|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
Defending the Dollar?
| Article
# : |
14140 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
1 / 1988 |
823 Words |
| Author
: |
Warren T. Brookes
Warren T. Brookes is a nationally syndicated economics
columnist. |
President Reagan told last fall's International Monetary Fund conference that the United States had done its part in defending the dollar by signing the new Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction law on the heels of a $65 billion deficit reduction in fiscal 1987.
Yet one of the ironic effects of that new law, and of deficit reduction itself, could be to undermine confidence in the dollar further by weakening America's defense posture.
Indeed, even as the budget deficit has plunged from $221 billion to $155 billion, the dollar has weakened still more. This contradicts the conventional thesis that the 76 percent rise in the dollar from 1980 to 1985 was "caused" by budget deficits.
Besides, one has to ask, how can a "weak fiscal policy" produce a "strong dollar," and why should a "strong fiscal policy" (that is, bringing deficits down) "weaken" the dollar?
The plain truth is this: A strong currently has always signaled national strength, not weakness--and at least some economists think there is a direct connection between defense spending (as a surrogate for national will and resolve) and the dollar.
In December 1985 I published some charts showing the remarkable "coincidence" between trends in the U.S. defense budget and trends in the dollar. This was suggested by Professor David Fand, a nationally known monetary economist from Detroit's Wayne State
... (1898 of 5113 Characters)
Read Full Article
|
|
