236
submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

What is the rationale behind switching to the US dollar? I sort of get why US libertarians are opposed to fiat currency (they don't want the Fed to have the power to interfere in markets), but Milei just wants to switch to a fiat currency that someone else controls? What makes him think that would end well for Argentina?

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Argentina's runaway inflation is caused by the central bank printing money (to finance the government's out of control spending). The rationale for dollarization is to remove the ability for the government to do this. It's not an inherently crazy idea, since (i) there are smaller Latin American countries that use the dollar, and (ii) the dollar is already used de facto for many purposes in Argentina because of how debased the peso has been. But there are lots of practical problems; notably, Argentina simply does not own enough dollars in the entire country to keep the economy running normally if they switch (whatever "normally" means for an economy like theirs).

Argentina’s runaway inflation is caused by the central bank printing money (to finance the government’s out of control spending)

Macroeconomists don't really agree that that issuing money in and of itself causes inflation, but it certainly can lead to it in some cases. Instead, if you issue money you need to spend it on something that increases the productivity of your economy, otherwise it can lead to waste and inflation down the line. You can actually use money issuing to fight inflation if you spend the money you issued on addressing the problem at hand - for example, the supply side problems we faced following the pandemic that caused the inflation we're at the tail end of right now.

By adopting the US dollar, Argentina would effectively give up monetary autonomy to the US central bank (so, just another central bank outside of their control). In fact, the US central bank could decide to issue money in a positive way as mentioned above, without any of that having a similarly positive impact on the countries that depend on the US dollar.

Money & Macro (PhD Joeri Schasfoort) has made multiple videos on the topic, but here are two (the first one short, the second one a deep dive) if you want to hear this side of the story told in greater depth:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prF1aUeTzzM
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEZsgAgYDhw
[-] cyd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

You might be confusing debt issuance with money issuance.

Governments often issue debt to fund various kinds of spending. And despite concerns about debt levels, they can have a pretty fuzzy relationship with inflation; Japan has public debt of over 200% of GDP, and an underinflation problem.

But issuing money for the purposes of government spending -- the monetization of fiscal policy -- is almost always a bad idea, outside of wartime. The practice is behind every single episode of hyperinflation in economic history. And governments know this. Fiscal monetization is only resorted to by countries that have exhausted their ability to borrow; if cutting spending isn't politically feasible, the remaining resort is monetization. That's basically how you get to Argentina's situation.

As for giving up monetary autonomy, it is indeed a serious drawback to dollarization. But this is a second order problem compared to the kinds of problems facing Argentina, like findng a guy bleeding out after a road accident, and worrying about his obesity.

You might be confusing debt issuance with money issuance.

Nope. Let me quote Joeri from his second video (19 minutes in):

Let's tackle the one that the internet loves the most first: money printing. To view money printing as the source of all price inflation actually has a very long tradition in economics. The most prominent economist to support this idea was Nobel prize winner Milton Friedman (11:49) who said that. [...]

Crucially, Friedman inspired economists often assume that velocity and production are roughly constant. Remember that clip from Peter Schiff arguing that stimulus checks for people at home would be inflationary? Crucially, he made the implicit assumption there that this didn't prevent a further collapse of production.

"Everything is getting more expensive. And if people think that is transitory, it is because they don't understand the problem. In fact, they don't even understand inflation or where it comes from because inflation is about money. You are inflating the money supply. That's what's being expanded and none of this is transitory because these deficits aren't transitory. The money printing isn't transitory. It's here to stay. — and that means prices are going to continue to go up because we continue to destroy the value of the dollar as we expand the supply"

Sounds pretty convincing right? However, the monetary theory of inflation has almost completely disappeared from universities. Why? Well, because the data doesn't support this simple explanation in most economies. For example, check out this graph of the CPI for Europe and compare it to the graph of central bank printed M1 money supply... You can clearly see that the money supply has accelerated while price growth has slowed. To a less extend this disconnect also exists for the USA. But, if you really want to see this simple theory fail, you only need to look at Japan. Even if we take into account the more expansive M3 money supply measure, which include money created by private banks, and compare it to the CPI. You can clearly see that while M3 kept going up, the CPI had its ups and downs. What can explain this disconnect?

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Pointing to Japanese money supply versus inflation is irrelevant because Japan doesn't fund its fiscal deficit via monetization. It issues debt, just like every other non-basket case economy on Earth.

The distinction is important. Debt is tied to a promise to repay later. Monetization has no such promise, so it's functionally equivalent to issuing debt and then immediately defaulting. So long as lenders believe debt will be repaid, the effects are different from monetization.

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 1 year ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=prF1aUeTzzM

https://www.piped.video/watch?v=VEZsgAgYDhw

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Which other countries use it in Latin America? There are places which have used it relatively successfully, and de facto usage at least gives people more confidence.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Ecuador, El Salvador, and Panama.

[-] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 9 points 1 year ago

It's because every time the argentinian government needs to pay something, and don't have the cash to do that, they print some billions and pay it. By literally printing monopoly money in huge quantity, they're devaluing their currency every time they print a batch.

The rationale is that if they're using the us dollar, the inflation will stop because it's controlled externally

But by using the us dollar, every time the argentinian government needs to pay something and doesn't have the cash to do that, need to borrow some heavy debt (at insane interest rate given their history where they didn't repay previous debts)

And would need an huge quantity of them in a short time to exchange and dispose the pesos from people and banks

If it was as easy as "just don't print monopoly money" they would have solved it.

Maybe it would be easier to just stop printing money than officially switching to a different currency

[-] Ddhuud@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Politicians here don't hesitate on printing money to pay for things. Always have, and probably always will. He wants to take that possibility from their hands.

[-] LightDelaBlue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

like zimbawee i think foir make a "stability" in the curency. (still worth nothing)

this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
236 points (97.2% liked)

World News

39161 readers
1545 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS