Home > Analogy, Bond Market, Causes of Inflation, Commodities, Dollar, Gold, Trade > The Dollar – Best House on a Bad Block

The Dollar – Best House on a Bad Block

I’m here to draw your attention to something alarming happening in currencies at the moment. Here is a picture of the US Dollar, which has lost a huge amount of value in the past year.

Now, before certain ones of you get all excited and say that this proves Trump is ruining the dollar and forcing foreigners to vamoose out of the United States, take a look at the Euro.

I’m not going to tease you too much with this. The first chart is just the dollar in terms of ounces of gold; the second is the Euro in terms of ounces of silver. Don’t worry, longtime readers: I’m not about to go all gold-bug on you. I could have done those charts with almost any currency against a wide variety of commodities: the Bloomberg Commodity Index is up 23% since mid-August, and +12% since the end of the year. So this isn’t just a precious metals story, and it isn’t just a dollar story. It’s a fiat currency vs ‘stuff’ story.

The recent breathless coverage of the melt-up in precious metals seemed to me to miss the bigger point of what it means. It’s awesome if you’re long precious metals. But the abrupt turn vertical is – or should be – alarming. But nothing looks alarming when it’s pointed higher.

Treasury Secretary Bessent, as I write this, just came out and stated that the United States has a strong dollar policy and has not intervened (at least not yet) to push the dollar lower against the yen. That’s all very nice but I don’t worry a lot about the level of the dollar against other currencies in the medium term and here’s why.

Let’s look at the monetary pipes, which to me imply an increase in the dollar and/or a sharp increase in long-term interest rates regardless of what happens to overnight policy rates. (Many people are concerned about long-term rates because of some vague sense that we are borrowing too much or because everyone is going to sell their US bonds – to buy what with the dollars they receive, no one seems to mention – but there is a mechanical/accounting relationship could cause that outcome).

To this end, the illustration below (Source: Enduring Investments[1]) is a helpful visual guide. For this analysis we are interested in the flows of the dollar system, more than its stock. And the important flows are – or have been – pretty  stable. The US has for a long time run a substantial budget deficit, which means the government needs to source dollars by borrowing them. The three sources of those dollars have historically been foreign investors, the Fed, and domestic savers. Foreign investors have extra dollars because the trade deficit means that Americans send more dollars to foreign producers than foreign consumers send to US producers, and those extra dollars are invested in the US into government bonds (spigot on the lower left) or otherwise invested in markets or direct investment (spigot on the lower right). The Fed balance sheet, over the last decade or so, has often been a supplier of dollars to the system when it has been expanding more often than not. Finally, there are domestic savers who buy Treasury bonds among other things (but consider that when they’re buying US stocks, for example, the dollars are just sloshing from one domestic saver to another – that’s why there’s no flow shown for domestic savers buying US stocks). Those three ‘suppliers of dollars’ are the top hoses filling up the barrel of dollars in the illustration below.

Those flows tend to reach stasis via automatic stabilizers. For example, if the government is draining more money (with a big budget deficit) than is being supplied elsewhere, then either interest rates rise to induce domestic savers to provide more money, or the trade deficit expands. My concern is that automatic stabilizers tend to take time to stabilize, and currently there are some big changes. See the next illustration and focus on the differences compared with the prior one.

The cessation of the expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet has been happening for a while, and the balance sheet has even been shrinking a little. But the Trump Administration’s trade policies have caused two major changes: first, the trade deficit has been shrinking sharply (see charts below, source Bloomberg; the first shows the net trade balance monthly and the second shows the recent trends of declining imports and rising exports).

Some of this may be ‘payback’ for the surge in imports at the beginning of the year by importers trying to beat the imposition of tariffs, but there seems little question now that the trade deficit really is closing substantially. At the same time, foreign companies have been tripping all over each other to start making substantial investments into the US. In the second ‘barrel of money’ chart above, note the spigot at the lower right is really gushing, and two of the hoses supplying dollars have slowed to a trickle or stopped.

If that’s a fair representation, then what are the implications? If those trends persist, then the demand for dollars is going to outweigh the supply of dollars, leading to two outcomes. One of those is that in order to induce more dollars to fund the federal deficit, interest rates will have to rise. The Fed can control the policy rate, but in order to keep long-term rates down the Committee may eventually be forced to start up their hose again – intervening to buy Treasuries in the market to prevent long rates from rising, and expanding the balance sheet. The market stabilizer here would be for interest rates to rise and induce more domestic savings; if for policy reasons the Fed doesn’t want that then they’ll have to add more money themselves, with inflationary consequences. (It’s inflationary either way, but if interest rates rise it’s only indirectly inflationary in that higher interest rates also increase money velocity).

The other implication is that the dollar would strengthen on foreign exchange markets, since if foreigners are going to invest in the US in financial markets (or with direct investment, building new plants and so forth) they will need dollars to do so and the trade deficit is no longer providing a surplus of those dollars. It’s likely also that, with fewer dollars being sent abroad, domestic stock and bond markets would struggle more than they have been. A stronger dollar would be disinflationary at the margin, helping to hold down core goods prices, but this effect is fairly small…especially in the broader context I’ve mentioned, which is that all fiat currencies right now are getting smashed versus real stuff.

These are the implications of the recent large changes in financial flows. There are potential offsets available. If the trade deficit declines and the federal budget deficit declines also, it diminishes upward pressure on interest rates since domestic savers do not have to be incentivized to provide as much of the dollars in deficit. You can infer this from the barrel illustrations as well: if the federal budget moves towards balance, it lessens the net change in the system.

And there had been some positive signs on that score. The tariff revenue has been large, and some of the spending priorities of the prior Administration have been de-emphasized. These are positive developments which could lessen the pressure on the dollar and interest rates…except that the Trump Administration has been mooting the idea of ‘tariff dividend checks,’ increased defense spending, buying Greenland, and other significant spending initiatives.

It is also possible, even probable, that the Fed or Congress could change banking liquidity regulations in such a way that banks are forced to hold more Treasuries, which would add an additional hose to the top of the barrel. However, the more assets that banks are required to hold, worsening the return on assets of traditional banks, the more banking functions will start to move to non-bank entities or into crypto, increasing the money supply while decreasing the Fed’s control of it.

The upshot of all of these changes is that – based on the flows as we see them now, which could change – I believe we are going to see a significantly steeper yield curve and a significantly stronger dollar over the next few years.

Having said all of that, let me circle back to the start of this note – while the USD is not likely to collapse against other currencies, the movement against commodities (not to mention equities) and other real assets is disturbing. The US money supply has been accelerating recently; M2 is only +4.6% in the last 12 months, but that’s near (or may even be above) the maximum rate that is sustainable without causing inflation in a country that is deglobalizing and in demographic reverse. I am not bullish on gold and silver at these levels, and am more cautious on commodities than I have been in a while. But while I am a dollar bull against other currencies, I am a bear of fiat currencies against real assets generally…and I am concerned that the recent waterfall-like behavior of fiat presages a re-acceleration of CPI-style inflation. Commodities feed broadly into prices, but so do wages and lots of other things that are measured in terms of dollars. If the problem is fiat, and not gold and silver themselves, then it’s a bullish signal for inflation.


[1] These images were generated using AI image generation tools to create an illustrative representation for explanatory purposes.

  1. January 28, 2026 at 12:17 pm

    Thank you for filling in more of the details of the things I have been discussing lately

  2. January 28, 2026 at 1:26 pm

    How does one define the maximum rate of money growth (M2) that is sustainable without causing inflation

    • January 28, 2026 at 1:38 pm

      Broadly, MV+PQ. If interest rates are basically stable so V is basically stable, then it’s the desired rate of inflation (say 2.25%) plus the steady-state growth in GDP (say 2.5% or 3% if you are a Trumper). That gets you to 4.75%-5.25%. Over the last 25 years, M2 has been able to grow faster on a sustained basis because demographics and globalization were providing a following wind. Going forward, those are now headwinds so I suspect 3-4% is the most that we can sustain if we want 2% inflation. So we start with some accounting and science, and then add the art. 🙂

      • Sal
        January 29, 2026 at 9:29 am

        The question was “sustainable without causing inflation” yet you answer by establishing a desired rate of inflation. The answer to the question doesn’t answer it at all.

        Isn’t it about time we start thinking about Zero inflation as the target? Why should the users of the dollar accept that the USG is telling them up front that they are going to steal 2.25% of the economic value of their output, compounded year in and year out? The technology exists to target Zero and keep it there. But the politicians, assisted by the FED, resist because inflation is their honey pot that requires no controversial legislation to access.

      • January 29, 2026 at 9:57 am

        Okay, but that’s a policy debate. There are rational reasons to prefer some small amount of inflation, and they’ve been widely discussed. I’m not opposed to a target of zero, assuming we can measure it well. There’s some argument to be made that since we underestimate the impact of new technologies, we therefore overestimate inflation. I’m not saying that I’m entirely of that view; I’m just saying that the target in CPI terms is different than the target in PCE terms which is different than the target in GDP Price terms. Which would you like to set to zero?

        But the simple answer is: okay, if the desired rate of inflation is 0% then subtract 2.25% from my answer. I’m not judging that 2.25% is the right target; my only point is that whatever your target is, the MonPol rule of the last 25 years won’t work to get you there.

      • Sal
        January 29, 2026 at 9:38 am

        The question was “without causing inflation” yet your response admittedly causes inflation. ??

        Is the “necessity for inflation” so grounded in economic thinking that it’s impossible to talk about having none?

  3. sarregouset
    January 29, 2026 at 1:03 pm

    By ‘rising interest rates’ I assume you refer to nominal interest rates?

    • January 29, 2026 at 2:10 pm

      Yes, although in theory it should also including rising real rates since the cost of money is what is rising.

  4. Dog
    January 30, 2026 at 3:48 pm

    Sal does not want a raise; inflation free Sal. Don’t tell me it is fair value rather than a raise because you have learned to do more. Everything evolves, no raise for you.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Discover more from E-piphany

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading