If a tax hike increases the price of some sector’s products, politicians and journalists air the issue. But when some other economic factor does the same, the response may be oblivious neglect. That seems to be the case with a spike in the value of the U.S. dollar over recent months. It is bad news for many Minnesota businesses but is passing unheralded.
This underscores the fact that while we may live in a global economy, few of us understand its dynamics.
Start with a quick review of what happens when the exchange value of a currency changes. If a U.S. dollar buys more euros than it did before, imported goods from the eurozone, such as cars, wine, industrial machinery or whatever, become cheaper in the U.S. Each dollar is worth more euros and thus each dollar buys more European goods.
The flip side occurs in Europe: U.S. exports become more expensive. If it takes more euros to buy a dollar then it also takes more euros to buy a bushel of U.S. soybeans or a U.S.-made heart valve. And at higher prices, we sell less.
The problem right now is not with the euro, at least not directly. At about $1.31 per euro, one dollar only buys 2.5 percent more euros that it did on average over the past four years and fewer than it did when the new currency was introduced 14 years ago. But the dollar has gained value compared with other currencies that are important, either because they are from some major trading partner or from a nation that competes with us in a key export market.
For example, it now takes about 5 percent more Japanese yen to buy a dollar than it did in March and 25 percent more than it did a year ago.
That means, regardless of any changes in the price of soybeans, a Japanese importer has to spend 25 percent more to buy a bushel of Minnesota soybeans than it did in July 2012. And when a Japanese-made car sells here, its manufacturer gets 25 percent more yen for it. In practical terms, that means dealers here can cut prices to take sales away from U.S.-made cars and the Japanese manufacturer still will do well.
The sharpest changes in recent months, ones that prompt use of the term “spike” to describe the dollar’s “strengthening,” are those relative to the Australian dollar and the Brazilian real.
The U.S. dollar now buys about 15 percent more Australian dollars than it did in March, when the spike began. Ditto for the Brazilian real.
Why should Minnesotans care about these two countries? We don’t sell either much of anything in the way of farm products and you don’t see the roads clogged with Australian or Brazilian cars.
However, both are major exporters of agricultural commodities and iron ore and thus are our direct competitors in world markets.
Our country still dominates soybean production, consumption and exports. Brazil only produces half as much and only exports a third as much as we do. But their exports still exceed all the other countries. In terms of competition we face in world soy markets, Brazil is it.
The United States also is a major wheat producer. (However, most people would be surprised to learn that China produces nearly twice as much and India 50 percent more than we do). We produce nearly three times as much as Australia. But it has a small population and thus exports nearly 80 percent of what we do.
World trade in wheat is less concentrated than soybeans and there are other competing exporters including Canada, the European Union and Russia. But Australia is the next biggest after us and when a 15 percent change in the value of its currency makes it more competitive, that affects us.
Our country is no longer the powerhouse in world iron ore production that we were a century ago. Australia produces nine times more and Brazil seven times more than we do. We no longer export much and are net importers some years. But while iron ore no longer is a major economic sector for our country, it still is important to Minnesota well beyond the diminished fraction of the state labor force employed by modern capital-intensive mining.
Just a decade ago, the average price of iron ore was $25 a metric ton and our country was a net importer. Over the past four years, the price has hovered near $100 per ton and exports have exceeded imports by some 5 million tons. That has been wonderful for northeast Minnesota. But world demand is slackening and prices are falling. A sudden 15 percent additional price disadvantage relative to Brazil and Australia because of a “stronger” dollar is not good news.
All this confirms the truism that a high-value currency is good for consumers but bad for producers and hence bad for gross domestic product growth and employment. Unfortunately, those are precisely what we need to grow.
Moreover, by stimulating imports and retarding exports, a high-value currency tends to increase any deficit in a nation’s current account, the measure of all short-term inflows and outflows of money. A greater current account deficit inherently means that we must own fewer long-term assets abroad or have greater debts abroad. So please don’t acclaim a strengthening dollar as a wonderful indicator of economic health.
The economically savvy will note that what matters is the value of our currency against the weighted average of the currencies of all our trade partners. On this “trade-weighted” basis, the news is not bad, with the dollar only 3 percent pricier since New Year’s. But that weighted average includes countries from which we import oil. If one would look at an average for manufacturing and agriculture, the news is not good, even if not as extreme as for specific U.S. producers competing with Australia and Brazil.