The weakening of the US dollar accelerated after finance ministers from the G7 issued a communique calling for market-oriented international exchange rates. Soon afterward, the Japanese yen set a two-year high against the greenback. Of course, Japanese exporters are complaining bitterly that the rising value of the yen will cause their profits to erode. This has brought considerable political pressure to support government intervention in forex markets to avoid further advances in the value of the yen. In turn, officials in Tokyo have been jawboning the markets and implied that they will continue to weigh in to thwart foreign-exchange speculation and stem appreciation.
However, the doom-laden estimates offered do not consider the total impact of an appreciating yen. A focus only on the impact on exporters overlooks the fact that a strengthening currency benefits importers who buy more goods with fewer yen. And domestic producers are able to buy imported inputs for less. Meanwhile, many Japanese companies have offshore production facilities that will offset the impact of an appreciating yen on their ability to hold market share.
While a stronger currency may adversely affect some exports, this impact is mitigated through diversification of domestic production. Intervening in currency markets discourages producers from making decisions that will be in their long-term interest.
It turns out that these interventions cannot alter the inevitable gains in the yen against the dollar because of the inherent weakness in the US currency. Most market analysts and dealers expect the dollar to continue its downward path.
This is perhaps the most ruinous outcome of the irresponsible monetary policy pursued by the US Federal Reserve under Chairman Alan Greenspan. By forcing interest rates down artificially, it has caused such a massive flood of dollars into the system that no amount of intervention will be able to stem its decline on global currency markets.
While forex intervention is likely to be fruitless, it involves high costs and is a distraction from implementing other policies that could promote long-term growth. Indeed, currency intervention goes against the most basic notion of financial prudence. Basically, buying dollars that are certain to be less valuable with yen that are becoming more valuable is equivalent to a "buy high, sell low" activity.
While the net impact of market-induced changes in currency valuations is uncertain, there is also no way to know what the proper market rate of exchange is. And so, forex intervention is a highly speculative and Quixotic adventure that should be avoided.
In all events, currency values are less important as a determinant of long-run competitiveness than rising growth in productivity. Policy makers should be focusing on how to insure that the investment and regulatory climate is inviting for both domestic and foreign investors.
There are other and better tools at the disposal of policy makers in Tokyo if they wish to improve the capacity of their economy to grow. These include reducing the overall tax burden, reducing public-sector debt, cutting government spending and reducing waste or corruption.
On the microeconomic side, a rising yen will force out some inefficient firms that operate on small margins to eliminate some of the excess capacity that remains in the domestic manufacturing sector. Although it may be painful, the reduction of overcapacity and elimination of nonviable companies will improve the overall economic climate.
Of course, a sharp increase in the value of a currency could increase foreign exchange risks that could then lead to a sudden decline. But the current volatility of the yen is certainly within acceptable bounds. And economic fundamentals suggest that there is no heavy downside threat. Although it is impossible to know what the optimum level of any currency is, there is scant evidence that the yen has overshot its long-term position. Meanwhile, neither the US nor the EU has done much to curb the decline of the dollar.
Attempting to establish the "right" exchange rate is another example of hubris displayed by policy makers. History is littered with failed attempts by government agencies or industry groups to set prices. Such failures have been recorded with price intervention on commodities, rental properties and exchange rates.
Ultimately, decisions by many individual market participants who are disconnected in purpose and space will determine currency values by taking decisions that they are not aware they will make in the future. While politicians and bureaucrats will continue to exhibit a predilection to meddle, it is better to allow prices of currencies and other things to be discovered in the complex interactions of human choices instead of political design.
Of course, Japan has a formidable arsenal of foreign reserves to do whatever it wishes. But the erratic behavior of the Bank of Japan and the Japanese government concerning the valuation of the yen casts doubts upon the viability of such a project. Both have spent most of the post-war era fulminating over market valuations of the yen and fighting a Procrustean battle to move it toward some specified value. And not so long ago, worries were expressed about a yen meltdown since the zero-interest rate policy increased the attractiveness of foreign bonds to Japanese investors.
Like in so many other areas of government activity, forex intervention creates a batch of unintended consequences and distortion effects. It turns out that there is a remarkably consistent lack of success when governments attempt to support prices of commodities or currencies. Therefore, it is likely that this move may lead to greater instability and lower economic growth.
Christopher Lingle is professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroque in Guatemala and global strategist for eConoLytics.com.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers