Presumably everyone on this site believes that the financial markets are horrible at pricing in future risks… it is after all a housing bubble site.
It is wrong however to imply that the “free market” prices US government bonds. A substantial amount of those bonds are being bought buy central banks, including our own, which has openly stated its goal to impact asset prices. Generally speaking, when it comes to financial markets, they really aren’t free.
I mean, think about it… our central bank (part of the government) keeps rates too low for too long, and this causes a boom in risk assets (ie, risk mispricing), and then you cite this as proof that the free markets are really bad at allocating resources. That seems a bit unfair!
So I don’t really accept the assertion that just because financial markets constantly bollix up risk pricing, that it is proof that the “free market” (presumably of the productive, non-financial economy as a whole) is “really bad” at allocating resources.
Brian, if you haven’t read Jeremy Grantham’s “Night of the Living Fed” piece I highly recommend it. It is a fantastic, data-driven, level-headed overview of the huge (negative) impact that Fed policy has had. The link is here:
You may have to sign up but it’s free and worth it. If you read that you’ll understand why I push back hard on the idea of calling financial markets “the free market.”
As for the question of not cutting back on debt until the economy is stronger, that’s a valid point. But my argument is that they won’t do it then either. Not til the credit card is forcefully taken away.
