Ken Houghton | June 3, 2011 1:32 pm
- Buce has been on fire recently, so I’ll probably have to do a post about why this post is so off-target, though his conclusion is correct (short version: he’s been misled).
- If I’m reading this morning’s SIFMA Brief correctly, Moody’s—whose rating skills Robert has discussed at length—(1) may downgrade US debt if we spend too much and (2) will downgrade US banks unless we spend too much on them. Oh, and the banks object to regulation because it would “artificially” reduce asset values (presumably, many of the same ones Moody’s wants protected).
- Relatedly, James Salt (probably h/t Felix) notes that “generous” UK banks are playing reporting games. (The US version is to deny the rework and leave the asset marked at unsustainable levels.)
- That this is spot-on would make me sadder if I thought we still lived in anything resembling a meritocracy, or even a developing economy.
- If we needed further evidence of that, the state with the best secondary eduction system in the country is pushing forward with privatize-the-gains.
- I’m more and more convinced that China “is different,” but very much not certain the differences will make an ultimate difference. Daniel Gross is inclined to think not. More on this as I finally finish my review of BoomBustOlogy, which you should expect to see some time before the apocalypse.
- I assume everyone has already seen this. Just in case, check out the facts, stylised or not.
- Oh, and Felix is wrong here. But that’s a post that will probably never be written by me. Someone else want to send it in?
Strictly adhered to, this program would introduce several hundred thousand Michigan kids to the pleasures of forced anal and oral copulation. Which falls into the ambit of Sex Education, I suppose, but I can see conservatives objecting, despite the undoubted cost savings.
I’ve a serious question which I hope you might hit on, when you turn your interest to China. I understand the points that (a) China’s “affluence” is basicallly enjoyed by only 1/4 of the population, (b) that affluence is threatened by rising wages and one-child-per-family demographics, (c) corruption and shoddy construction and the octopus-like spread of the PLA into businesses of all sorts represent a heavy tax on the economy, (d) pollution and other ecological issues will be mounting problems, and (e) the issue of whether economic growth and political stability is indeed compatible with Communist Party rule in the long run is not yet resolved.
That said, it strikes me that if China can become moderately “rich” despite these obstacles, it seems reasonable that it could continue becoming richer by reducing pollution and corruption, and by extending the infrastructure investments and low-cost manufacturing that have worked in the coastal regions into the interior. Just do more of the same and those 10% per year growth statrstics continue indefinitely.
What am I missing? I see plenty of stories about economic growth in India any more , and no one seems to think that India will cease to grow when only one quarter of the population has reached western standards of affluence. How is India different from China?