This trade war might be the straw that breaks the US dollar’s back.

It was early spring in the year 1171 AD when Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos decided to go to war against his much smaller ally– Venice. And the historical record shows that it was a really bad idea.

The Byzantine Empire was still a vast and powerful state by the late 12th century. But it was becoming obvious to anyone paying attention that they were in serious decline.

The Byzantine treasury was almost always empty. Imperial debt was piling up left and right. Byzantine borders were constantly being invaded by Muslim hordes. And the imperial coin– the gold solidus– was beginning to fall out of favor as the dominant currency for international trade.

Perhaps most importantly, there were a great deal of inexperienced or incompetent Emperors who stood by and did nothing while adversaries exploited imperial weakness.

One bright spot in Byzantine foreign relations was with the Republic of Venice; and over time the two cultivated a strong friendship, and enjoying significant trade and military cooperation. When the Byzantine Empire went to war, for example, Venice would often provide naval and maritime logistics support.

Trade was so strong between the two, in fact, that thousands of Venetian merchants moved permanently to Constantinople.

But it all came to an end in March of 1171. The Emperor very suddenly changed his tune on Venice and started viewing them as rivals who were taking advantage.

To be fair, Venice was definitely a rising power at the time. But they were a pipsqueak compared to the size and strength of the Byzantine Empire… and the Venetians in no way wanted a conflict. They got one anyway.

That spring, Emperor Manuel imprisoned as many as 10,000 Venetians in Constantinople. He also confiscated their assets, properties, and businesses.

The ruler back in Venice (coincidentally known as “the Doge”) tried to negotiate a peaceful, diplomatic solution. But in the end, a war between the two broke out. And while direct military conflict was  quite limited, the economic and trade warfare seriously wounded both powers.

In retrospect the long-term consequences were clear: the Byzantine Empire lost a supportive ally, essentially pushing Venice into the arms of Western European powers. The Empire also never quite recovered the lost trade and economic opportunity costs from the war.

That’s because all war– whether a shooting war, trade war– is expensive. There are very, very few instances in history in which a nation benefited from prolonged war. In fact, the last guy to consistently wage ‘profitable’ wars was Napoleon… and he understood the key was to end it as quickly as possible.

Maybe that’s the strategy in this new trade war today. Maybe the whole idea is to show people that you’re not afraid to make good on your threats… to show that you’re not bluffing… and that everyone should run to the negotiating table immediately.

Perhaps. But it’s been well-documented that a long-term trade war, i.e. tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico, will be incredibly expensive. Canada sends energy to the US. Mexico sends food. If there are two things that US citizens don’t become more expensive, it’s food and fuel.

The rough calculations show that American households will pay a few thousand dollars per year more. Most people can’t afford that, nor are they particularly inclined to try.

The optimists say that America doesn’t need to import any of that stuff, and that “we can produce everything we need at home”.

OK, that’s sort of true. The US has the capability to produce almost everything if it really had to. But to borrow from the great philosopher Chris Rock, “You could drive with your feet if you really had to. But that don’t make it a good f***ng idea.”

Every country, every economy in the world has a finite amount of resources– workers, raw materials, capital, land, etc.  And in a free market, those finite resources are put to their best and highest use… because that’s what generates the most profit, i.e. the most wealth and prosperity.

No one puts resources to work making socks and underwear if they could put those same resources to work developing disruptive technology. And the US economy has that option– producing goods and services of extremely high value (including technology).

This has been a key driver of wealth in America.

But suddenly having to divert limited resources to something less valuable consequently means… less wealth and prosperity. Bottom line, trying to produce everything at home requires misallocating economic resources into less profitable, less prosperous industries.

And the opportunity cost of doing that cannot be overstated.

There’s another, even bigger problem, though.

The US dollar is already in trouble. Plenty of countries have already started to line up against the dollar; and as we’ve discussed in the past, foreign central banks have started ditching the dollar to buy gold instead.

This is a big problem for the US government; the Treasury Department desperately needs foreigners to keep funding America’s massive budget deficits. And even if the budget deficits miraculously disappear, America still needs foreign nations to hold on to the US government bonds they already own.

Threatening (and then actually following through) with tariffs will only make foreign countries less inclined to own US dollars.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio even admitted this weekend that within five years, “there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won’t have the ability” to impose sanctions or tariffs.

Less demand from foreign governments and central banks to own US dollars ultimately means higher inflation and higher interest rates across the board– including higher mortgage rates.  So more expensive food. More expensive fuel. And more expensive housing.

Again, this trade war might be a ploy designed to force everyone to the negotiating table… and perhaps they expect it will be over in a matter of days or weeks. But that’s a risky assumption.

A century ago, the ‘experts’ back in 1914 assumed that World War I would be over in a few months, and that the troops would “be home before the leaves fall from the trees” (according to what Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany reportedly told his soldiers departing for the front line).

This, too, may be long and costly. But even if its short, declaring war on your own ally could easily create lasting consequences for America by accelerating backlash against the dollar.

Source

Simon Black is an international investor, entrepreneur and permanent traveler. His daily letter is both educational and entertaining, and we suggest that those who want unbiased, actionable information about global opportunities sign up for Sovereign Man’s free, actionable newsletter at http://www.SovereignMan.com.

From Simon Black of SovereignMan.com

Source: https://www.schiffsovereign.com/trends/this-trade-war-might-be-the-straw-that-breaks-the-us-dollars-back-152034/