So low Fed funds rate is responsible for the deficit e.g. India has with China? Why have several Asian states such high reserves, e.g. gov decided saving instead of private decisions to save?
The mercantilist policy in Asia was an answer to the crisis in the end of 90s. You think Asian countries would not try to make a policy, which would prevent such a crisis to happen again? That this is just a random outcome of decisions made by others?
I don't deny that the Fed would have had the power to reduce the propensity to private debt in the US, but one shouldn't blame only the borrower if a deal turns out to be bad. The lender is as responsible, or he has nobody to blame. The same accounts for those who took the debt. Nobody can say, 'oh, the rates were so low, I had to buy an oversized and overpriced house'.

Recently I have started to read Nassim Taleb's 'The Black Swan'. The thing I found most interesting so far, is a piece about how humans tend to build narratives around facts. 'Savings glut' and 'Promotion of debt' seem to be such narratives. Both may describe the truth, but it includes already an interpretation of what is the morally correct propensity to take debt. It is more than just facts.

Furthermore I don't think at all, that CA deficit necessarily leads to anglo-disease. That is what stroke me even more in Wolf's article than his 'savings glut',
The most important such group turned out to be households
This was visible since quite some time, and nobody reacted on it. 'It turned out' sounds a bit like fate, but 4 years ago those who could have changed that, found lots of good reasons, why consumer debt is a great idea. But of course you can use a CA deficit as well to build up infrastructure, to kickoff research and other business investments, to overcome a temporarily demographic situation (e.g. lots of kids),...

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers