Bush and Greenspan as Catalysts to a Weaker Dollar

Axel Merk, January 20th 2005
This article was written by Merk Investments before the Merk Hard Currency Fund was launched.

The US election last November, and notably the appointments made by the Bush Administration thereafter have proven to be a catalyst to take the Dollar to new lows versus the Euro. A catalyst because it confirms continuity of policies that have driven the trade deficit to dramatic and unsustainable extremes: the latest numbers available put it at a record $60.3 billion, an annualized $724 billion, over 6% of GDP. The re-appointment of John Snow as Treasury Secretary cemented this view; his periodic lip service to a “strong dollar policy” is not taken seriously by anyone anymore.

	Merk Insights provide the Merk Perspective on currencies, global imbalances, the trade deficit, the socio-economic impact of the U.S. administration's policies and more. Read past Merk Insights

The next major catalyst is waiting around the corner; it is Greenspan’s pending retirement in January 2006. At the latest this summer, the discussion about his succession will heat up. At that time, the media will take a closer look where Greenspan’s policies of free credit has pushed the US consumer; and more importantly, different scenarios will be discussed on what path a successor will take us down on: on a loose money path in an effort to keep the party going, or on a path of monetary restraint. As Bush’s goal is to keep this economy running at any cost, it is rather obvious what type of person he will appoint.

Greenspan has already conducted damage control by warning the government about serious challenges

ahead, while at the same time distancing himself from the policies that have lead to them. Once he is out of office, some of the blame will shift on his role in the policies that have lead the US into the current situation, he will no longer be untouchable.

In the meantime, we have started seeing the fallout of the weak Dollar among the weaker European players.

The British car manufacturer Jaguar announced a US$1bn write-off for their failed US expansion strategy; Jaguar now has a negative net worth and is begging Ford for a capital infusion. And General Motors has given a warning short to its Saab subsidiary, saying that the brand has generated losses in 9 out of its past 10 years, and it may be time to abandon the brand altogether. Both Jaguar and Saab have made significant mistakes in recent years – in the current environment, mistakes are fatal.

The US consumer continues to be flooded by cheap imports from Asia, a process enabled by Asian currency

subsidies (fixed exchange rates, currency interventions, extreme purchases of US Treasuries…); a side effect of the Asian overproduction are high commodity prices. US firms, dealing with high raw materials prices and low consumer prices, continue to reduce overhead by accelerating their outsourcing, so that Asia can produce even more to flood the US market with more goods and drive commodity prices even higher, so that US firms have to cut costs further to remain competitive…. Needless to say, US consumers are not only used to cheap imports, they are also dependent on cheap imports because they don’t feel particularly secure about their jobs, and have been encouraged to go deeply into debt so that consumption doesn’t abate.

No one has failed to notice that currency swings have become more volatile. Much of this is because the US

consumer would really rather want to take a break and get his house in order; this won’t happen because the Fed, and the Administration with the Treasury have decided that consumption must continue to rise, as 70% of US GDP depend on the US consumer.

As a result of these policies, we have continued to increase our hard currency cash and gold holdings; the US

dollar has lost its status as a “hard currency”. This has not gone unnoticed in the rest of the world. OPEC used to set a target US$ price; in December, OPEC president Purnomo Yusgiantoro said in unmistaken words that the frequently quoted target price range of $22 - $28 dollars per barrel was based on 2000 exchange rates, and that it would be only appropriate, for example, for Europe to look at oil in Euro terms.

While the US is busy destroying its currency, the rest of the world is looking for new alliances. China is

considering a $13 billion dollar bid for 115 year-old US oil giant Unocal to help secure its future energy needs; and India is in discussion with Iran and Russia to satisfy that region’s surging energy needs.

We are ready for an exciting 2005.