That is to say, is Post-Modernist Macroeconomic Policy over?
From Postmodernism:
There was some disagreement with my assertion that Democrats were — effectively — not as protectionist as many have argued. Here are some more thoughts on the matter, as the Administration prepares the case for countervailing duties on Chinese imports [1].
The IMF’s April 2007 World Economic Outlook has been released — or at least part of it. One chapter, entitled Exchange Rates and the adjustment of External Imbalances [pdf], deals with a subject close to my heart.
The new conventional wisdom is that the return foreigners obtain on U.S. assets is less than the return U.S. residents obtain on foreign assets. And that this means that the U.S. can build up a bigger foreign debt than traditional analyses; I’ve been skeptical [1], [2]. Now, we have more reason to ask how robust is the finding of a durable earnings differential in favor of U.S. investors?
China raises rates again. What will higher rates do?
Most commentary on the 2006q4 current account balance release focused on the improvement in the overall balance. Little noted is the fact that 2006 is the first year in which the net income category has registered negative.
How does the term spread correlate with recession in other economies?
Are declining capital imports growth rates an indicator of recession?
According to former Secretary of Treasury Paul O’Neill, Dick Cheney is reputed to have said: “…deficits don’t matter.”
(see Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty, and online here). What’s the (updated) evidence?
Recent news articles ([1], [2]) and
blog posts (Economists View,
Big Picture) have discussed Bernanke’s March 2 speech on globalization and inflation.