International Marxist Group Archive

Magazines, bulletins and booklets of the IMG and its forerunners, 1961–1984

R. Robert Roosa,

The Week Vol. 3, No. 6, 6 February 1965 · p. 12 of the scan · 543 words

The scan: The Week v3 no6.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Tesseract OCR) from a scan of a stencilled typescript and has not been corrected. Expect misread words; titles in particular are often garbled where the issue printed no contents list. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: capitals heading; heuristic; title from the OCR of the heading.

who

resigned last month as U.S. Treasury Under-Secretary for Monetary Affairs, warned that the Administration must take action within the next few months to curb the deteriorating external payments deficit. In an interview in the current issue of U.S. News and World Report Mr. Roosa declared that there had been a “serious worsening” in the U.S. balance of payments position in the final quarter of 1964. “We are nearing the end,” he declared, “of any period of support that we can expect from the rest of the world through their holding the additional dollars—our I.0.U.s—to cover our foreign deficit.” Although official figures of the payments deficit for the whole of last year have not yet been published, there have already been various private forecasts that, after averaging $500m. in each of the first three quarters, it deteriorated in the final three-month period to between $1,100m. and $1,500m. The worsening position has caused alarm within the Administration, which is known to be contemplating a package of monetary and qualitative measures aimed at reducing the deficit. Announcement of the package, however, has so far been delayed by a serious controversy among various Government Departments and the Federal Reserve concerning the actions which would prove most appropriate. Mr, Roosa, ruling out any possibility of a devaluation of the dollar, declared that a protection programme should include such steps as tying a greater amount of U.S. foreign aid to purchasers of American products. But the contemplated package would probably extend far beyond such a relatively mild project which, after being partially in operation for some years, has already tied the bulk of foreign aid outlays to purchasers in the U.S. The Administration has become disturbed for two major reasons by the growth in the U.S. external deficit. First, it fears a possible loss of confidence in the dollar abroad which could persuade some Governments to exchange part of their large

dollar holdings for gold (as France

has already done) and thereby cause

further outflows from declining U-S.

gold reserves. Gold purchases in

London by private speculators in

response to weakness of the dollar

would have a similar, if more indirect,

impact.

Secondly, there is concern about

U.S. bargaining power in crucial

international financial negotiations

which have now been in progress for

more than a year.

Among qualitative controls said to

be under discussion, meanwhile, are

the following:—

1—The introduction of an exit visa,

costing $50 or $100, for tourists

purchased each time an individual

left the country. This tourist “tax”

would be aimed both at reducing

foreign travel — which results in

foreign expenditures by Americans

Feb. 10. 1965 —- THE WEEK

averaging $3,000m. annually—and at

cutting expenditures abroad by indi-

viduals who still decide to make the

trip;

2—Limitations on direct invest-

ments abroad by U.S. corporations;

3—Withdrawal of American troops

from overseas bases;

4—Tax concessions aimed at en-

couraging American companies to

remit profits from their overseas sub-

sidiaries.

Each of these and other recom-

mendations, however, have as many

opponents as advocates. While some

members of the Federal Reserve

Board, for instance, favour tighter

money President Johnson went out of

his way to explain in his economic

message last week that he did not

wish to disturb domestic economic

growth by such a move.

← Use the Week Co-op NumberNegroes’ conditions worsen →

Something wrong on this page?