I think the Bank of England was pretty clear - U.S. loans represent too high a percentage of British portfolios (insufficient diversification), and those loans are too concentrated in riskier instruments (those with businesses and individuals).
The statement says nothing about the relative quality of U.S. debt. What it addresses is inappropriate choices which would be inappropriate whether they were investing in the U.S. or Tunisia.
To go beyond that to say that "they want their money back before we go belly up" is, once again, moving into the territory of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.
BTW, I have no problem with conspiracy theories - my problem is with UNSUBSTANTIATED ones. I'd like to see some evidence.
What do I mean by evidence? Ask Woodward and Bernstein. A memo, an e-mail, a video tape, a photograph a police blotter. Or a hundred.
Guessing what might be behind some economic move or decision, working back from result to cause, assuming motives other that those stated - this is not evidence - it is speculation.
So, if there is a secret group of men who REALLY run the government, or REALLY set the interest rates, or who have conspired to fleece the public by putting all of their money into bubble investments - let's see who they are, and let's see the minutes of their secret meetings. If somebody is cooking the books, let's have some hard evidence - the secret ledger - instead of just statements that the books are "obviously" wrong.
Otherwise, you ain't got nuthin but another urban legend. |
