Since the beginning of May the Indian rupee has plunged by 23% against the dollar. The Turkish lira fell by 15% in that time, and the Indonesian rupiah by 16%. Headlines warn of a replay of the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Complaints from emerging-market officials that rich-world monetary experiments are to blame for the trouble look like sour grapes. But new research presented to the world’s top central bankers at their recent gathering in Jackson Hole suggests they may have a point.
At issue is how the flood (and ebb) of foreign capital affects economies. The traditional rule has been that countries face a “trilemma”: they must choose between free capital flows, a fixed exchange rate and an autonomous monetary policy.
“The impossible trinity” sounds like new-age theology but simply posits that an economy can choose at most two of these three. An economy open to free movement of capital can keep a fixed exchange rate, for example, only by subjugating monetary-policy goals to its defence—by raising interest rates sharply, say, when capital outflows put downward pressure on the currency. Yet the trilemma also implies that an economy can enjoy both free capital flows and an independent monetary policy, so long as it gives up worrying about its exchange rate.
Since the beginning of May the Indian rupee has plunged by 23% against the dollar. The Turkish lira fell by 15% in that time, and the Indonesian rupiah by 16%. Headlines warn of a replay of the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Complaints from emerging-market officials that rich-world monetary experiments are to blame for the trouble look like sour grapes. But new research presented to the world’s top central bankers at their recent gathering in Jackson Hole suggests they may have a point.
At issue is how the flood (and ebb) of foreign capital affects economies. The traditional rule has been that countries face a “trilemma”: they must choose between free capital flows, a fixed exchange rate and an autonomous monetary policy.
“The impossible trinity” sounds like new-age theology but simply posits that an economy can choose at most two of these three. An economy open to free movement of capital can keep a fixed exchange rate, for example, only by subjugating monetary-policy goals to its defence—by raising interest rates sharply, say, when capital outflows put downward pressure on the currency. Yet the trilemma also implies that an economy can enjoy both free capital flows and an independent monetary policy, so long as it gives up worrying about its exchange rate.
this makes me want to watch Kill la Kill so I can get as culturally far away from this piece of writing as possible without actually moving to a rural village on another continent.
It's basically just a blurb about how developing countries that want to "play the game" in terms of trade tend to get stuck between a series of choices that are all imminently necessary and almost impossible to reconcile in the current world market environment. As a good anti-capitalist, I think it's useful to know how late-stage capitalism works and what its defenders believe before one can take out one's knives.
I want to fly around like Superman with the Red Banner as a cape and a black and red jumpsuit embroidered with slogans from revolutionary leftists. Then I would fight white collar crime and social injustice with my fists.
this makes me want to watch Kill la Kill so I can get as culturally far away from this piece of writing as possible without actually moving to a rural village on another continent.
daze i have some bad news re: the structure of the japanese economic system
Comments
the blurb is as follows:
basically it is pure poison to me.
The sooner we get to handing out literal hammers and sickles the sooner we can get to bashing heads in and slitting throats!
*drapes the Soviet Spangled Banner from my deck*
I like their flag a lot better than ours.
I'm not mad at you, you saying that just made that sink in, and now I'm scared of time.