11 ms·

>TO put it bluntly, if the United States takes one step back and the rest of the world takes two steps forward, even in purely selfish terms we should consider

>TO put it bluntly, if the United States takes one step back and the rest of the world takes two steps forward, even in purely selfish terms we should consider accepting the trade-off, if only for the longer run. When the Chinese dammed the Yangtze River they assured the farmers who lost their land that it was for the collective good, as if that was somehow compensation for their individual financial loss. This article seems to have a similar tone, glossing over the fact that the previous decade, for US citizens, involved a massive shift of assets from the middle class to the already very well-off, in addition to the movement of industry to emerging economies. Emerging economies likely would have done even better without the global meltdown that was largely caused by the US deregulation-driven con games.

cwan 17y ago
While I can agree with the first part of the statement, the global meltdown was not "largely caused by US deregulation-driven con games". Regulation however well intentioned and in how it was implemented played a decisive if not the decisive role. Attempts to maneuver around regulation creating less transparency was causal. Government sponsored agencies also contributed heavily to the meltdown. I also don't think it is true to say that there was a massive shift of assets from middle class to already very well off given that it is the rich who largely suffered the most from this meltdown (given that it was an asset pricing bubble and it is the rich who tend to be the ones who hold more assets). One thing you also notice that's really different about the US (and in many ways Canada as well) and the rest of the world is that the rich are pretty much the same people elsewhere, whereas there at least seems to be a lot more movement/mobility or the potential to be in the US.

cwan 17y ago

While I can agree with the first part of the statement, the global meltdown was not "largely caused by US deregulation-driven con games". Regulation however well intentioned and in how it was implemented played a decisive if not the decisive role. Attempts to maneuver around regulation creating less transparency was causal. Government sponsored agencies also contributed heavily to the meltdown. I also don't think it is true to say that there was a massive shift of assets from middle class to already very well off given that it is the rich who largely suffered the most from this meltdown (given that it was an asset pricing bubble and it is the rich who tend to be the ones who hold more assets). One thing you also notice that's really different about the US (and in many ways Canada as well) and the rest of the world is that the rich are pretty much the same people elsewhere, whereas there at least seems to be a lot more movement/mobility or the potential to be in the US.