- 'Orphan Works' Copyright Law Dies Quiet Death from Wired's "Threat Level"
- Know-alls from The Economist
- What Does This Novel Tell Us About Japan's Labor Force Today? from The Mainichi Daily News
- Speaking of food security, Japan's Environment Ministry Deep-Freezing Seeds also from The Mainichi Daily News
- Time for Geoengineering? from The Japan Times
- Blame China for Our Economic Problems? from the Council on Foreign Relations
If I've got Setser right, we should blame China for the mess we're in because they were buying lots of agnency bonds during what we now call the housing boom and so interest rates were made lower than they should have been.
But that's absurd: it's because deregulation in how American investment banks that individuals were told to sell more loans to more potential consumers. Why were there so many potential consumers? Not because we experienced some kind of population boom of people in need of houses, but because wages in the U.S. have continued to sag during the last ten years.
We've had an unsustainable economy operating for nearly 15 years and I'd say it's probably more like 20 years. Works like NAFTA created this situation, where what is important about America in the world economy is not the strength of its innovation nor its production, but its good name. The recently rejected bailout was intended to restore America's good name, and so get lending occurring again, not to actually address the problem: that America has too much debt at every level, micro and macro.
I fail to understand your argument. I agree that wage stagnation is a problem, and that financial innovation produced the illusion that risky loans were not risky. But that doesn't change the fact that the US borrowed heavily from China and the oil exporters for the last five years -- and that in a global macroeconomic sense, the rise in the US household deficit offset the rise in the surplus of china and the oil exporters. Would you seriously argue that absent such inflows into the US, US interest rates would not have been higher -- and that higher rates wouldn't have slowed US household borrowing/ cut into the securitization process?
ReplyDeletebsetser