De-Dollarization and the Decline of the American Empire Part 2: The Cost of Breaking Trust

Strong-arm tariff manipulations
will have consequences lasting far beyond
the Trump Presidency
Time Contraction in the Age of Trump

When I posted ‘De-Dollarization and the Decline of the American Empire Part 1: Overview’ six weeks  ago, I had in mind that the Empire’s  financial reckoning was still years away.

But behold! here we are barely three months into Trump 2.0, and the reckoning has come over the horizon and is barreling at us like a runaway train.

OK, that’s a little much—the train is a runaway, but it moves in fits and starts, sometimes idling ominously, at other times lurching forward or backward, in correspondence with the fits and starts of Donald Trump’s mental processes. There’s no telling just when and how hard it will hit us, but now we can see it coming.

As of the evening of April 9, 2025, Donald Trump has just paused most of the procrustean tariffs he had called into being just seven days before, on “Liberation Day,” except for a whopping 145 percent on imports from China, and 10 percent on most of the others. These changes, taken together with the earlier on-again, off-again, whipsawing of tariffs on Mexico and Canada, convey one concept above all else: you never know what he will do next. Trump thinks this is good strategy. Time will tell otherwise.

Update as of April 16th: Trump has now lifted tariffs on smart phones, computers, and other electronic devices coming from China. Trump has been the first to blink in the trade war with China that he started. You might say that vacillation is at the center of Trump trade policy.

Multiple choice test: what are the objectives behind Donald Trump’s wide array of tariffs?

A) Belief that these tariffs will bring about the resurrection of U.S. manufacturing.

B) To punish foreign countries who have been unfairly and malignly “ripping us off” since World War II. Take that, you blood-suckers!

C) To enact a plan starting with threats to foreign countries to impose tariffs that could cripple their economies unless they accede to Trump’s demands on prices, currency valuations,  and regulations.  The purpose is to aggregate trade concessions in a sweeping plan which goes by the name of “The Mar-a-Lago Accords.” That grand-sounding name is a euphemism for  worldwide extortion.

D) To use proceeds from tariffs to offset tax cuts for corporations, private equity businesses, and wealthy individuals. (Note that tariffs are effectively regressive sales taxes that hurt the poor and lower-middle classes the hardest, and the super-wealthy hardly at all.)

E) To use proceeds from tariffs for a sovereign wealth fund which he and his billionaire buddies can tap for government investments in their businesses.

F) Take an opportunity to look tough by playing a game of chicken with China

G) He just likes tariffs, the bigger the better. After all, he’s had a lifetime fixation on tariffs.  He has said that “tariff” is the most beautiful word in the English language (more beautiful even than “love”—the last pronounced at a rally of the Trump cultists with a note of sarcasm, the strength of which serves as  another clue that at the core of Donald Trump’s heart is a void).

H) All of the above.

While the answer is ‘H,’ most of these objectives have flaws that undermine their practicability. The most doable—using tariffs to feed a sovereign wealth fund and to offset income tax cuts—are the ones limited to the boundaries of the U.S. The ones that involve foreign countries have slim prospects at best, and they get slimmer the more Donald Trump tries to jerk them around.

The potential for  ‘C’ (the putative Mar-a-Lago Accord)  to work has been undermined by Trump’s erratic approach to the application of tariffs. Countries will be wary of negotiating agreements that could be ripped up in a matter of days.  They will be asking for assurances that scotch the deal before negotiations have finished.

As for ‘F,’ Trump has already backed down once. He’s come up against someone who has more “cards” than he does.

Mutual trust is the foundation of successful trade, and Trump has broken trust more times than anyone can count

Countries alienated by Donald Trump are seeking a new international economic order—an order no longer dictated to them by the U.S. Their search is increasingly focused on currency and bond markets, with the financial hegemony inherent in the status of the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency at stake.

De-dollarization and the erosion of America’s economic strength go hand in hand. The replacement of the dollar by some other dominant currency as the global reserve in a formal sense would entail complex negotiations among scores of countries, and I understand it might take at least two years to put in place at best.  Yet what is now happening, as foreign nations, businesses, and persons sell their U.S. Treasuries* and pull back from other investments in the U.S., is a shift away from the dollar and toward multipolar arrangements.  This was discussed in my earlier post on de-dollarization. Alliances of countries such as the growing BRICS+ group pose a practical threat to American hegemony. Even if the dollar remains officially the reserve currency, it will become less and less relevant to actual trade.

Consider How  Europe Can Replace the Dollar by Ryan Cooper in American Prospect. I quote a key passage from Cooper below:

Normally during a chaotic trading situation, anxious financiers run to what has long been the safest of investments: dollars and dollar assets, like U.S. government debt. That drives the value of the dollar up and the interest rate on debt down.

Instead, we are seeing the opposite: The dollar is falling against other currencies, and interest rates on American debt are increasing. As yet, these movements are relatively modest, and may represent nothing more than chaos in the market. However, they do indicate a likely weakening of confidence in the stability and security of the dollar as a global reserve currency—which given Trump’s deranged behavior, ought to be expected. A country that elected a senile criminal madman twice is not to be trusted.

[sic] The European Union just might have a once-in-a-century opportunity to provide that stability and security to governments and investors, and swipe some or all of the dollar’s status. But it won’t happen automatically, and it will require permanently ditching the traditional European allergy to debt and printing money.

Cooper is probably wrong right about Europe’s capacity to replace the dollar. Globally, China is just as important as Europe in international trade, and is working with its BRICS+ allies to craft a multipolar alternative to one dominant world reserve currency—an alternative whose center of gravity is shifting toward the global South.

But Cooper’s most important point is A country that elected a senile criminal madman twice is not to be trusted.”

We are contemplating a lack of trust not just in Trump but in the country that voted a “senile criminal madman” into office (along with a contingent of far-right, conspiracy-mongering Christian nationalists who are holding moderate lawmakers in Congress hostage). Trump is laying waste to the foreign policy based on alliances with friends and solidarity against foes that Biden sought to forge after the first Trump presidency. Relationships that have taken decades to develop are being shattered in a matter of weeks.  It  would take at least two successor political administrations—if they occur—to restore trust in the U.S. (if there is still a U.S.) by mid-century. By the time that happens we’ll be living in an entirely different world, shaped by forces and events that we can now envision only through a glass darkly.

A lack of trust will prove the downfall of any global-scale economic program the Trump regime might try. Lack of trust is hastening the decline of the dollar and with it the economic hegemony of the United States.

Lastly: the futility of the trade war with China

Trump and his advisors have it badly wrong about the economic strength of the U.S. vs China.  I don’t have to make that case, since Ben Norton in  Geopolitical Economy Report makes it in a devastating critique in the video below (note that Norton, who is a very serious guy, is having quite a bit of fun with this one—it’s the first time I’ve seen him chuckle more than once during a podcast):

More on the China dilemma in a later post.

 

*  For more on Treasuries, see U.S. National Debt and U.S. Treasuries

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I found myself in a world in which

 

Reasons to Hate the Debt Ceiling

Battles over the debt ceiling cripple the economy

As of this writing (November 21, 2022), Republicans are poised to take over the House of Representatives next year, and one of the weapons they are expected to use to scare people with is the federal debt ceiling.  If the debt ceiling is not raised, all sorts of economic havoc could result, based on the failure of the government to pay its bills, and the government might even go into default after a short lag time.  A default would send shock waves throughout the global economy, and make the U.S.—both government and the private sector—a less desirable entity to do business with.

Just the threat of a default makes other countries jittery—when, they ask themselves, will the U.S. actually default because of political wrangling?  Recurring battles over the debt ceiling weaken our position versus the developing BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) as well as established economies in the West.

What seems scary about the “national debt” and deficit spending

The “national debt” consists principally of the total of all the Treasury bonds, Treasury bills, and Treasury notes—or “Treasuries”— held by entities such as you, if you happen to hold a U.S. savings bond, as well as by the U.S. government itself. Currently the breakdown among all bondholders is about 36% held by American individuals and companies, 39% held by the U.S. federal government (used for such things as the Social Security Trust Fund, Medicare, and federal pensions) and 25% held by foreign investors such as China and Japan. The latter proportion  suggests the unlikelihood of the U.S. government being “held hostage” by foreign bond holders.

Continue reading “Reasons to Hate the Debt Ceiling”

Joe Biden’s Perfect Storm

A storm of woes haunts the Biden presidency

*COVID-19 Original
*COVID-19 Delta
*Fox News
*Divisive social media
*Donald Trump
*Russia
*Countless claims that Biden lost the 2020 election, believed by 78%
of Republicans
*Trump toadies Kevin McCarthy, Elise Stefanik, et al
*Trump thugs Marjorie Taylor Green, Paul Gosar, Matt Gaetz, et al
*Senate obstructionist Republican team, head thug Mitch McConnell
*Senate obstructionist pseudo-Democratic tag team Manchin-Sinema
*Militant House progressives
*Pigheaded House moderates
*Anti-Mask rebellions
*Anti-Vaccine rebellions
*Republican governors taking every opportunity to undermine his authority
*Anti-democratic Republican state legislatures
*Sinister conspiracy theories
*Bloodthirsty crazed dupes of conspiracy theories
*Threats against his life rising along with deadly threats against all office-holding Democrats (and some non-Democrats who refuse to be intimidated by the thugs)
*Emboldened white supremacists
*Irresolute Attorney General
*Bungled Afghanistan pullout
*Chinese saber-rattling
*A tsunami of pandemic-rebound shopping
*Oil price shocks
*Clogged supply chains

and now . . . 

The headline in the November 10, 6:24 pm story in The Hill was: “Biden Gets Inflation Gut Punch.”  Sure enough, just when it looked like a coalition of moderates and progressive Democrats was going to stitch together enough of the remains of Biden’s Build Back Better legislation to have all House Democrats call it a win, along comes inflation to poison the deal.

The result of too many dollars chasing too little capacity as the economy ramps up boosts inflation, and makes big government spending—of the magnitude that would benefit Americans up and down the economic ladder—enough of an inflation risk to stall or starve Biden’s Build Back Better legislative agenda.

Continue reading “Joe Biden’s Perfect Storm”

Budget Policy, Taxation, and Gratuitous Suffering

[Preamble: Along with the prospect of a massive national infrastructure program has come talk of the necessity of raising taxes in order to pay for it—from Democrats as well as Republicans. That talk is a mistake. My apologies for writing the third post on this subject in the last month, but I realize I have failed to convey the importance of it. Perhaps it’s better to frame it in the negative: how balancing the budget produces not just suffering, but gratuitous suffering. ]  

The tax and budget debate and gratuitous suffering

Continuing to talk about federal deficits and taxation is  dull, particularly when politicians from Bernie Sanders to Paul Ryan trot out the same tired commonplaces about taxing the rich (Sanders) and saddling future generations with crushing debt (Ryan & his successors).  Arguments from Left and Right are both couched in the paradigm of either balancing the federal budget or courting future disaster. Stuff we’ve heard countless times before, and just as irrelevant now as in the past.

Cloaked by the dullness is the true human cost of decision-makers getting bogged down in  meaningless arguments about budget deficits and taxes, while those who bear the greatest costs of the decisions have little voice.

The bogging-down leads to what Modern Monetary Theory champion Stephanie Kelton terms “gratuitous suffering.” Kelton:

It is just about the worst kind of suffering, because we have the capacity to do better, and to do better for our fellow Americans. To do better by others.  And if we can improve economic life for millions of people without creating harm, why wouldn’t we do that? 

Gratuitous, because there is a way out, but getting out requires something that almost no one on the public stage is talking about: to shed the mindset of having either to balance federal spending with taxes, or having to rectify crushing debt somewhere down the road with even greater taxes.

If you—despite your generous impulse to provide tens of millions of people with economic relief through government spending—still worry yourself about terrible future costs incurred by relief given in the present, then just stop worrying. Worrying about balancing the budget keeps getting  in the way of real economic progress.

For a 5-minute primer on Modern Monetary Theory and how it does away with concerns over budget deficits, watch Stephanie Kelton below:

Continue reading “Budget Policy, Taxation, and Gratuitous Suffering”

Stop Asking That Question!

COVID-19 Relief Bill draws another round
of pointless reiterations of
“how-are-you-going-to-pay-for-it?”

Those who had the patience and tolerance to wade through my earlier post on Modern Monetary Theory (find here) might not need to read the rest of this one. This one is something of a rehash of the reasons not to pay attention to the tired refrain, in respect to a government spending program, “how are you going to pay for it?”

Specifically, how are you (that is, we the taxpayers as distinct from zillionaires whose tax bills are barely a blip on their balance sheets) going to pay for the $1.9 trillion COVID Relief Bill, without bankrupting future generations?

It seems, from most of what I’ve been seeing and hearing, just about everyone on the political Left and Right is still buying  into “The Deficit Myth”—the fertile soil from which the how-are-you-going-to-pay-for-it commonplace sprouts. In the view of both sides, the National Debt looms as colossally menacing to American financial welfare as was Sauron’s redoubt Barad-Dur  to the welfare of the peoples of Middle Earth.

Interestingly, neither current Federal Reserve chairperson Jerome Powell nor past Fed chairperson and now Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen are sounding alarms about national debt risk caused by a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus.  Powell, to the contrary (and to the discomfort of fiscal conservatives dismayed to find out that Powell is not exactly Their Guy), has been advocating a big stimulus bill for months in order to head off another deep recession.

Continue reading “Stop Asking That Question!”

Watch Out! Article V Constitutional Convention Nears Reality

Overhaul of the Constitution sounds tempting: don’t bite

There are some things that liberals don’t like sitting like bedrock in the U.S. Constitution.  In particular, the Electoral College to elect the president, and the assignment of two senators to each state.  Then there’s the First and Fourteenth Amendments when extended by the Supreme Court going back to the 1880s to give the same protections to corporations as to real breathing humans.

Liberals, as well as many conservatives, also dislike the scope of powers conferred on the U.S. President that have expanded over the years. At least they dislike them when the president belongs to the opposing political party. (As a Virginian, I would like to point proudly to our Senator Tim Kaine’s principled crusade to limit the chief executive’s license to conduct wars, starting with the Obama Administration.)

How might these anti-democratic features of the Constitution be remedied? In fact, Article V of the Constitution provides for a method to completely overhaul the Constitution.

Say that again? What we customarily have in mind when we think of amending the Constitution is passing an individual amendment with two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress, then ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures.  It’s what’s been done to add all 28 amendments (28 in 229 years) to the original 10 in the Bill of Rights. That cautious procedure is in Article V, but also in Article V is something truly radical: a full-blown Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of the states (34 out of the current 50). The Congress would then be required to hold the convention, and a new constitution coming out of it could eventually be ratified by “the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof”—i.e., 38 out of 50 states.

Continue reading “Watch Out! Article V Constitutional Convention Nears Reality”