Live data from Hacker News

The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

lynalden.com

211–220 of 367 posts

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> More aggressive lockdowns initially could have limited the initial spread, and from there reasonable precautions could have been effective. This is what Australia did. Except that some of the measures they used may have been unconstitutional in the US, and Australia is an island. The US has 4500 miles of porous borders with other countries. And covid spreads asymptomatically, so the only way to get to where Austral…

40 people coming from Mexico is highly unlikely to lead to 230,000 US cases/day. It may be inaccurate news, but calling it fake is needlessly hyperbolic. The contention isn't that overall funding was cut, it's that certain groups within the CDC saw significant cuts, and those cuts reduced readiness. https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN21C3N5 Regardless of whether Trump's missteps were politicized, they were…

> 40 people coming from Mexico is highly unlikely to lead to 230,000 US cases/day.

Contagions have exponential growth. 40 people coming from Mexico after you've lifted the lockdowns means you need to continue them to keep the 40 from turning into a thousand and then hundreds of thousands. Which means lockdowns of the severity Australia used are useless here because you can never get below the floor necessary to lift them again.

> The contention isn't that overall funding was cut, it's that certain groups within the CDC saw significant cuts, and those cuts reduced readiness.

The problem with this kind of claim is that it's always the case. Priorities shift, staff gets reassigned etc. Which means that of the 1000 different units, 700 of which grew and 300 of which shrank, you'll be able to find in the list that shrank something that sounds like it might have helped against a given problem. It's just cherry picking.

> Regardless of whether Trump's missteps were politicized, they were still missteps. Doubling down on something after someone calls you out doesn't make them responsible for your actions.

The point is that they weren't missteps. Calling out someone for not actually doing something wrong in order to stir up controversy and ratings and politicize a public health issue is contemptible. Defending yourself against a baseless personal attack is not.

The problem, which CNN should have been able to predict, is that if you politicize an issue, people take sides, even if there was never any reasoned disagreement to be had. But maybe they did predict it and did it anyway, so that when less savvy political opponents predictably started making less supportable claims, it would give the instigators something to shoot down and mount on their wall. Even if people died.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Bitcoin and I disagree with Alden on that in investment. I am also not a fan of precious metals. I currently have the majority of my portfolio in stocks in Australia, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland; in residential real estate, and in puts on overvalued tech stocks and TLT.

You're shorting TLT? The Fed is on the other side of that bet, I dare not go against the Fed.

Yeah, that position was the mistake I mentioned in my first post. The bias ask spread is so large that it it painful to exit it though. And the Fed may be forced to back off if inflation kicks up further, we will see.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#213
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like Bitcoin and I disagree with Alden on that in investment. I am also not a fan of precious metals. I currently have the majority of my portfolio in stocks in Australia, Sweden, Japan, Switzerland; in residential real estate, and in puts on overvalued tech stocks and TLT.

What’s wrong with Bitcoin?

If legislation came against it, it would have it's value damaged. No one seems to use it for actual transactions. It uses enormous amounts of electricity.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effects of inflation are neither instantaneous nor uniformly distributed. Those who obtain the new money first are able to spend it before prices have had time to adjust. As that new money propagates, the prices of the relevant goods and services are bid up. As such, inflation gives an economic advantage to those who receive the new money sooner, and the consequent higher prices harm those further down the flow.…

The rich (particularly banks) are always going to game any system, so saying anything is unworkable because the rich can partially game it is defeatism. If we use UBI to inflate the currency, everyone gets the same chance to use uninflated funds, which ends up benefitting those with less. If we inflate via UBI, those on fixed incomes wouldn't be hurt unless it was a fat fixed income, in which case it's disingenuous t…

> so saying anything is unworkable because the rich can partially game it is defeatism

Thankfully I wasn't saying that. I was disagreeing with your claim that "[inflation] hurts you in direct proportion to how well off you are", arguing instead that:

1. inflation benefits those earlier in the flow of new money, and

2. at present, that new money enters the economy via banks, etc.

> If we use UBI to inflate the currency...

Indeed, this depends on #1 above: change how new money enters and propagates through the economy and you change the wealth transfer effects.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oil is a great example because oil is truly a global commodity. The demand for oil exists from all 196 countries of the world. If USD devalues too much (but is still reserve currency), other countries will become richer aka, they can buy more dollars for fewer of their own fiats. Which means they can import more oil by converting more and more of their fiat to dollars. Which means demand for oil internationally will…

A 10% drop in currency would in your example, assuming no cost of shipping oil, US would go from 3.00 to 3.30 at 20% drop would mean 3.60 and even a US currency drop of 40% only gets you to $4.20. The data on trade indicates that countries that cheat on trade have epic growth rates and countries that do the "free trade" have close to zero growth or even declines. The data indicates local manufacturing has synergistic…

I wish prices were directly proportional to value of currency. But it isn't.

In the oil price example, drop in value of USD could cause prices of oil to increase (by how much? We don't know. There are entire commodities industries who hire quants to figure this out every day).

Assuming price of oil increases by 10%, price of chicken feed would increase by a%, causing an increase in price of chicken by b%, causing an increase in price of shipping chicken from farm to factory by 10%+a%+b%, the factory whose workers need higher wages now (by a total of c%) because of higher cost of living, factory will now have to sell their chicken for 10%+a%+b%+c% to a shipper who will need to pay another 10% who will pass this cost on to McDonalds who will have to pay 10+a+b+c+10 to get a chicken patty.

The dollar menu suddenly become a $5 menu.

As contrived as this example may sound, this is the reality in many "emerging" markets and smaller developed markets. We are so oblivious to real inflation and price fluctuations simply because we are used to getting stuff for cheap from whereever it is available because we can import any time. No shortages for any industry or any consumers here.

While I agree that having healthy domestic manufacturing is good, we need to be careful what we wish for because losing the reserve currency status is the last option of them all. It's truly devastating and you only need ask United Kingdom and how they lived for decades with rationing in order to pay debts and earn foreign reserves.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla is trying to do exactly what you describe. Build "the machine that builds the machine", as Elon Musk would say. I agree with you that trying to compete on low-cost, low-margin is a race to the bottom. We could conceivably bring manufacturing of iPhones back to America. I would also imagine that manufacturing of silicon is largely automated, so the US could try to build the best fabs.

Tesla has done some reverse Chinese equity investment swap thing and is now at least somewhat a Chinese company building manufacturing capacity and innovation in EVs. Musk is a lot of things, and one thing is clear: he’s an opportunist more than a US economic nationalist. He will not be the saviour of American industry.

The number of powerful economic nationalists in US history can be counted - if the US is lucky - on one hand.

Assuming that the goal is saving the American industry (whatever that means) - if the plan is 'good people will save it' then failure is already baked in. That plan never works. The plan should be 'whoever saves it will become fabulously and disgustingly wealthy' - then greedy opportunists will save it for you and people can go protest about how greedy they are.

Relying on good people to act is dicey. Relying on greedy people to act is a safe path.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade. But I guess since what you want is inflation that is one way to get it, tho it will not be 6% but closer to 30%. Yield curve control has not worked for anyone, it is a death spiral that results in zombie economies, at best.

> Banning foreign investment will force them to dump dollars and treasury bonds and will accelerate the development of an alternative to it for international trade. How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets? > it will not be 6% but closer to 30 Cite and example where a country did not default/print money for their debt payments and inflation w…

> How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?

Their wage-dollars will now buy less stuff.

> Cite and example where a country did not default/print money for their debt payments and inflation went to 30%

The US has the world reserve fiat currency, so there are no examples because a fiat reserve currency has never existed before, but we know hyperinflation is a likely outcome. Now, from the experience we do have, ~30% inflation like in the 70s is the best we can hope for. A zombie economy like japan's would frankly be fantastic given the conditions.

>How does this harm a working class American that derives all of their income from working wages as opposed to assets?

Their wage-dollars will now buy less stuff.

> Lastly, address how any of the above prevents an increase in manufacturing jobs, which was the intent of the measures originally listed.

Don't worry, americans will have plenty of $1/hour manufacturing jobs like asians do now (or the nominal equivalente to $1 in a hyper-inflationary world). The US doesn't have the technical capacity or workforce to compete in high paying manufacturing any more and will take decades of pain to build.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#218
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy will become much cheaper in the future. Every time a new solar cell improvement happens, your money would be worth less. Having those disruptions baked into your currency would make it almost useless.

Nope it will not be rendered useless. 1) Price of the energy when you pay for it only grows over time. Short disruptions are possible but overall trend persists. 2) More energy also correlates to more goods produced so unless artificially manipulated the ratio should stay more or less the same. 3) All major currencies undergo inflation so even if energy becomes more plentiful there is nothing really new here

(2) actually remains constant. If you use energy to pay for energy, then one unit always costs one unit.

But if the world energy production doubles, do you think that scarce resources cost the same? Prices of e.g. concert tickets or art pieces will adjust.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Default is another option. Inflation hurts everybody. Cutting spending is the only way to start repairing the economy for the long term. Government consumes 31% of the fruit of our labor. Money that could be left in the hands of people to drive the economy.

The beauty of inflation is that it hurts you in direct proportion to how well off you are, and it can't be dodged (i.e. it's like a wealth tax, only actually achievable). We could drive inflation while also ameliorating a lot of the pain it would cause by implementing UBI (in fact, I'm pretty sure big deficit spending is the only way UBI will ever happen). Defaulting would screw a lot of institutional pension investo…

Actually, all you have to do to dodge inflation is dump your idle currency into literally anything else. Rich people hang in the circles where these plans are made so you'll never take them by surprise. (It'd be interesting to look at Cyprus' banking records and see who would have been impacted had the haircut happened suddenly, two months earlier.)

So inflation is irrelevant for the little guy, and easily dodged by the rich, leaving the middle-class to get shafted.

Re: The fraying of the U.S. global currency reserve system

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He didn’t do anything that actually slowed the loss of our manufacturing base while president. Come on now. Say what you will about the effect of the tax changes on inequality, they're clearly designed to make it more attractive to do business in the US, e.g. lower corporate rates and allowing capital expenditures to be deducted immediately rather than amortized over a period of years. It's hard to argue that tarif…

> It's hard to argue that tariffs on goods from China don't make it less attractive to buy goods from China. Disagree. I think this is small minded. So you add a tariff on chinese goods. If they are not the cheapest, then you buy from elsewhere... which still isn't the USA. And then China does the same thing: retaliating with tariffs, and then buying goods from elsewhere, which isn't the USA either. So in this game,…

> So you add a tariff on chinese goods. If they are not the cheapest, then you buy from elsewhere... which still isn't the USA.

But that's still good. It provides for supply chain diversity even if it isn't in the US. Now you can buy from China and Mexico instead of only China.

Then you get a functional supply chain operating in Mexico, which has geographical proximity to the US and has greater overlap in language and culture, and you're one step closer to manufacturing in Arizona and Texas.

> And then China does the same thing: retaliating with tariffs, and then buying goods from elsewhere, which isn't the USA either.

But the US has a 3:1 trade imbalance with China, so we can use a third of the money to cancel out their tariffs on our stuff. Or threaten to raise ours 33% if they don't stop.

The US has leverage here, but only if they use it.

> And, anecdotally: I still buy products from china.

Manufacturing left the US over the course of 50 years. It isn't going to all come back in less than 5 years. We're talking about long-term here.

Post reply on HN