http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/m...-killed-the-debt-deal.html?src=me&ref=general One of the best non-partisan political articles I've ever read. Gave good accounts of why a supposed debt deal broke down for each side. Main Players: Republicans: Boehner was more willing to compromise than any other Republican involved but is too weak have gotten broad Republican support. Democrats: Obama was also willing to compromise and even had support from his side but the Gang of Six made his bill weak by comparison. Side players: Republicans: Eric Cantor (#2 House Repub) basically completely undercut Boehner's work. Gang of Six: Group of bipartisan Senators who independently came up with a package that was more ambitious unhashed out which Obama prematurely endorsed. The article basically reiterates the idea that politicians are nothing but self-serving, egotistical idiots who'd rather fall back on rhetoric than compromise and work for the greater good.
Amen, brother. It's like I keeping telling my good friend over at Caltech working on his Ph.D. in some silly specialized biochemistry field, just think about all that time and money we waste on cancer research trying to figure out how to design and attach small molecules to some stupid protein or another - why even bother with those baby steps. Serious researchers need to be bold, stop wasting time and just fix the damn problem already!
America's problem is a very mild form of skin cancer anyways. I don't think people quite know what power being the reserve currency of the world is, and having your government bond be synonymous with risk-free. Seriously, when I do finance assignments, and I have to find risk-free rates? Look at yields on Treasury bonds. It's so automatic. People worry, and point fingers about Greece, but the analogous situation is Japan. Japan has 200% debt-to-GDP, but low yields. It's not exactly the same; they have more internal holders of debt, and are running current account surpluses like magic, but it's a hell of a lot closer to America than the PIIGS ever would be.
I agree, although I'd argue it doesn't make a difference that the US has more internationally owned debt as long as it remains domestically denominated. The "beauty" of our international debt is that foreign central banks must use dollars to buy it, and they must accept dollars as payment. Foreign exchange rates never come into play, so they're no different from the various bonds owned by domestic banks and mutual/hedge/pension funds. Where did they get those dollars to buy bonds to begin with? We only have ourselves to blame. American consumers and corporations are all too willing to send our dollars over there to buy goods and services. Those who're indignant that foreigners own 20-25% of our debt need to stop buying products that were manufactured there.
Hallelujah dog - the other day i was eating an oxtail arepa and solving Fermat's last theorem while photographing the Loch Ness Monster, and I said " **** it, it doesn't solve the debt so **** it **** it **** it!" Then I took a crystal punch bowl and smashed it like Esther Rolle as Florida in the Good Times episode after James' funeral.
