--- Begin Message ---
"William B. Ryan" wrote:
> As with much of your commentary, you distort (when not plagiarizing)
> what others have said.
The above a itself a distortion. Don't forget to repeat your accusation of
"commie propagaanda."
>
>
> Hummel was using the term "better employment conditions" in respect of
> full employment. He perhaps could have termed it better. The AFL-CIO
> maintains that exporting countries are able to sell more cheaply in the
> US because they exploit their labor and environment.
>
Is their full employment anywhere in the world?
You distort AFL-CIO position. A little "plagiarising" from the AFL-CIO
offical position will keep your post more accurate.
Henry C.K. Liu
>
> --
> William B. Ryan
> william_b_ryan@xxxxxxxxxx - email
> voicemail/fax - 1-866-678-3967 - toll free
>
> ---- "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > William F Hummel wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The US didn't engineer the dollar supremacy. It was the only
> > > currency in which international exchange could readily take place
> > > in the period immediately after World War II. The Bretton Woods
> > > monetary system that formalized the dollar as the international
> > > currency was freely joined by other nations because it was in
> > > their own interest. It worked well for almost every nation until
> > > its demise in 1971. During that period the US in effect lent
> > > long and borrowed far less short from the rest of the world,
> > > thereby providing the dollar assets needed by other countries.
> > > Nobody objected to the large current account surplus that the US
> > > ran at that time.
> >
> > This is either a distortion or an ignorance of history. Bretton Woods
> > died in 1971 a slow death of contradiction between US fiscal
> > irresponsibility and the gold standard. The fact was that until the
> > collapse of the USSR, world trade was primarily Western trade subsidized
> > by the US. The two separate segmeents of the global economy operated
> > through aid by each of the superpowers. Trade was in all practical
> > terms non-existent. The was true for the Japanese and German economic
> > "miracle." The Marshall Plan was a political program, not a trade
> > regime, though trade served a function. Trade friction developed
> > between the US's new allies and former enemies as the US grew confident
> > about winning the Cold War. That trade friction was resolved with
> > the
> > trade off between currency account deficit and capital account surplus
> > in favor of the US through dollar reserve status. After the Cold War,
> > when globalized trade took off, this formula was expanded to cover
> > the
> > entire world.
> >
> > Prior to 1971, "Nobody objected to the large current account surplus
> > that the US ran at that time" because they all felt they earned their
> > trade deficit by being US allies and got paid for serving US
> > geopolitical and ideological interests. It was payment for being
> > anti-communist.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > The dollar standard became so useful to other countries by 1971
> > > that it remains to this day, That's true in spite of the fact
> > > that since about 1980 the US has been providing dollars on
> > > balance through current accounts deficits rather than capital
> > > outflows.
> >
> > I suggest that you study the political economy behind the Plaza Accord.
> >
> > > I don't advocate the US continuing large current
> > > account deficits, but it's a two way street. Other countries
> > > fight hard to maintain their trade surpluses with the US since it
> > > means better employment conditions at home. The opposite side of
> > > the coin is the steady hollowing out of the manufacturing sector
> > > in the US.
> >
> > More and more policy makers in the exporting economies are beginning
> > to
> > understand the futility of expert coupled with capital account defict.
> > It distorts domestic development. Also, "better employment condition
> > at
> > home" is not factually operative in any exporting economy, as the
> > AFL-CIO will tell you.
> >
> > > Major trading partners also erect barriers to US
> > > capital outflows that could help reduce its current account
> > > deficit.
> >
> > I don't understand this statement.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's understandable that many outside the US look at its current
> > > account balance and equate that to lavish over-consumption. It's
> > > true that the US has a unique advantage in terms of borrowing in
> > > its own currency, making it much easier to avoid financial
> > > crises. However I suggest that those who envy the US position
> > > take a closer look at their own policies. They should also
> > > consider how much less efficient world trade would be if there
> > > were no international monetary standard. The inequities that
> > > folks outside the US see may then appear more superficial than
> > > real.
> > >
> >
> > No one is arguing for the absence of an international monetary standard,
> > only a more equitable one. The last sentence above is the equivalent
> > of
> > "tyrany is tolerable because it delivers order".
> >
> > Henry C.K. Liu
> >
> >
> >
--- End Message ---