Sabri, > But Julio, is this not about probability distributions? If we are > living in an "uncertain" world, and we do, should the rates not be all > over the place?
Please take a look at this report, table 1: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/update/02/pdf/0708.pdf By the end of the year, U.S. output is expected to exhibit 1.3% growth, compared to 2.2% in 2007. It's then projected to fall to 0.8% in 2009. Deduct 1% population growth and, roughly, yo get lousy per capita rates (negative for 2009). The EU is not expected to do much better. Compare to the rest of the world: Africa, Russia, China, India, even Brazil. Africa has between 2 and 3% pop rates, but the BRICs have rates around 1% (Russia's is still negative). Moreover, if the postwar economic history is any guide, the gains in global distribution are not going to be easily reversed even if the U.S. recovers in 1-2 years. The gains in global distribution during the 1960s and 1970s became permanent, in spite of the 1980s devastation of Africa and Latin America (Southeast Asia industrialization helped). Furthermore, at the time, many of those countries were net debtors. Now they are net creditors. The West is in debt. Those countries can use those assets horizontally, as per your bond suggestion. They are moving in that direction. The West is losing some ground and the loss looks permanent to me. Allow time and 2-4% differences in rates ends up making a big difference. The world has been and is changing in a direction that allows for further social progress, at high risk and expense no doubt. Nobody really knows for sure. But that's all I'm saying. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
