The response is inflation. It would only be a solution if it works, and of all the countries or empires that tried it in the past you'd be hard pressed to find one that succeeded at correcting their economy long term by debasing their own currency.
It may be a short term solution, on the right time scale I'd give it that.
The only way its a long term solution is if globalization is so fundamentally different from what other countries and empires have felt with that they can actually devalue at just the right rate to bring work back here.
Getting that rate right seems like a tiny needle to thread though, and that only works if this situation is different from when other currencies were devalued intentionally.
I think you might be confusing 'devaluation' with 'loss of spending power'. The dollar hasn't really lost value compared to other currencies. The thing that would do that would a loss of faith in the US to pay its debts, not the inability for the dollar to sustain a certain purchasing power.
I don't particularly care about whether one currency is devalued relative to another. Sure that can matter, international trade is important today, but I care about whether my currency is being devalued relative to the products I actually buy day to day.
The dollar is being devalued every time more money is injected into the system, either by government printing or banks printing more money via unsecured debt. When the total amount of currency in circulation goes up my money was devalued, prices will always go up when the money supply increases.
> The dollar is being devalued every time more money is injected into the system,
I was pointing out somewhat pedantically that 'devalued' has a specific meaning and 'to lose purchasing power' is not it.
> When the total amount of currency in circulation goes up my money was devalued, prices will always go up when the money supply increases.
If you got more of that money to cover increased costs then it wouldn't be a problem, so it really only matters if you don't get a bump in income that covers the decrease in purchasing power.
The problem is not money supply increasing -- it is that it is being misallocated. The money supply has to increase in order for economies to grow otherwise it would deflate, and that cause all sorts of worse problems.
Sounds like we just fundamentally disagree here, nothing wrong with that.
I view the increase in money supply a core issue that harms all of us. Yes, it wouldn't technically matter if all of us received the new money in a perfect allocation based on the amount of money we currently hold - if I have $100 and the supply increases by 2% I'm fine if I now have $102. It never works like that though, and never will.
Allocation is only one of the challenges to deal with when debasing the currency by increasing supply.
There is no perfect policy and everything has a trade-off. I guess the question really is 'what happens if we can't increase money supply?' and determining whether we'd we better off with those effects.
We have already eaten a ton of inflation, particularly in the first year or so when Biden was President. Trump printed trillions to forestall a collapse during covid. The wisdom of that move is lost on me. I would have preferred the collapse--we might be recovering by now instead of sitting on an even higher precipice awaiting the inevitable fall.
There is an interesting argument to be made that they have no choice once the problem passes a certain point.
The interplay between bond yields, the fed funds rate, and inflation can lead to weird situations. Right noe the Fed is having to lower rates because (a) job numbers are pretty bad and (b) the US debt is held in a surprising number of short term bonds and higher rates make the debt just rack up faster. They're also watching inflation continue to chug along higher than their 2% target though, a scenario they'd normally raise rates for.
I won't be surprised if we ultimately realize that, in the end, those in charge had way less control of the economy than they like to claim. I'm biased though, that's always been my view and it frustrates me that economics claims to be a field of science at all. It can be a very interesting and important historical analysis but it isn't predictive, and at the level of macroeconomics it can't realistically be isolated and tested.
When you outsource all your jobs that actually produce goods instead of services, you have nothing left to offer. At the same time, we're proving that short-term consumerism is completely destructive (designed to break is just another variant of the broken window fallacy).
Either you lower US standard of living to match the countries it is currently outsourcing to or you establish protectionism and isolationist policies with a focus on total efficiency rather than short-term gains.
The response is inflation. It would only be a solution if it works, and of all the countries or empires that tried it in the past you'd be hard pressed to find one that succeeded at correcting their economy long term by debasing their own currency.