Rupert Darwall: Britain's Great Stagnation - WSJ.com

Rupert Darwall: Britain's Great Stagnation - WSJ.com

comments from other reader:
"...exploiting a weak regulatory environment...The UK was, and to many extent still is, an example writ large of the Bush-era folly of combining laissez-faire with tax cuts, ...An inadequately regulated financial market generated false signals about future returns, ..."

response:


What you may be benignly choosing to ignore is the role of government in the US setting up the liberal idea that everyone should be able to own a home (e.g. not reining in Fannie and Freddie and all that lending - after all, if people don't qualify but should, then the qualifications have to be unfair, etc.); and, in a broader bank regulatory environment, the idea of replacing bank-determined risk-based lending with the substitution of regulatory insight (e.g. Basel xxxx almost requiring banks to fund feckless governments).

And, as baby Obama is now lamenting like the parent who wants to keep charging things to the credit card (i.e. how can you want to limit my government credit line) vs. the parent (Republicans) saying you are spending more than you have and effectively proscribing the assets to be used for investment to support current consumption.

Your comments perfectly highlight the ability of all-too-many people to ignore common sense and somehow see government and its programs and regulations as only benefiting them (or those they think deserve the benefits) without being willing or able to recognize there are consequences and tradeoffs.

Somehow what they would do in their own family life with respect to credit card debt is seen as not applicable to government.

And, the use of debt to encourage consumption rather than to invest for retirement, a rainy day or a worthwhile something-or-other is also seen as something individuals might consider; but, instead something governments can ignore (or at least only charge a few citizens or businesses to pay for).

Somehow, the old saying about "the blind leading the blind" seems more applicable to your reading of economic affairs than the opposite:

See; http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578215873697800166.html?mod=opinion_newsreel