@michaelxpettis Wow! Never thought I would see the day that after decades of seeing the destructive nature of unfettered capital flow (I say this as ex-wall st and ex-EM trading) form part of (or at least more of) mainstream discussion.
China does much much more than Tarrifs to intervene in its external accounts. Including, suppression of currency, interest rate suppression, huuuge subsidies to specialised sectors, major transfers from the household sector and many, many more. The tarrifs were always going to be ineffective. But that doesn’t mean the US won’t eventually find the right policy leaver (intervene in the capital account would be one). When that happens look out below!
These subsidies / transfers also wreak havoc in counties that are forced to absorb the excess savings from China’s ‘competitive strategy’ - most notably the USA but other Anglo countries. Leading to a huuuge rise in personal debt. It’s probably no surprise that all Anglo counties suffered the same housing affordability crisis over the past 20-30 years.
@PoliticoTeacher It’s not only bad. It’s the source of all that is bad with the Anglo economies. If investing doesn’t come with expertise - we shouldn’t except it.
@james_roe@timwido@PatriciaNPino Totally agree. My point of difference is that tax is not revenue. It’s not needed to spend. So, and I know this makes me an odd one out here. I think we should both lower tax on a much larger part of the population but ALSO increase spending.
@timwido@james_roe@PatriciaNPino My take is - @james_roe is making general directional statements not specific budget tax position. I think that's perfectly reasonable.
@james_roe@timwido@PatriciaNPino Yes, i do agree. But also think tax should be signifcantly lower right across the spectrum. But that is another loooong conversation. I wouldnt even tax the first $100k
@james_roe@timwido@PatriciaNPino This is not true. Persuming you are talking about the post war decades. Top 10% was approx 42% and those very rare in the 90% bracket were 1% - about 1/4000 i think are the numbers...but the expansion was the baby boom anyway...
@cdglove98@james_roe@PatriciaNPino I would slight disagree. I don’t think your point illustrates this but I generally agree that things merge / look similar at the extremes. As the saying goes - there are no trends only vectors.
Australian Super is 'sending australian's hard earned' super to USA to the tune of (back of the enevelope) about $120billion PLUS another $53billion in Europe. Give or take. So 240x times (usa) and 106x (Europe). But i don't see any equivalent note on that? do we just invest in Australia?
That is waaaay to simple. Just add time as another dimension to your exmaple. When you are young - min wealth but max potential. As you get older max wealth but min potential. And that is for the same individual. Dynamics needs to be built into economic models (which they are not). What then?