David Levey and Stuart Brown have an antidote for global gloomsaying about the US economy in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
The U.S. dollar will remain dominant in global trade, payments, and capital flows, based as it is in a country with safe, well-regulated financial markets. Provided U.S. firms maintain their entrepreneurial edge — and despite much anxiety, there is little reason to expect otherwise — global asset managers will continue to want to hold portfolios rich in U.S. corporate stocks and bonds. Although foreign private demand for U.S. assets will fluctuate — witness the slowdown in purchases that precipitated the decline in the U.S. dollar in 2002 and 2003 — rapid growth of world financial wealth will allow the proportion of U.S. assets held by foreigners to increase….
…Only one development could upset this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that have powered the U.S. economy. The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home.
David Levey and Stuart Brown have an antidote for global gloomsaying about the US economy in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
The U.S. dollar will remain dominant in global trade, payments, and capital flows, based as it is in a country with safe, well-regulated financial markets. Provided U.S. firms maintain their entrepreneurial edge — and despite much anxiety, there is little reason to expect otherwise — global asset managers will continue to want to hold portfolios rich in U.S. corporate stocks and bonds. Although foreign private demand for U.S. assets will fluctuate — witness the slowdown in purchases that precipitated the decline in the U.S. dollar in 2002 and 2003 — rapid growth of world financial wealth will allow the proportion of U.S. assets held by foreigners to increase….
…Only one development could upset this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that have powered the U.S. economy. The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home.
David Levey and Stuart Brown have an antidote for global gloomsaying about the US economy in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs.
The U.S. dollar will remain dominant in global trade, payments, and capital flows, based as it is in a country with safe, well-regulated financial markets. Provided U.S. firms maintain their entrepreneurial edge — and despite much anxiety, there is little reason to expect otherwise — global asset managers will continue to want to hold portfolios rich in U.S. corporate stocks and bonds. Although foreign private demand for U.S. assets will fluctuate — witness the slowdown in purchases that precipitated the decline in the U.S. dollar in 2002 and 2003 — rapid growth of world financial wealth will allow the proportion of U.S. assets held by foreigners to increase….
…Only one development could upset this optimistic prognosis: an end to the technological dynamism, openness to trade, and flexibility that have powered the U.S. economy. The biggest threat to U.S. hegemony, accordingly, stems not from the sentiments of foreign investors, but from protectionism and isolationism at home.
A model that assumes stock market traders have zero intelligence has been found to mimic the behaviour of the London Stock Exchange very closely.
However, the surprising result does not mean traders are actually just buying and selling at random, say researchers. Instead, it suggests that the movement of markets depend less on the strategic behaviour of traders and more on the structure and constraints of the trading system itself.
…on “price gouging” (otherwise known as the law of supply and demand) in the wake of Hurricane Charley. The Mises Institute preemptively responded to this, but it never slows down the economic ignoramuses at the New York Times:
Janet Snyder, a pharmacy technician in Cape Coral, said several men in two pickup trucks spotted her roof damage and offered to lay down a temporary covering of plastic sheeting. They wanted $600, about four times what she figured was the right price, based on 15 rolls of plastic that usually sell for $10 each.
OK, so Janet is clearly no business major, but how dumb is the reporter to pass this on without comment? She seems to think that the men’s labor should be free, and that she should only have to pay for materials. In the real world, even with no hurricane, she wouldn’t get free labor. She certainly can’t expect it when there is so much to be done.
…on “price gouging” (otherwise known as the law of supply and demand) in the wake of Hurricane Charley. The Mises Institute preemptively responded to this, but it never slows down the economic ignoramuses at the New York Times:
Janet Snyder, a pharmacy technician in Cape Coral, said several men in two pickup trucks spotted her roof damage and offered to lay down a temporary covering of plastic sheeting. They wanted $600, about four times what she figured was the right price, based on 15 rolls of plastic that usually sell for $10 each.
OK, so Janet is clearly no business major, but how dumb is the reporter to pass this on without comment? She seems to think that the men’s labor should be free, and that she should only have to pay for materials. In the real world, even with no hurricane, she wouldn’t get free labor. She certainly can’t expect it when there is so much to be done.