Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
patunru.blogspot.com
Arianto A. Patunru
Other Distractions
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(145)
-
▼
October
(18)
- How it all started (Part 1)
- Fake LPEM Site
- Hugo, howzit goin'?
- Capitalism is Dead for Sale
- Krugman the Nobelist
- The wisest editorial so far
- Relevant sources now?
- The blame-game (3)
- Money has its own entropy, don't we forget
- What's all this mean?
- Seriously, I thought Cochrane was kidding
- The blame-game (2)
- The blame-game (1)
- How about here?
- What they say about the financial meltdown
- The most important concepts in economics
- Econ Nobel "Nominees", 2008
- Some Nobel laureates are just unbelievable lately
-
▼
October
(18)
2 comments:
Aco:
Have to admit, I suck at macro. But I don't see why Stiglitz was wrong. Isn't Boudreaux second explanation -- ie., the Saudis could just buy GE equities and therefore not increase indebtedness -- implies a net asset transfer, which can be interpreted as an increase in indebtedness?
Arya, I think Boudreaux's point is more on Stiglitz's assertion that trade deficit forces American to borrow more. He said it in his response to comments.
Thanks!
Post a Comment