Was it a slip, or an example of things to come, the latest line of attack by opponents of President Obama and everything he does?
On CNN, an interview subject used the term "free health care," and while the news anchor noted the phrase, the exigencies of broadcasting demanded a break for commercials. There was no followup.
Nevertheless, the phrase is now out. What does it mean? It could portend a new line of attack by conservatives, who have been been fond of mocking what they call "takers" -- read moochers -- and "makers" -- upstanding citizens who are the backbone support of the American way. And Republican conservatives, at that.
Reality: Health care is not free. Someone pays for it, either directly in cash or through insurance plans, or indirectly through taxpayer support of hospital emergency departments, where the indigent go, and where hospitals are required by law to care for patients, regardless of their ability to pay.
The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is a law that requires all Americans to buy health insurance, and for those few with little or no money, there are government subsidies. And yes, for some that means a policy acquired from a private company will be free, after government subsidies.
But to imply that such a situation will be widespread and a rampant erosion of the resources of the wealthy is disingenuous at least and a flat-out lie at worst.
However, fact and reality have never interfered with political objectives, especially when it comes to bad-mouthing or destroying the opposition.
So we can expect a new effort by the radical righteous, this time claiming a horde of moochers will descend on the system and drain the public trough through their reliance on "free health care."
The fact is that insurance of any kind doesn't work unless many folks sign up, contribute to the pools and thus spread the risk.
Consider these objections:
"I'm young and healthy, so I don't need health insurance."
"I drive carefully, so I don't need auto insurance."
"I live in a new house, so I don't need fire insurance."
"Floods, hurricanes and earthquakes never hit this area, so I don't need property damage insurance."
"I have a good job and I'll never be out of work, so I shouldn't have to contribute to unemployment insurance."
"I lead a charmed life. Lightning will never strike me."
Dream on. Deniers are those most in need of help.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Obamacare
Health care insurance is too important to be left solely to private enterprise.
Obamacare is a misnomer.
The nation's media failed to explain the Affordable Care Act and its workings to the American public.
To begin with, it is not a government-run health insurance plan similar to Medicare or Medicaid. The new law requires that everyone have health care insurance. If you don't already have a policy through your employer, on your own, or through Medicare (for the elderly or the disabled) or Medicare (for the poor), you now must obtain a policy.
Moreover, the policy must meet minimum standards established by the new law. If you don't have health insurance, or your current plan doesn't meet new requirements, there is a shopping center to help you pick one. It's on a web site called healthcare.gov.
Oops, sorry. That's broken. Oh, well.
The point is, the new law says you must buy this product called health care insurance. And carrying out the plan could have been done better.
Both the government and the news media failed to adequately explain the law and the plan, and that was worsened by a poorly designed and executed computer system that is supposed to help citizens acquire health insurance. As a result, there was and remains confusion over what people must do to sign up.
With Medicare, a health insurance program run by the government, no action is necessary. When you turn 65, you're in.
Universal health care is a noble goal, certainly, and it is already in effect in several other countries, including Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and several other European nations. Moreover, unlike the American plan, the others are run by governments.
Finally, there has been too much emphasis by the media on the controversy over the program, and not enough coverage in explaining the law, the program and how it can and should work.
And while President Obama has admitted his team fumbled in setting up the web site, the American news media fumbled in explaining the game. They spent too much time listening to the political opponents crying "Foul!" when they should have documented how to score.
Obamacare is a misnomer.
The nation's media failed to explain the Affordable Care Act and its workings to the American public.
To begin with, it is not a government-run health insurance plan similar to Medicare or Medicaid. The new law requires that everyone have health care insurance. If you don't already have a policy through your employer, on your own, or through Medicare (for the elderly or the disabled) or Medicare (for the poor), you now must obtain a policy.
Moreover, the policy must meet minimum standards established by the new law. If you don't have health insurance, or your current plan doesn't meet new requirements, there is a shopping center to help you pick one. It's on a web site called healthcare.gov.
Oops, sorry. That's broken. Oh, well.
The point is, the new law says you must buy this product called health care insurance. And carrying out the plan could have been done better.
Both the government and the news media failed to adequately explain the law and the plan, and that was worsened by a poorly designed and executed computer system that is supposed to help citizens acquire health insurance. As a result, there was and remains confusion over what people must do to sign up.
With Medicare, a health insurance program run by the government, no action is necessary. When you turn 65, you're in.
Universal health care is a noble goal, certainly, and it is already in effect in several other countries, including Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and several other European nations. Moreover, unlike the American plan, the others are run by governments.
Finally, there has been too much emphasis by the media on the controversy over the program, and not enough coverage in explaining the law, the program and how it can and should work.
And while President Obama has admitted his team fumbled in setting up the web site, the American news media fumbled in explaining the game. They spent too much time listening to the political opponents crying "Foul!" when they should have documented how to score.
Stalled
The Great Recession hit hard, and after five years the world's major economies are in recovery mode. But that doesn't mean we have all recovered. Things may be a bit better, but they're still not good.
Consider these news items:
* Generally, economic growth as measured by GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the total value of all goods and services produced in the country) grew by just 0.7 percent in the third quarter ended Sept. 30, about the same rate as in the second quarter.
But who you gonna believe? That number comes from Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union. The U.S. government, however, put third quarter growth at 2.8 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the second quarter.
* In Europe, GDP is barely moving upward. It grew by 0.1 percent for the 17 nations that use the euro as a common currency, and growth for all 29 nations in the European Union was just 0.2 percent.
* In Japan, the third quarter growth rate dipped to 1.9 percent, from 3.8 percent in the second quarter.
* In Germany, with the healthiest economy in Europe, the pace of growth was cut in half, to 0.3 percent from 0.7 percent.
* Economic growth in the United Kingdom was effectively stalled, at 0.8 percent in the third quarter, compared to 0.7 percent in the second three months of the year.
* In America, exports fell and imports rose from August to September, which pushed the nation's international trade deficit up by 8 percent.
* Finally, the home ownership rate in America has faded and median housing values have dipped. In the survey period 2010-2012, home ownership rate was 64.68 percent, down from 66.41 percent in the prior period, 2007-2009. Median values fell by $17,300 in the same time frame, to $174,600 from $191.900.
All data are official government agency figures, either from the U.S. Commerce Department and Census Bureau, or from Eurostat, the statistics agency of the European Union, or official Japanese government sources.
In all, the economies of the world are on the verge of improving, but -- as happened in 1937 when support programs were pulled -- a second fall could happen. And to better understand the problem and find solutions, government and business leaders need numbers to identify specific issues. A major problem during the Great Depression was that there were few statistics at all.
Today, there are many. However, the recent crisis "also revealed a need for more and better data, data that go beyond traditional statistics," according to David Lipton, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund. At a forum in Washington this week, Lipton said new data sets are needed "especially as the focus of policy has shifted to the stability of global and domestic financial systems."
Insularity -- closing international doors and trying to solve economic woes alone -- can only worsen any nation's economic and social issues.
To solve a problem, we must first describe and understand it.
Consider these news items:
* Generally, economic growth as measured by GDP (Gross Domestic Product, the total value of all goods and services produced in the country) grew by just 0.7 percent in the third quarter ended Sept. 30, about the same rate as in the second quarter.
But who you gonna believe? That number comes from Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union. The U.S. government, however, put third quarter growth at 2.8 percent, up from 2.5 percent in the second quarter.
* In Europe, GDP is barely moving upward. It grew by 0.1 percent for the 17 nations that use the euro as a common currency, and growth for all 29 nations in the European Union was just 0.2 percent.
* In Japan, the third quarter growth rate dipped to 1.9 percent, from 3.8 percent in the second quarter.
* In Germany, with the healthiest economy in Europe, the pace of growth was cut in half, to 0.3 percent from 0.7 percent.
* Economic growth in the United Kingdom was effectively stalled, at 0.8 percent in the third quarter, compared to 0.7 percent in the second three months of the year.
* In America, exports fell and imports rose from August to September, which pushed the nation's international trade deficit up by 8 percent.
* Finally, the home ownership rate in America has faded and median housing values have dipped. In the survey period 2010-2012, home ownership rate was 64.68 percent, down from 66.41 percent in the prior period, 2007-2009. Median values fell by $17,300 in the same time frame, to $174,600 from $191.900.
All data are official government agency figures, either from the U.S. Commerce Department and Census Bureau, or from Eurostat, the statistics agency of the European Union, or official Japanese government sources.
In all, the economies of the world are on the verge of improving, but -- as happened in 1937 when support programs were pulled -- a second fall could happen. And to better understand the problem and find solutions, government and business leaders need numbers to identify specific issues. A major problem during the Great Depression was that there were few statistics at all.
Today, there are many. However, the recent crisis "also revealed a need for more and better data, data that go beyond traditional statistics," according to David Lipton, deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund. At a forum in Washington this week, Lipton said new data sets are needed "especially as the focus of policy has shifted to the stability of global and domestic financial systems."
Insularity -- closing international doors and trying to solve economic woes alone -- can only worsen any nation's economic and social issues.
To solve a problem, we must first describe and understand it.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Budget Yammerfest
The conservative yammerfest about budget deficits doesn't hold up after a quick glance at history and fact.
Since the end of World War II, Republican-led administrations have posted more and larger deficits than the so-called tax-and-spend Democrats.
For example, of the 67 federal budgets put in place since 1947, all but 12 posted deficits. Of those 12 that listed surplus funds, only three were set up by a Republican Administration -- under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The other nine fiscal year budgets that posted a surplus were arranged by Democratic presidents; specifically, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Moreover, Republican presidents who inherited budgets with surplus funds soon squandered that surplus and ran up ever larger deficits. The most recent was Republican President George W. Bush, who took office in January 2001 and inherited a budget with a surplus of $128 billion. Eight years later, Bush had gone through that surplus and ran the deficit to $1.4 trillion, which was passed on to the first year of the Obama presidency.
And the GOP fiscal scolds now blame President Barack Obama for budget deficits. But the reality is that from a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion the year he took office -- the 2009 fiscal year -- the Obama Administration reduced the deficit in each subsequent year, bringing it back below $1 trillion for the first time in five years.
More examples: Republican President Richard M. Nixon took office in January 1969, inheriting a surplus of $3.2 billion in a budget prepared by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Two years later, the deficit leaped above $23 billion.
Republican Ronald Reagan started in January 1991, and in four years the deficit ballooned from $79 billion to $221 billion. His vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, drove the deficit even higher, to $290 billion for fiscal year 1992 and saddled the next president, Democrat Bill Clinton, with a budget deficit of $255 billion.
However, three years later, the Clinton Administration lined up a budget with a surplus of nearly $70 billion -- the first since fiscal year 1969, when the budget for that year was written by LBJ, another Democrat.
After four more fiscal years of budget surpluses, Clinton handed on a budget with a surplus of $128 billion to Bush 2. And, as noted, that surplus quickly disappeared.
Is the nation out of the woods yet? No. As Doug Elmendorf, chief of the Congressional Budget Office, told a conference committee led by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray, "In the near term, the weak recovery from the recent severe recession has led to slow job growth." And for the long term, he added, "the prolonged weakness in the economy has lowered its productive capacity for years to come."
But Elmendorf also noted that long term challenges can be met partly by reducing future deficits, even though current problems are "exacerbated" by recent sharp reductions in deficits.
Do deficits matter? Many economists say no, since the government borrows money by selling bonds, most of which are owned by Americans. So, as one expert put it, "We owe it to ourselves." And even those U.S. bonds owned by foreign entities are easily sold on the open market to others, rather than seeing them demand payment in full from the government.
So while fiscal hawks and deficit scolds try to score political points by ranting about the evils of deficit spending, their own conservative Republican leaders lead the pack in running up the tally. All the while, deficit spending helps to revive the national economy. And Democrats rescue budgetary boondoggles.
Or, as the White House crowed today, "We've cut the deficit in half since the President (Obama) took office."
Since the end of World War II, Republican-led administrations have posted more and larger deficits than the so-called tax-and-spend Democrats.
For example, of the 67 federal budgets put in place since 1947, all but 12 posted deficits. Of those 12 that listed surplus funds, only three were set up by a Republican Administration -- under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. The other nine fiscal year budgets that posted a surplus were arranged by Democratic presidents; specifically, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson and Bill Clinton.
Moreover, Republican presidents who inherited budgets with surplus funds soon squandered that surplus and ran up ever larger deficits. The most recent was Republican President George W. Bush, who took office in January 2001 and inherited a budget with a surplus of $128 billion. Eight years later, Bush had gone through that surplus and ran the deficit to $1.4 trillion, which was passed on to the first year of the Obama presidency.
And the GOP fiscal scolds now blame President Barack Obama for budget deficits. But the reality is that from a budget deficit of $1.4 trillion the year he took office -- the 2009 fiscal year -- the Obama Administration reduced the deficit in each subsequent year, bringing it back below $1 trillion for the first time in five years.
More examples: Republican President Richard M. Nixon took office in January 1969, inheriting a surplus of $3.2 billion in a budget prepared by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. Two years later, the deficit leaped above $23 billion.
Republican Ronald Reagan started in January 1991, and in four years the deficit ballooned from $79 billion to $221 billion. His vice president and successor, George H.W. Bush, drove the deficit even higher, to $290 billion for fiscal year 1992 and saddled the next president, Democrat Bill Clinton, with a budget deficit of $255 billion.
However, three years later, the Clinton Administration lined up a budget with a surplus of nearly $70 billion -- the first since fiscal year 1969, when the budget for that year was written by LBJ, another Democrat.
After four more fiscal years of budget surpluses, Clinton handed on a budget with a surplus of $128 billion to Bush 2. And, as noted, that surplus quickly disappeared.
Is the nation out of the woods yet? No. As Doug Elmendorf, chief of the Congressional Budget Office, told a conference committee led by Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray, "In the near term, the weak recovery from the recent severe recession has led to slow job growth." And for the long term, he added, "the prolonged weakness in the economy has lowered its productive capacity for years to come."
But Elmendorf also noted that long term challenges can be met partly by reducing future deficits, even though current problems are "exacerbated" by recent sharp reductions in deficits.
Do deficits matter? Many economists say no, since the government borrows money by selling bonds, most of which are owned by Americans. So, as one expert put it, "We owe it to ourselves." And even those U.S. bonds owned by foreign entities are easily sold on the open market to others, rather than seeing them demand payment in full from the government.
So while fiscal hawks and deficit scolds try to score political points by ranting about the evils of deficit spending, their own conservative Republican leaders lead the pack in running up the tally. All the while, deficit spending helps to revive the national economy. And Democrats rescue budgetary boondoggles.
Or, as the White House crowed today, "We've cut the deficit in half since the President (Obama) took office."
Monday, November 11, 2013
Nitpicker's Diary
The CBS program "60 Minutes" apologized for a "mistake" in using part of an interview in which the subject claimed he was at the American Embassy during the attack in Benghazi. Reason: "We were misled," said reporter Lara Logan, since what the man said to CBS differed from what he told the FBI.
Note that CBS did not use the word "retraction" but used "mistake" and "misled." Question: What if the report was true, and that the interview subject "misled" the FBI?
In all the years "60 Minutes" has been on the air, there have been (to our memory) only two other instances where a report was put in doubt. Once over a Mike Wallace report, where corporate yielded to government pressure and held a report, and another time over a Dan Rather report where the comments of a subject were not fully corroborated. In both cases, however, the reports were true.
So why did CBS bend to political pressure?
The latest trend in journalism is the appointment of "content managers" who will coordinate stories with advertising department goals.
Bad idea. When editors lose their independent judgement over what story to run and how to handle it, the profession and the people suffer.
Or, as I used to say to those who emphasized how much they spend on advertising in the newspaper where I worked, "If you can influence coverage, so can your competitor. Do you really want that?"
Key to Obamacare -- "You tell us how much you can afford, and we give you a range of options to fit your budget." Sound familiar? It's from an insurance company's TV ad. The new health care law requires everyone to have health insurance. If you don't already have it, you must buy it from an insurance company. And, of course, there are government subsidies for those who can't afford the private company rates. Bottom line: Obamacare is not itself health care insurance, but a program that says you must buy it. No wonder there has been no opposition from corporate America. Except to prevent a single-payer, government program such as Medicare for everyone.
Seen in a surgeon's waiting room: "Displacement requires surgical intervention to restore anatomic relationships." In doctor-speak, that translates to "When it's broken, fix it.'
A TV ad for Cadillac features theme music from the James Bond movies. True fans know that Agent 007 drove an Aston Martin.
Grammar gremlins -- It's common in English that nouns can become verbs and vice versa. But a two-word verb form becomes a single word when used as a noun. The latest and most noticeable infringement of this rule is "shutdown." As a noun, it's one word, but the verb form remains two words: shut down.
Note that CBS did not use the word "retraction" but used "mistake" and "misled." Question: What if the report was true, and that the interview subject "misled" the FBI?
In all the years "60 Minutes" has been on the air, there have been (to our memory) only two other instances where a report was put in doubt. Once over a Mike Wallace report, where corporate yielded to government pressure and held a report, and another time over a Dan Rather report where the comments of a subject were not fully corroborated. In both cases, however, the reports were true.
So why did CBS bend to political pressure?
The latest trend in journalism is the appointment of "content managers" who will coordinate stories with advertising department goals.
Bad idea. When editors lose their independent judgement over what story to run and how to handle it, the profession and the people suffer.
Or, as I used to say to those who emphasized how much they spend on advertising in the newspaper where I worked, "If you can influence coverage, so can your competitor. Do you really want that?"
Key to Obamacare -- "You tell us how much you can afford, and we give you a range of options to fit your budget." Sound familiar? It's from an insurance company's TV ad. The new health care law requires everyone to have health insurance. If you don't already have it, you must buy it from an insurance company. And, of course, there are government subsidies for those who can't afford the private company rates. Bottom line: Obamacare is not itself health care insurance, but a program that says you must buy it. No wonder there has been no opposition from corporate America. Except to prevent a single-payer, government program such as Medicare for everyone.
Seen in a surgeon's waiting room: "Displacement requires surgical intervention to restore anatomic relationships." In doctor-speak, that translates to "When it's broken, fix it.'
A TV ad for Cadillac features theme music from the James Bond movies. True fans know that Agent 007 drove an Aston Martin.
Grammar gremlins -- It's common in English that nouns can become verbs and vice versa. But a two-word verb form becomes a single word when used as a noun. The latest and most noticeable infringement of this rule is "shutdown." As a noun, it's one word, but the verb form remains two words: shut down.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Veterans Day Perspective
$36,264
That's the annual median income of veterans in 2012, compared with $26,278 for the population as a whole, according to the American Community Survey, from the Census Bureau web site.
Census also reports that 16 percent of Americans lived in poverty that same year, a figure basically unchanged from the year before. The bureau sets the poverty line for a family of four at $23,492.
Question: Does the median income figure for veterans also include officers?
Three states have with 1 million or more veterans, according to Census data. These states were California (1.9 million), Texas (1.6 million) and Florida (1.6 million).
Poverty rates are higher in the South than in other areas of the nation. For example: Louisiana, 21.3 percent; Mississippi, 20.7 percent; New Mexico, 20.3 percent; DC, 19.3 percent; Arizona, 18.5 percent; Georgia, 18.5 percent; Arkansas, 18.1 percent.
The unemployment rate nationwide has been above 7 percent all year.
Welcome home, vets. Good luck finding a job.
That's the annual median income of veterans in 2012, compared with $26,278 for the population as a whole, according to the American Community Survey, from the Census Bureau web site.
Census also reports that 16 percent of Americans lived in poverty that same year, a figure basically unchanged from the year before. The bureau sets the poverty line for a family of four at $23,492.
Question: Does the median income figure for veterans also include officers?
Three states have with 1 million or more veterans, according to Census data. These states were California (1.9 million), Texas (1.6 million) and Florida (1.6 million).
Poverty rates are higher in the South than in other areas of the nation. For example: Louisiana, 21.3 percent; Mississippi, 20.7 percent; New Mexico, 20.3 percent; DC, 19.3 percent; Arizona, 18.5 percent; Georgia, 18.5 percent; Arkansas, 18.1 percent.
The unemployment rate nationwide has been above 7 percent all year.
Welcome home, vets. Good luck finding a job.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Boomlet
Beware the boomlet. Sudden sharp increases often cannot be maintained, and can lead to another drop as an economy moves to recovery.
And while the U.S. economy seems to be advancing nicely -- third quarter growth, as measured by GDP, posted a strong 2.8 percent leap, up from 2.5 percent in the second quarter -- other economies in the world are still struggling.
However, the nation's poverty rate was stuck at 16 percent in 2012, the Census Bureau noted, virtually unchanged from the year before.
Personal income edged up a bare 0.5 percent in September, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said, and the consumption increase lagged income -- up 0.2 percent. The income increase in September was the same as in August, while the spending increase declined. Meaning: Americans are cutting back on spending.
Overall, U.S. economic growth will pick up next year, according to a wide-ranging report from the International Monetary Fund. On the other side of the world, the economy in China -- the world's second largest, after the U.S. -- "is now projected to grow at 7.25 percent next year," said IMF regional director Alejandro Werner.
However, China's economy is vulnerable because of the extremely strong growth rate, and the government there is moving to tame the tiger, and "move to a more balanced and sustainable growth model," said IMF analyst Steven Barnett.
In Europe, unemployment remains high -- Greece and Spain show rates of about 26 percent, according to data compiled by Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union. Economic recovery there remains fragile, and is not likely to pick up for months, and the rate of inflation is down to less than 1 percent. Overall, growth in Europe next year is likely to be just 1.1 percent in the euro zone, and 1.4 percent throughout the EU, news reports said.
And central banks are continuing their efforts to stimulate economies through low interest rates. The latest report from the Bank of England said it will keep its lending rate at 0.5 percent.
Meanwhile, America is changing. Which is always true of any country and culture, but here are a few examples.
-- Teen births are at historically low levels, according to the Census Bureau, and more women are delaying motherhood until their 30s.
-- Recruiting younger agents is the main challenge for real estate firms, according to a new survey. "The real estate business is aging out," said Renwick Congdon, CEO of Imprev, a real estate software firm based in Bellevue, Wa. "Broker-owners are under pressure to find new talent," he added.
More than 40 percent of those in the field are older than 60, according to data from the National Association of Realtors, and only 6 percent are younger than 34.
Comment from our itinerant Dublin correspondent: "Every country needs to replenish its population one way or another. If the birth rate is dropping in the US then the population still needs to be replenished. The next time someone makes a case about restricting immigration to the US, perhaps a case should also be made for those already in the U.S. to start making more babies."
So why should Americans care about conditions in Europe or China or anywhere else? Because the world economy is more interlinked than ever. Any attempt to withdraw and resort to an isolationist tactic can only backfire.
Isolationism failed 80 years ago. It will fail again now.
And while the U.S. economy seems to be advancing nicely -- third quarter growth, as measured by GDP, posted a strong 2.8 percent leap, up from 2.5 percent in the second quarter -- other economies in the world are still struggling.
However, the nation's poverty rate was stuck at 16 percent in 2012, the Census Bureau noted, virtually unchanged from the year before.
Personal income edged up a bare 0.5 percent in September, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said, and the consumption increase lagged income -- up 0.2 percent. The income increase in September was the same as in August, while the spending increase declined. Meaning: Americans are cutting back on spending.
Overall, U.S. economic growth will pick up next year, according to a wide-ranging report from the International Monetary Fund. On the other side of the world, the economy in China -- the world's second largest, after the U.S. -- "is now projected to grow at 7.25 percent next year," said IMF regional director Alejandro Werner.
However, China's economy is vulnerable because of the extremely strong growth rate, and the government there is moving to tame the tiger, and "move to a more balanced and sustainable growth model," said IMF analyst Steven Barnett.
In Europe, unemployment remains high -- Greece and Spain show rates of about 26 percent, according to data compiled by Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union. Economic recovery there remains fragile, and is not likely to pick up for months, and the rate of inflation is down to less than 1 percent. Overall, growth in Europe next year is likely to be just 1.1 percent in the euro zone, and 1.4 percent throughout the EU, news reports said.
And central banks are continuing their efforts to stimulate economies through low interest rates. The latest report from the Bank of England said it will keep its lending rate at 0.5 percent.
Meanwhile, America is changing. Which is always true of any country and culture, but here are a few examples.
-- Teen births are at historically low levels, according to the Census Bureau, and more women are delaying motherhood until their 30s.
-- Recruiting younger agents is the main challenge for real estate firms, according to a new survey. "The real estate business is aging out," said Renwick Congdon, CEO of Imprev, a real estate software firm based in Bellevue, Wa. "Broker-owners are under pressure to find new talent," he added.
More than 40 percent of those in the field are older than 60, according to data from the National Association of Realtors, and only 6 percent are younger than 34.
Comment from our itinerant Dublin correspondent: "Every country needs to replenish its population one way or another. If the birth rate is dropping in the US then the population still needs to be replenished. The next time someone makes a case about restricting immigration to the US, perhaps a case should also be made for those already in the U.S. to start making more babies."
So why should Americans care about conditions in Europe or China or anywhere else? Because the world economy is more interlinked than ever. Any attempt to withdraw and resort to an isolationist tactic can only backfire.
Isolationism failed 80 years ago. It will fail again now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)