Don’t Be Taken in By the So-Called “Strong Dollar” Flapdoodle!

If it is so strong, why does it buy less and less?

Headline, the Wall Street Journal, June 4, 2024:   The Dollar Is at Its Strongest Since the 1980s. Can It Last?

Sorry, but it’s flapdoodle.  Gobbledygook.  Gibberish.  Bafflegab.

Or to put it in more serious terms, it’s Newspeak.

George Orwell coined that term in his uncannily prescient novel 1984.  Newspeak is a language of simplified grammar and limited vocabulary designed to narrow the range of critical thinking.

The WSJ provides a caption to a photo in its “strong dollar” story: “The U.S. dollar has defied analysts’ expectations and appreciated again this year relative to a basket of other currencies.”

It should have said “The U.S. dollar depreciated again this year relative to a basket of groceries.”  

The WSJ can get away with calling it a strong dollar because they are a financial newspaper.  And it is true that if you are importing Mercedes, the exchange value of the dollar matters.  Chances are if you are importing foreign goods, or exporting US goods, you are very much aware of currency differentials and that you are hedging them when you need.  

But for the sake of clear communication, the term “strong dollar” should go in the deleted file.  Especially since most of us at any given time aren’t importing Mercedes.  

The financial press gets away with it as a sort of faux sophistication: “Our readers know what we mean!”

Some do.  But the real damage is done when the rest of the financially clueless media pick up on it.  So, the rest of then repeat ad nauseum on talk shows and general newscasts that the dollar is strong.  The people who hear that pass it on in conversation at work or to their neighbors.  

But even the financial press should be careful not to sound like toadies of the government.  After all, they don’t say Tesla was “strong” today or Ford was “weak.”  They say those stock prices are up or down, higher or lower.

To call the dollar strong is wildly misleading.  The dollar can only be said to be strong when compared to other currencies that are constantly losing real value.  The WSJ story came hard on the heels of Mexico electing some hard leftist president.  Her father was a communist and it is not clear where she differs from Karl Marx.  Because people like her destroy wealth and ruin currencies, the Mexican peso immediately fell, down as we write about 9 percent.  A peso down would mean the dollar, comparatively speaking, is marginally higher. But because Mexico elects a socialist (more trouble on our southern border!) the dollar is strong? Don’t kid yourself!

If currencies were ships, and Mexico’s ship was sinking at a nine percent rate and the US ship was sinking at a 3 or 4 or 5 percent rate, would you say the US ship is seaworthy?

The dollar isn’t strong at all.   It is weak.  Extraordinarily weak. 

That is because the function of a currency is to allow people to purchase things.  With that in mind, here is a 10-year chart of the US dollar’s purchasing power:

It doesn’t look particularly “strong,” does it?

Nevertheless, they say, “the dollar is at its strongest since the 1980s.”  When it bought a heck of a lot more than it does today.

So, when you hear the media tell you the dollar is strong, you’d better compare it to something real like the price of gold.

Those who do that are thinking for themselves despite the media’s Newspeak.  And they are buying gold.