WSJ — Strain on the U.S. Economy

flattr this!

Here is great short video interview with the Wall Street Journal explaining why 10 year US Fed bond yields are so low...

About David Lawson

-Worked as a real estate agent in 2009, have since left the industry because I now see that it is all fuelled by euphoric expections and debt -Started to become concerned about the global debt bubble after reading 'The Credit Crunch' by Graham Turner about a year ago and have since followed Steve Keens debtwatch blog -Competed a Bachelor of economics in 2004 specalising in iternational trade and finance -Lived in the USA for 5 years of my life, have witnessed first hand there frivolous spending patterns and watched our country become the same over the course of last 10 years
Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to WSJ — Strain on the U.S. Economy

  1. alainton says:


    One of the prob­lems of expect­ing the sec­toral bal­ance approach to sup­ply all answers (as opposed to most) is that it focuses too much on the present — where those balences can be accounted — rather than port­fo­lio deci­sions on a rad­i­cally uncer­tain future — where they can­not. You say

    sav­ing … is com­pletely unnec­es­sary any­way in an endoge­nous money envi­ron­ment.
    Invest­ment doesn’t need sav­ings because it cre­ates its own auto­mat­i­cally when it hap­pens as a mat­ter of accounting.…Demand and strong expec­ta­tion of demand is what trig­gers investment.

    Yes invest­ment cre­ates sav­ings but sav­ings which is spent on a phys­i­cal asset which will not val­orise for a num­ber of years not in the present period, and we are talk­ing about cre­at­ing value to pay for pen­sions in the present period.

    Imag­ine a firm which is 20 years old, it has an asset which realises income which has a life span of 45 years after which it ‘cliff edges’ . As an accoun­tant how will you treat that asset on its bal­ance sheet? I imag­ine you will depre­ci­ate it over its life­time and rec­om­mend that the firm retains value (accord­ing to the fun­da­men­tal account­ing equa­tion) by invest­ing in another asset that will mature when the old asset ‘cliff edges’ — some port­fo­lio of gilts/bonds which will mature in 45 years and then be used to pur­chase an annu­uity to main­tain income. If that is too risk averse some mix of bonds and equities.

    Now delete ‘firm’ and put in ‘indi­vid­ual’. We are talk­ing about a pen­sion port­fo­lio. Seen from the per­spec­tive of eco­nomic agency it is entirely ratio­nal for that agent to invest to main­tain income, it would be very risky to assume that some future enlight­ened post keyn­sian gov­ern­ment will fund all pen­sions from cur­rent income. How­ever even such a gov­ern­ment would have to look for­ward to future lia­bil­i­ties to the econ­omy as a whole in a rad­i­cally uncer­tain future and make sen­si­ble poli­cies about how to encour­age port­fo­lios to be bal­anced in light of antic­i­pated future income demands, espe­cially from an age­ing population.

  2. RJ says:

    Yes invest­ment cre­ates sav­ings but savings”

    Not really cor­rect is it. Debt and only debt cre­ates savings.

    So debt (a finan­cial lia­bil­ity) always equals a finan­cial asset held by another party. Like money or Govt bonds.

    Money always really = sav­ings but it not always called sav­ings. The key is is this money asset that never reduces until debt is repaid (or Govt issue bonds) used for con­sump­tion or invest­ment (called savings).

    If for con­sump­tion it flows in one area (hol­i­days, food etc). If for invest­ment into another direc­tion like gold, sil­ver, bonds, shares, prop­erty etc.

    If we all decided to save less (direct our assets into con­sump­tion) then we would not need more debt.

    At present though we have too lit­tle debt to meet our needs for both con­sump­tion and future or deferred con­sump­tion held in so called investments.

  3. cliffy says:


    Given the above con­sider the below.

    If it is the case that if we con­sume more we will need less debt, what about if we need to con­sume more because resources are becom­ing scarcer, and tech­nol­ogy is not mak­ing up for the extra cost of extrac­tion, and so con­sump­tion goods are more expensive.

    I am kind of think­ing in those cir­cum­stances we would need more invest­ment and debt not less.

    How does that rec­on­cile with your above thoughts?

  4. alainton says:

    You for­got about cru­soe type sav­ings (deferred consumption)

  5. RJ says:

    If it is the case that if we con­sume more we will need less debt,”

    Its if we save a lot less then we will not need an increase in debt. But if money and finan­cial assets con­tinue flow­ing (and being locked) into future con­sump­tion sav­ing assets like shares or gold or prop­erty etc then debt MUST increase. Oth­er­wise we will have insuf­fi­cient money flow­ing into con­sump­tion = unemployment.

    Govt’s really need to step up and pro­vide the debt. Fail­ure to do so = lots of unnec­es­sary suffering.

  6. cliffy says:


    What about the dynamic of bor­row­ing against Min­sky layer asset price increases in one econ­omy to pur­chase con­sump­tion goods in another coun­try with cheaper pro­duc­tion costs which through profit mar­gin accu­mu­lates finan­cial assets [abil­ity of busi­ness sys­tems to pro­duce] but no debt in that economy.

    How does that come out for you when you allo­cate the terms you use above to the sce­nario I describe?

  7. RJ says:

    I’m unsure what you mean. But

    Trade sur­plus coun­tries either

    Hold sav­ings in the trade deficit coun­try or
    For the Euro coun­tries suck money out of the trade deficit country

    But either sit­u­a­tion requires even larger debt in the trade deficit coun­try. To cover their own sav­ings require­ment but also sav­ings from the sur­plus coun­try (gen­er­ated from the trade surplus).

    It’s why the US must con­tinue to run large Govt deficits.

Leave a Reply