This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
10 Reasons Why Reserve Currency Status Is An "Exorbitant Burden"
Excerpted from Michael Pettis' China Financial Markets blog,
This may be excessively optimistic on my part, but there seems to be a slow change in the way the world thinks about reserve currencies. For a long time it was widely accepted that reserve currency status granted the provider of the currency substantial economic benefits. For much of my career I pretty much accepted the consensus, but as I started to think more seriously about the components of the balance of payments, I realized that when Keynes at Bretton Woods argued for a hybrid currency (which he called “bancor”) to serve as the global reserve currency, and not the US dollar, he wasn’t only expressing his dismay about the transfer of international status from Britain to the US. Keynes recognized that once the reserve currency was no longer constrained by gold convertibility, the world needed an alternative way to prevent destabilizing imbalances from developing.
This should have become obvious to me much earlier except that, like most people, I never really worked through the fairly basic arithmetic that shows why these imbalances must develop.
...
Kenneth Austin, a Treasury Department economist ecently published what I think is a very important paper in the latest issue of The Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (“Systemic equilibrium in a Bretton Woods II-type international monetary system”) which explains why currency war is really a battle over where to assign excess savings, and must lead to unemployment in the country whose assets are most assiduously collected by central banks. You need to subscribe to read the full article, but the abstract tells you what Austin set out to prove:
This article develops a model, based on balance-of-payment identities, of the new international monetary system (Bretton Woods II or BWII). It shows that if some countries engineer current account surpluses by exchange-rate manipulation and foreign-reserve accumulation, the burden of the corresponding current account deficits falls first on the reserve-issuing countries, unless those savings inflows are diverted elsewhere. The imbalances of the BWII period result from official, policy-driven reserve flows, rather than market-determined, private savings flows. The struggle to divert these unwanted financing flows is at the root of the “currency wars” within the system.
While recognition of the exorbitant burden had been growing in recent years, Austin’s article focused a lot of new attention on this topic, and it seems that finally Keynes’s insight is attracting the kind of acceptance that might eventually modify future policy. In August in a much-commented-upon article in the New York Times, Jared Bernstein explained one of the corollaries of Austin’s model, pointing out that
Americans alone do not determine their rates of savings and consumption. Think of an open, global economy as having one huge, aggregated amount of income that must all be consumed, saved or invested. That means individual countries must adjust to one another. If trade-surplus countries suppress their own consumption and use their excess savings to accumulate dollars, trade-deficit countries must absorb those excess savings to finance their excess consumption or investment.
Note that as long as the dollar is the reserve currency, America’s trade deficit can worsen even when we’re not directly in on the trade. Suppose South Korea runs a surplus with Brazil. By storing its surplus export revenues in Treasury bonds, South Korea nudges up the relative value of the dollar against our competitors’ currencies, and our trade deficit increases, even though the original transaction had nothing to do with the United States.
This is a key and much misunderstood point. The inexorable balance of payments accounting mechanisms make Bernstein’s claim – that “Americans alone do not determine their rates of savings“ – both necessarily true and joltingly shocking to most economists.
...
Because I have written about this topic so many times before, I won’t make the full argument, but it might be useful to remind readers why reserve currency status is an exorbitant burden:
1. Because for a variety of reasons dollars are the preferred form of foreign currency reserve, or of any “risk-off” kind of trade, in order to combat uncertainty or to increase domestic employment, foreign countries are most likely to accumulate reserves by buying US government bonds or other liquid, low-risk US dollar assets. This reserve accumulation might be formally classified as reserves, and accumulated by the central bank, or other institutions, some of which are referred to as sovereign wealth funds, might accumulate these reserves.
2. When it is the private sector that accumulates dollars, there are likely to be too many potential reasons and consequences to try to summarize them. But when governments systematically accumulate huge amounts of dollars, the reason has almost always to do with creating or expanding the trade or current account surplus, which is just the obverse of expanding the export of net domestic savings. The mechanism involves suppressing domestic consumption by taxing households (usually indirectly in the form of currency undervaluation, financial repression, anti-labor legislation, etc) and subsidizing exports. These mechanisms force up the savings rate while making exports more competitive on the international markets, the net effect of which is to reduce domestic unemployment.
3. If these savings are exported to the US, for example if the central bank buys US government bonds, the US must run the corresponding trade deficit. This has nothing to do with whether the exports go to the US or to some other country. It is astonishing how few economists understand this, but if Country A is a net exporter of savings to Country B, the former must run a surplus and the latter a deficit, even if the two do not trade together at all.
4. Does the US benefit from importing foreign savings and foreign investment? The local state or country that receives the investment may benefit, but any country only benefits from importing foreign capital under one or more of three conditions:
- When a country has high levels of potentially productive investment but domestic savings are insufficient to satisfy domestic demand, the country benefits from importing foreign capital to fund these productive investments. As long as the total economic return on these investments, including all externalities, exceeds the cost of the foreign borrowing, or is funded by foreign equity investment, foreign capital inflows are wealth creating for the recipient.
- When during a crisis major borrowers, including the government, face severe short-term liquidity constraints and domestic capital is, for whatever reason, unwilling or unable to fund maturing debt, foreign capital inflows can help bridge the gap. In this case foreign investors fulfill the classic role of a central bank, lending to creditworthy borrowers or against acceptable assets in order to prevent a liquidity crisis from forcing the borrower into insolvency.
- For countries that lack technology, that have weak business and management institutions, or that suffer from low levels of social capital, foreign investment can bring with it the technology and management skills that allow the economy
In the days of the gold standard it was possible for an advanced economy like the US to suffer from the first condition. Today it suffers from none of the three conditions.
5. Let me explain why it does not suffer from the first. If the US is a net recipient of capital inflows, it is simply taking the other side of the accounting identity I listed earlier: an excess of savings over investment in one part of an economic system requires an excess of investment over savings in another part. If Japan, with its undervalued currency and repressed interest rates, forced its savings rate up above its already high investment rate in the 1980s, and used the excess to by US government bonds, the US had to see its investment rate exceed its savings rate. There are only three ways in which the US can increase investment relative to savings, or reduce savings relative to investment:
- It can increase productive investment.
- It can increase nonproductive investment, especially in real estate, as foreign inflows unleash a stock and real estate market bubble, or it can increase consumption, as these bubbles unleash a wealth effect which causes ordinary Americans to increase their consumption relative to their income (i.e. reduce their savings). In either case US debt rises faster than US debt-servicing capacity.
- Unemployment can rise as the expansion in imports relative to exports causes American factories to cut back on production and fire workers. Of course fired workers no longer produce but they still must consume, so the savings rate drops.
These are the only three possible outcomes. If productive investment in the US has been constrained by the lack of American access to capital – domestic or foreign – as was the case in the 19th Century, it is possible that reserve currency status increases American employment and wealth creation. But in advanced economies productive investment is never constrained by lack of capital. It is almost always the case, in other words, that an increase in net foreign investment to the US (and to most advanced countries by the way) must result in some combination of a speculative investment boom, a consumption boom or a rise in unemployment. What typically happens is that in the beginning we get the first two, until debt levels become too high, after which we get the third.
6. Bryan Riley and William Wilson, two economists from the Heritage Foundation, in their response to Jared Bernstein’s article, provided their reasons in a blog entry last month for arguing that in principle the benefits of use of the dollar as the dominant reserve currency exceed the cost to the US of this higher debt or higher unemployment. Their piece was fairly short, and so I don’t want to suggest that I am representing the full scope of their disagreement, but they suggest that the benefits are:
Seignorage. The largest benefit has been “seignorage,” which means that foreigners must sell real goods and services or ownership of the real capital stock to add to their dollar reserve holdings.
Low Interest Rates. The U.S. has been able to run up huge debts denominated in its own currency at low interest rates. The dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency reduces U.S. interest rates because foreign investors like to invest in the relatively safe U.S. economy.
Lower Transaction Costs. U.S. traders, borrowers, and lenders face lower transaction costs and foreign exchange risk when they can deal in their own currency. It’s easier to do business with people who take dollars.
Power and Prestige. The dollar’s dominant reserve status gives the United States political power and prestige. Britain’s loss of reserve-currency status in the 20th century coincided with its loss of political and military preeminence.
7. I think this is a pretty fair summary of the arguments generally used in favor of supporting “king dollar”, and I think they are worth addressing specifically. To address seniorage, the benefits of seniorage are really what the whole debate is about. If the US believes that it is important for the global trading system that the US produce enough reserves for a growing global economy, and if the global trading system benefits the US, it should do so. As long as the growth in global reserves is less than the growth in the US economy, the associated rise in debt is sustainable.
But, and this is the Triffin Dilemma, if reserves and other government accumulation of US assets grow faster than US GDP, seniorage results in an unsustainable increase in US debt (or unemployment). In my previous blog entry I argued that the former may have been the case in the 1950s, but as global GDP growth exceeds US GDP growth, as more countries and regions join in the global trading system, and as there is convergence between advanced and backward economies, the growth in US debt needed to capture these benefits either becomes unsustainable or, to restrain the growth in debt, requires a rise in US unemployment.
8. To address lower interest rates, I showed in my book why foreign purchases of US government bonds do not lower US interest rates. At best they simply distort the US yield curve and in the long term even raise them. I will not repeat the full explanation here, especially as there is a bit of circularity in the argument and counterargument: If the exorbitant burden causes unemployment to rise, as Austin and Bernstein argue, fiscal revenues must drop and fiscal expenses must rise, causing total government debt to rise by the same, or more (because most of us would agree that demand created by government spending is less efficient than demand created by trade) than the capital inflows available to fund government debt. So the additional supply of funding is only equal to or less than the additional demand for funding. But if you think unemployment doesn’t rise, as Riley and Wilson might argue (I am not sure if they do or don’t), then total debt doesn’t rise, or it doesn’t rise much, and the additional funding should cause interest rates to decline. In order to keep this short I would suggest simply that we consider the following.
The larger a country’s foreign current account deficit, by definition the greater the inflow of foreign money to purchase its assets, mainly government bonds in the case of the US and many other countries. The higher a country’s current account surplus, by definition the greater the outflow of money to purchase foreign assets, and the less domestic money available to purchase domestic assets. Is it reasonable, then, to assume that the larger a country’s current account deficit, the lower its interest rates, while the larger a country’s current account surplus, the higher its interest rates? This is what the low-interest-rate argument implies.
9. To address transaction costs, while it is true that trading in US dollars reduces transaction costs for American businesses, it is hard to believe that these transaction costs are not priced into the imports and exports of their foreign counterparts. More importantly, it is not clear that reducing central bank purchases of US government bonds will cause transaction costs to rise. The vast bulk of trading volume does not consist of central bank purchases of US government bonds. It is trade and investment related. If foreign central banks were limited in their ability to stockpile US dollar reserves, foreign exchange transaction costs would barely budge.
10. To address power and prestige, while it may be true that Britain’s loss of reserve-currency status in the 20th century coincided roughly with its loss of political and military preeminence, I think it is incorrect to imply that Britain lost power and prestige after the Great War mainly or even partly because sterling lost its status as the dominant reserve currency (which in fact really occurred some time in the 1930s and 1940s). It was the destruction, during the first two years of the Great War, of London’s role in trade finance (which formed the vast bulk of international lending at the time, with nearly the entire trade finance market moving to neutral Amsterdam and New York), followed by its aerial pounding in WW2, that caused London to lose its financial pre-eminence.
Even today it is hard to associate London’s current role as either the first or second most important financial center in the world, depending on how you measure it, with the status of sterling as a reserve currency. What is more, the US dollar only became the pre-eminent reserve currency in the 1930s and 1940s, but the US was the leading economic power – nominally, per capita, and technologically – by the 1870s. I would argue that US power and prestige probably has more to do with the size and dynamism of its economy, with the creativity of Hollywood and New York in entertainment and fashion, with technological innovation in San Francisco, Boston, New York, Austin, and elsewhere, with its composers and artists in New York, San Francisco, and elsewhere, with its overwhelming military superiority, with its universally-valued ideal of ethnic inclusiveness and individualism, with its Ivy League and elite universities, with its think tanks, with its astonishing scientists, and with a host of other factors more important than the currency denomination of central bank reserves.
* * *
As Bernstein concluded,
what was once a privilege is now a burden, undermining job growth, pumping up budget and trade deficits and inflating financial bubbles. To get the American economy on track, the government needs to drop its commitment to maintaining the dollar’s reserve-currency status.
The sturm und drang is rising for the de-dollarization of the world... and maybe that's just what they want?
- 11968 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


LOL. Typical academic
Military, wars, massacres are never mentioned in the article
What a waster
Professor Pettis teaches at the University of Beijing where he lives.
Although his essays are encouraged by the powers that be he has to be a little careful.
Always good stuff and well worth reading.
Yes I know.
Zero mention of military power is unjustifiable, still
So basically the writer just discovered Triffins Dilemma? Lol
Hence Pentagon becoming world police, due to Triffin's dilemma
Everything is a trade
World is receiving a service: World Police, hence world will accept wipeouts periodically, contingent upon Pentagon actually providing the service, unlike now that Obama is trying to dismantle Pentagon and have bank lobby rule in eternity. He has caused lot's of damage and revenge will be merciless, history says
"Military, wars, massacres are never mentioned in the article"
Yup, the burdens of the theft and managing the theft, wars, killing, poverty, and misery, are never mentioned.
An American, not US subject.
"Governmnet, being nothing more than a criminal enterprise of theft and violence, can only produce 4 things: Poeverty, misery, death and lies. All evidence to the contrary is nothing more than 'shroom unicorns'."
World history for 4000 years of documented history and nothing will change for the next 4000
The Colonists, American people, stood up in the late 18th. century and made a change. A change that stood until December 23, 1913. 140 years of freedom produced one of the wealthiest and most comfortable societies on earth. 100 years of tyranny under the banksters has produced nothing but financial and moral bankruptcy.
The East Germans and many others starting in 1989 stood and got change.
Unfortunately, too many want the people of government to change, when it is really them, and their desire to obey, that is the root cause of the tyranny of government.
We saw freedom, true unadulterated freedom, at the Bundy ranch, and at Waco.
An American, not US subject.
"Tyranny is not being beaten by a man with a hammer. Tyranny is standing still for the beating."
What a whiny little bitch. 'Dear Diary, boo-hoo, it's so tough being me, the other currencies don't understand me AT ALL, they don't know how hard it is being this fabulous, after all it's for them that I'm beautiful and awesome and a douche.' Bitch.
:-)
So....you have no problems with a fractional reserve banking system, just the burden of a reserve currency status? Clearly a problem seeing the forest from the trees.
Post 1: King Dollar
Post 2: Dollar Ready to Die
Post 3: China Massive Slowdown
Post 4: Yuan New Reserve Currency
Post 5: China Real Estate Meltdown
Post 6: King Dollar
Post 7: Putin Strong, Ruble Good
Post 8: Putin Gets Hemmorhoids and Ruble Crashes
Post 9: China Shadow Banking Very Troubling
Post 10: Obama Sucks (this message is consistent)
Post 11: Euro and Euro Economies Suck (pretty consistent too)
TLDR
Sucks being number one, nowhere to go but down.
Why does ZH never talk about this aspect of the Euro economy : the euro savings GLUT :
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/10/06/the-euroglut-could-hamme...
lets talk euro sluts first
Advantages are not listed however, at least advantages to a government that immorally wants to control all other countries.. 1 Money can be printed endlessly to finance military adventures. 2 Other currencies can be manipulated if you have a bottomless pit of money. 3. Inflation is exported to other countries. 4 Sanctions would be far less effective if the $US was not the reserve currency.
The ability to never repay your debts a burden? What a load of shit. Though not surprising from the guy who is always talking up the 'China bubble'.
Please tell Congress. Debt financing the government deficit is about to stop. The 1981 deficit has been rolling for over 30 years will soon be derailed? Congress is addicted to debt dinanced spending.
Not as much as Wall Street is.
If not being the reserve currency of the world is so great then why are there so many third world countries and why have we been the undisputed economic leader of the world despite this burden
Because we ditched the gold standard and got away with it?
Just to clarify should read: Because we ditched the Gold Standard and are still getting away with it.
"they"
Sounds like a conspiracy theorist or one of those damned truthers
Someone sic Cameron on him
Maybe he'll get lucky and they'll water board him with wine in Cameron's wine cellar. Which coincidentally doubles as a dungeon on sacrifice night
Lower interest rates also mean a lower cost of capital (debt and equity) for the entire economy. For the US, with a capital stock of over $50 Trillion, this is not a bad thing. I fail to see how Mr. Pettis has carried his argument.
Surely he must understand that economics is about the "margin". A whole lot more investment takes place in the US because of our "exorbitant privilege" than otherwise would. The canard about higher unemployment is just silly. With less investment/capital stock, there would be less activity, less demand for labor, lower marginal labor productivity and lower wages.
In any case, are we to assume that the people accumulating the reserves are irrational? Accumulation of dollar reserves has stabilized their domestic interest rates and lowered their cost of capital too. Anyway, they are now diversifying their reserves and seeking non-dollar trade deals. So they will tell us when they've had enough.
"...once the reserve currency was no longer constrained by gold convertibility, the world needed an alternative way to prevent destabilizing imbalances from developing." -Pettis
"The excellence of the gold standard is to be seen in the fact that it renders the determination of the monetary units purchasing power independent of the policies of governments and political parties." -Mises
I wouldn't worry yourself too much about the make believe burdens of the world reserve currency Prof Pettis. We aren't gonna have the luxury of that fabled problem for much longer, we'll be too busy begging for a place at the global monetary re-set table.
Dr. Gold will be at the head of the table of course, passing out the breadsticks.
The REAL Constitutional reserve currency - SILVER - would not be a burden at true fair value.
One Eagle would buy a weeks worth of groceries.
Yeah, what a burden. Having the cheapest oil on the planet and being able to buy things without selling something in return. Why can't I have a burden like that? One day I'll just refuse to go work, and I will start writing checks to pay for things. The checks have nothing backing them, but they work like money as long as nobody tries cashing them.
Couldn't have said it better myself. US credit is 'money good' for as long as nobody tries cashing in. Until then, the idea of a burden is preposterous.
Bernie Madoff hardly had a burden, until everybody cashed in. Then he was fucked.
It will be a burden to someone...eventually. Maybe not us but our children or our children's children?
Ah, how funny.
Right about the time the owners of the world's resources and production (not US) are gathering steam to knock us off our high horse, along comes some establishment guys to pre-sell the coming destruction.
Wonder what "burden" will be relieved when our factories - in Asis - decide the new value of our fiat is a whole helluva lot less than today?
OH THE JOY! We will be buying stuff made in, well, nowhere.
Tools, fools and thieves have stolen our childrens' futures and are busy getting ready to profit while WE are put in our place.
The looks on the faces of those that still believe the bs will be priceless.
Applesauce and mac 'n cheese won't be though.
Typical neo-keynesian blabber:
"Keynes recognized..." - uh sure, he knew it all
"once the reserve currency was no longer constrained by gold convertibility" wait -- so he already knew at Bretton Woods that it would ultimately happen??
"excess savings" - nuff said
"If these [foreign] savings are exported to the US, for example if the central bank buys US government bonds, the US must run the corresponding trade deficit." [fuckin' implied statist world view]
Yeah, but what happens next? Can it go on forever because trade deficits don't matter??
As clearly pointed out here on the thread : Keynes recognised the Triffin Dilemma imposed on the BW construct by his American counterpart White; when they-- the US admin.-- tore down his Bancor proposal and went whole hog with Greenback exorbitance.
That is clearly documented in History.
Bancor was supposed to avoid that up coming, inevitable burden on ONE nation-state's economy.
But the US PTB wanted it that way !
The argument holds only if the currency is Zero-sum .
See http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2008/12/most-influential-human-in-last-tho...
See http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2005/12/jethro-tull-super-hero.html
If massive wealth creation or QE type money creation , then there are significant advantages to being the world reserve currency .
The country with the Reserve Currency is inside the decision loop . Critical in conflict . Ask the Carthaginians .
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-limited-war.html
See http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2014/01/plunge-protectors.html
The USA can easily end up in the following scenario :
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2005/11/birdflu-survival-update-5.html
Reserve currency status is especially important in denial to the competitor .
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2007/05/suez-and-canal.html
http://andreswhy.blogspot.com/2012/08/rinderpest-and-boer-war.html
The US has run up a $5.4 trillion debt to the rest of the world and NOW it is getting second thoughts about its exorbitant privilege of issuing the World's reserve currency. Typical..
The folks at .gov meant to do that!
Funny how history changes every time you look at it. Is that revisionist, hindsight, or evolution?
You decide...
A Keynesian writing for ZeroHedge?
Where the fuck am I?
Gold- ha!... a quaint and archaic symbol at best.
For months the major world currencies have traded in a narrow range as if held in limbo by some great force. This has allowed people to think we were on sound footing as central banks across the world continued to print and pump out money chasing the "ever elusive growth" that always appears to be just around the corner. Recently some currencies have made multi-year highs or lows depending on the match-up .
Because of weak demand for goods and most of this money flowing into intangible investments inflation has not been a major problem, but the seeds for its future growth have been planted everywhere. John Maynard Keynes said By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.
While there are not many Bond Vigilantes there are a slew of Currency Vigilantes and they are ready to make their presence known. Weakness in the value of the Yen, Pound, and Euro must not go unnoticed. More on why this may be a signal that currency trading is about to get very wild in the article below. Please note, this may also be sending a signal that the whole system is unstable and the stock market is about to drop like a stone.
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/09/caution-alert-currencies-may-get-wild.html
Not surprising since the Central Banks issuing those currencies have permanent currency swap arrangements. The range will be what is permitted by the Central Banks issuing those currencies.
Making a virtue of a necessity. The world is ready to dethrone the US$ and perhaps the other players are coordinating with the US to ensure that the transtition is smooth. IMF SDR as the new reserve currency will require US consent because US holds a practical veto at IMF. How can the US explain to its people voluntarily giving up its exorbitant privilege to maintain which it invaded and destroyed countries? By claiming that the privilege is actually a burden and blaming it for the current economic situation in the US, without explicitly claiming that giving it up will bring some benefits (because there will be no benefits, at least not immediately).