Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

They are not worth less in dollar terms. The same number of dollars will still settle next months mortgage bill, or tax bill regardless of what it may or may not exchange into Euros.

And the exchange rate of barrels to tomatoes hasn’t changed as that is a productivity issue.

There is no universal chart against which value is determined. Instead there are ever moving currency zone orbits, possibly shifting financial savings around.

What there won’t be is any “shortage of capital”






> They are not worth less in dollar terms. The same number of dollars will still settle next months mortgage bill, or tax bill regardless of what it may or may not exchange into Euros

By that logic you are saying if the US dollar to Euro went 10 to 1 or even 100 to 1 there would be no impact because the same number of dollars will still settle the mortgage or tax bill.

Surely there is a flaw in your logic.


Then explain the flaw.

We have a floating exchange rate. Explain how it gets to your disaster scenario given the flows.

The outcome has to come from the operation of the system doesn't it. So run through it.


> The same number of dollars will still settle next months mortgage bill, or tax bill regardless of what it may or may not exchange into Euros.

If nobody wants dollars, then to import things it's necessary to send more unwanted dollars, so the exchange rate does up, so everything imported is more expensive, so you have inflation, so the interest in the mortaje goes up, so you have to pay more.

[Hi from Argentina! Been there, done that, got a pile of worthless bills as souvenirs.]


"then to import things it's necessary to send more unwanted dollars"

We're talking the USA here. Where else are those running 'export-led growth' going to sell their stuff?

Where is the excess Argentinian beef scheduled for the USA going to find a market?

There is no untapped source of demand. Or you'd be selling beef to them already.

So what happens with the beef production glut?

"so you have inflation, so the interest in the mortaje goes up"

Increase in prices doesn't necessarily mean inflation. It's just scarce goods being shared out by the market.

And as we know putting up interest rates doesn't fix inflation. Argentina being the case in point (and they still haven't learned that lesson).


> There is no untapped source of demand. Or you'd be selling beef to them already.

Import is buying. You will have higher prices because stuff you buy is more expensive.

But also, export as in selling others tend to go up as currency looses value.

> Increase in prices doesn't necessarily mean inflation.

What do you think inflation is?


"You will have higher prices because stuff you buy is more expensive."

Why? Why won't the supplier have lower income because they have no other alternative than to sell for the same USD amount as they did before?

Why is the supplier always the price setter? Can you always charge your customers anything you want to and they keep buying?

The customer is king, but not when FX is involved? How does that work?

"What do you think inflation is?"

It's a general rise in the entire price range. If the price of eggs goes up, but your wage didn't then that is a redistribution of scarce resources, not inflation.

That is, after all, how price competition works.


>They are not worth less in dollar terms. The same number of dollars will still settle next months mortgage bill, or tax bill regardless of what it may or may not exchange into Euros.

If only our living expenses were just taxes and mortgages, amiright?

This take reminds me of the old joke:

“I don’t get why people complain about gas prices going up. I used to put in 40 bucks, and I still put in 40 bucks.”


Do your living expenses consist entirely of imports, and why would the price of that be going up given there is nowhere else for them to sell their stuff?

Prices go up if there is scarcity and no effective competition for your purchases. Is that is what is going to happen?


You sound like Harold Wilson.

I don't mean to suggest that the current American devaluation is as large as the UK's 1967 devaluation, at least so far. Just that your reasoning here is wrong: when your currency falls, that has a domestic inflationary effect precisely because your currency is worth less than before.


Was Bretton Woods in place in 1967? That's a fixed exchange rate system.

What might have happened in 1971 that changed the way thing worked overall?


On the mortgage and tax bill specifically, sure there is no impact.

But I (an American) pay for some European services in Euros, meaning those got 10% more expensive. I understand this might be the intended effect, but it's not good for me.


>But I (an American) pay for some European services in Euros, meaning those got 10% more expensive.

European services would be the least of issues. The main issue would be the tons of foreign imported food, cars, products, clothes, gadgets, and so on - including tons of component parts for "american" products (not to mention materials and tooling to make even the increasingly rarer "100% made in US" products).


Wouldn't that be their problem?

Where else are they going to sell all that stuff given there isn't an untapped source of demand to absorb it (or that demand would already be serviced).

So what you have is a production glut, and nowhere to shift it to. Which usually causes a price collapse and production collapse.

Which then causes unemployment in the source nation and interest rate cuts...


But that’s because you decided to take on currency risk without hedging or having a matched foreign income stream.

That’s not what anybody with scale will have done.

And now you have to reevaluate the cost of that service relative to the alternatives - including letting them know they need to take fewer Euros to retain your custom vs the competitive alternatives.

Customers are hard to come by. Are they prepared to let you go?


You're just shifting the goalposts here.

I will still stick with them because they're better value than the American alternatives, but that's beside the point.

You were arguing that the same number of dollars will get me the same number of goods and services, which is not true.


"You were arguing that the same number of dollars will get me the same number of goods and services, which is not true."

In aggregate within a rational competitive framework.

It is true for those that are rational and subject to competition.

Where else are they going to sell their stuff? Why would you agree to pay more?

Your behaviour will change, as will everybody elses - and you're the customer. So you go back to them and say no I won't pay any more. Haggle. Are they going to turn you away?

Why is you agreeing to pay more more important than the other person who decides it is too much and cancels the service?

Changing the goalposts is assuming you, and everybody else, are always a price taker, passively accepting what you are given. That's describing a monopoly/oligopoly scenario.

I'm sure that isn't the case.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: