The “shortage of dollars” seems unfortunately to mean all things to all men; hence we must try first to come to a precise definition of the problem. I have myself, in my personal affairs, experienced both a dollar crisis and a chronic shortage of dollars; and I suppose that most mortal creatures have the same difficulties, expressible equally well in terms of their own or of other countries' currencies. But in this sense, which is really nonsense, the “shortage” means only that we have not attained to an “economy of abundance.” Official pronouncements on the problem do not always escape this nonsense.A much more sophisticated interpretation of the dollar shortage, but one which I am sure must finally be rejected, is “an excess of dollars used over dollars supplied, the difference being made up by borrowing on short-term account from the United States and shipping gold to the United States.” The peculiar character of this definition of Professor Seymour Harris is dramatically shown by the dollar shortage of the thirties, which was marked—and indeed by common knowledge to a large extent caused—by the withdrawal of American short-term capital from Europe, and the flight of capital, mostly short-term, from Europe to the United States. Quite possibly Professor Harris might wish to extend his definition from an outflow of short-term capital from the United States to an inflow also, to be able to cover the European capital flight case. This solution would then apparently associate the idea of a dollar shortage with an undesirable short-term capital movement in either direction, but it would fail to specify in what respect the movement is undesirable. Furthermore, one would be forced to relinquish the idea of a dollar shortage in all cases in which no capital exports or imports take place.
Read full abstract