I don't mind being called Chicken Little now. At 9:37 p.m. tonight Wednesday the IMF joined the chorus and made the front page of the NYT.
==============================
Notice the different emphasis placed on elements of the IMF story by the Times and the Wall Street Jornal.
The Times' headline:
I.M.F. Says Rise in U.S. Debts Is Threat to World's Economy
By ELIZABETH BECKER and EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: January 8, 2004
ASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — With its rising budget deficit and ballooning trade imbalance, the United States is running up a foreign debt of such record-breaking proportions that it threatens the financial stability of the global economy, according to a report released Wednesday by the International Monetary Fund.
[...]
full at -
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/business/08FUND.html?hp
...
The WSJ's headline:
IMF Report Sees U.S. Budget Gap Driving Up Rates
By GREG IP Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- Soaring U.S. government debt will drive up interest rates world-wide by as much as a full percentage point, hampering investment and growth, the International Monetary Fund says.
According to an IMF report, if cumulative budget deficits rise by 15% of gross domestic product, as the Congressional Budget Office expects, world interest rates would be pushed up by one-half to one percentage point over 10 years.
The IMF said that U.S. deficits have helped the world economy in the short term by cushioning the effect of the burst stock-market bubble and the September 2001 terrorist attacks. But in coming years, as the economy recovers and the cost of Medicare, Social Security and the Bush tax cuts mount, the deficits will increasingly put a drag on growth.
[...]
full at -
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB107350955796097100,00.html
...
The Times' story clearly broadcasts the idea that something of unexampled seriousness is underway requiring, according to this IMF report at least, intervention.
The WSJ's story is financially clinical, lacking the immediate punch of the Times' piece even as it contains information more or less equally alarming in implication.
Who between them has the emphasis right or are they both missing important bits?
DRM