible for Americans to earn as much producing exports as they spend on imports. 

Furthermore, the MAC will accomplish this goal in a manner that avoids the fireworks associated with the current trade war, and it will minimize and possibly eliminate the risk of triggering beggar-thy-neighbor currency devaluations and a race to the bottom for global currency values. (Check back in a couple of days for a blog on this important issue.)

The CPA has played a key role in moving the MAC forward to this historic point. We should all be most grateful for their leadership and should support the fine work they are doing across America to help give our fine country the future it deserves. For more information on the CPA, see their website.

The bill’s presentation to the Senate is indeed a major milestone – but only one of many that lie between where we are today and the bill’s ultimate passage. Your support and advice would be most welcome as the process moves forward.

Please share.

John

John R. Hansen, PhD
Former Economic Advisor, The World Bank
Founding Editor, Americans Backing a Competitive Dollar (ABCD)
Advisory Board, Coalition for a Prosperous America
www.abcdNow.blogspot.com
America Needs a Competitive Dollar - Now!

August 14, 2019

Trade Diversion, Tariffs, and Trade Deficits

The following chart from a recent Geo-Graphics blog post highlights beautifully what many have been saying for a long time: The main impact of tariffs is generally trade diversion – imports are diverted from one country to another, but tariffs alone can do little to reduce overall trade deficits.


As the Geo-Graphics blog states:
China … has retaliated [to U.S. tariffs] by pressuring its firms to find alternative [sources of supply], from agricultural goods to oil, helping to increase the U.S. deficit with China to just over two percent of GDP—as the blue line on the above  figure shows. Meanwhile, America’s global trade deficit has expanded by eight percent.
Given that the US trade deficit with China was already increasing sharply before the imposition of tariffs began, and given that existing contracts and problems of finding new sources of supply commonly cause a lag between the imposition of tariffs and changes in trade patterns, we should not read too much into these preliminary results.

Nevertheless, the MAC, unlike tariffs, will make U.S. goods cheaper in addition to making Chinese goods more expensive. Consequently, the MAC will encourage the Chinese to purchase U.S. goods (making the Chinese more dependent on us), while also discouraging U.S. purchases of Chinese goods (making us less dependent on them). The MAC's result is precisely the kind of de-coupling and reduced Sino-dependency for the U.S. that many have been advocating.

Furthermore, because the MAC will keep pushing imports down and exports up until balanced trade is achieved, it will assure the virtual elimination of the US trade deficit, thus making it possible once again for Americans to earn as much producing exports as they spend on imports.

America Needs a Competitive Dollar - Now!