Download A Multiple Case Study - University of Phoenix Research Hub

Systems Theory and Unintended Consequences of Government
Motivated Currency Wars: A Multiple Case Study
Dr. Craig Martin, University of Phoenix, Northcentral University, Walden University, USA
ABSTRACT
Although the actions initiated by Governments and Central Banks are intended to produce positive
outcomes for the host country, financial implications for markets and the macro economy often produce uncertainty
and detrimental consequences for consumers and investors alike. Using a foundation of Systems Theory and
Complexity Theory, the multiple case study conducted sought to further understanding about why these unintended
factors arise and to explore how financial risk for investors emanating from the uncertain future of a currency war
may be mitigated. The research suggests that market volatility during and post the currency war is expected, that
inflation and/or deflation will arise and that upheaval of the system of global currencies occurs as a result of the
currency wars. By furthering understanding about the derivation of these economic consequences, long-term,
retirement-planning investors can manage portfolio asset diversity to mitigate risk for expected returns on
investment.
Keywords: Currency Wars, Complexity Theory, Systems Theory, Unintended Consequences, Inflation, Deflation,
Financial Collapse.
INTRODUCTION
Although international currency wars have proven to produce one of the most destructive set of outcomes,
the Government actions leading to a currency war do not occur for the purpose of initiating economic conflicts
(Rickards, 2011). Central Governments seek full employment for national constituents; economic theory has posited
that employment growth follows from growth in production of goods and services (GNP). Growth in exports
contribute positively to GNP growth and Governments employ fiscal and monetary policy to achieve growth in
exports (Hill, 2013).
Unintended consequences from the Government actions to foster growth in trade have ranged from the theft
of market share in exports from trading partners and the resultant retaliation by those partners to sequential bouts of
inflation and deflation and recession to collapse of currency systems. Such are the outcomes from the currency wars
from the twentieth and twenty first centuries (Rickards, 2011).
While the research suggests that unintended consequences in aggregate are predictable as outcomes from
currency wars, the specifics of these occurrences are not predictive. The resultant uncertainty promises an
environment that does not suit the long-term, retirement-planning investor whose proclivity is to seek a return
certain on one’s investments (Dent, 2014). However, if the investor understands the likely boundaries of outcomes
for values of paper currencies operating in context of economic currency wars, said investor should be able to
rationally plan a diversified portfolio that mitigates risk to the potential return on investment (Taleb, 2012).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The review of literature will explore the operating factors resulting from Government actions found in the
three international currency wars occurring since the early 1900s. Literature reviewing how the investor is
influenced by economic outcomes to currency wars and Governmental tactics taken to combat said wars will be
considered. Foundational theories of risk and uncertainty incorporated into systems theory as applied to economics
and theories about use of complexity theory to explain factors and behavior found in complex systems will be
explored.
1
Currency Wars as a Phenomena
There have been three economic, global currency wars since the early 1900s (Rickards, 2011). The first
arose after the end of World War I (WWI), commencing in 1921 as Germany sought to develop a plan to satisfy
requirements of War reparations dictated unilaterally by the Allies at the Treaty of Versailles and ending in 1936 as
the World moved toward military confrontations. The second currency war began in 1967 with the attacks by
speculators on the value of Sterling, ending in 1987 as the US dollar was bolstered in value as a result of the Plaza
Accord. Currency War number three, featuring the dollar, the euro and the Yuan, is precipitated by the Federal
Reserves’ Quantitative Easing Program, which officially began in 2010 and which as yet has not reached a
conclusion.
Central Government leaders have a primary objective to achieve full employment for its citizens who want
to work to provide for one’s family (Ohmae, 2005). Citizens able to satisfy microeconomic needs peacefully have no
reasons to pursue policies to extract needed goods from country neighbors and/or to seek a new Government through
revolution (Sowell, 2004). In the early 1900’s, Western Central Governments adopted concepts introduced by Karl
Marx and John Maynard Keynes to actively foster macroeconomic growth, which was thought to be correlated to
achievement of full employment (Lewis, 2009).
The United States (US) Government and the Federal Reserve, as well as other Governments and other
Central Banks, have been primary agents for actions taken that led ultimately to the formation of each of the three
post-1900 economic currency war (Stockman, 2013). Germany in 1921 purposefully devalued the Mark post WWI
in order to enhance the exports of chemicals to raise hard currency to pay reparations dictated by the Treaty of
Versailles, led primarily by France and England and to a lesser degree by the United States. The German action
alone likely would not have led to currency war; however after the 1928 stock market collapse in the United States,
both the US and France inflated- through actions to purposely devalue the currency relative to those of trading
partners- their own paper currencies by straying from the quasi gold standard agreed to as part of Treaty of
Versailles (Rickards, 2011). Shortly thereafter, Great Britain released the British Pound from the silver standard in
order to continue to compete in the France-Great Britain-USA trade triangle. As the Gross National Product (GNP)
of England and the US continued to fall and deflation appeared, President Roosevelt introduced tariffs to make
popular imports more expensive, confiscated US gold held by citizens and devalued the paper dollar further by
buying gold on the British currency exchange. World War Two (WWII), and not the cumulative actions by the
Governments of Germany, France, Great Britain and the US, enabled the Countries to escape the disruptive
economic outcomes of the first currency war (Hill, 2013).
The formation of a gold exchange standard for the World’s dominant currencies at Bretton Woods in 1944
enabled a stable currency system for trade until the late 1960s (Eisen, 2013). During that period, the US dollar
evolved as a reserve currency serving alongside the British Pound Sterling. With the decline of the British economy
relative to global economic leaders and with the US economy over-burdened with President Johnson’s “guns and
butter” policy for supporting the Viet Nam War and the US consumer, speculators began to attack first the value of
the Pound relative to Sterling in 1967 and subsequently the value of the dollar relative to gold. In 1971, President
Nixon devalued the currency indirectly by ending the gold exchange privilege for the dollar, effectively establishing
the floating currency system that remains in existence in 2015. The devaluation set the stage for the second currency
war of the 20th century, which lasted until 1987 (Rickards, 2011). The primary Governments involved in this second
currency war included the major developed countries of Europe – West Germany, Italy, France, England – and the
US and Japan. During much of the 20 year period 1967 – 1987, the United States experienced inflation and low,
stagnant growth in GNP. Japan and the Western European countries economically grew during the period as the US
shifted from a leader in net exports to a leading net imports nation (Stockman, 2013).
Currency War III began in 2010 when the Federal Reserve Bank in the United States began its quantitative
easing program established to enact monetary policy established by the Government (Rickards, 2011). The intent of
the monetary policy, which ended in 2014, was to influence indirectly the reduction in long term US interest rates to
accompany the short-term rate US reductions directly influenced by Federal Reserve interbank rate policies
(Lowenstein, 2011). Driving interest rates down toward zero enacts a reduction in periodic interest payments due to
other countries and in real value of dollar denominated debt owed to other countries – primarily England and the
2
Republic of China (China). The reduction in interest rates also influences the relative value of the dollar downward
(devaluation of dollar) versus those countries with relatively higher long-term interest rates for national securities.
Devaluation of a currency favors exports and inhibits imports for the country undergoing devaluation of its currency
(Appleyard and Field, 2014).
The above actions have not gone unnoticed by the euro currency countries (primarily Germany, France and
Italy), Japan and China, who are major trading partners with US. Along with England, each of these Governments
are engaged making decisions which intent are to counteract effectively the monetary moves fostered by the US.
Although the latest war is still in progress, outcomes visible to date include reductions in growth in GNP in Japan,
China and most of the European Union, and very slow growth (1.5-2.0%) in the United States (Rickards, 2014). Due
to Central Bank actions, inflation in China has slowed; however there are signs of deflation occurring in European
Union and in United States (Dent, 2014).
Currency Wars and the US Investor
The United States investor, whose plan is to invest in securities to plan for retirement, considered in the
research is the person with a long-term objective for return earned on one’s invested monies in open securities
markets (Dent, 2014). Many of these investors include 401-k and similar tax advantaged plans as an effective
platform for maximizing the earned return on investment sought through the practice of compounding interest,
dividends and growth in principle in order to effectively grow one’s portfolio (Dent, 2014).
Factors of importance to the long-term, retirement planning investor include the risks inherent in
investment, which are manageable (Fox, 2009), and the uncertainties about probable outcomes from the present to
future periods, which are not manageable but can be mitigated by application of statistics and the understanding of
the principles in Systems and Complexity Theory (Taleb, 2010). Investors balance the potential risk of loss of
principle value for any investment made and the potential gain possible from the invested capital.
The value of investments in securities are influenced by financial factors present in companies which issue
the securities (Dent, 2014). The value of the securities are also related to overall value of the securities market in
which traded (Brealey, Myers & Allen, 2013). Government, including directed Central Bank, actions influence the
value of investment markets directly and indirectly the values of one’s investments (Lowenstein, 2011). The
Government actions with which this research is concerned include those made following fiscal and monetary
policies.
Fiscal policy may influences securities markets, and thus the investor, in two ways. If the Government
spending incorporates construction or development, the spending translates to growth in GNP which is a positive
influence on growth in equity securities markets (Fox, 2009). If that spending requires an increase in Government
debt, the resultant debt increase may lead to an interest rate increase for the Government debt and a corresponding
decrease in current value of debt instrument (Fox, 2009). However, Government spending has been shown to
provide a future return in GNP growth of less than one dollar ($.94) for every dollar spent while private investment
returns about $7 dollars in the future for each dollar invested (Sowell, 2010).
Monetary policy may influence securities markets positively or negatively depending on the policy applied
(Thornton, 2012). The Federal Reserve is the agent for enacting Governmental monetary policy in the US. The
Federal Reserve is charged following the Full Employment Act of 1978 (Humphrey-Hawkins Act) to balance US
employment and price stability in enacting monetary policy. In actual practice the Federal Reserve seeks to balance
growth in GNP and price stability, although research in 1968 by Friedman and Phelps demonstrated no clear
relationship between employment and unemployment rate and GNP growth (Thornton, 2012).
Systems and Complexity Theory
Systems thinking enables one to consider a structure or event as a whole rather than consideration of a set
of linear components or actions (Ackoff, 1998). A system is defined as a whole that is both greater than and
different from its parts. A principle of systems thinking is that the understanding of behavior within a system can’t
3
be advanced by analysis conducted of its components or elements. System behavior is posited to be a function of the
whole rather than to be influenced independently by any one part of the system.
Systems theory is used to understand the boundaries of a holistic system and, once the boundaries are
known, to advance understanding about the interrelationships existing between entire systems (Wallerstein, 2011).
The theory has been applied to systems that nest one within another in order to understand entire societies and even
the World as a whole.
Patton (2015) has been a leader in use of systems theory for the study of behavior found in economic
systems, real-world markets and within the real-world intersections and interrelationships found between horizontal
systems and nested systems. Patton (2015) notes that employing a systems orientation can be of assistance in
framing questions of exploratory inquiry and, later, in advancement of understanding from the data collected using
qualitative inquiry.
Melanie Mitchell (2011) defines a complex system as a large network of components with no central
control and simple rules of operation, which give rise to unpredictable collective behavior, sophisticated information
processing and learning by the system through adaptation and /or evolution. Patton (2015) posits that the flexibility,
openness and adaptability found in qualitative inquiry enables the use of complexity theory as a framework for
qualitative research –inquiry – for the understanding of behavior in complex, dynamic situations and phenomena. A
phenomena for which the application of complexity theory has proved especially useful to advance understanding
include world securities markets and Governmental macroeconomic applications of monetary policy (Taleb, 2012).
METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted using a design of multiple case study (Yin, 2014). The boundaries adopted for
each case are the primary countries taking actions contributing to a respective currency war and the years in which
outcomes for the securities markets influenced by these actions were unexpected and unintended (Rickards, 2014).
Each of the three currency wars described above is considered in context of a case.
As the currency wars studied extend over 90 years and the third, current war is yet to reach conclusion, the
source of data for the research are texts and journal articles found in business libraries and data bases. Document
analysis and content analysis, each employing the principle of triangulation for data collection, are tools described as
specifically effective in case study research for data collection and analysis (Yin, 2014). Triangulation of data
retrieved from the authors, who are experts in analysis of securities markets and the factors influencing market
performance, was the strategy employed to achieve credible analysis (Patton, 2015).
The foundational framework employed for the multiple case studies includes systems theory and
complexity theory to seek understanding of behavior found to be operational in the US economy and the National
securities markets of the United States. Complexity Theory will be used to advance understanding about
interrelationships which emerge between the actions of the US Government and it central bank, the Federal Reserve,
and the resulting outcomes found post such actions which emerge within the macro-economy and the New York
securities markets (Patton, 2015).
INTERRELATIONSHIPS
In each currency war described, the Federal Government employed fiscal policy of Government spending
(Einhorn &Lewis, 2009) and monetary policy of currency devaluation to influence growth in Gross National
Product (GNP) and employment. Okun’s Law, which posits that employment growth is correlated directly with
growth in GNP, was incorporated into Federal law and adopted as a policy principle by the Federal Reserve
(Thornton, 2012). Using classical economic theory (Hill, 2014), Government spending increases one of the four
factors making up GNP and linearly increase GNP. Similarly, devaluing the dollar leads to more exports and less
imports, which increases GNP in a linear manner.
In each currency war period explored, the growth expected in US GNP has been less than forecast by
economists (Rickards, 2011). From 1929-1938, the US suffered a reduction in GNP of approximately 30%, an
4
unemployment rate averaging 18.2% while witnessing net exports increase from 5-10% as a percentage of total GNP
and Government spending increase as an outcome of the Roosevelt New Deal (Samuelson, 2014). Deflation
occurred in the US prices during most of the 1930s. Although the US benefitted from devaluation of the floating
dollar and increased the use of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the 1970s, GNP averaged 1.75% during a period
in history known as stagflation as unemployment rose to 7.5% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). A period that
expected export-driven growth in GNP and low unemployment experienced exactly the opposite (Rickards, 2011).
Partly due to continued devaluation of the dollar since 2008 and the implementation of the Federal Reserve
quantitative easing program, net exports have increased. However, growth in GNP has remained about 2.0% average
and unemployment has remained stubbornly over 6 percent for 6 years while the US worker job participation rate
declined from 67% to under 63% in December, 2014 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2014). Dent (2014)
demonstrates that the both the employment and GNP time series correspond more closely to movements in
demographic time lines representing volumes of births and family formations than do the movements correspond to
those forecasted from applying influences of monetary or fiscal policy directly.
Assuming that the macroeconomic actions of fiscal and monetary policy by the Federal Government
(Government) during the currency wars emanate from a system enables exploration of unexpected outcomes as the
result of behavior in another system (Taleb, 2012; Rickards, 2014). Incorporating complexity theory enabled the
author to make sense of the unintended consequences observed in both the New York securities markets and in GNP
of the United States (Patton, 2015). Viewing the macro-economy as a dynamic, adaptive system suggests that it is
too simple to expect a single action from one system (Federal government and/or the Federal Reserve) to direct a
predetermined outcome in another system (macro-economy of GNP and/or US employment) as demonstrated by
Taleb (2012).
The US economy is a system nested in a larger global economy, which itself is comprised of the set of
other national economies and Governments (Hill, 2014). Thus the actions of the US Government and/or Federal
Reserve do not occur in a vacuum (Rickards, 2014). In the 1930s, Germany, France and England each took turns
taking actions to position favorably exports and to counteract the steps taken by the US Government. During the
1970s, countries in the European Union (EU) and Japan were major players along with the US in the currency war.
Further, the OPEC oil cartel raised prices of petroleum to counteract the rising US inflation while increasing the
volume of oil sent to Japan, the EU and the US. The national players in the present currency war are the Chinese led
bloc (the Yuan), the euro portion of the EU and United States. Each player has taken steps to maintain the relative
value of its currencies within a range, thus diminishing the impact of the dollar-led devaluation occurring (Rickards,
2014).
Classical financial theory posits that the equity securities market, which is measured using the Standard and
Poor market index (the index), will correlate positively with the US economy measured by GNP (Rickards, 2014).
In the currency war of the 1930s, the index as expected remained basically flat mirroring economic activity
measured by the GNP. While growth in GNP averages only 1.75% in the period 1968-1980, the index did grow
from 103.1 to 107.9, an average growth of 5%. In the latest currency war beginning in 2008, a paltry growth rate of
about 2% in GNP has been accompanied by growth in the index of over 100% (938 to 2058 Standard and Poor
index). Incorporating systems theory and complexity theory into one’s thinking in reviewing these outcomes allows
the analyst to make sense of the unexpected outcomes by recognition that outcomes in a system are unpredictable
when exploring the relationship to inputs only considering a linear relationship (Patton, 2015).
CONCLUSIONS
The primary concepts evolving from complexity theory posit that the interrelationships among systems
influence the emergence of patterns that are highly unpredictable (uncertain) and which result from adaptation to the
environment present by independent, interacting agents functioning within the phenomena (Taleb, 2007). The
outcome from adaptation and emergence of patterns can incorporate highly unpredictable turbulence and lack of
coherence in actions by the systems’ agents within the interacting systems (Patton, 2015). Adaptation is defined by
Gleick (1987) as “changing the rules of the game” while one is functioning as an agent.
5
Applying complexity theory enabled the researcher to make sense about the outcomes emerging in
securities markets and in the macro economy during each of the three currency wars, during which actions by the
Federal Government and its agent the Federal Reserve suggested that outcomes observed should be orderly growth
in GNP and employment in the US (Rickards, 2014). There are observed changes which occurred in GNP and level
of employment/ unemployment during the time that the dollar was being purposefully devalued and Government
spending increased; however no specific pattern or relationship between the variables in the respective systems
emerged (Rickards, 2014). My interpretation about the reasons for these unexpected outcomes occurring in each of
the three currency wars is that one is observing complex systems in action,
Similarly, one makes sense from observations of unexpected outcomes emanating from the New York
securities markets as compared to outcomes flowing from the US macro-economy during the three studied currency
wars. Exploring the outcomes by applying complexity theory suggests that what is being observed are the
emergence of non-linear patterns which are the result of interactions between independent, adaptive agents (Taleb,
2012).
That currency wars will occur again appears likely due to development of global financial networks and the
motivation of countries to advance one’s own economic position at the expense of trading partners (Rickards, 2014;
Taleb, 2012). While advancing growth in volume of goods and services (GNP) is not predictable using a predictive
model, Governmental actions appear to influence a cycle of inflation or deflation within the macro economy
(Rickards, 2011). Adopting a framework of complexity theory enables the exploration of risk of securities market
and macroeconomic market collapse during a time of financial currency war. Further each national market is nested
in the global security markets, which implies the maximum value of a market collapse in either the bond or stock
markets is a non-linear, exponential function of a scale that will dwarf the collapse that happened during the 1930s
(Dent, 2014). A maximum collapse in any markets is unlikely and unpredictable; however a principle within the
theory of complexity is that collapse of a system will occur at some point in time (Patton, 2015).
Given the unpredictability of events, which can vary in scale of value as well, emerging in interrelated
systems, the individual long-term investor can’t plan with confidence about investments’ performance in the future.
Dent (2014) prescribes maintaining a diverse portfolio that includes securities –high-grade corporate bonds and
equity stock – and quality real estate. Ramsey (2014) suggests the use of Mutual and ETF funds to enact further
diversity in holdings. Dent (2014), Rickards (2014) and Ramsey (2014) recommend that each investor have a goal to
reduce one’s debt liabilities to zero as quickly as is feasible.
Fiedler (2014) introduced contingency theory in the 1960s which posits that there is no one best way to
lead or to organize. Incorporating the principles of Fiedler’s theory enables the investor to continually scan the
global financial environment with commitment to remain flexible and adaptable for adjusting the mix of one’s
portfolio in light of changes observed in the external, global economic forces. While not being confident of direction
of movement of these external forces, understanding and applying the concepts of complex systems to the global
financial markets enables one to consider a limited number of variables that are outcomes to significant currency
wars of the future.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R.., 1998). Reflections on systems and their models. John Wiley and Sons, 13(1). Retrieved from
onlinelibrary.wiley.com › ... › Vol 13 Issue 1
Appleyard, D., & Field, A., (2014). International Economics, 8th ed. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Brealey, R., Myers, S. & Allen, F. (2013). Principles of corporate finance (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Bureau of Economic Analysis (2015). Retrieved from www.bea.gov/
Dent, H., Jr., (2014). The demographic cliff: How to survive and prosper during the great deflation of 2014-2019.
New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin Group.
6
Einhorn, D. & Lewis, M. (2009). The end of financial world as we know it. In Carter, G. (Ed), The great hangover:
21 Tales of the new recession from pages of Vanity Fair. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publisher.
Eisen, S. (2013). Currencies after the crash. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Fox, J. (2009). The Myth of the rational market: A History of risk, reward, and delusion on Wall Street. New York,
NY: Harper Collins.
Gleick, J., (1988). Chaos: The making of a new science. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Hill, C. (2014). International business: Competition in the global marketplace, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Latham, A., (2014). The Advantages of Fiedler’s contingency model. Demand Media. Retrieved from
http://smallbusiness.chroncom/advantages.fiedlers.contingen...
Lewis, H., (2009). Where Keynes went wrong: And Why world governments keep creating inflation, bubbles and
busts. Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.
Lowenstein, R., (2011). The End of Wall Street, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Mitchell, M., (2011). Complexity: A Guided tour. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Ohmae, K., (2005). The Next global stage: Challenges and opportunities in our borderless world. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Patton, M., (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications,
Inc.
Ramsey, D., (2014). Dave Ramsey’s guide to investing [radio]. Retrieved from
www.daveramsey.com/elp/investing-guide/?...investinggui...
Rickards, J., (2011). Currency Wars: The making of the next global crisis. New York, NY: Portfolio/Penguin Group.
Sowell, T., (2004). Applied economics: Thinking beyond stage one. New York, NY: Perseus Books Group.
Stockman, D. A., 2013. The Great Deformation: The corruption of capitalism in America. New York, NY: Perseus
Books Group.
Taleb, N., (2012). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York, NY: Random House, Inc.
Thornton, D., (2012). Greenspan’s conundrum and the Fed’s ability to effect long-term yields. Retrieved from
http://Econpapers.repec.org/paper/fipfedlwp/2012-036.htm.
Wallerstein, I. (2011, March). Structural crisis in the world system. Retrieved from
monthlyreview.org/2011/.../structural-crisis-in-the-world…
Yin, R. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publicati
7