Sunday, March 5, 2017

Foreign Affairs: The Renminbi Goes Global

Foreign Affairs looks at the efforts by China to gain more global acceptance for the Renminbi. Their article concludes that while China has taken some important first steps, they are still far from gaining widespread global acceptance for their currency. Below are a couple of excerpts from the article. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . . .

"China’s ambitions notwithstanding, the U.S. dollar remains unchallenged as the dominant international currency. The dollar accounts for more than 60 percent of the foreign exchange reserves held by central banks worldwide. Nearly 45 percent of all foreign exchange market transactions involve dollars. Virtually every transaction in the global oil market is denominated in dollars. Put simply, the dollar reigns supreme. So why would China attempt to challenge the dollar’s dominance, or even try to establish the renminbi as an alternative global currency?"

. . . . .

"When asked why Beijing is trying to turn the renminbi into a global currency, many in China have a ready answer: a first-class country should have a first-class currency. But beneath this nationalist sentiment lie other, more practical motives. Chinese officials see internationalizing the renminbi as a way to free themselves from dependence on the dollar."

. . . . .

"Progress on economic and structural reform alone, however, would not allow China to mount a real challenge to the dollar’s dominance. The dollar is not just the leading international reserve currency: it is also a safe haven, into which foreign investors rush during episodes of financial turmoil—even when the United States is itself the source of the turmoil, as was the case in the crisis of 2008. “Rock-solid faith that the U.S. federal government will honor its debt obligations has made its Treasury securities the instrument of choice for panicky investors,” Prasad writes. Other currencies, such as the Swiss franc, also function as safe havens, on a limited scale. But the renminbi does not. The question is why—and whether this will change.

To be a safe haven, a currency has to be traded in deep and liquid markets; during a crisis, investors value nothing more than liquidity. The U.S. Treasury bill and bond market is the single largest and most liquid financial market in the world. This is an advantage that the market in renminbi-denominated securities does not begin to approach."

. . . . .



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My added comments: 

Key points in this article:

- China badly wants to increase global demand for their currency
- National pride and a way to bypass the US dollar are key motivators
- They are still very far from achieving their goal (US dollar still far ahead)
- They must open up their system (allow free movement of capital in and out)
- They must increase global confidence in the stability of their internal systems
-  Chinese leaders are reluctant to give up control and open up their system
-  The election of Donald Trump increases unpredictability going forward

The article concludes that while it is possible for China to make progress on its goal to increase global demand for the renminbi, the road ahead appears to be long and hard. The process would take a long time under present conditions and the election of Donald Trump makes the process even more uncertain. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added note: Here is an article by Carmen Reinhart on Project Syndicate that is along the same line as this Foreign Affairs article. Below is an excerpt:

"Now as then, the US could meet the rest of the world’s appetite for dollars by issuing more dollar debt. This would require the US to run sustained current-account deficits, mirrored in fiscal deficits. Of course, while the link to gold is passé, any domestic fiscal objective to curb US debt growth would be at odds with the international role as sole provider of the reserve currency."


Added news notes: Washington Examiner article on upcoming debt ceiling (3-15-17)

David Stockman repeats his forecast that a debt ceiling crisis is imminent, this time on CNBC. We covered his original interview with Greg Hunter here.

In that same monthly Crisis Watch Update, we noted that if we are to see a major crisis that could lead to major systemic change, it might well revolve around the Trump Administration and the political environment that exists these days. Less than a week later we have President Trump alleging the former Administration bugged his office during the election. We have a spokesman for the Obama Administration denying that and the Director of the FBI telling the NY Times to deny that the FBI approved any kind of inappropriate activity. Former US Attorney General Mukasey suggests in this ABC News interview that the problem may be more semantics and miscommunication resulting from 140 byte tweets. Congress says it will investigate it all, but who knows when that will actually happen or if anything will ever be disclosed to the public.

We are now living in a situation where it is almost impossible to know what the truth is. Whenever we can find credible information to try and help readers, we will share it. However, that is becoming harder and harder in terms of knowing what media articles can be viewed as credible. We'll do our best to keep trying to report accurate information without political bias if it is relevant to what we watch for here (a crisis that could lead to major change). But we are all pretty much on our own these days in trying to assess what information is accurate or who to believe. We can say that this kind of uncertainty is not helpful to systemic stability for sure.

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Crisis Watch Update

This update will be short and sweet. It is becoming clearer over time that if we are to have some kind of new major crisis that could impact the stability of the current monetary system, the crisis will most likely revolve around the Trump Administration. 


We can now see that the Trump term of office is likely to be an ongoing cauldron of boiling volatility. Trump appears serious about trying to disrupt the existing establishment and that establishment appears ready to fight it out every day he is in office. Adviser Steve Bannon's recent comments only further confirmed this is where things stand. Only time will tell us if all this will become disruptive to markets and/or the stability of the existing financial and monetary system.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Some key issues to keep an eye on:

- how Trump actually deals with China. Does he follow through on his tough campaign rhetoric or does he soften it? Will he label China a "currency manipulator?"

- what is the Trump Administration US dollar policy? A continued strong dollar or would they prefer to see a much weaker dollar? Does the global dollar shortage problem undermine his efforts to stimulate the US economy? Does the Administration have a full understanding of the potential problems of a too strong dollar?

- does Trump challenge the US Fed (call for an audit) or simply try to pack it with people who will go along with what he wants to do since he can now fill so many open Board positions? Does Trump need a continued easy money policy from the FED?

- are there people in the US intelligence services (the so called Deep State) who will try to undermine Trump and bring down key people in his Administration continually? If so, how does Trump respond to that? Will Trump himself be able to serve his full term in an environment where political enemies are looking for every opportunity to force him out of office or weaken his ability to get things done?

- if Trump's key campaign promises stall out due to political infighting in the US Congress, how will markets react? Could systemic stability eventually be at risk if markets have a severe negative reaction?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The political environment has now taken over the stage. Trump has ushered in an era of maximum unpredictability. He can change his position on key issues in an instant. For example, Trump had said he would quickly label China a currency manipulator but now his Secretary of Treasury says maybe not and for sure not before April.  (Trump then repeated China is a currency manipulator within hours of the statement by his Sec. of Treasury). How markets and ultimately the entire financial and monetary system handle this kind of environment (uncertainty) is what we need to keep an eye this year.

Of course it's possible Trump will overcome all the issues listed above and succeed, but the early indications are that he will be in a fight for survival every day he is in office and the spillover from that may impact markets and systemic stability. 

Our job here is to watch for how this plays out, not to offer one political point of view or another. We do always hope whoever is in power makes decisions that work and help the most people possible. Unfortunately, at this point it appears that the US is so sharply divided politically that achieving a strong public consensus may no longer be possible. All this adds to the potential for systemic instability no matter who is in office which is the key point for us to monitor here.

Added note: A thank you to a reader for sending me this link to an article that explains a potential building problem in the EU regarding a "stealth" capital fight from countries in the southern EU to countries in the northern EU. The article suggests the problem is an unintended consequence of ECB monetary easing policy.

Additional added note: Andrew Maguire predicts precious metals will have what he is calling a "reset" within 3-4 months in this new interview. If he hits that prediction, it will mean some significant events that could impact systemic stability would be in play.

Important additional note: Greg Hunter sent me the email below urging me to watch his new interview with David Stockman. In the interview, David Stockman says that the US will encounter a big fight over extending the current US debt ceiling that runs out on 3-15-17. Most people assume that this always just gets extended after some drama. David Stockman believes this time Trump and Congress will get into a fight over it and it will not be extended which will create a severe shock to US and world markets. Of course, if he is correct on this, it could easily trigger a new major crisis in markets. The key point for readers here is that he gives you a date certain and a specific event to monitor and see how it is resolved or not resolved. Here is the email I got from Greg Hunter:


Hi Larry

President Trump keeps saying he "inherited a mess."  He's talking about the debt and the U.S. budget.  He just said it again today (2/25/17).  Trump says the U.S. budget is a "mess" and added "Don't worry we will get this cleaned up."  You can bet the “clean-up” is going to be very painful, especially for the unprepared.  

If you want to really know what Trump and America faces, you will want to watch the upcoming David Stockman Interview.  It is stunning.  Stockman, who is a best-selling author and former White House Budget Director in the Reagan White House, also gives a date for things to start coming unglued.  It's March 15th 2017.   

Watch the interview as he explains it all in terms every American can understand.  By the way, Stockman likes Trump, and predicted he would win in his book called "Trumped!"  Watch this interview--you will not be disappointed.   It will be the "Early Sunday Release," posting early in the AM 2/26/17.    

Greg Hunter


Another high credibility source sent me this reaction to the 3-15-17 date:

3/15 is a big deal for a lot of reasons:

1. Debt ceiling hits the limit.
2. FOMC decision and possible surprise rate hike
3. Netherlands elections and possible upset by Gert Wilders Freedom Party

Could be a triple whammy

If the US debt ceiling situation starts to unfold as David Stockman predicts,  I will monitor those events ongoing in the next few weeks and months and offer additional updates (Washington Post article -- NY Times article -- Fiscal Times article)

Added note: President Trump gave his speech to Congress last night and there was no hint of some kind of dispute over the debt ceiling. In fact, he did not mention the debt ceiling at all. Not sure what that means yet in terms of David Stockman's forecast. Will continue to monitor it.

Additional commentary post Trump speech to Congress: 

The Trump speech to Congress last night illustrates (and I think confirms) the analysis we have been making here that how Trump fares during his term of office has become the major factor in whether or not we will see events that could lead to the major monetary changes this blog was created to watch for. In one night, even severe critics of President Trump are suddenly now saying this was the best speech they have heard him make and that he seems to have won over some converts to at least give him a chance to succeed. 

But in reality, even though the speech did seem to come over well for President Trump, we still have no idea of the actual details of the policies he plans to enact or how much of his agenda will make it through Congress. The really big issues on health care, taxes, generating real GDP growth, how to deal with the debt, etc. are still out there to be confronted. When you are trying to do objective analysis, it's very important to try and assess what is really happening and likely to actually happen rather than what you may wish to happen or believe in personally. It's hard to do that, but very important because the world we will live in is the real world. The reason the political world draws more attention here now is because things changed when Trump won AND the Republicans got control of Congress. Instead of the gridlock we have had for years, it is now possible that significant fiscal policy changes could actually take place that might impact what we watch for here.

How Trump deals with Congress on the upcoming debt ceiling issue I think is the first real test we will get to see what kind of President he intends to be. Eventually you have to make the big economic decisions and implement real policies that have real consequences. As that starts to happen in the next few months, it will become more clear if we are heading into an environment conducive to serious disruption and potential crisis or not. I won't try to prejudge how it will turn out. I will try to objectively monitor and assess what is actually happening here. If Trump succeeds (and thereby solidifies popular public support), the major crisis that could lead to major monetary change is less likely. If he fails, it's more likely. Simple as that for me in terms of the potential for political events to impact the current monetary system.

Monday, February 27, 2017

Craig Wilson Article - History of the IMF and the SDR

Here is a link to a good article by Craig Wilson that provides a pretty in depth history of the IMF and the SDR. I have added a link to this article to our page of information on the SDR because it goes into its history in a fair amount of detail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since the creation of the international monetary system, the divide over financial and monetary policy has always been present. With the evolutionary rise in power of a new world money, everything has changed.
Understanding the history, construction and evolution of this new world money system will allow you to better position yourself for the future.
The U.S dollar has been the world’s reserve currency for decades since World War II. The dollar has been synonymous with strength, stability and general confidence in the United States Government.
That is all in question now.
Studying the real history of the special drawing rights (SDR), what some have coined as new world money, will allow you to understand exactly why the evolution of the international currency matters even more today."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added note: For readers who want to dig even deeper into some interesting SDR history, I found this book online that looks at past efforts to replace the US dollar with the SDR that failed and explains why they failed. The parts I read online are fascinating with former IMF representatives offering a historical perspective on the events discussed. On pages 53-54 of the link just above, former IMF Rudolf Rhomberg says that agreements to replace the US dollar with the SDR almost came about a couple of times in the 1970's but were dropped when world events changed the situation before the agreements could be implemented. Here is a brief quote:

"Again, in 1979-80, substitution of SDRs for US dollar reserves was close to being agreed, with the objective of permitting diversification of reserves without putting further pressure on the already weakened dollar. However, a sudden rise in the dollar early in 1980 reduced the urgency with which substitution had been sought and, since there were other unresolved problems as well, halted this reform plan practically on the eve of its expected adoption."

I doubt many people were aware that "the substitution of SDRs for US dollar reserves was close to being agreed" in 1979-80 and was only halted when the US dollar surged in early 1980 (note:Paul Volcker raised interest rates). So when we see this idea discussed as being possible in the future, you can see there is precedent for the idea from the past.

I found it particularly interesting that one of the points of contention between IMF members was that some (developing nations) wanted to use the allocation of newly issued SDRs not only to replace the US dollar, but also as a redistribution process where nations more in need would get a larger allocation of the SDRs issued. (see pages 51-53 in the link above). This illustrates the kind of disputes we have mentioned here that make it very hard to get international agreement on things like this. Here is the introductory paragraph on page 51 where this topic is introduced:

"When the SDR was created, as a supplement to existing reserve assets, the purpose of SDR allocation was generally seen to be purely monetary. Those who held this view resisted attempts to combine other purposes, often of a redistributive kind, with monetary augmentation." (my added note: I am advised that the US and Europe were among those who "resisted attempts to combine other purposes" such as targeting additional SDR allocations to developing countries)

I also got some interesting feedback from some of my best sources here about this book which suggest it is something worthwhile to read if you are interested in a deeper dive into SDR history. In fact, one even ordered the book to read for additional perspective on SDR history.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

Bloomberg: Trump Scorns IMF Globalism - Gets to Vote on It Now

Here is a very relevant and interesting article on Bloomberg about how Trump and the IMF might work together (or not) going forward. This article touches on some very key questions we have raised here on this blog. For example, how would someone like President Trump who was elected on a campaign platform that appears to conflict with the IMF get along with that organization? 

Below are some key excerpts from the article. I added bold type here and there for what I thought were some important points. Following that are a few added comments.

In the added notes section further below, please see some excellent expert comments I received permission to publish in reaction to this article.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. . . . . .


"Trump took office raging against the loss of American manufacturing jobs and wealth, pinning the blame on trade, and questioning the purpose of post-war institutions from Nato to the European Union. He’s not the only Western leader winning votes by trashing elites and their global projects. Meanwhile China, the world’s rising economic power, is building its own system for extending influence through credit. Where does that leave the IMF?"

Right where it’s always been, according to Lagarde. “We need to stick to our knitting and deliver on what was our mission,” she said in an interview en route to Uganda’s presidential palace last month. She attributes the slowdown in world trade to economic weakness -- “when you have less growth, you tend to be a little bit more protective of your turf” -- and says both may prove temporary.

Lagarde dismisses the idea that the IMF may find itself at cross-purposes with the new administration. “We are an agent of financial stability in any country where we operate,” she said. “A leading power like the United States has a vested interest in economic prosperity, stability and peace.”

. . . . . 


“The extreme manifestation of Trumpism is diametrically opposed to the founding principles of the IMF,” said James Boughton, the IMF’s official historian for two decades until 2012. The Fund is “going to have to play a very delicate game.”
To be sure, it’s not clear how much of Trump’s campaign rhetoric will survive into government. And the dealmaker-president might discover that the Fund has its uses, said Benn Steil, the author of “The Battle of Bretton Woods,” a history of the IMF’s founding conference. “I could paint a scenario in which he effectively looks like a multilateralist, because he finds a way to do deals that are in America’s interests,” Steil said."
. . . . . 
"There’s a case to be made that the U.S. gets good value out of the Fund. Each dollar it commits only adds 2 cents to America’s budget, because defaults rarely happen, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In return for its contribution, which currently stands at approximately $164 billion, America has the biggest say on the Fund’s board. It can’t veto individual loans, but when U.S. interests are aligned with the EU’s -- which they mostly were, before Trump -- they tend to prevail.
Bordo says he’s not worried about the Fund becoming redundant. “They’re always thinking of how they’re going to fit in,” he said."
. . . . 
"That was the role assigned at Bretton Woods in 1944, when the IMF and World Bank were set up. Forty-five nations attended the summit, but two men dominated it: John Maynard Keynes and America’s Harry Dexter White. From the back of her car in Uganda, Lagarde calls them the “founding fathers.”
Their goal was to avoid a repeat of the 1930s, when competitive devaluations and tariff wars led to the collapse of world trade. Keynes wanted the IMF to act as a central bank of central banks, denominating their accounts in a new global currency. It would let members devalue or borrow with relative ease. Both creditors and debtors would pay interest on their holdings, discouraging large trade surpluses as well as deficits."
. . . . .
"Money courses around that system on a scale that would have been unimaginable at Bretton Woods. Massive trade imbalances built up. The dollar remains central. The risks were laid bare in 2008, when a collapsed U.S. housing bubble led to world recession."
Since then, some financial leaders -- among them the governor of the People’s Bank of China, Zhou Xiaochuan, and his U.K. counterpart Mark Carney -- have gently hinted that something more like Keynes’s plan might be in order, to reduce the world’s dollar dependency.
Lagarde doesn’t see that happening on her watch. “It didn’t happen in 1944, when the world had destroyed itself,” she said. “I’m not a dreamer.”
. . . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My added comments: This Bloomberg article is absolutely full of important and relevant information in regards to what we try to cover here on this blog. I encourage all readers to read the full article. Some very key bullet points for me:
- Like this blog, people everywhere are watching to see how Trump and the IMF get along (see link below in 3rd bullet point)
- Both the IMF and the Trump Administration seem to be carefully engaging each other
- Christine Lagarde chooses to make positive comments (see this link also)
- the article lays out a brief history of the past roles of the IMF and monetary system change
- it raises the question of whether Trump will actually be more inclined to work with IMF than his campaign rhetoric might suggest
- it mentions the original idea of Keynes for a global currency (the bancor) that we have mentioned here on this blog 
- it asks Ms. Lagarde if anything like that kind of new global currency might become a reality in the future. She says she does not see that happening during her term of office (which extends for several more years)
This is beyond interesting information. Please look at these comments in light of the prediction Jim Rickards has made repeatedly that when we do get the next major global financial crisis that the IMF will step forward to promote the SDR as the new global reserve currency to replace the US dollar. Clearly, Christine Lagarde states she does not see that happening during her term in this Bloomberg article. She adds that she "is not a dreamer."
Does this mean that Jim's prediction concerning the SDR as a new global reserve currency is off base?
I think we cannot really know the true answer to that question until and unless we get the major new financial crisis he predicts. My own research here has indicated to me that, without such a crisis, there is not much chance that the US dollar would be replaced with something new any time soon. Other high credibility sources I have had input from also convince me that is the case. Here, Christine Lagarde seems to add more evidence to support that. He comments are very much in line with those I have heard from some very good sources.
However, we can assume that her comments about a future replacement for the US dollar are based on the assumption that no new major crisis will take place during her term of office. Neither she or the IMF has suggested that they see such a crisis on the horizon even though they do mention various systemic risks from time to time (which we have documented here). If such a new major crisis did arise, I believe the present monetary system is absolutely at risk and that some kind of major changes might have to be made to go forward. Perhaps the one Jim Rickards suggests concerning the SDR. Perhaps there will also be some who would prefer a return to a monetary system based on gold or another "hard anchor" of some kind. I have seen a variety of ideas on this. We can assume that the IMF view would likely change under true systemic crisis conditions and that they would promote some kind of solution.
This is what we continue to watch for here. We have covered a number of potential major solutions/changes that might be put forward at that time including the SDR replacing the US dollar. Recently Jim Rickards issued a cryptic tweet stating that Tim Geithner had told him about another possible solution he had not considered. I find it interesting that Tim Geithner discussed the topic of how to deal with a major systemic crisis at all. All we can do here is monitor events and see what actually does happen.

Added notes: Former Group of 30 Executive Director Robert Pringle provided the comments below with permission to publish here after a review of this blog article:

"I agree with the gist of your article.  If the Trump administration faces an international monetary crisis, it may find the Fund useful as the Reagan administration did in the debt crisis of the early 1980s, when it discarded its earlier rhetoric. In such circumstances the IMF may be able to moderate some of the administration's more extremist/protectionist impulses.  If David Malpass is confirmed as Under Secretary for Monetary Affairs, he will have a major role in setting US policy on international monetary issues where he will doubtless steer the Fund towards a more conservative, free market approach. He has been a loud critic of central bank polices such as QE. Another key issue will be its response if the US should accuse governments such as China or central banks such as the ECB and Bank of Japan of currency manipulation.  Broader issues of reform of the reserve currency system and so on would come "into play" politically if the US decides to  withdraw from or redefine its global monetary leadership and role. With Trump, anything is possible!

Indeed, according to reports today the President has indeed resumed his attack on Chinese monetary policy: 

 “I think they’re grand champions at manipulation of currency. So I haven’t held back. We’ll see what happens,” Trump said.

The president’s comments were reported just hours after the incoming treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin, made apparently contradictory remarks signalling that the White House had no immediate plans to label China a currency manipulator – something Trump had pledged to do on his first day in office.


The IMF will not have a quiet life under Trump." -- Robert Pringle 



Wednesday, February 22, 2017

Trump Adviser Judy Shelton: Fair Free Trade Depends on Sound Monetary System

Dr. Judy Shelton has been an adviser to the Trump team on economic matters and some even suggest she should get appointed to the Board of Governors at the US Fed. In this interview with the Wall Street Journal, she says to have truly fair free trade, you need sound money. She has also spoken favorably about the gold standard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a link to her Wall Street Journal article that they mention in the video above on this issue and below are a couple of excerpts.

. . . . .

"When governments manipulate exchange rates to affect currency markets, they undermine the honest efforts of countries that wish to compete fairly in the global marketplace. Supply and demand are distorted by artificial prices conveyed through contrived exchange rates. Businesses fail as legitimately earned profits become currency losses."

. . . . . 


"Mr. Trump is taking the right first step to address this issue by questioning why there aren’t adequate rules in place to keep countries from manipulating their exchange rates.
The next step is to establish a universal set of rules based on monetary sovereignty and discipline that would allow nations to voluntarily participate in a trade agreement that did not permit them to undermine true competition by manipulating exchange rates."
. . . . . 


Click here to read the full article


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added news notes: Secretary of Treasury tells IMF to "provide frank analysis" of currency exchange rates of its member nations. Also, I saw a link to a very interesting new article on Bloomberg on Dr. Shelton's twitter feed which I will feature here.

Friday, February 17, 2017

Forbes: Shrinking FX Reserves: Will China Defend The RMB?

As we continue to monitor events related to China and the US, Forbes runs this article once again noting the Catch 22 situation China finds itself in with regards to defending its currency and it reserves. Below are a couple of excerpts and then some added comments. See Jim Rickards email comment to me about this issue further below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The monthly China debt watch is over and the verdict is in. China's FX Reserves have officially broken through their $3 trillion floor, returning to levels not seen since 2010. The prediction was that this would have to wait until February, but these reserves have been falling relentlessly for seven months straight, and no end yet in sight."

. . . . . .

"So the question becomes how much of their remaining reserves China can afford to sell in the hope of propping up the yuan? And is this anywhere near the amount needed to change market expectations of mid to long-term currency depreciation? Because if market expectations don't change, China will simply watch its currency depreciate anyway, while its much heralded FX reserves drain further.
Yet if China doesn't prop up the yuan, merely allowing the currency to fall will only reinforce capital flight, drive up import costs and inflation and exacerbate China's long term export dependency, not to mention antagonise trade partners already complaining about a persistently undervalued currency."
. . . . .
"All of which leaves the impression that China is facing an invidious choice; either defend the currency, or defend the reserves. They cannot realistically attempt both, and must accept serious consequences either way."
(added bold emphasis is mine)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My added comments: It is clear that this situation China finds itself in is one we need to continue to monitor. Especially in light of the pressure Donald Trump has attempted to put on China in regards to its currency and trade imbalance. 

The potential for this to turn into a serious problem and conflict is obvious. On the other hand, President Trump seems to have backed down somewhat from earlier harsh rhetoric on China. I have to wonder if he has become more aware of the problem China has to deal with here and now wants to try and figure out how to work with them rather to put pressure on them (at least in regards to how the deal with their currency situation).

The US dollar continues to show relative strength and this is really becoming a problem for the US, China and the rest of the world that is up to its ears in US dollar denominated debt. Recently both Trump and other Administration officials went so far as to actually try and talk down the dollar. 

A too strong dollar will make it much harder for Trump to get results from his proposed economic policies and also will put pressure on nations trying to pay off dollar denominated debt. Ironically, a weaker dollar may be what Trump actually prefers and yet so far the dollar continues to show relative strength.

All this makes me wonder if we might see the following unfold this year in an effort to try and get the US dollar to weaken:

- Trump and Congress look the other way and don't really make much effort to cut US government spending (they get on board with a big "stimulus" program and don't really mind if it runs up the US deficit even more). My guess is the GOP Congress will raise the debt ceiling this time without any complaints if this scenario does unfold. None of the usual political posturing about considering shutting down the government to prevent the debt ceiling from being raised.

- US Fed eventually moves to adopt so called "helicopter money" to fund all this ramped up stimulus spending if need be. Fed just buys any new US debt the market does not have an appetite for and further expands its balance sheet if it has to.

If markets see the above unfold, they might actually finally decide the US dollar is too strong given further expanding US debt and even more easy money policy from the Fed to cover that new debt expansion. All this along with tax cuts might also get the velocity of money moving up and get inflation ramped up more sharply (which means the dollar is losing purchasing power). The combination of all this might get the dollar moving downward where everyone seems to want it to go, but can't figure out how to get it done..

The problem with the above (if it does happen) is that its hard to fine tune this kind of thing. Once you get inflation moving up more sharply and the dollar weakening, the momentum might just carry far beyond any intended targets. Watch gold and silver. If they start moving strongly higher it suggests this scenario is in play.

This currency situation is already delicate before you add in the Trump factor which may tend to add even more volatility if he does not move very carefully. China appears to have its hands full already without added pressure from Trump, so we need to continue to watch that dynamic to see if Trump realizes that.

I think this is most likely the key event we need to watch this year that relates to what we try to follow here on this blog. Sharp currency movements that could spin out of control could certainly lead to the kind if monetary system problems we look for here and eventually even lead to monetary system change we also watch for here. The movement of the US dollar this year along with the yuan appears to be a key to keep an eye on.


Important added note: I had a brief email exchange with Jim Rickards on this issue and he offered this comment with permission to publish it here (underline is my addition):

"The China reserve and currency story is one of the biggest stories in the world, but it's a subset and a symptom of an even bigger story, which is the global dollar shortage. That not only affects China, but all emerging markets and the European banking system. Liquidity is drying up all over the world, but it's happening slowly so there's no sense of panic right now. That will come soon enough." --- Jim Rickards


Jim was on this topic early. Now I see lots of articles coming out discussing the problem China is faced with in relation to defending the yuan with its reserves. Jim identified that issue earlier this year (and we covered it here). Jim donates his time (in email exchanges) and shares his thoughts in an effort to help provide the best information possible for readers and I greatly appreciate it.



Added news note 2-21-17: I got this email alert from the BIS today:


BIS Alert - Press Releases 
21 February 2017
Press release on the postponement of Agustín Carstens' appointment as BIS General Manager until 1 December 2017 (21 February 2017)
 



Thursday, February 16, 2017

William White & Mohamed El-Erian

Here are a couple of articles readers may find of interest. One is by William White (former BIS) and the other by Mohamed A. El-Erian. Below are links to these articles with a brief excerpt from each. The first link was suggested to me by a reader.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

William White - Ultra Easy Money - Digging the Hole Deeper?

(from the concluding paragraph)

"We should be under no illusions as to how hard it will be politically for governments to carry out the policies suggested here, even if the G20 provides an organizing framework for coordinated action. That is why they have come to rely so heavily on central bank stimulus in the first place. As suggested above, absent these government policies that could work, central banks are destined to ‘‘just keep digging.’’ Moreover, as the hole deepens, still broader risks arise. Future economic setbacks tied to ultra-easy money could threaten social and political stability, particularly given the many signs of strain already evident worldwide. In short, the policy stakes are now very high."



Mohamed A. El-Erian - An Unstable Economic Order (Project Syndicate)

. . . . 

"Whether by choice or necessity, the vast majority of the world’s economies are part of a multilateral system that gives their counterparts in the advanced world – especially the United States and Europe – enormous privileges. Three stand out.

First, because they issue the world’s main reserve currencies, the advanced economies get to exchange bits of paper that they printed for goods and services produced by others."   . . . . . . . . .


"The Bretton Woods organizations, instituted after World War II to maintain stability, risk losing their influence, and the countries with the clout to bolster them seem unwilling at this stage to press ahead boldly with the needed reforms."  . . . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added note: Tomorrows blog article will include an email quote from Jim Rickards about the China currency situation. He tells me that issue is a subset of an even bigger issue that people need to keep an eye on.