The Economic Crash and The Future of Dollar

The death of a currency is essentially a political thing. It may be decided in the cold, as in the old currencies of the euro area. It can also - and often does - disappear because the company no longer operates legally. While it may be pessimistic about the future of the United States, but only Cassandra argue that this country is on the verge of collapse. So the dollar will survive even as the U.S. economy recovers, the federal government has ever borrowed so cheap and instead of inflation, deflation is more threatening, thereby increasing Americans even more attractive for their money. Certainly, the greenback could get by in his corner, but losing its prerogatives international. However not forget that more than a store of value is the motto franca of global trade, one in which most prices are rank, and transactions are settled. Neither the renminbi still inconvertible nor faltering euro area can play this role today and even tomorrow. This will be a fortiori not the case of a basket type SDR, an instrument that can be used for transactions, no one ever knowing which component of the basket used. As proof, the ECU was not only becoming euro currency. All proposals to reform the international monetary system based on such a cart so that saliva are lost. Unless of course, like the European Monetary Union, we created a world central bank issuing, say, bancors, as Keynes had proposed at Bretton Woods in 1944, an idea that nobody is going to seriously defend after disappointments that one size fits all policy of the ECB has brought.

The Economic Trend and Prospects of Dollar

In terms of profitability, companies in Europe have seen their profits grow by an average of 13% from 1998 to 2008, as against nearly half (7%) to their American rivals. And if the U.S. financial sector is much more comprehensive and profitable than that of Europe, the crisis of 2008 showed that he can destroy in a few months the entire stock market value created in a decade. In the end, and above all, the huge weakness of U.S. growth model is that it is based on debt. Europe obviously has its own debt problems, but its two engines, Germany and France, keep public finances healthier than the U.S. by 2014, the IMF provides. The trade balance in Europe has remained strong, primarily because it is facing competition from Asia in manufacturing and service sectors, the Europeans were able to focus on products with high added value, such as luxury goods and precision tools. The Americans, losing their competitiveness in the manufacturing sector, have carried on consumer credit.

In the U.S., we like the easy is being printed and devalued. And markets are applauding. The fact that it has a high cost for the future goes out the window. This policy operates in the markets' perception that the idea to use credit produces wealth. But this "truth" is leveled at around a beautiful fable only be enriched when producing goods and services and a debt that has accumulated leave mine GDP growth and competitiveness.

And if the return to growth post-2001 has been sharpest in the United States, because Europe has calculated its growth more restrictive than the United States, Underestimating the reality, while United States, conversely, inflated their numbers. And again, U.S. growth has come at a future cost much higher than Europe, which has boosted its economy without stimulus. The United States has instead introduced a fiscal stimulus and monetary policy extremely lax, who only prepare the huge destruction of value in 2008. And since 2009, the same fiscal and monetary doping was replaced in even larger proportions ... The headlong rush is obvious.

The Dollar May End!!!

Favre appeared recently in "The End of the dollar" of Myrette Zaki is certainly better than what we hear from those who take the title literally. It's not about death or disappearance of the U.S. currency. Just the story, and especially the news of his slow decline in stages. Some passages seem suddenly very enlightening. Like this, this reflects the European perception of two irreconcilable approaches to the economy.

Ala expansionist policy and unconventional Federal Reserve opposed the plan cautiously and strictly European. Europeans are resisting the American vision, which is also that market. They seek to reduce budget deficits and considered, rightly, that the austerity efforts today will be rewarded in the future. Conversely, the word "austerity" has disappeared from the American vocabulary long ago, the latter being perceived by investors as "bad for growth."

So that even if U.S. growth in 2011 is higher than that of Europe, the price paid by the United States to have postponed indefinitely a return to austerity is incalculable long-term. Although more conservative, the ECB has chosen to limit as much as possible in November 2010, liquidity injections, such as practice shots at the Fed redemptions of government securities. With regard to redemptions of bonds of countries in difficulty by the ECB, they are limited to 72 billion euros at the end of 2010, 90 billion dollars. Including the purchase of private debt securities, the ECB is the guarantor of some 200 billion euros. In comparison, the Fed has made, by June 2011, the repurchase of securities amounting to 2.3 trillion dollars in its two programs of "quantitative easing" (QE I and II), 1000000000000 toxic securities, earning the nickname the passage of "financial shock". In other words, the comparison is almost absurd because the interventions totaled U.S. tenfold. Despite this, the ECB believes it has made a major concession by buying back shares because it has derogated from article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU which outlaws "monetizing the debt", ie the process "run the printing press".