Effor.com

I was commenting on a post on KnoxViews.com tonight, and it occurred to me to make a simplified chart of the depression era showing how government spending does not equate to economic stimulus for the economy.

Here’s part of my comment and the new chart.

A popular misconception is that Hoover cut spending and Franklin Roosevelt increased it.  The facts are that Hoover increased federal spending from $2.9 billion in 1928 to $4.6 billion in 1932. That’s a 63% increase in 4 years – yet the unemployment rate rose from 3.3% in 1929 to 23.6% in 1932.

FDR’s New Deal then raised spending from $4.6 billion in 1932 to $8.2 billion in 1936 – a 76% increase which is not that much different than the increase under Hoover.

Despite these massive increases, which basically tripled total federal spending from $3.3 billion in 1930 to $9.4 billion in 1940, the unemployment rate was still 14.6% on the eve of WWII.

I made a table to see if there’s any correlation between spending and employment, and it’s pretty plain that there isn’t.

Federal spending data is from the GPO and unemployment stats are from the BLS

Can you see any link between changes in government spending and unemployment? I don’t either – and that means Keynesian theory is bogus.

I’ll put it this way – if huge increases in government spending stimulate the economy, why aren’t we booming right now after Bush’s doubling of the national debt in just 8 years?

Bush was the biggest spender in US history, adding as much debt in 8 years as all the other presidents combined did in 212 years. Surely that should be enough to stimulate the economy if Keynesian economics actually worked.

Why didn’t it?

gk

Share on Facebook

This will be a different type of post.  Over the past few days, I have had an exchange of comments on MarketWatch.com, and the format there doesn’t lend itself to that type of discussion, so I’m going to continue it here.

I have no idea if “Marsden” will reply or not, but I hope so, because he seems to be different from my normal antagonists on that site, mainly because he is making an attempt to use facts to support his opinions.

I strongly disagree with some of his opinions, and the disagreement stems from my post a few days ago (A deficit dummy) where I took Robert Frank to task because of numerous errors and half truths in a NY Times article.

Marsden started his reply with “Robert Frank is brilliant and so was his essay.”  So of course I couldn’t leave it alone.    The rest of his reply was actually thoughtful, and I actually agree with most of it.

Here’s part of his reply: People trade time for things. Precious, irreplaceable time, for useless cr@p which makes them feel better for only a short while. Then, to get even more, they leverage, borrowing from their own (and their children’s) future. This needs to be shouted from the mountaintops imho. Meanwhile we tax production instead of consumption, getting it exactly backwards.

I don’t have any disagreement with that at all – it’s common sense – and if more people thought that way we wouldn’t be in this mess.

Anyway, I replied to the Frank is brilliant part, saying: You may think he’s brilliant, but his editorial is factually wrong. Since he’s an economist and presumably should know economic history, I have to assume that he intentionally lied in order to make his points.  That’s not my concept of “brilliant.”

Marsden replied: All you have done is to repeat your assertions (”wrong!” “lies!” etc). If you want to make a point, feel free to do so. But it will take something concrete by way of example, particularly if you expect to convince anyone.

I assumed (mistakenly) that he was referring to my “deficit dummy” post on here, which I had taken care to document all my opinions with facts.  Plain facts, straight from the source, no news stories or opinion pieces.  So I went a bit overboard in my reply.  I said….

Did you bother to read the link I provided? My “assertions” are documented, complete with source data that documents the facts to show that Robert Frank has his facts wrong. I fail to understand how “brilliant” people think they can base policy positions and decisions on incorrect data, then blame others when their decisions turn out to be wrong.

(I inserted the chart of Hoover’s increased spending here)

Claiming that Hoover cut spending while the facts are that Hoover increased spending by 63% in 4 years is a “concrete” example of my “assertion” that Robert Frank lies as needed to make a point.

I freely admit that this was a bit over the top for a comment on MarketWatch – the misunderstanding will become clear in a moment.

Marsden replied with a lengthy comment that I will respond to here.  I’ll break it up and respond to each area of disagreement.  Hopefully this will make the multiple points of contention more clear.

Marsden starts with I not only didn’t read your link, I didn’t even see it. Definitely my mistake! That explains my over the top response to his comment – we were talking about different things, so of course we disagreed.

He continues About Hoover however, everywhere I turn I see the contention that he cut spending as a mistaken response to the financial collapse. So is this some nefarious plot by Democrats in your view, to misrepresent history?

No, I don’t think it’s a plot by Democrats, and nowhere did I mention political parties.  I do think that it’s a common misconception – reinforced by ignorant economists and journalists such as Mr. Frank so that you see it everywhere you turn – that Hoover cut spending and FDR’s New Deal reversed that and brought us out of the Great Depression.  I merely stated the facts.

Marsden then quotes an Encarta article that simply repeats the lie about Hoover cutting spending – as if by quoting another source which was also mistaken, it wiped out the facts about Hoover’s spending that I had presented.

He continues Meanwhile, do you really think that cutting spending is the proper move when private investment has collapsed?

No I don’t – as long as you have money to spend.  But when the US has to borrow from China, and even resort to printing money (as happened this week when they purchased $7.5 billion of debt on Wednesday, and another $7.5 billion today)  we don’t have money to spend.

I believe that too much debt – public and private – is what caused this crisis.  Borrowing more money and going deeper into debt isn’t going to solve it.  If more government deficit spending actually stimulated the economy, why didn’t the Bush 66.5% spending increase (from $1.79 trillion in 2000 to $2.98 trillion in 2008) prevent the problem in the first place? (Source is CBO, link will open an Excel spreadsheet, and doesn’t include Bush’s 2009 spending.)

Marsden continues Please note, btw, that I am generally violently opposed to deficit spending of any kind, and particularly the kind we’ve engaged in for the past eight years. Also note that I am not one of the people who believe that FDR rescued this nation from the Great Depression. In a way, Hitler did, but in a different way from the way in which he rescued his own nation years before.

I agree with him on that.

Here’s where we start disagreeing. There’s a lot to argue in that link. Is it your writing? For example, the author declares that the budget has never been balanced in his lifetime.
Yes, it’s mine.   And you’re disagreeing with something I never said.  I never said the “budget has never been balanced in my lifetime.”  I said “Politicians and economists have been saying that they’ll balance the budget and start paying down the debt for as long as I can remember – and I’m 47.  It has not happened in my lifetime.  Not once.

Read on, I’ll provide the actual numbers to prove this further down.

But there’s this: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ (from the year 2000)

“President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year’s record surplus of $122.7 billion.”

And even more to the point (same link): “Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years — $223 billion this year alone.

This represents, Clinton said, “the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.”

Since the author says he’s 47 years old, he ought to be aware of that. Or is it more “lies”?

Then he declares: “The last time the US reduced the national debt was 1957. (Source is the US Treasury.)”
The author then provides a link which includes the years up to 1999, but not 2000. How convenient. You should call that a “lie” shouldn’t you?

To be blunt, yes, it’s more lies.  Here are the facts straight from the US Treasury here and here.  (Sorry, they split the data between 1999 and 2000, so I have to use two links.  I should have provided that in my original post so you wouldn’t have wasted your time thinking that I left out a debt reduction year in 2000.)

So when CNN says  “Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years — $223 billion this year alone.” and This represents, Clinton said, “the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States.” they are lying.  Look at the freaking numbers!

The facts are that the national debt increased each and every year of the Clinton administration. Show me where the debt was reduced by even $1 during Clinton’s 8 years.  You can’t because it simply did not happen. 

Look at the facts! Clinton – and CNN – simply lied.  What else can you call it?  What they said and the actual facts -straight from the government, no editing – are simply not compatible.  I call it lying, you may have a more pleasant euphemism, but it’s certainly not the truth.

As to my statement that the national debt has not been reduced during my lifetime, I stand by it.  Again, look at the facts.  Go to the Treasury site and actually look at the numbers. 1950 – 1999 are here.  2000 – 2008 are here. Find the last year in which the actual debt was lower than the previous year.

You’ll see that until you get back to 1957, each and every year the debt was larger than the year before.  In 1957, the national debt was $270,527,171,896.43,  down from $272,750,813,649.32  in 1956.

I was born in 1962.  That’s after 1957, so I stand by my statement.

One last point to make.  Marsden says Finally, with respect to your major point, Frank was careful not to say explicitly that Hoover cut spending. He said:   “In 1929, President Herbert Hoover thought that the best response to a collapsing economy was to balance the federal budget. With incomes and tax receipts falling sharply, that meant cutting federal spending. But as almost all economists now recognize, President Hoover was profoundly mistaken.”

And there are no errors there, much less “lies”, unless you contend that one may balance the budget by cutting taxes and increasing spending. Oh where have we heard THAT before?!

I actually answered that in my original post.  You are correct in that Mr. Frank did not EXPLICITLY say that Hoover cut spending, but I ask you that if he wasn’t saying that, WTF was he saying?  How was Hoover “profoundly mistaken” if he didn’t reduce spending?

Since Hoover actually increased spending, was that his profound mistake?  I don’t think that’s what Mr. Frank was trying to say, and I don’t think you believe that either.  Otherwise you wouldn’t have quoted the Encarta article that states “Hoover sought to cut government spending and raise taxes”.

I have never stated, implied, or otherwise insinuated that you can cut taxes and increase spending and balance the budget.  That’s a straw-man argument that I won’t bother to refute.

Marsden – I appreciate your considered response to my comments on MarketWatch.  Feel free to respond here by posting a comment.  I’ll reply in a like manner and we can discuss anything else you’d like.

I think we pretty much agree on everything except our opinion of Robert Frank.  Once you see the facts I’ve presented about, there will be no disagreement about the debt.

Since you made a reasoned response on MarketWatch, I have high hopes that you’ll agree with me once you see the actual facts, and not some CNN/FoxNews/NY Times/etc distortion of the facts.  Check out a few of the site on my blogroll (especially mises.org) to understand why “almost all economists” are almost always wrong.

Keynesian economic theory simply doesn’t work, yet “almost all economists” – including Mr. Frank – persist in trying to make it work.  They are failing, and I fear they are taking us all down with them.  Read a few other posts here to understand why I feel they are wrong.

Thank you,

gk

Share on Facebook

It’s a cool rainy day in Knoxville, so I’ve been catching up on my reading.  Yesterday’s Daily Reckoning had a great article titled “How to Save the World” and I want to post a bit of it here with some comments, because it sums up the cause – and the solution – to the economic train wreck we’re all watching.

I like this line: It is not often that we are called upon to advise the world’s government. In fact, we can’t remember a single time. But we can’t resist a lost cause. So, we offer the Daily Reckoning Plan to Save the World, or DRPtStW for short.

Humor like that always make Bill Bonner’s articles a great read.

Just read the Financial Times. This week it has a windy series on the “Future of Capitalism,” inviting readers to imagine how the decaying old creed might be reformed. Alas, for capitalism, it’s out of the frying pan, into the toilet. Larry Summers, Obama’s number one financial advisor, voiced the prevailing view: “This notion that the economy is self-stabilizing is usually right, but it is wrong a few times a century. And this is one of those times…there’s a need for extraordinary public action at those times.”

Larry Summers is wrong.  The economy is self stabilizing – if only government would get the hell out of the way and let the stabilization happen.

The gist of his program can be expressed in another wistful absurdity: The consumer economy died because of too much spending; now we will revive it by spending more. “Give me your cunning bankers, your hopeless CEOs, your huddled masses of chiselers, spendthrifts and boondogglers,” says the Obama team, “and we’ll give them other peoples’ money!”

This is Keynesian economic theory in action.  It’s just as wrong now as it was in the 1930’s, but the government feels it has to do “something” even it it doesn’t makes sense.

Note – government spending in times of economic slowdown can help alleviate the suffering, but only the government has money to spend.  We’re $11 trillion in debt. Too much debt caused the problem – does anyone really think borrowing more is going to fix it?

“There’s no place that should be reducing its contribution to global demand right now,” explained Summers. “The world needs more demand.” But it was demand that the world recently had too much of. English speakers took on too much debt to create it…and built too many houses and too many shopping malls to satiate it. And despite the ready cash offered by Bush, Bernanke, and Paulson, demand has sunk, because the real problem is not an absence of spending, but a surfeit of debt. In America, for example, total debt went from 150% of GDP in the ’80s to 350% in 2007. The financial markets panicked when it became clear that debtors didn’t have the cash flow to pay off the debt…and that an entire world economy had been fizzed up to supply products to people who couldn’t afford them. Investors have been discounting debt-soaked assets ever since.

The fix is obvious – reduce the level of debt. About $20 trillion worth of debt, in the United States alone, needs to disappear. Then, consumers can go back to doing what they do best – consuming. But how do you reduce the debt level? Former Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon had the right idea in 1929: ‘Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate…It will purge the rottenness out of the system…Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.”

It really is that simple.  That’s capitalism.  People who make bad decisions go broke, and people who make good decisions get wealthy.  Government interference only gums up the process and keeps it from working.  Which is about the only thing governments do well.

What’s the cure for a depression? It’s a depression. Let willing buyers and sellers mark debt down to what it is really worth. Mellon’s plan was not followed by the Hoover or Roosevelt administrations. Instead, they introduced elaborate bailouts, stimulus programs, and boondoggles. That is why the depression is known as the Great Depression, rather than the So-so Depression. By the end of the 30s, the US economy was almost exactly the same size it had been at the beginning. Likewise, in Japan, holding off liquidation brought a “lost decade” in the ’90s. Bush followed in Hoover’s footsteps. And now, the Obama administration follows in Roosevelt’s and Miyazawa’s.

Here’s our advice: forget it. Let the depression do its work. Let the bad times roll!

Great article Mr. Bonner.

gk

Share on Facebook

Just wanted to put this on here because it looks interesting.  I have not read this yet, but I intend to because it presents a different view of the New Deal than what we’ve all been taught. It’s available on sale at Buy.com, so there’s no excuse to put it off.

FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression

“Admirers of FDR credit his New Deal with restoring the American economy after the disastrous contraction of 1929–33. Truth to tell-as Powell demonstrates without a shadow of a doubt-the New Deal hampered recovery from the contraction, prolonged and added to unemployment, and set the stage for ever more intrusive and costly government. Powell’s analysis is thoroughly documented, relying on an impressive variety of popular and academic literature both contemporary and historical.”
-Milton Friedman, Nobel Laureate, Hoover Institution

gk

Share on Facebook

Ron Paul knows economics.  He knows how the free market system is supposed to work.  I say “supposed to” because we haven’t had a free market system in the US for almost 100 years.

And yet people say the dumbest things, like “this proves the free market system doesn’t work without regulation” and “we need more regulation of the banks” like they have a clue what they’re talking about.

Yes, this rant has a point.  I’ll get there.

As a country, we have now spent over $3 trillion on bailing out idiots – both individual and corporate – with absolutely nothing to show for it.  Now Obama is saying that any delay in passing his almost $900,000,000,000 bailout plan is “inexcusable and irresponsible“.

Please look at the balloon tags on the right of this web page.  By far the largest (which shows that it’s been used more than any other tag) is “Bush is an idiot”.  I’ve made dozens of posts where I detail why Bush sucked as President.  I wanted to mention that before I get flamed by Obamaniacs saying that I’m a pissed off Republican.

I’m not.  I’m a pissed off US Citizen who can’t believe that this is the path that people of our country want to go down.  I wonder whatever happened to individual responsibility.  I wonder whatever happened to the free market economy.  I wonder if we can ever eliminate the thousands of areas of government interference in our daily lives.  I wonder if we can ever again have a federal government that governs within the rules set forth in the Constitution – no more, no less.

I wonder all this because I happened upon the text of a speech tonight.  It’s a speech that Ron Paul made on the floor of the US House of Representatives on February 3rd, just 3 short days ago.  None of it is new – Dr. Paul has been talking about it for years – but I think it speaks to the problems we are facing today (Feb 6th, 2009) better than any blatant pandering by Obama or the Republicans.

His speech is available online here, but I’m going to quote it in it’s entirety because it’s part of the public record, and I support what he says 100%.   I fear that it’ll be a cold day in hell before anything Ron Paul proposes is adopted into law, but who knows – maybe one day the people of this country will wake up and demand a real solution – not simply rhectoric and irresponsible spending.

Here’s the speech.  Enjoy!

gk

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul

United States House of Representatives

Statement on Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act February 3, 2009

Madame Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America’s economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the current economic crisis caused by the housing bubble, every economic downturn suffered by this country over the past century can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial “boom” followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America’s exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress’ constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation’s founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true freemarket economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans’ standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

Share on Facebook

Back in January, I posted a short article basically saying that it was way too early to call a bottom in financial stocks.  I had been reading an article on TheStreet.com by Doug Kass where he made the case that it was time to buy the financial sector, via XLF.  

While I agreed with much of his analysis, I didn’t think the financials were anywhere near a bottom – most banks and brokerages simply hadn’t taken into account the full impact of the sub-prime mortgage debacle.  Those relatively few bad mortgages were so highly leveraged that just a few percent failure rate is enough to make the whole house come tumbling down.

Despite the best efforts of the Fed, Bear Stearns has disappeared.  It took a $30 billion taxpayer backed guarantee to do it, and I think the buyout simply swept the underlying problems under the rug and out of sight – for a few months.

The last few months are looking more and more like a rehash of the Internet bubble and the resulting bear market from 2001 through 2003.  during that time, I lost count of how many times I heard things like “buy and hold”, “stay the course”, “this is a great buying opportunity”, etc. 

The people who listened “to the experts” back then STILL aren’t back to even on their investments, while those who got out and waited for the smoke to clear are way ahead.  Those of us who are conservative investors, who follow broad trends and don’t move in and out of the market very often know that this isn’t the time to buy back in.

Could this be the bottom?  Sure – but I don’t think so.   I move in and out of the market in my 401K based on the crossover of the 75 day EMA and the 200 day EMA.  I usually go with an S&P 500 index fund, and here’s what the chart looks like today.

The 75 and 200 day EMA’s are nowhere near signaling the start of another bull market, so my retirement money is 80% in cash and 20% in overseas funds.  I’m down about 4% for the year – how’s your 401K YTD? 

If you’re still fully invested (like the “pro’s” tell you to be) you’re down over 12% YTD, and you’re right back where you where in July of 2006.  If you’re retired and you’ve been fully invested for the last decade, you’re right back where you were in March of 1999. 

9 plus years and zero return – how’s that “buy and hold” strategy working for you?

Anyway, it’s time for a check on Mr. Kass’s buy call on XLF.  I normally don’t make a big deal about stuff like this – after all, analysts make bad calls everyday – but he titled his original analysis “Buy the Financials. Yes, Buy” to emphasize what a great opportunity it was.  So, let’s see how XLF is doing since Jan 14th.

XLF closed at $27.88 on Jan 14th.  It closed today at $20.57.  That’s down $7.31 – or about 26% in about 6 months. 

Great timing on the “Buy the Financials.  Yes, Buy” call Mr. Kass!  I hope you haven’t screwed over too many investors with your advice.

In my original post, I made this prediction: “In my humble opinion, we’re heading into a very rough period for almost all asset classes, but “soft” things like made up financial assets and corporate profits (measured in the dollar) will fare much worse than “hard” assets, such as commodities.”

Since I recomended investing in commodities instead of stocks, let’s see how my pick (gold) is doing.  Gold closed at $903.40 on Jan 14th, and it closed today at $931.30.  That’s up $27.90 – or about 3% in 6 months.

Yup, gold is up just a tad, and it’s actually off the highs of a few months ago.  It’s also just come back up over $900 after being stuck in the $860 to $890 range for a while – I mention that because it just came back up this week, and I don’t want to appear to be trying to hide that it’s been lower.

But as long as the Fed keeps printing extra money (inflating the supply) the dollar will keep falling, so gold will continue to hold its’ value for now. 

Only if Bernanke gets serious about fighting inflation and ensuring a stable dollar (which is the Fed’s primary purpose – read the Fed website if you don’t believe me) will the dollar rebound and gold fall.  And “Helicopter Ben” isn’t Paul Volker, so it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon.

For you too young to remember the late 70’s, inflation was high and the economy was stagnant – the term “stagflation” was coined to describe it.   We’re in the early stages of it now, and unless we get the Fed to grow a pair of brass balls, it’ll be 1980 all over again.

Raising rates and restricting money supply killed the stagflation, but it also caused a deep recession.  But that recession led to one of the greatest bursts of prosperity this country has ever seen.   We can do it again – if the Fed would administer the medicine.

As is stands, Bernanke is simply trying to keep a sinking ship afloat.  He doesn’t want a deep recession (or worse) to mar his tenure.  After all, he is an “expert” on the Great Depression, and he know’s what he’s doing.  Just like the experts calling repeated bottoms in the stock market.

I didn’t come up with any of this on my own.  Read  Warren Buffett’s annual letters to shareholders.  Read Phil Town’s “Rule #1″.  Read damn near anything by anyone who isn’t a Wall Street “expert”.  Their jobs are going away as the companies they work for are revealed to be a highly leveraged house of cards.  They’re running scared and are trying anything to keep up the pretense of the 80’s and dot com years.

What about the next 6 months?  I don’t see the financials (banks and brokerage houses) coming clean with their books yet – many are still pretending that their “level 3″ securities are still worth a lot of money.  Until they ‘fess up and take the losses they’ll just be on a long slow bleedout. 

This part is simply a guess, but I think Goldman Sachs is priced way too high.   At some point I think they’ll come down to earth just like the rest of the investment banks.  This might sound “out there” but I would not be suprised to see GS lose 50% (or more) of their value over the next 2 years.   Maybe sooner.  Something is fishy in their financial statements, but I can’t put my finger on what.  Just doesn’t smell right….

Back to the “hard vs soft stuff” that started this.  Don’t take my word for it – read and look at the situation for yourself.  Decide where to put your money because YOU want to put it there – not because some so-called “expert” on TV or the Internet said “Buy the Financials.  Yes, Buy”.

gk

Share on Facebook

Just had to pass this on.  Excellent write up of the financial issues facing Wall Street and (though I disagree with some of it) Allan Sloan does a good job of breaking down a complex subject.  Highly readable and highly recommended.

gk

Share on Facebook