US risks a downhill dollar disaster

Larry Elliott
Monday November 22, 2004
The Guardian

George Bush's foreign policy is simple: don't mess with America. The same,
it appears, applies to economic policy as well. On Friday, the dollar fell
sharply against the euro. That was unsurprising, since the downward lurch
followed comments from Alan Greenspan which - by his own cryptic
standards - were unambiguous.

"It seems persuasive that, given the size of the US current account
deficit, a diminished appetite for adding to dollar balances must occur at
some point," Greenspan said. This was hardly a novel statement for the
Federal Reserve chairman but the timing was interesting. It came on the
eve of a meeting of the G20 - a conclave of developed and developing
nations - in Berlin at which the recent fall in the dollar was a hot
topic.

Moreover, it came three days after John Snow, US treasury secretary,
poured cold water on the idea that the world's central banks might get
together to arrest the dollar's fall. The history of "efforts to impose
non-market valuations on currencies is at best unrewarding and chequered",
he said in London.

Alarmed

Europe got the message. Eurozone policymakers are growing increasingly
alarmed about the fall in the value of the dollar, since it threatens to
choke off exports - the one area of growth in the 12-nation single
currency zone. They would like nothing more than to wade into the foreign
exchanges in concert with the Fed and the central banks of Asia to put a
floor under the greenback, but they know that Washington has no interest
in such a move.

Joaquin Almunia, Europe's monetary affairs commissioner, said last week:
"The more the euro rises, the more voices will start asking for
intervention. It has to be a coordinated effort but it seems that our
friends across the Atlantic aren't interested."

That sums things up rather nicely. There are two reasons why the Bush
administration is not willing to play ball with the Europeans. The first
is that it sees a lower dollar as inevitable given that the US current
account deficit is running at $50bn-plus a month. A lower dollar makes US
exports cheaper and imports dearer.

According to this interpretation, the Americans are now simply bowing to
the inevitable. Stephen Lewis, of Monument Securities, says the markets
have finally lost patience with the laxity of Washington towards the twin
trade and budget deficits, pumped up by cheap money and tax cuts. "The
truth is that the US fiscal and monetary excesses, which have been
essential to keeping the global economy afloat in recent years, are no
longer tolerated in the foreign exchange markets," he said. "The status
quo is not an option. The only question is how the pain of adjustment will
be apportioned."

The second reason is that the Bush administration has neither forgotten
nor forgiven France and Germany for the stance they adopted over Iraq.
Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schröder weren't interested in helping the US
to topple Saddam, and now it's payback time. If the European economies are
suffering as a result of the weak dollar, why should the US care? What's
happening in the currency markets is simply American unilateralism in a
different guise.

In the short term, therefore, the dollar looks like a one-way bet. City
analysts are already talking about it hitting $1.35 against the euro, and
given the tendency of financial markets to overshoot, nobody would be that
surprised if it fell to $1.40 over the coming months. A smooth and steady
decline - which is what Snow is trying to finesse - would do little damage
to the US economy, but it would hit Europe hard.

This might seem perverse, given all the fuss there was when the euro was
falling against the dollar immediately after its launch. Then, however,
the problem was one of credibility for a fledgling currency because the
impact of a weak euro was to boost demand for European goods. With a
strong euro, there will be a direct impact on European exporters. Given
that the latest figures show that Germany and France both grew by only
0.1% in the third quarter, a sharp drop in exports could quite easily push
the eurozone's biggest economies back into recession.

Growth forecasts for the eurozone - already modest - are likely to be
scaled down over the next few months, and budget deficits are likely to
get bigger. A fresh downturn could prove the death knell of the stability
and growth pact, which would be no bad thing, and higher unemployment
would intensify resistance among workers to structural reform of the
eurozone economies.

Washington may have another reason - apart from getting its own back - for
allowing the Europeans to suffer. The US is desperate for the Chinese to
revalue the yuan, but has so far utterly failed to get Beijing to agree to
abandon its dollar peg. The Chinese, for political as well as economic
reasons, are determined to resist American pressure.

Europe - the French, in particular - have influence in China. As one
analyst noted last week, China has never been censured by the United
Nations security council - even over the massacre in Tiananmen Square -
because Paris has always vetoed any such moves. France, so the theory
goes, might have more success in persuading the Chinese to revalue than
the Americans have had.

It has to be acknowledged, however, that you would be hard pressed to find
a financial analyst who believes Snow is capable of this level of
sophistication. After his performance in London last week, one said: "I
would sell the currency of any country of which he was the finance
minister." The likelihood is that even if the Americans were to use the
Europeans as a proxy, the Chinese would still resist. Certainly, all the
evidence is that China's central bank is still intervening aggressively to
keep its currency stable. Without that action, the dollar's fall in recent
days would have been even more rapid.

Talking the dollar down is easy enough, but the strategy depends on a
smooth descent that boosts US growth without scaring off the overseas
investors who fund the twin deficits. Should it turn into a disorderly
rout then there would inevitably be a spillover into other markets and
into the real economy.

Washington, in other words, is relying on a soft landing for the dollar.
History shows, however, that there is a better than even chance of this
process ending in a full-scale crisis, as it did in the mid 1980s, when
the weakness of the dollar culminated in the stock market crash of 1987.
And that, of course, was at a time when the G7 was acting in concert. As
Lewis said, the crisis could be triggered by a seemingly minor event, as
when the Nigerians precipitated the run on the pound in 1976 by switching
into dollars.

The US is happy to go it alone for now, since this is the forex equivalent
of the quick push to Baghdad. Life is likely to get tougher later - and
when it does, multilateralism will have its attractions.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to