Don’t Blame Rubin

Things are back to normal: I disagree with Dean Baker. But there is still something not quite right. Usually he is the one more critical of the Bush administration. This time he seems to be the one defending Bush.

Baker argues that the New York Times is wrong to blame Bush’s budget deficits for the high level of US foreign indebtedness and its potentially destabilizing effects. The problem, he argues, is the strong dollar, and this, he contends, is not the result of the budget deficit. If any American is to blame, he suggests that (former Treasury Secretary) Robert Rubin is the man.

He’s wrong. (Ah, yes, that feels natural.) First of all, he’s wrong because Treasury policy has little to do with the value of the dollar anyhow. Granted, there are occasions when a strategically placed gust of hot air from the mouth of the Treasury Secretary can shift the winds of a volatile foreign exchange market, particularly if the gust is supported by well-timed intervention and cooperation from foreign authorities. And granted, the Treasury can exert a slight modicum of influence over monetary policy, at least in the short run, when it comes to the value of the dollar. All these mechanisms might have been operative in 1985, when the dollar made a dramatic shift in direction after the Plaza Accord. But ultimately, the subsequent weakness of the dollar depended on a loose monetary policy occasioned by the sudden drop in oil prices in early 1986, which reduced the inflation rate while causing a regional recession in the Southwest. (Interestingly, the rest of us seemed not to notice that recession. Here in the Northeast, I only became aware of it several years later when I was studying regional data for my thesis.) In any case, the Plaza Accord seems to be a unique event. There is no analogous reverse event in the 1990s that caused the dollar to strengthen. It was strong not because of US Treasury policy but because the US was perceived as a good place to invest.

Second, he’s wrong because a strong dollar in the 1990s was a good idea, whereas a strong dollar (or even a not-weak-enough dollar) today is a bad idea. In the 1990s, the capital inflows supporting the strong dollar were largely going to private investment (directly or indirectly). A weak dollar in those days would have either dried up that foreign investment or caused our economy to overheat. Today, the capital inflows are largely going to consumption. A weak dollar today, properly engineered, could be associated with a higher savings rate rather than less investment.

Finally, he’s wrong because the budget deficit is the reason for the strong dollar. If the US were not trying to borrow so much, dollar interest rates would be lower (relative to other currencies), there would be less incentive to hold dollars, and the value of the dollar would be lower against those currencies that don’t peg to it (including that of our largest historical trading partner, the UK). (I’m glossing over a lot of details here, but that’s the gist of it.)

When I think about what might happen (or what might have happened) to the world economy without the US deficit (and the strong dollar), though, I wonder if it’s really such a bad thing. But that’s a big topic, and this post is already too long.