What the U.S. Dollar's Dip Means For You
The dip could aid domestic businesses that export U.S. goods, but will make international travel and imports pricier for Americans. The U.S. dollar has already lost about 10% of its value this year, in contrast with the euro, which reached its highest level in nearly four years after gaining 0.4% on Tuesday.
The devaluation of the dollar, the world's dominant reserve currency, on Thursday came after news outlets reported that President Donald Trump is considering announcing a new Federal Reserve Chair this fall, ahead of the end of current Chair Jerome Powell's term. The Wall Street Journal first reported the news on Wednesday. The Fed has faced pressure from Trump to lower borrowing costs, but has stopped short of doing so in order to assess the potential impact of the President's tariffs and keep unemployment low.
In addition to Trump's tariffs, his 'Big, Beautiful Bill' has contributed to uncertainty surrounding the U.S. economy. Economists have warned that the legislation could add more than $2.5 trillion to the federal debt, despite claims by the Administration that it would save money.
Here's what to know about the weakening dollar.
Why did the U.S. dollar fall?
A number of factors contribute to the value of the U.S. dollar, among them how in demand it is from central banks and other financial institutions. The country's broader fiscal situation, including inflation rates, trade relationships, debt, and trade deficits, also play a role.
As economists have warned about a potential U.S. recession or economic slowdown, investors have pulled back on investing in the U.S. 'The institutional quality that the U.S. had in terms of being a safe haven has been really undermined,' says Bilge Erten, a professor of economics at Northeastern University. 'Why would you invest in U.S. assets when you know that the U.S. dollar is likely to continue to lose value?'
Trump and his policies have contributed to many of the concerns raised about the economy in recent months. Some experts, however, say that while political factors help shape the strength of the U.S. dollar, its devaluation was projected to occur regardless of the winner of the 2024 presidential election. 'No matter what happened, there was a high chance that the dollar was going to fall, and I think it's going to fall further,' says Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard professor and author of Our Dollar, Your Problem: An Insider's View of Seven Turbulent Decades of Global Finance and the Road Ahead.
Rogoff, who predicted the fall of the U.S. dollar in his book, argues that its dip in value is part of its typical fluctuation. 'It had reached a high we had only seen in 2002 and 1985 and both of those times, it fell very sharply in the ensuing years,' he says. The dollar most recently saw a spike in value around 2015, though it deteriorated during the COVID-19 pandemic, before rising again. Its recent high rate meant that it was projected to fall in the years to come, according to Rogoff.
That's not to dismiss the role that Trump's policies may be playing, however.
Rogoff points to the President's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs as a policy that he says 'accelerated the process.'
'Trump can absolutely make the dollar go down by saying, 'I'm going to tax investors if they come into the United States,' which is in the Senate Bill. That's obviously going to discourage money. It's going to drive down the dollar. So there are lots of ways to play with it,' Rogoff says.
How will the dip in the U.S. dollar impact Americans?
The dip in the U.S. dollar means that its exchange rate is less strong, making international travel more expensive for Americans. The prices of imported goods will also be higher, experts warn. 'When someone from Europe is selling to the U.S., they're going to take [the dollar's devaluation] into account, because once they convert what they get in dollars into euros, they're getting less,' says Erten. 'That means they have to sell it at a higher price to get the same value.'
Companies that export U.S. goods, however, may benefit from a more competitive edge. The dollar's lowering value means that the cost of American goods and services will decrease in price when taking into account the exchange rates. 'Services that U.S. workers compete for will cost less,' says Rogoff.
In that respect the fall of the U.S. dollar may work to the advantage of Trump, who has vowed to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S. On the other hand, the labor market, which has already become increasingly challenging, might be impacted. A reduction of foreign investments into the U.S. could lead to more unemployment, which currently stands at a low 4.2%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations" and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. "Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry," said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, "the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet," said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy," Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Most People Don't Know About Our 250-Year History, Part I
The Fed allowed one-third of U.S. banks to fail during the Depression. FPG/Hulton Archive. As we approach our country's 250th birthday, there is no better time to reflect on where we have been and how we got here. Yet Americans are surprisingly ignorant about our past. One reason: So much bad history has entered the popular culturecourtesy of bad historians, a few bad economists, and some talented writers like Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair, who didn't understand history or economics at all. To remedy this problem, I highly recommend The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Myths of American Capitalism by Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. Gramm is a former U.S. senator and Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Together they have combed through the scholarly literature and savagely dismantled myths about our economic history – myths that are routinely taught in high schools and colleges across the country. In this essay, I will address two severe economic downturns: the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. The Great Depression There are five myths here, beginning with the assertion that the depression was caused by capitalism and greed. Put differently, it's the idea that the worst economic downturn in our country's history occurred because of too much individual freedom and too little government. In contrast, the authors write, The worst failure was that of the Federal Reserve System, created to be a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to banks in times of a credit crisis. In fact, the Fed stood by, allowing one-third of the nation's banks to go out of business. A second myth is the idea that in the early stages of the depression, Herbert Hoover stood by and did nothing. In fact, Hoover was a very activist president. In response to the economic downturn, he raised taxes, increased spending, signed the Davis-Bacon Act (ensuring higher wages on federal construction projects) and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Like many of Franklin Roosevelt's policies, most of what Hoover did made things worse, not better. A third myth is that Roosevelt's policies saved us from the depression. In fact, they almost certainly caused the depression to extend for 12 years— longer than it did in any other industrialized country except for France. The authors write: A fourth myth is that Roosevelt united the public in times of crisis. In fact, Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter. He vilified successful industrialists who opposed his policies as 'economic royalists' who made up an 'economic autocracy.' In fact, it is probably no exaggeration to say that Roosevelt vilified the rich in the United States the way Hitler, at the same time, was vilifying the Jews in Germany. University of Texas historian Henry W. Brands says that 'Roosevelt came disturbingly close to the demagoguery not only of Father Coughlin and the late Huey Long, but also of the fascists of Europe.' The final myth is the idea that it took the enormous increase in government spending during World War II to pull us out of the depression. Were that really true, when the war ended and government spending precipitously retracted, we should have been right back into the depression again. In the four years following the end of World War II, government spending fell by 75 percent. The federal deficit fell by more than 50 percent and then eased into a small surplus. Yet income, output and economic wellbeing continued to rise. The Great Recession Following the Great Depression, the Great Recession—from 2007 to 2009—was our nation's most severe economic downturn. It encompassed a sharp fall in housing prices, accompanied by a spike in mortgage defaults, especially on subprime loans. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)—two government-sponsored enterprises established to support home ownership—went into receivership. There are four myths here, beginning with the assertion that the recession was caused by too much private sector greed and risk-taking and too little government supervision. If anything, the reverse is true. Subprime lending actually became a goal of the federal government—beginning under the Clinton administration, primarily through the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The authors explain: Using newly expanded CRA requirements, bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines turned into mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on its making of CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. Increasingly, passing grades were gotten by making subprime home loans. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgage loans in America—28 million in all—were high-risk loans. The second myth is that the crisis was caused by lack of regulatory authority. In fact, there were a slew of federal and state banking laws, which gave rise to an army of regulators with the power to investigate, mandate corrective action, and fine and even imprison violators. The problem was that the traditional interest in meeting community credit needs with sound banking practices was overridden by a new federal policy designed to make 'affordable housing' available to more and more people. A third myth is that the recession was caused by banking deregulation—in particular by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). In fact, GLB removed barriers to competition in banking—making the financial sector more efficient. But regulatory authority did not decrease. It increased. The Congressional Budget Office actually scored GLB as increasing regulatory costs. Regarding GLB, President Clinton said, 'There's not a single solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash.' The final myth is the idea that the length of the recession was somehow caused by banking practices. In fact, an unusually weak recovery was more likely caused by increased penalties for working and increased subsidies for not working. During the Obama years, the authors say, the 'American economy was hit with a tidal wave of new rules and regulations across health care, financial services, energy and manufacturing.' At the same time there was an explosion in the enrollment numbers for disability benefits, food stamps and cash welfare. So why are these facts so important to know? George Santayana is reputed to have said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The experiences of the Great Depression and the Great Recession are events that no sane person should want to experience again.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
US-EU trade deal wards off further escalation but will raise costs for companies, consumers
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen have announced a sweeping trade deal that imposes 15% tariffs on most European goods, warding off Trump's threat of a 30% rate if no deal had been reached by Aug. 1. The tariffs, or import taxes, paid when Americans buy European products could raise prices for U.S. consumers and dent profits for European companies and their partners who bring goods into the country. Here are some things to know about the trade deal between the United States and the European Union: What's in the agreement? Trump and von der Leyen's announcement, made during Trump's visit to one of his golf courses in Scotland, leaves many details to be filled in. The headline figure is a 15% tariff rate on 'the vast majority' of European goods brought into the U.S., including cars, computer chips and pharmaceuticals. It's lower than the 20% Trump initially proposed, and lower than his threats of 50% and then 30%. Von der Leyen said the two sides agreed on zero tariffs on both sides for a range of 'strategic' goods: Aircraft and aircraft parts, certain chemicals, semiconductor equipment, certain agricultural products, and some natural resources and critical raw materials. Specifics were lacking. She said the two sides 'would keep working' to add more products to the list. Additionally, the EU side would purchase what Trump said was $750 billion (638 billion euros) worth of natural gas, oil and nuclear fuel to replace Russian energy supplies, and Europeans would invest an additional $600 billion (511 billion euros) in the U.S. What's not in the deal? Trump said the 50% U.S. tariff on imported steel would remain; von der Leyen said the two sides agreed to further negotiations to fight a global steel glut, reduce tariffs and establish import quotas — that is, set amounts that can be imported, often at a lower rate. Trump said pharmaceuticals were not included in the deal. Von der Leyen said the pharmaceuticals issue was 'on a separate sheet of paper' from Sunday's deal. Where the $600 billion for additional investment would come from was not specified. And von der Leyen said that when it came to farm products, the EU side made clear that 'there were tariffs that could not be lowered,' without specifying which products. What's the impact? The 15% rate removes Trump's threat of a 30% tariff. It's still much higher than the average tariff before Trump came into office of around 1%, and higher than Trump's minimum 10% baseline tariff. Higher tariffs, or import taxes, on European goods mean sellers in the U.S. would have to either increase prices for consumers — risking loss of market share — or swallow the added cost in terms of lower profits. The higher tariffs are expected to hurt export earnings for European firms and slow the economy. The 10% baseline applied while the deal was negotiated was already sufficiently high to make the European Union's executive commission cut its growth forecast for this year from 1.3% to 0.9%. Von der Leyen said the 15% rate was 'the best we could do' and credited the deal with maintaining access to the U.S. market and providing 'stability and predictability for companies on both sides.' What is some of the reaction to the deal? German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the deal which avoided 'an unnecessary escalation in transatlantic trade relations' and said that 'we were able to preserve our core interests,' while adding that 'I would have very much wished for further relief in transatlantic trade.' The Federation of German Industries was blunter. 'Even a 15% tariff rate will have immense negative effects on export-oriented German industry,' said Wolfgang Niedermark, a member of the federation's leadership. While the rate is lower than threatened, 'the big caveat to today's deal is that there is nothing on paper, yet,' said Carsten Brzeski, global chief of macro at ING bank. 'With this disclaimer in mind and at face value, today's agreement would clearly bring an end to the uncertainty of recent months. An escalation of the US-EU trade tensions would have been a severe risk for the global economy,' Brzeski said. 'This risk seems to have been avoided.' What about car companies? Asked if European carmakers could still sell cars at 15%, von der Leyen said the rate was much lower than the current 27.5%. That has been the rate under Trump's 25% tariff on cars from all countries, plus the preexisting U.S. car tariff of 2.5%. The impact is likely to be substantial on some companies, given that automaker Volkswagen said it suffered a 1.3 billion euro ($1.5 billion) hit to profit in the first half of the year from the higher tariffs. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the U.S. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. What were the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained generally low tariff levels in what is the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world, with some 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in annual trade. Together the U.S. and the EU have 44% of the global economy. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products, according to the Bruegel think tank in Brussels. Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more from European businesses than the other way around, and has said the European market is not open enough for U.S.-made cars. However, American companies fill some of the trade gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. And some 30% of European imports are from American-owned companies, according to the European Central Bank.
