Dean Baker writes:
I don't like to use this blog to settle personal scores, but I think it is important to clear up a serious misrepresentation that stemmed from an earlier post. Zero Hedge has me advocating default on the national debt because I had the audacity to point out that the world will not end if the U.S. defaults on its debt.
It did not occur to me that anyone could think that saying "the world will not end if we do X," is the same as saying "we should do X," but apparently the folks at Zero Hedge cannot see the distinction....
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/problems-of-reading-comprehension-at-zero-hedge-no-one-advocated-default#commentsBaker's original column here:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/defaulting-on-the-debt-is-not-the-end-of-the-worldZH's misrepresentation of Baker's column here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/dean-baker-lets-just-default I'm posting this partly because several people have been using Zero Hedge as their "authoritative source" on developments at Fukushima Daiichi.
1) ZH is an anonymously-written economic blog. Because it's anonymous, we can't know the specific interests & connections of the writer(s) involved.
2) However, the writer(s) have made it clear that they are deficit hawks; this includes related support for attacks on social programs.
3) Financial traders have also been known to ramp up the fear factor, or ramp it down, depending on their own pecuniary interests. I think it's instructive to consider the implications in light of ZH's misrepresentation of Baker's column -- in the field of ZH's supposed expertise. ZH's interests favor austerity policies; do they also have bets on the tanking of the Japanese economy?