He notes that the US is able to fund a larger deficit due to international market flexibility, yet isn't it weird that the largest buyers of our debt are the 2 biggest nations with "dirty" floats/absolute dollar pegs (Japan and China)?
The Bank of Japan isn't supplying anything except Yen; they are buyers of debt only because they need a place to park the dollars they hold from intervention. Doesn't this skew the actual price and amount of US debt that the international markets could "naturally" take?
What about his comment that any job growth we see will come as a result of declining productivity. That does not sound very good. To me increased productivity meant fewer jobs, products at lower prices. Unless demand surges what will pay for these new jobs. Also is the moving of jobs overseas helping boost productivity or do they not consider that?
what he means is that americans can continue to rip off hard-working japanese, chinese,taiwanese,koreans while he will keep everything under control by printing paper money to pay for US consumerism. Let those stupid asians work their ass off to get a piece of PAPER. the asian goverments are happy to let this exploitation go on, so why not exploit them? the punchline is inflation, the US dollar has lost 70% of its value since 1971, which also means all that 70% of the foreign reserve in asian countries has become toilet paper. It's just another form of slavery, economic imperialim. a money/wealth illusion..why the asians put up with it is totally beyond me.. If my view a seems controverial, IT"S NOT, it's economic reality.. Try to prove me wrong, I am quite certain it's a futile excercise.
How do Americans rip off hardworking Japanese, etc... ?? An American manufacturing company looks overseas and discovers cheap labor. The manu co. opens up shop say in S Korea. The plant benefits from cheap labor and S Koreans benefit with jobs. Sounds like capitalism, eh ?? Printing paper money is bad? Ya print money, ala create debt, to build or progress. Railroads in Europe and the US were heavily funded by issuing paper. This was bad? Goods were shipped faster and to places that may have been rather burdensome by any other means. I noticed that the standard of living is a lot better today than in the 70's. Or you rather go back to the 70's?
vegasoul, I am not sure I agree. Would you eloborate on your thesis. Are they losing capital by exporting goods to us or gaining it?
may be you should go and take econ101 to understand what I am saying..you obviously don't understand the insidious nature of inflation and the concept of capitalism very well... those railroads were build with your granddad 's savings, and most railroad went bankrupt at the end, did u inherit anything from your granddad???
First, please do some research on the subject before you make outrageous claims; for instance, what defines standard of living? If you want information on the deceptiveness of international economic statistics, please find a copy of "Comparative Economics" by James Angresano; chapter two deals with this specifically. Second, you need to think about economic principals before you spew such harsh opinions. Two principals you neglected are the principals of comparative and absolute advantage. Singapore labor is cheap; ours is expensive. We don't set the prices for foreign labor, the foreigners do. By the way, Singapore had a higher GDP per capita than France in 2000. It is a commonly used (though flawed, as most are) measure of standard of living. Also, many Asian countries have very high growth rates, much higher than much of the western world. Poor slaves...... Also, please explain the "insidious nature" of inflation. Sudan averaged 6.9% growth from 1990 to 2000, but averaged 25.8% inflation from 1996 to 1999. China had 9.6% annual growth but only .3% inflation annually from 1990-2000.