Ceteris paribus -- other things equal -- is often a heroic assumption. In reality, other things always change.
"The most visible and costly economic problem in this country today is the large number of people who can't find jobs." -- CBO chief Doug Elmendorf
After due deliberation, the experts at the Congressional Budget Office have advised in their official report to Congress that there are two ways to deal with a budget deficit.:
A/ Increase revenue (raise taxes), or
B/ Reduce expenses (cut benefits).
Really? Who woulda thunk it! Of course, when dealing with the mental giants in Congress, sometimes it's necessary to put things in as simple a form as possible. Not to say simplistic.
The real issue, then, is not the verity of the analysis and recommendations, but getting the message understood by members of Congress. And in a wider sense, the problem is in getting Congress to act.
The federal budget deficit, regardless of whether it is considered a major problem or an easy way to cope with economic problems, is not an unsolvable problem. In fact, it is not even a looming catastrophe, as some proclaim.
We have ten years, at least, according to the CBO report, before the issue becomes even remotely serious. Even so, there are steps that can and should be taken soon to avert any issue that has even the potential to become serious.
"In coming decades," said the CBO, "the aging of the population, rising health care costs, and the expansion of federal subsidies for health insurance will put increasing pressure on the federal budget." All true, but ....
In just six years, by 2020, the CBO report added, assuming no change in current laws, federal spending "would drop to its smallest percentage of total output in more then 70 years," and revenue would be at its highest percentage, on average, over the past 40 years. Except, of course, outlays for Social Security and health care programs, the CBO noted. And if nothing is done, federal debt would rise from its present 72 percent of GDP to more than 100 percent 25 years from now, according to CBO projections.
So to meet the challenge, assuming the challenge must be met, of lowering the total debt by 2 percentage points by 2038, Congress can trim $2 trillion from spending deficits during the next decade, and keep it that way afterward. This trimming plan, however, "would require significant increases in taxes, significant cuts in federal benefits or services, or both," the CBO said.
The consequences, however, can be hazardous to the economy. Already, the nation is 5 million jobs short of where it could be, as well as "the most abrupt fiscal tightening that has occurred since the end of World War II," the CBO said, "as the federal deficit shrank from about 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product in fiscal year 2009 to about 4 percent in 2013."
So while this belt-tightening has slowed the rising of federal debt, "it also has slowed economic growth," said the CBO. Some tradeoff.
The economy has not yet fully recovered from the Great Recession, and millions of people are still out of work. Another 1.3 million have just lost their unemployment compensation benefits, and many more soon will join that group. And with no money coming in, a family cannot spend on necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. When families don't spend, stores have less revenue. When stores have less revenue, they trim costs by laying off workers, and pay less in taxes. When more people join the ranks of the unemployed, they too cut back on purchases. And when people and stores suffer from lower revenue and spending, less money goes to the government as tax revenue. When the government has less tax revenue, it can either trim expenses or practice deficit spending.
And around and down we go. That vicious cycle has happened repeatedly many times in the past, as fiscal conservatives insist on balanced federal budgets, with no deficits and no debt.
So there is a choice. The super-wealthy are to a large extent unaffected by government spending deficits -- except that lower taxes mean they have more to spend on luxuries -- but as government hacks away at assistance programs, the folks who depend on such programs for short-term survival until more jobs open up -- will suffer.
In summary, eliminating deficit spending and balancing the federal budget can be done, but the price would be high and the consequences great.
Those who say the price is reasonable are not those who would be paying it.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Hope for the Jobless
It may yet happen. An extension of the federal unemployment compensation assistance program, that is. The latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, out today, said a bill to extend the act for three months -- through March 31, 2014 -- would increase the nation's deficit by $6.5 billion for the year. The move, under Senate Bill S.1845, introduced December 17, would allow qualified states to provide up to 47 more weeks of federally funded unemployment compensation to out-of-work folks who have exhausted their regular benefits.
Those benefits ran out for some 1.3 million workers as 2013 ended. It's possible, then, that Congress -- when it returns to Washington after its holiday -- could yet act on the bill and reinstate jobless pay from the federal purse.
Those benefits ran out for some 1.3 million workers as 2013 ended. It's possible, then, that Congress -- when it returns to Washington after its holiday -- could yet act on the bill and reinstate jobless pay from the federal purse.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Health Care Politics
Health care insurance is too important to be left solely to the private sector.
Insurance companies are locked in to bottom-line thinking, and must balance their accounting books every quarter -- even those carriers that are ostensibly nonprofit. Others must answer to shareholders and post positive earnings.
Basic to private enterprise thinking is to maximize income and minimize expenses. When applied to insurance companies, this means to collect more in premiums (income) and pay out as little in claims (expenses) as possible.
Basic to economic thinking, meanwhile, is that people respond to incentives -- that is, to make it worthwhile for them to do something, such as to sign up for health care insurance. To enact a negative incentive -- a penalty, for example, for not doing something -- too often causes a negative reaction. That is, people may resent being told they must do something, and thus they refuse to do something that they might otherwise do if there were positive reinforcement.
In the current issue of universal health care, one major key to success of the program is to persuade young, healthy people to sign up. However, as it is now, the Affordable Care Act is for many folks a mandate to buy health care insurance on the commercial market. But the reaction often is, "I'm young and healthy, and not likely to get sick or seriously ill, so I don't need insurance, and I object to government telling me to buy something I don't need."
So the program is a boon to private sector insurance companies, giving them a huge new customer base of people who are told they must participate. Of course, they are not told which plan to buy, but supposedly they have a range of options, along with government assistance if they can't afford an appropriate insurance plan.
To make things more complicated, the federal government assistance program flopped in its initial rollout.
No wonder people are angry.
A better plan would be to expand the Medicare and Medicaid programs to automatically enroll everyone, much as the Social Security program applies to everyone, with contributions deducted from paychecks.
Such a plan would not necessarily bypass insurance companies in the private sector, since they could be enlisted to administer the program under contract with the government, much as private sector firms do so now with Medicare.
In short, universal health care is too important to be left solely to the private sector. It works in other major developed countries. The major reason it's not working in America is political, coupled with incompetence in setting up the federal online marketplace -- effectively, this is little more than a government help program.
Moreover, various states are making better progress in offering universal health care, beginning with Massachusetts, which set up its program before the federal government tried to expand the concept nationwide.
Such a program stumbles mostly in regions where politicians fight over who gets credit for setting it up.
Insurance companies are locked in to bottom-line thinking, and must balance their accounting books every quarter -- even those carriers that are ostensibly nonprofit. Others must answer to shareholders and post positive earnings.
Basic to private enterprise thinking is to maximize income and minimize expenses. When applied to insurance companies, this means to collect more in premiums (income) and pay out as little in claims (expenses) as possible.
Basic to economic thinking, meanwhile, is that people respond to incentives -- that is, to make it worthwhile for them to do something, such as to sign up for health care insurance. To enact a negative incentive -- a penalty, for example, for not doing something -- too often causes a negative reaction. That is, people may resent being told they must do something, and thus they refuse to do something that they might otherwise do if there were positive reinforcement.
In the current issue of universal health care, one major key to success of the program is to persuade young, healthy people to sign up. However, as it is now, the Affordable Care Act is for many folks a mandate to buy health care insurance on the commercial market. But the reaction often is, "I'm young and healthy, and not likely to get sick or seriously ill, so I don't need insurance, and I object to government telling me to buy something I don't need."
So the program is a boon to private sector insurance companies, giving them a huge new customer base of people who are told they must participate. Of course, they are not told which plan to buy, but supposedly they have a range of options, along with government assistance if they can't afford an appropriate insurance plan.
To make things more complicated, the federal government assistance program flopped in its initial rollout.
No wonder people are angry.
A better plan would be to expand the Medicare and Medicaid programs to automatically enroll everyone, much as the Social Security program applies to everyone, with contributions deducted from paychecks.
Such a plan would not necessarily bypass insurance companies in the private sector, since they could be enlisted to administer the program under contract with the government, much as private sector firms do so now with Medicare.
In short, universal health care is too important to be left solely to the private sector. It works in other major developed countries. The major reason it's not working in America is political, coupled with incompetence in setting up the federal online marketplace -- effectively, this is little more than a government help program.
Moreover, various states are making better progress in offering universal health care, beginning with Massachusetts, which set up its program before the federal government tried to expand the concept nationwide.
Such a program stumbles mostly in regions where politicians fight over who gets credit for setting it up.
Saturday, December 28, 2013
The Economics of War
Economics and History are one.
How important is it that one nation dominate? Economists don't care; politicians do.
The history of a nation is the story of how its people struggled to use what they had or to acquire what they wanted. Sometimes, it's a story of how they earned or built it themselves, or took from others, adding to what they already had.
Mercantilist thinking specifies that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and the way for one person, group or nation to increase wealth is to take from another. Put another way, mercantilism means that whoever has the most gold at the end, wins.
The problem with that, however, is this: When is the end? Is it when one side has all the wealth and the other players have none? In that case, what does the victor eat? Owning all the gold is useless if there are no farmers. One can't eat gold.
Several hundred years ago, the mighty nation of Spain set out to gather all the gold it could as the conquistadors roamed the New World. And so they did. Result: The excess supply of gold only caused inflation, raising the price of food even as fewer people under its dominion were producing food.
War, then, has an economic component. The given excuse may be political, moral or religious, but the real cause is economic. And to persuade citizens to support a war, politicians appeal to emotions such as patriotism or religion and try to ignite a fear of domination by "the other."
The power of nations, their rise and fall, depends in large part on the strength of their economies and the ability to support a military strong enough to establish and enforce the nation's political dominance as a supplement to its economic power.
It's all of a piece, an inter-related combination to powers, strength and abilities. Luck also plays a role, of course, as well as mistakes by others in the game of world dominance.
Politicians obsessed with competition and a need to win may care about such a thing as world dominance, but economists would not. It's also true, however, that politicians will use economic strategies in their quest to win. Business executives also, while they praise the worthiness of competition in the marketplace, actually don't want competition. Rather, they want to dominate a market, to monopolize the trade so they can maximize profits. Barring that, however, they will form a cartel, the better to control supply and fix prices, the better to enhance profits.
How important is it that one nation dominate? Economists don't care; politicians do.
The history of a nation is the story of how its people struggled to use what they had or to acquire what they wanted. Sometimes, it's a story of how they earned or built it themselves, or took from others, adding to what they already had.
Mercantilist thinking specifies that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and the way for one person, group or nation to increase wealth is to take from another. Put another way, mercantilism means that whoever has the most gold at the end, wins.
The problem with that, however, is this: When is the end? Is it when one side has all the wealth and the other players have none? In that case, what does the victor eat? Owning all the gold is useless if there are no farmers. One can't eat gold.
Several hundred years ago, the mighty nation of Spain set out to gather all the gold it could as the conquistadors roamed the New World. And so they did. Result: The excess supply of gold only caused inflation, raising the price of food even as fewer people under its dominion were producing food.
War, then, has an economic component. The given excuse may be political, moral or religious, but the real cause is economic. And to persuade citizens to support a war, politicians appeal to emotions such as patriotism or religion and try to ignite a fear of domination by "the other."
The power of nations, their rise and fall, depends in large part on the strength of their economies and the ability to support a military strong enough to establish and enforce the nation's political dominance as a supplement to its economic power.
It's all of a piece, an inter-related combination to powers, strength and abilities. Luck also plays a role, of course, as well as mistakes by others in the game of world dominance.
Politicians obsessed with competition and a need to win may care about such a thing as world dominance, but economists would not. It's also true, however, that politicians will use economic strategies in their quest to win. Business executives also, while they praise the worthiness of competition in the marketplace, actually don't want competition. Rather, they want to dominate a market, to monopolize the trade so they can maximize profits. Barring that, however, they will form a cartel, the better to control supply and fix prices, the better to enhance profits.
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Fearmonger Fallacy
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney
Third-quarter GDP grew by 4.1 percent, to $16.9 trillion annually. -- Commerce Department
In formal logic, the rhetorical strategy known as the Appeal to Fear is dismissed as a fallacy. Certainly, there are occasions when fear is a legitimate emotion, and when ignited it can save lives. But when debaters use an appeal to fear -- justifiable or not -- as a strategy, a device calculated to win, just for the sake of winning, then this appeal is a fallacy.
Consider the recent brouhaha over the national debt and deficit spending. To hear the fearmongers tell it, America is headed for hades in a handbasket, and unless spending is cut sharply and immediately, disaster looms.
Reality check: Take it from the arch leader of the GOP conservatives, Dick Cheney. (Yes, he is a leader, and yes, he is often arch.) "Deficits don't matter," Cheney noted.
In fact, when it comes to rebooting a lagging economy, deficit spending is essential, an investment in the future. Just as a family or a firm can periodically spend beyond its income, either for school tuition or for purchase of equipment, so also can a government spend on infrastructure projects, putting people to work so their salaries can provide the juice needed for economic health. Think of it as a circle of spending. When people have income, they spend on food, clothing and shelter, and pay taxes on their income and purchases, which in turn generates revenue for government and firms. And the cycle continues.
Does there come a point when deficit spending by government is too much, and the national debt is too high? Perhaps. But how much is too much, and how high is too high? Currently, the U.S. national debt as a percentage of its total production of goods and services -- Gross Domestic Product, or GDP -- is about 70 percent. Other nations have far higher ratios, some well over 100 percent, and still show little sign of collapsing. Moreover, most American government debt is in the form of government issued bonds, held by Americans themselves. And to cash in those bonds, holders can either redeem them -- sell them back to the government -- or sell them on the open market. So unless there is a run on a government, where everyone tries to redeem their bonds at the same time, there is little danger. Unless, of course, an overwhelming majority of bondholders lose their faith in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government and cannot cash in their bonds, either through the government or through the open market.
Possible? Yes, but not likely. Why? Because most of the bonds are owned by Americans themselves, and the bonds are negotiable -- available to be sold to others who still have faith in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government.
Moreover, many of the bonds -- issued by the U.S. Treasury -- are held by the Federal Reserve Board, another government agency. In recent months, the Fed has been active in the open market, buying up publicly held bonds and pumping more cash into the economic revenue stream to rejuvenate the economy.. Granted, this can cause inflation -- more money means higher prices -- but the Fed monitors both to achieve a balance and promote economic health. So, since the Fed has such a vast quantity of bonds and cash, failure to maintain such a balance would effectively destroy the nation's health.
Reality check: Not likely.
In any case, once the nation's economy resumes its growth pattern, government, through fiscal spending, and the Fed, through monetary policy, can and should step back.
So the critical issue now is, has the economy recovered enough so Washington can scale back its interventional policies?
Perhaps, and that's the tricky part. Cut back too much, too soon and too fast can put the national economy into another tailspin. Think 1937, when such a pullback extended the Great Depression. And doing so today would extend the Great Recession.
The U.S. economy bottomed out five years ago, and resumed its upward path. The most recent estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Commerce Department, issued last week, said output rose again the third quarter of 2013, by 4.1 percent, to an annualized total of $16.9 trillion.
Deficit spending works. It worked in the mid-1930s, to pull out of the Great Depression, and it worked again to pull out of the Great Recession.
Caution: Scaling back too far, too fast and too soon can cause a relapse. The fear mongers who warn so much of the evils of government intervention should heed the lessons of history, both recent and otherwise.
Third-quarter GDP grew by 4.1 percent, to $16.9 trillion annually. -- Commerce Department
In formal logic, the rhetorical strategy known as the Appeal to Fear is dismissed as a fallacy. Certainly, there are occasions when fear is a legitimate emotion, and when ignited it can save lives. But when debaters use an appeal to fear -- justifiable or not -- as a strategy, a device calculated to win, just for the sake of winning, then this appeal is a fallacy.
Consider the recent brouhaha over the national debt and deficit spending. To hear the fearmongers tell it, America is headed for hades in a handbasket, and unless spending is cut sharply and immediately, disaster looms.
Reality check: Take it from the arch leader of the GOP conservatives, Dick Cheney. (Yes, he is a leader, and yes, he is often arch.) "Deficits don't matter," Cheney noted.
In fact, when it comes to rebooting a lagging economy, deficit spending is essential, an investment in the future. Just as a family or a firm can periodically spend beyond its income, either for school tuition or for purchase of equipment, so also can a government spend on infrastructure projects, putting people to work so their salaries can provide the juice needed for economic health. Think of it as a circle of spending. When people have income, they spend on food, clothing and shelter, and pay taxes on their income and purchases, which in turn generates revenue for government and firms. And the cycle continues.
Does there come a point when deficit spending by government is too much, and the national debt is too high? Perhaps. But how much is too much, and how high is too high? Currently, the U.S. national debt as a percentage of its total production of goods and services -- Gross Domestic Product, or GDP -- is about 70 percent. Other nations have far higher ratios, some well over 100 percent, and still show little sign of collapsing. Moreover, most American government debt is in the form of government issued bonds, held by Americans themselves. And to cash in those bonds, holders can either redeem them -- sell them back to the government -- or sell them on the open market. So unless there is a run on a government, where everyone tries to redeem their bonds at the same time, there is little danger. Unless, of course, an overwhelming majority of bondholders lose their faith in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government and cannot cash in their bonds, either through the government or through the open market.
Possible? Yes, but not likely. Why? Because most of the bonds are owned by Americans themselves, and the bonds are negotiable -- available to be sold to others who still have faith in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government.
Moreover, many of the bonds -- issued by the U.S. Treasury -- are held by the Federal Reserve Board, another government agency. In recent months, the Fed has been active in the open market, buying up publicly held bonds and pumping more cash into the economic revenue stream to rejuvenate the economy.. Granted, this can cause inflation -- more money means higher prices -- but the Fed monitors both to achieve a balance and promote economic health. So, since the Fed has such a vast quantity of bonds and cash, failure to maintain such a balance would effectively destroy the nation's health.
Reality check: Not likely.
In any case, once the nation's economy resumes its growth pattern, government, through fiscal spending, and the Fed, through monetary policy, can and should step back.
So the critical issue now is, has the economy recovered enough so Washington can scale back its interventional policies?
Perhaps, and that's the tricky part. Cut back too much, too soon and too fast can put the national economy into another tailspin. Think 1937, when such a pullback extended the Great Depression. And doing so today would extend the Great Recession.
The U.S. economy bottomed out five years ago, and resumed its upward path. The most recent estimate by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Commerce Department, issued last week, said output rose again the third quarter of 2013, by 4.1 percent, to an annualized total of $16.9 trillion.
Deficit spending works. It worked in the mid-1930s, to pull out of the Great Depression, and it worked again to pull out of the Great Recession.
Caution: Scaling back too far, too fast and too soon can cause a relapse. The fear mongers who warn so much of the evils of government intervention should heed the lessons of history, both recent and otherwise.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Rule Rally
When it comes to writing well, it's useful to follow some well-tested rules, all the while remembering that when it comes to grammar, rules are descriptions of most people actually do, rather than mandates of what one must do.
The advantage of following these patterns is that it helps in communicating. And that, fellow communicators, is the goal of writing. (Speaking, too, for that matter.)
There are, of course, dialects, each with its own set of rules that help to make for regularity -- hence the term regulation.
The prime directive from this editor's chair is to follow the Three C's of effective communication -- Clear, Concise and Complete. And to help enhance clarity, follow the practices established over many years of effective communication.
That said, where does one find these rules? There are many available. (Remember the manual of style and usage you bought for your Freshman Comp class but never used?) One of the best is Will Strunk's "little book," still in print as it has been for about a hundred years, and now known as Strunk & White's Manual of Style. It's only a bit more than 100 pages, and the best investment any writer can make.
There are variations and preferences, of course, and as a practical matter, a working writer follows the preferences of the editor he's working for. When it comes to style in things grammatical, the issue is no more than consistency of usage -- that is, use the same phrasings, spellings and punctuation throughout. For example, if the editor wants percent spelled out as one word, do it that way. Or use two words, if that's the editor's preference. Or the abbreviation. Or the symbol. Whatever. Be consistent.
For those who want an online reference, the Congressional Budget Office has just issued its newest edition of its "Guide to Style and Usage." It's available at the CBO web site.
Meanwhile, there are many other style manuals in print, with entries arranged alphabetically and/or by topic. But like any book, a style manual is useless until and unless someone looks into it now and then.
Don't wait until you have a question; odds are you already "know" the "right" phrasing and get bent out of shape when a reader disagrees with you. Avoid such disagreeable episodes by glancing through one or more style manuals now and then.
Just as a mechanic knows the difference between a spanner and a wrench, good writers know how differences in word usage can clarify a sentence or muddle the meaning.
The advantage of following these patterns is that it helps in communicating. And that, fellow communicators, is the goal of writing. (Speaking, too, for that matter.)
There are, of course, dialects, each with its own set of rules that help to make for regularity -- hence the term regulation.
The prime directive from this editor's chair is to follow the Three C's of effective communication -- Clear, Concise and Complete. And to help enhance clarity, follow the practices established over many years of effective communication.
That said, where does one find these rules? There are many available. (Remember the manual of style and usage you bought for your Freshman Comp class but never used?) One of the best is Will Strunk's "little book," still in print as it has been for about a hundred years, and now known as Strunk & White's Manual of Style. It's only a bit more than 100 pages, and the best investment any writer can make.
There are variations and preferences, of course, and as a practical matter, a working writer follows the preferences of the editor he's working for. When it comes to style in things grammatical, the issue is no more than consistency of usage -- that is, use the same phrasings, spellings and punctuation throughout. For example, if the editor wants percent spelled out as one word, do it that way. Or use two words, if that's the editor's preference. Or the abbreviation. Or the symbol. Whatever. Be consistent.
For those who want an online reference, the Congressional Budget Office has just issued its newest edition of its "Guide to Style and Usage." It's available at the CBO web site.
Meanwhile, there are many other style manuals in print, with entries arranged alphabetically and/or by topic. But like any book, a style manual is useless until and unless someone looks into it now and then.
Don't wait until you have a question; odds are you already "know" the "right" phrasing and get bent out of shape when a reader disagrees with you. Avoid such disagreeable episodes by glancing through one or more style manuals now and then.
Just as a mechanic knows the difference between a spanner and a wrench, good writers know how differences in word usage can clarify a sentence or muddle the meaning.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Are We There Yet?
GDP jumps again
We're making more money, but the increase is less
Coffee-shop chats with workers show more confidence, and official government survey data suggest that economic recovery is on the way.
The Federal Reserve Board has been saying for some months that things are improving, enough so that this week the Fed indicated it would stop its stimulus program. Today, the Census Bureau said total economic output grew by 4.1 percent in the third quarter, up from an annualized rate of 2.5 percent in the second three months of the year.
Separately, the government said personal income growth slowed slightly in the July-September quarter, to 1.1 percent from 1.2 percent in the second quarter of 2013.
So are Americans prospering? That depends on how you think of yourselves.
Of the 313 million or so people living in the U.S., the home ownership rate in the four-year survey period ended 2012 was 65.5 percent, and median household income was $54.046. The median value of owner-occupied housing units was $181,400 during the same period, according to a Census Bureau report.
Meanwhile, 14.9 percent of all Americans are living below the poverty level. And that percentage has not changed much in many years. Moreover, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, after adjusting for inflation, is more than 20 percent below what it was 45 years ago.
Are we there yet? When it comes to a prosperous society, a few are doing well, and those in the great middle are beginning to feel better. But there's still a danger that supportive policies will slack off and send the economic engine on a rocky detour.
We're making more money, but the increase is less
Coffee-shop chats with workers show more confidence, and official government survey data suggest that economic recovery is on the way.
The Federal Reserve Board has been saying for some months that things are improving, enough so that this week the Fed indicated it would stop its stimulus program. Today, the Census Bureau said total economic output grew by 4.1 percent in the third quarter, up from an annualized rate of 2.5 percent in the second three months of the year.
Separately, the government said personal income growth slowed slightly in the July-September quarter, to 1.1 percent from 1.2 percent in the second quarter of 2013.
So are Americans prospering? That depends on how you think of yourselves.
Of the 313 million or so people living in the U.S., the home ownership rate in the four-year survey period ended 2012 was 65.5 percent, and median household income was $54.046. The median value of owner-occupied housing units was $181,400 during the same period, according to a Census Bureau report.
Meanwhile, 14.9 percent of all Americans are living below the poverty level. And that percentage has not changed much in many years. Moreover, the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour, after adjusting for inflation, is more than 20 percent below what it was 45 years ago.
Are we there yet? When it comes to a prosperous society, a few are doing well, and those in the great middle are beginning to feel better. But there's still a danger that supportive policies will slack off and send the economic engine on a rocky detour.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)