En relaci�n a [CrashList] Followup on the dollar and the US def,
el 29 Aug 00, a las 13:41, Julien Pierrehumbert dijo:
> Yesterday I heard on CNBC that it seems that
> the folks at the US Federal Reserve ... are ... saying that the
> dollar would have to fall by as much as 40% to balance the deficit. Given the
> recent appreciation of the dollar and the differentials in interest
> rates between the US and other core countries (long- term and with
> free capital markets, higher interest rates SHOULD indicate a weaker
> currency), this number is not that extraordinary but still... I
> thought that the Fed role was to defend the dollar and make sure that
> such destabilizing events don't happen. Are they (or a minority group
> in that institution) hinting that the current situation is highly
> unsustainable and can only get worse if they try to perpetuate it and
> that they'll have to give up and let their own economy be
> "structurally adjusted"?
An interesting bit of info, indeed. My only comment would be that in
the case of the USA, a devaluation would not of necessity mean a
"structural adjustment". The obvious aim is to boost US exports and
sweep away exports from a now menacingly more organized European
Union (not that I like the way you are getting organized, Julien et
al., but the fact remains). I believe that both this move, and others
that try to ensure a free colonial hunting ground in Latin America
(NAFTA, dollarizations) are either acting or under consideration in
order to get prepared for the next crash. We are not the only ones
who foresee it. A cheaper dollar would not be attractive for foreign
investors in the financial bubble, but maybe the pundits at the Fed
have already made up their minds, have come to the conclusion that he
bubble will burst soon, and are trying to carve out a quiet bend in
the roaring creek for the USA.
>
> Note: While re-reading this, I realized that there might be a
> vocabulary confusion. The balance of payments is by definition in
> balance and Mark used the phrase here to talk about the current
> account deficit, right?
"By definition in balance"? What do you mean? Argentinian balance of
paymets has been in deficit, consistently, for year after year since
the neoliberals took helm. If you consider payments DUE as a part of
the balance, that is another story, but then you are mixing potatoes
with oranges, don't you think so? (yes, I know, you don't).
;)
.
N�stor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
