pull down to refresh

I don't think it's about Bitcoin dude.... It's about trade negotiations, which is really currency negotiations to bring back manufacturing jobs and sell 100-year bonds
They've spoken openly about the Triffin Dilemma and Dollar Dutch Disease
Bessent has said a new Bretton Woods is due
The admin is full of bitcoiners
"Golden Age" is comms
The currency problem cannot be solved without a free float neutral reserve
Just because you can't think strategically more than 5 minutes out doesn't mean the people in charge of the largest economy aren't executing an O-Plan. Details of course unknown, but the directional signaling is obvious.
reply
I mean maybe they are planning on making Bitcoin the global, neutral reserve.
But I thought Trump wanted the dollar to remain the global reserve currency? He said he would tariff any country 100% that tried to get off the Dollar...
So he's just going to allow an alternative even if it's neutral to take over? If countries can just 'buy Bitcoin' why buy Treasuries? How does the US finance its debt?
reply
Strong dollar policy means the US gets to dictate currency rules, every currency is based on its dollar exchange rate because the US economy is the only one that matters. Other countries either get on board with the plan, or they become the market equivalent of North Korea.
Dollar can remain the unit of account, but how foreigners get dollars is going to change. Tariffs slow dollar exports until something permanent is in place.
reply
Something permanent?
I don't understand. I thought the accords are about weakening the dollar?
And the deficit is 2 trillion dollars a year. Force other countries to 'get on board'... and they just stop buying US bonds. They buy Bunds or Swiss Francs or Gold or Yen.
What am I missing?
reply
Who said anything about weakening the dollar?
We don't want to export debt, exporting debt maintains the current system, in a fair system we have surplus not debt.
reply
A core tenet of the MaL Accords is to weaken the dollar relative to other currencies... And force other countries to buy US debt. For example through century bonds at 0% interest rate.
To strengthen their own currencies, reserve managers must sell dollars. As their currencies appreciate, the United States will receive a competitiveness advantage helping our tradeable and manufacturing sectors. (pg 28)
Such a Mar-a-Lago Accord gives form to a 21st Century version of a multilateral currency agreement. President Trump will want foreigners to help pay for the security zone provided by the United States. A reduction in the value of the dollar helps create manufacturing jobs in America and reallocates aggregate demand from the rest of the world to the U.S. The term-out of reserve debt helps prevent financial market volatility and the economic damage that would ensue. Multiple goals are accomplished with one agreement. (pg 29)
To help mitigate potential unwanted financial consequences (like higher interest rates), reserve selling can be accompanied by term-out of remaining reserve holdings. Increased demand for long-term debt by reserve managers will help keep interest rates down, even if there is overall selling of USD fixed income as a result of the currency adjustment. Reserve owners hold fewer USD reserves, pushing their currencies higher, but the reserves they do hold are longer duration, helping contain yields. If the term-out is into special century bonds as suggested by Poszar, then the funding pressure on the U.S. taxpayer for financing global security is significantly alleviated. The U.S. Treasury can effectively buy duration back from the market and replace that borrowing with century bonds sold to the foreign official sector. (pg 29)
The paper literally talks about weakening the US dollar to help manufacturing exports... and selling lots of debt to foreigners.
Edit: Also from Pg. 29
Such an architecture would mark a shift in global markets as big as Bretton Woods or its end. It would see our trading partners bear an increased share of the burden of financing global security, and the financing means would be via a weaker dollar reallocating aggregate demand to the United States and a reallocation of interest rate risk from U.S. taxpayers to foreign taxpayers. It would also more clearly demarcate the lines of the American defense umbrella, removing some uncertainty around who is or is not eligible for protection.