Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Claustrophilia's avatar

When one posts as regularly as Robin Brooks — a good thing — and as narrowly focused as he has done recently on the US dollar — an important topic — it would help for him to step back occasionally and take stock of the different threads of his central argument of why the currency is trading as it is.

He was clearly not sympathetic to rival arguments that it was the gradual loss of its supreme international reserve currency status or, relatedly and equally damagingly, the loss of Fed independence due to harassment from a meddling White House. On the contrary, he argued it was due to the currency (and bond) markets misreading the state of the US economy. We’ll see about that.

Yet he has turned to those earlier rival arguments which he had earlier dismissed and returned with oddly prescriptive statements. First, the US must strive to maintain its global currency dominance by adopting a hawkish defense stance. Second, we have much to learn from the mistake of EM central banks who were forced to surrender independence. Are these mere precepts? Or are they genuine risks? I think we should be told (in the memorable words of the British satirical magazine, Private Eye).

At the risk of overinterpreting what Brooks’ views are on these topics, it seems to me that he wants to take us back to the early Reagan era — big defense budgets and tight monetary policy, thus a super-strong dollar. Yet, he ends his most recent post by admonishing the US government for not attending to its fiscal incontinence.

These contradictions need to be resolved. Otherwise, octopus-like, one is simply shooting jets of obfuscatory ink.

Expand full comment
Robert's avatar

When I came to US I didn’t expect one day I would be studying if US would turn into… Turkey.

Expand full comment

No posts