Bretton Woods International Monetary System Was Invented

Bretton Woods International Monetary System was invented and put in use from the end of World War II until the mid 1970s. In theory the system was designed to make banking more global and more streamlined. In fact, according to historians, "the Bretton Woods system was history's first example of a fully negotiated monetary order intended to govern currency relations among sovereign states. In principle, the regime was designed to combine binding legal obligations with multilateral decision-making conducted through an international organization, the IMF, endowed with limited supranational authority" (ucsb.edu, 2013).One of the elements of this system which manifested in practice was the fact that so much of th4e development and nuances of this system were directly reliant on the needs and policies of the most influential member of this international banking system; this member was the United States. One of the fundamental assumptions that the design of this system rested upon was the fact that the United States would be a stabilizing presence for the system as whole. "The absence of an effective external discipline on U.S. policy could not threaten the regime so long as that assumption held, as it generally did prior to 1965" (ucsb.edu, 2013). After 1965, one could argue that the U.S., was not only a destabilizing force for this system, but one which contributed to the entirety of the system's destabilization. Thus, the steadying force of the U.S. was why this exact system was able to work in the short run, but the inability of the U.S. To remain a stabilizing force was why the system was unable to last in the long run.

2. QE2 (quantitative easing two) refers to a process used to stimulate the economy through the means of a monetary policy enacted by the Federal Reserve which was harnessed during a period when the economy was extremely sluggish (investopedia, 2013). QE2 manifested in the following manner: "The Federal Reserve announced plans to buy $600 billion in long-term Treasuries, in addition to the reinvestment of an additional $250 billion to $300 billion in Treasuries from earlier proceeds from mortgage-backed securities. This, in theory, would push yields on Treasuries and bonds down, creating a surge in investment and consumption expenditures" (investopedia, 2013). It is correct to assert that many people were opposed to this method and for a wide variety of reasons. Many of this vocal dissent created the stimulation of QE3, something that Bernanke was vehemently encouraged to do. For instance some of the overwhelming arguments to QE2 revolved around the following issues: the inability to control inflation as a result of high interest rates (something particularly dangerous because inflation can be self-reinforcing); QE1 was viewed as something which didn't have a large impact; other nations were being hurt as the result of QE2 (which was something that could cause a tremendous deflation in Europe as a result of the Euro bring pushed higher); the loss of America's political status in the reest of the world (as a result of the fact that the nation was being viewed as trying to manipulate its currency);fears regarding the ultimate manifestation of a currency war; the manifestation of a run on the dollar; asset prices were being supported, rather than the actual economy; long-term stock returns were being hurt by the inflated prices (Leeds, 2010). Other critics argued that this method was just a means of semantic issues. "Quantitative easing is simply a method of bailing out banks without calling it a bailout. The Fed says what it will purchase before doing the purchase. Investors can trade ahead of the Fed. In addition, the value of the banks' securities increase" (Leeds, 2010). These were all compelling issues which raised tremendous amounts of verifiable points which individually and collectively succeed in poking holes in the QE2 in its entirety.