The irony of the US downgrade is that ratings agencies have been roundly criticised for failing to accurately assess the risk to banks tied up in the credit bubble of the last decade.
Leaving strong ratings on such precariously geared financial institutions created a false sense of security.
Now the big three agencies, S&P, Moody's and Fitch, are wreaking more havoc - this time for doing their job properly. Or as critics in the US Portugal, Spain and Greece would now say - over-zealously.
It is interesting to look through the current ratings of countries around the globe. What stands out is how much store the agencies put on political stability along with openness and transparency.
We read so much about the super economic strength of China and India yet they continue to be rated far lower than the US.
The US now sits at AA+ on the S&P table - with New Zealand. China has an AA- minus rating. India sits back at BBB- alongside the likes of Iceland.
That political focus explains why the argument that the US congressional stand-off which took it close to default was taken so seriously by the agencies.
From President Barack Obama down there were reassurances from the US that this was not an economic problem, merely a domestic political one. But, when a domestic political problem takes you within a day or so of default then it becomes an economic problem - at least in the eyes of investors whose interests the ratings agencies are required to represent. Agencies like S&P simply assess risk.
On that basis, New Zealand's political landscape plays to our favour in terms of holding our AA+ rating despite some worrying levels of debt. Lets face it - unless something unexpected happens - New Zealand looks to have as much chance of changing leadership in the next election as China does. And we are considerably more transparent.
There are many reasons why a weak opposition is not good for democracy but it does mean that financial markets and ratings agencies can have confidence that there will be a continuation of current economic policy.
The agencies paid close attention to the last Bill English Budget and seemed to give it tacit approval. They will keep a close watch and will probably have built-in expectations around National policy platforms like partial asset sales and state sector budget cuts.
They may yet apply more pressure on our Government to put more effort into debt reduction.
That's not necessarily a reason not to change Government. We should always do what we think is best for the people and the events of 2008 certainly taught us that the ratings agencies can be wrong. They should not be afforded God-like status.
But while the current global financial system remains - and there is little sign of a realistic alternative on the horizon - the agencies will remain powerful.
Borrowing is still underpinning the living standards of most Western nations, including New Zealand.
The flaw in the system is that it works on the basis that if nations look less able to pay debts they are punished with ratings downgrades that push up borrowing costs and make it more difficult to pay debts.
It can be a vicious Catch 22. It is a downward spiral that has crippled developing countries for years. Now it is crippling the first world and even the mighty US is not immune.
A grand and immediate solution to the problem is difficult to imagine and is vexing the leaders of the Western nations. But the underlying message is clear - much clearer than it was in 2007. If we want to be free of the influence ratings agencies have on our political choices then we need to get rid of our debt.
www.twitter.com/liamdann
