O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

Mostrando postagens com marcador dólar. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador dólar. Mostrar todas as postagens

domingo, 29 de agosto de 2021

Aprendendo com a História - Affonso Celso Pastore (OESP)

 

01:51:52 | 29/08/2021 | Economia | O Estado de S. Paulo | Affonso Celso Pastore | BR

Affonso Celso Pastore

    AFFONSO CELSO PASTORE

    Aprendendo com a história

    Muitos desprezam a história, preferindo o conforto dos modelos matemáticos.

    Respeito ambos, mas dou um grande peso à história.

    No regime de Bretton Woods, os EUA fixavam o preço do ouro em US$ 35 por onça-troy, e os demais países mantinham o câmbio fixo em relação ao dólar. Há cinquenta anos, precisamente em 15 de agosto de 1971, o presidente Nixon fechou a "gold window", que permitia aos signatários daquele acordo converterem as suas reservas em ouro àquele preço. Era o "início do fim" daquele regime monetário, que só foi formalmente extinto em 1973.

    Naqueles anos, tanto quanto agora, a política monetária do Fed era voltada exclusivamente aos objetivos domésticos.

    "O dólar é a nossa moeda, mas o vosso problema", como disse o secretário John Connally. Para financiar a guerra do Vietnã e manter o pleno emprego, o Fed expandia a oferta de moeda que, devido ao câmbio fixo, elevava a oferta mundial de moeda e gerava uma inflação mundial. A atividade bancária era estimulada, florescendo o mercado de euro-dólares, que ainda continuou crescendo depois de 1973, dado que os países não abandonaram de imediato o câmbio fixo.

    Quando em 1976 ocorreu o segundo choque do petróleo, aumentando o valor das suas importações, o governo Geisel teve a ilusão de que poderia usar a crise como uma oportunidade de crescimento. Lançou o II PND através do qual financiou com empréstimos externos os investimentos na produção de bens de capital e de insumos básicos. Era suposto que a substituição de importações geraria uma economia de dólares que permitiria pagar o aumento na conta do petróleo, com o benefício do crescimento econômico.

    Os industriais aplaudiram a clarividência do presidente e se auto-enganavam, acreditando que entrávamos em um mundo novo, no qual a abundância de empréstimos baratos era uma consequência da reciclagem dos petrodólares, e não da política monetária expansionista do Fed, que teria de terminar.

    Geramos uma dívida externa de 50% do PIB, que nos levou à crise da dívida externa dos anos oitenta. Durante o II PND, o Brasil cresceu a 7,5% ao ano, porém à custa de nos jogar na armadilha do baixo crescimento, da qual não mais nos livramos.

    Não sei se este episódio ainda é estudado nos cursos de Economia, nem se são feitas comparações com o mundo atual. Mas os alunos deveriam ser advertidos de que, apesar das muitas transformações institucionais, ainda temos uma relíquia do passado, que é o "privilégio exorbitante" dos EUA â o benefício de ter a sua própria moeda usada como a moeda reserva internacional.

    É o único país que, diante de um déficit nas contas correntes, não tem de se preocupar com seu financiamento.

    Paga com sua própria moeda e influencia as políticas monetárias de todos os demais.

    Um exemplo são os efeitos da expansão monetária motivada pela crise da covid sobre as taxas de câmbio dos países livres de graves problemas fiscais e políticos. Quando irrompeu a pandemia, a taxa dos "fed funds" foi colocada no zero técnico, e foram comprados em torno de US$ 2 trilhões de treasuries.

    A consequência dessa maciça expansão monetária foi um enfraquecimento de 10% do dólar em relação a uma cesta de moedas que inclui euro, libra, iene, dólar canadense, dólar australiano, coroa sueca e franco suíço â o DXY. Não foram apenas estas 7 moedas que se valorizaram, e sim a quase totalidade das demais. O mundo agradeceu aos EUA. Afinal, aquela recessão exigia queda acentuada das taxas de juros, que foi facilitada pelo efeito desinflacionário vindo do fortalecimento de suas moedas.

    Estímulo monetário nos EUA leva a um estímulo monetário mundial, mas a recíproca também é verdadeira.

    inflação vem se elevando, mas ainda não vi preocupações. O "average inflation targeting" dá um enorme conforto; a transição demográfica derrubou as taxas neutras no mundo; e a culpa de uma inflação acima de 5% nos EUA não é atribuída ao exagero dos estímulos, mas a choques de oferta. Da mesma forma, a sensível elevação dos "price earnings ratios" no S&P500 não é atribuída à queda excessiva da taxa de desconto, e sim ao vigor da economia norte-americana.

    Por que nos preocuparmos com uma mudança quando o próprio Fed está seguro de que pode tolerar uma inflação mais alta? Gostaria de ter essa frieza. Mas o respeito à história e às lições que ela nos oferece me impedem de tê-la. Já vi muitas esperanças serem destruídas por fatos que muitos julgavam irrelevantes, e que preocuparam apenas uns poucos.

    EX-PRESIDENTE DO BANCO CENTRAL E SÓCIO DA A.C. PASTORE & ASSOCIADOS.

    ESCREVE QUINZENALMENTE

    quarta-feira, 5 de maio de 2021

    US Dollar Share of Global Foreign Exchange Reserves Drops to 25-Year Low - Serkan Arslanalp and Chima Simpson-Bell (FMI)

     US Dollar Share of Global Foreign Exchange Reserves Drops to 25-Year Low

    By Serkan Arslanalp and Chima Simpson-Bell

    The share of US dollar reserves held by central banks fell to 59 percent—its lowest level in 25 years—during the fourth quarter of 2020, according to the IMF’s Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) survey. Some analysts say this partly reflects the declining role of the US dollar in the global economy, in the face of competition from other currencies used by central banks for international transactions. If the shifts in central bank reserves are large enough, they can affect currency and bond markets.

    Our Chart of the Week looks at the recent data release from a longer-term perspective. It shows that the share of US dollar assets in central bank reserves dropped by 12 percentage points—from 71 to 59 percent—since the euro was launched in 1999 (top panel), although with notable fluctuations in between (blue line). Meanwhile, the share of the euro has fluctuated around 20 percent, while the share of other currencies including the Australian dollar, Canadian dollar, and Chinese renminbi climbed to 9 percent in the fourth quarter (green line).

    chart

     

    Exchange rate fluctuations can have a major impact on the currency composition of central bank reserve portfolios. Changes in the relative values of different government securities can also have an impact, although this effect would tend to be smaller since major currency bond yields usually move together. During periods of US dollar weakness against major currencies, the US dollar’s share of global reserves generally declines since the US dollar value of reserves denominated in other currencies increases (and vice versa in times of US dollar strength). In turn, US dollar exchange rates can be influenced by several factors, including diverging economic paths between the United States and other economies, differences in monetary and fiscal policies, as well as foreign exchange sales and purchases by central banks.

    The bottom panel shows that the value of the US dollar against major currencies (black line) has remained broadly unchanged over the past two decades. However, there have been significant fluctuations in the interim, which can explain about 80 percent of the short-term (quarterly) variance in the US dollar’s share of global reserves since 1999. The remaining 20 percent of the short-term variance can be explained mainly by active buying and selling decisions of central banks to support their own currencies.

    Turning to this past year, once we account for the impact of exchange rate movements (orange line), we see that the US dollar’s share in reserves held broadly steady. However, taking a longer view, the fact that the value of the US dollar has been broadly unchanged, while the US dollar’s share of global reserves has declined, indicates that central banks have indeed been shifting gradually away from the US dollar.

    Some expect that the US dollar’s share of global reserves will continue to fall as emerging market and developing economy central banks seek further diversification of the currency composition of their reserves. A few countries, such as Russia, have already announced their intention to do so.

    Despite major structural shifts in the international monetary system over the past six decades, the US dollar remains the dominant international reserve currency. As our Chart of the Week shows, any changes to the US dollar’s status are likely to emerge in the long run.

    Serkan Arslanalp is Deputy Division Chief in the Balance of Payments Division of the IMF’s Statistics Department. 

    Chima Simpson-Bell is an Economist in the IMF’s Statistics Department.

    sábado, 19 de janeiro de 2019

    O sistema monetario internacional no século XX: book review

    Ao colocar uma resenha de livro abaixo, permito-me remeter, novamente a meu artigo sobre o euro, elaborado no momento em que a moeda comum da Euroland era lançada fiduciariamente, 20 anos atrás.

    O euro aos 20 anos; ensaio PRA quando de sua criação (2000)

    Paulo Roberto de Almeida

    Behind the Scenes at the Central Banks that Created our Modern Monetary System

    [From the Summer 2018 Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. A review of How Global Currencies Work: Past, Present, and Future by Barry Eichengreen, Arnaud Mehl, and Livia Chitu, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2018, 250 pp.]
    The present volume is an engaging and intriguing account of how global currencies, such as British sterling and the U.S. dollar, have risen to global dominance in the international monetary arena, and how currencies such as the Chinese renminbi, for example, could follow in their footsteps. Divided into twelve chapters, the work focuses primarily on the international monetary history of the 20th century, complemented by a comparatively brief account of the 19th and 21st centuries. The narrower focus of the discussion in these chapters—and most of the data supplied in each chapter’s appendices—concerns the composition of foreign reserves, i.e. the balance between holdings of pounds and dollars, and later of yen, euro, and renminbi.
    From this, the authors propose to tease out a few new factual discoveries and some implications for the future of the international monetary system. More precisely, they disavow the traditional theoretical view which argues that international currency status resembles a natural monopoly that arises organically from the benefits of using the currency of the most economically (commercially and financially) powerful country in international economic transactions, i.e. a monopoly due to network returns (p. 4), and winner-takes-all and lock-in effects.
    Because, argue the authors, this ‘old’ model is not supported by much of the data from the 20th century, they propose a ‘new’ view arguing that multiple currencies can be used concomitantly on an international scale, such as the pound sterling and the dollar during the 1920s. These currencies played “consequential international roles” (p. 11) demonstrating that inertia and persistence due to network effects in international transactions are not as strong as previously thought. Their updated theoretical framework is borrowed from the process of technological development, where new technologies are adopted gradually by users and grow exponentially, thus using an analogy between the workings of international currencies and those of computer operating systems.
    Eichengreen, Mehl and Chitu’s discussion also seems to revolve around the interplay between the political sphere and national monetary policies on an international scale, but this insight remains latent throughout their analysis. The authors focus rather on the technical aspects of international currency status and deliberately treat political and monetary matters as separate—in parts dismissing political matters completely.
    Chapters 2, 3, and 4 contain a factually rich historical narrative of the origin and development of the holding of foreign reserves, particularly before and after the First World War. Scattered throughout are little gems useful to any scholar of monetary theory, like the fact that “foreign exchange reserves had accounted for less than 10 percent of total reserves in 1880, [but] accounted for nearly 15 percent in 1913” (p. 17).
    In Chapter 4 the authors provide evidence of the currency composition of foreign exchange reserves in the 1920s and 1930s that best underpin their ‘new’ view: they find that the dollar overtook sterling as the international reserve currency in the mid-1920s, and not in the 1930s to 1940s as previously thought by monetary scholars. This proves that the sterling and the dollar shared, at the same time, the status of international currency. Contrary to the traditional view, then, international currency status is not subject to a natural monopoly.
    To further explain how this came about, the authors show in subsequent chapters the great intervention efforts of the U.S. Federal Reserve to ‘support the market between 1917 and 1937’ (p. 69). The Fed’s heavy-handed approach to trade credit (chapter 5) and international bond markets (chapter 6) propelled the dollar to international currency status over a short period before its collapse during the Great Depression. However—and again disproving the theoretical model—the dollar recovered its status around the time of the Second World War and completely surpassed the British sterling, showing that the status of international currency is, once lost, not lost forever. Rather, it can be regained through the coordinated efforts of a powerful central bank, which can heavily benefit from engineering this rise to global currency status. Moreover, the authors argue, other countries benefit as well from not relying on one global lender of last resort, but rather on a network of lenders. Chapters 9, 10, and 11 discuss along the very same lines the rise and fall of the yen and the euro (with the euro crisis), and the future prospects of the Chinese renminbi, respectively.
    Despite the great amount of historical information contained in this book, and the ample new data available to the authors, the volume falls short of the promise in its title. The narrative does not actually show how global currencies work in a comprehensive manner, but only how the global ascension of a currency can be traced back to the behind-the-scenes machinations of a central bank. As such, the subject could have been—and was—satisfactorily treated in a half dozen journal articles published by the authors between 2009 and 2016 (p. xv).
    Nevertheless, it is still interesting to note that the geopolitical history of the world can be read through the history of monetary policy, or perhaps, that the history of monetary policy is mirrored in the history of geopolitics. As the authors themselves explain, the dominance of one country’s currency in international exchanges can indicate the “singular leverage” (p. 3) of that country’s central bank over international financial relations and international politics. More importantly, the reverse is also true: the dominance of one country in international politics is a good indicator of the international status of its currency throughout history.
    However, because the authors choose to separate the political causes and implications of monetary policies from their economic aspects, the book ultimately provides a rather hesitant and unassuming analysis that makes it feel lackluster. Two questions arise that remain unanswered: Why do central banks benefit from their currency becoming global, if not by preventing domestic inflation from reflecting in their exchange rate and foreign reserves? And why do other countries benefit from having multiple lenders of last resort (multiple reserve currencies), if not by accomplishing the same disguise? Without an answer to these questions, or even an acknowledgment of their existence, the book appears to be a collection of great insights whose potential remains unrealized.
    Let me briefly illustrate this by contrasting Eichengreen, Mehl, and Chitu’s analysis of the momentous change in international monetary relations at the Genoa Conference in 1922 with the one put forward by Mises and Rothbard.
    The authors discuss in chapter 3 (From Jekyll Island to Genoa) the leading countries’ efforts to restore the gold standard in the 1920s whilst avoiding the deflationary repercussions following the period of great inflation during the First World War. According to the report of the financial commission,
    the Genoa resolutions called for negotiating a convention based on the gold-exchange standard with a view to “preventing undue fluctuations in the purchasing power of gold”… The idea was to create an environment in which ‘credit will be regulated… with a view to maintaining the currencies at par with one another (pp. 38–39).
    Eichengreen, Mehl and Chitu view this solely as an open effort of Great Britain to recover the lost dominance of the pound sterling, and the otherwise innocent desire to renounce the golden fetters of the pre-WWI gold standard. While discussing monetary competition between London and New York, they fail to pinpoint the nature of this competition, and avoid answering the question whether the new reserve system was “badly designed or badly managed” (p. 41).
    In the system’s design lurked a fateful goal: the continued inflation of money supplies. Coordination efforts among central monetary authorities in reaching this goal was a first step toward abandoning the commodity money system. While the authors only seem to skirt around the issue, Rothbard (2010, pp. 94–95) explicitly argued that Great Britain wanted to establish
    a new international monetary order which would induce or coerce other governments into inflating or into going back to gold at overvalued pars for their own currencies, thus crippling their own exports and subsidizing imports from Britain. This is precisely what Britain did, as it led the way, at the Genoa Conference of 1922, in creating a new international monetary order, the gold-exchange standard.
    Mises had explained this need for policy coordination in a similar way:
    Various governments went off the gold standard because they were eager to make domestic prices and wages rise above the world market level, and because they wanted to stimulate exports and to hinder imports. Stability of foreign exchange rates was in their eyes a mischief, not a blessing (2010a, p. 252).
    If the various governments and central banks do not all act in the same way, if some banks or governments go a little farther than the others… those who expand [the money supply] more are forced to return to the market rate of interest in order to preserve their solvency through liquidity; they want to prevent funds from being withdrawn from their country; they do not want to see their reserves in… foreign money dwindling (Mises, 2010b, p. 77).
    The crucial issue here, therefore, is not the prominence of one currency or another, but that this prominence was engineered to speed up the renunciation of the gold standard, and greatly enlarge the freedom of all central banks to inflate money supplies. The Genoa Conference had thus paved the way for the next steps: the Bretton-Woods conference of 1944 and the “closing of the gold window” in 1971. This process did not unfold without problems, but it created the auspicious environment for inter-governmental monetary agreements, and allowed the U.S. and other powerful nations to employ a “policy of benign neglect toward the international monetary consequences of [their] actions” (Rothbard, 2010, p. 101). This further removed many obstacles to creating “the ideal condition for unlimited inflation” (Rothbard, 2009, p. 1018)—a system mimicking a global fiat currency as closely as possible.
    In this light, the desire to engineer global currency status for one nation’s currency is open to another, more somber interpretation, which highlights the pressing dangers of international fiat money. According to Mises (2010b, p. 254):
    Under a system of world inflation or world credit expansion every nation will be eager to belong to the class of gainers and not to that of the losers. It will ask for as much as possible of the additional quantity of paper money or credit for its own country.
    It is not usual in a book review to criticize the authors for failing to achieve something they did not explicitly set out to accomplish. And yet, How Global Currencies Work: Past, Present, and Future is wanting in both its depth and breadth of analysis. Nonetheless, the abundance of data on the composition of foreign exchange reserves the authors make available is impressive, and their accomplishment in this regard must be commended. The book is easy to read, even though largely technical in nature and much too narrow in its focus.
    I remain hopeful that this project will be followed by another, more extensive investigation into the workings of global currencies. An alternative analysis of this data, focused on the differences in kind between commodity and paper money, would provide a much deeper and richer illustration of how global fiat currencies are made to work to serve the political purposes of one powerful nation or another. This would indeed illuminate much of the dark history of monetary policy over the last three centuries.
    Dr. Carmen Elena Dorobăț is a Fellow of the Mises Institute and assistant professor of business and economics at Leeds Trinity University in the United Kingdom. She has a PhD in economics from the University of Angers, and is the recipient of the 2015 O.P. Alford III Prize in Political Economy and the 2017 Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Excellence in Research and Teaching. Her research interests include international trade, monetary theory and policy, and the history of economic thought.

    quinta-feira, 28 de abril de 2016

    Preocupado com o cambio? Aqui uma licao completa, com exemplos do dolar e do euro - Frank Shostak (Mises Daily)

    With Currency, Everything Is Relative
    by Frank Shostak
    Mises Daily, April 27, 2016

    At the end of March the price of the euro in terms of US dollars closed at 1.1378. This was an increase of 4.7 percent from February when it increased by 0.3 percent. The yearly growth rate of the price of the euro in US dollar terms jumped to 6 percent in March from minus 2.9 percent in February.


    What Determines a Currency’s Value?

    According to most experts currency rates of exchange appear to be moving in response to so many factors that it makes it almost impossible to ascertain where the rate of exchange is likely to be headed.

    Rather than paying attention to the multitude of factors, though, it is more sensible to focus on the essential variable.

    As far as the currency rate of exchange determination is concerned, this variable is the relative changes in the purchasing power of various monies.

    It is the relative purchasing power of various monies that sets the underlying rate of exchange.

    A price of a basket of goods is the amount of money paid for the basket. We can also say that the amount of money paid for a basket of goods is the purchasing power of money with respect to the basket of goods.

    If in the US the price of a basket of goods is one dollar, and in Europe an identical basket of goods is sold for 2 euros then the rate of exchange between the US dollar and the euro must be two euros per one dollar.

    The Money Supply and Purchasing Power

    An important factor in setting the purchasing power of money is the supply of money. If over time the rate of growth in the US money supply exceeds the rate of growth of the European money supply, all other things being equal, this will put pressure on the US dollar.

    Since a price of a good is the amount of money per good, this now means that the prices of goods in dollar terms will increase faster than prices in euro terms, all other things being equal.

    Price Changes Do Not Occur All at Once, or Evenly

    Changes in a local money supply affect its general purchasing power with a time lag, and this means that changes in relative money supply affect the currency rate of exchange also with a time lag.

    When money is injected into the economy it starts with a particular market before it goes to other markets. This is the reason for the lag.

    When it enters a particular market it pushes the price of a good in this market higher. More money is spent on given goods than before.

    This in turn means that past and present information about the money supply can be employed in ascertaining likely future moves in the currency rate of exchange.

    The Demand for Money

    Another important factor in driving the purchasing power of money and the currency rate of exchange is the demand for money. For instance, with an increase in the production of goods the demand for money will follow suit.

    The demand for the services of the medium of exchange will increase since more goods must now be exchanged. As a result, for a given supply of money, the purchasing power of money will increase. Less money will be chasing more goods now.

    Various factors, such as the interest rate differential, can cause a deviation of the currency rate of exchange from the level dictated by relative purchasing power. Such deviations, however, will set corrective forces in motion.

    The Role of Central Banks

    We saw earlier that if the price of a basket of goods in the US is one dollar and in Europe two euros, then according to the purchasing power framework the currency rate of exchange should be one dollar for two euros.

    But, let us now say that the Fed raises its policy interest rate while the European central bank keeps its policy rate unchanged.

    As a result of the widening in the interest rate differential between the US and the euro zone, the resulting increase in the demand for dollars pushes the exchange rate in the market toward one dollar for three euros.

    This means that the dollar is now overvalued when compared to the relative purchasing power of the dollar versus the euro.

    Demand for a Currency Is Affected by Attempts to Gain from Arbitrage

    As long as this situation endures, it will pay to sell the basket of goods for dollars, then exchange dollars for euros, and then buy the basket of goods with euros — thus making a clear arbitrage gain. For example, individuals could sell a basket of goods for one dollar, exchange the one dollar for three euros, and then exchange three euros for 1.5 baskets, gaining 0.5 of a basket of goods.

    The fact that the holder of dollars will increase his/her demand for euros in order to profit from the arbitrage will then make euros more expensive in terms of dollars — pushing the exchange rate back in the direction of one dollar for two euros. An arbitrage will always be set in motion if the rate of exchange deviates, for whatever reasons, from the underlying rate of exchange.

    All of these factors continue to affect the relative value of the US dollar to the euro. Relative to the euro, however, the US dollar is growing in value as the euro declines. After closing at 5.5 percent in June 2014, the money growth differential between the US and the euro zone fell to minus 4.8 percent in February this year. This means that relative to the euro zone, US money growth has weakened significantly. From a monetary perspective, this suggests the US dollar will continue to increase in value against the euro in the months ahead, all other things being equal.