Monetary policy. I’m sorry, it’s just not doing it for me.
By Daniel Becker
Stock market is up, Profits are up and banks are safe. So what? Unemployment is somewhere between going down and I can’t get no satisfaction. Housing values are still falling.
A new nationwide survey from real estate Web site Zillow.com says the value of U.S. homes fell 3% from January 1 to March 30 — the steepest quarterly decline since 2008.
I know, I’m suppose to care. Bigger picture and all. But frankly, when I read comments such as that by Mark Sadowski’s:
Since Bernanke’s Jackson Hole speech the steep rise in stock prices has increased household wealth by some $5 trillion. The rise in inflation expectations has helped to ease the household debt deflation problem. Consumption has been the bright story in the BEA numbers last two quarters,…
I just get all “A vineyard? Really?” Now I know Rebecca’s post is about looking for some indication that things are better though tipsy and Mark is responding that with: No, things are rather solid in the “we’re moving forward” category.
I’m going to be bold here and state right out that I’m speaking for the middle-class. (Those of this class can correct me if I’m wrong.) Five trillion dollar in new stock market wealth is not reaching us. I’m happy for you all that are now more wealthy, but really, you’re only a small percentage of the population and thus your success is not representative of how well We the People in total are doing.
Before I go further, let us do a little simple math (for you stat manipulators, the key word: simple. Add more complication as you wish in comments.) I am allowed to do this, keep it simple because I’m not an economist. Or am I?
Let’s say that 81.2% of all stock is owned by the top 10% of wealth gatherers. (table 9). Let’s say there was 100 shares at $1 each for a total value in stock on 8/31/10 of $100. That $100 became $129.80 by 5/2/11.(S&P closing numbers) But, I’m going to round off all of this to keep it really simple. 100 shares. 80 shares owned by 10 people. 20 shares owned by 90 people. Fast forward 9 months and now the $100 is $120. Still 100 shares. (We’re excluding splits, initial offerings and anything else that would increase the number of shares, simple.)
So, 10 people now have a total worth of $96. The 90 people are splitting up $24. Both saw a 20% rise. Hooray! But here’s the issue, an additional $1.60 will do a lot more than an additional $0.04. The issue is coin in the pocket. For the middle-class, it’s just not happening.
Let’s add a some more fun facts to this Yahoo party. I used: Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007 by Edward N. Wolff, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, March 2010
As of 2007, 38% of all households have stock via pensions and of that group it represents 31.4 % of all stock. (Table 14b, 14c) Unfortunately, the middle 3 quintiles 65.1% of their assets are their house, 12.9% is pension, 3.6% is stock held in some form. Darn few of the middle-class have any stock at all and what they have is tied up.
So again, that 29.8% rise… ain’t feeling it. I ain’t feeling it in customers in my shop. I ain’t feeling it in volume of sales in my shop. I ain’t feeling it in dollar’s per sale in my shop. Guess what I ain’t gonna do? I ain’t gonna hire anyone.
Let me leave you with this. Let’s say we manage to move 5 more people into the group that has 80% of the stock for a total of 15 people. They each have $5.333. (Finance likes to measure as if they are using micrometers.) The remaining 85 have $0.235. The 85 have 5.9% more wealth to start. 9 months later, the 15 people have $6.40 each. They have $1.067 more. The 85 have $0.282.
Certainly $0.047 more to those in the 85 group is not going to make them go out and buy flowers. However, 5 more people have more than a buck to spend and in my shop that buys one carnation that will last 2 to 3 weeks. As I noted before, buying that flower for one’s self has major positive benefits for one’s personality. I have a better shot at selling that 1 carnation when there are 15 people that could purchase it than when there are 10. That mean’s there is a better chance that there will be one more happy person and thus push the consumer confidence index up.
That my middle-class friends, is the power of policy designed to promote income and wealth equality vs just wealth increases. I want me some of that there policy.
That my middle-class friends, is the power of policy designed to promote income and wealth equality vs just wealth increases. I want me some of that there policy.
A vineyard. Really?
Well, correct me if I am wrong. There are a hundred people who each own a stock worth ten dollars.
So all together the hundred people own 1000 worth of stock. Someone comes into the market and buys one of those shares for 20 dollars. Now all of a sudden there are a hundred people who own 2000 worth of stock.
The guy who sold the stock takes his 20 dollars and buys another stock that was selling for ten dollars yesterday. now all the people who owned that stock have doubled their wealth. right?
And of course, all the people who watch Wall Street Week now see the stockmarket going up, so they take their money and buy stock at higher prices than it was worth yesterday.
So now everyone is richer than they were yesterday. Is that the way it works?
I have been waiting for a Fed economist to release a paper showing that stock prices are indeed “sticky”.
Haven’t seen one yet, but there are a bunch of economists reminding us that commodity prices are volatile, as in they can go down too. (I’m waiting for $20 oil). But there is humongous trading volume in futures here, tho it could go risk on, risk off at anytime, so don’t spend your chickens before they hatch if you are an investor in commodities rather than a consumer.
They are also reminding us of the strong bid on Treasuries, even tho Bill Gross dumped his $220B portfolio and went short.
That’s the way it works in a command economy, I think. Or maybe that should be called “command market”.
I really shouldn’t comment on Sadowski, because I don’t read his comments on me, but I have a quite different problem. One would expect monetary policy to affect first interest rates (here medium term nominal down and expected inflation up so medium term TIPS down a lot) and then investment especially housing investment.
One would not expect medium term nominal interest rates to go up, real stay about the same, housing investment to grow very slowly, productive capital investment about as it was growing, GDP growth disappointing *and* Stock prices going way up and consumption growing strongly.
The evidence seems to me to be 100% post hoc ergo propter hoc. Plus selecting the dependent variable after observing it.
I think people who think they can explain changes in stock indices are like people who think they can predict changes in stock indices. They bounce around. No one really understands why. One can beat the market over a long horizon (for example by buying more stock and fewer T-bills than the average investor) but no one can really tell what it will do in the next 8 months or why it did what it did in the past 8 months.
I would be interested in knowing whether anyone can find a quote from a QE2 advocate predicting that the S&P 500 would grow strongly if there were QE2. I recall predictions about interest rates (including expected inflation measured as TIPS minus nominal treasuries).
As you say, nothing worked as expected, so my conclusion would be that the Fed has no idea what QE does. It’s a “Hail Mary” and no one knows where the pigskin goes. But now they got $2 trillion of pigskin to reel back in, otherwise we lost that half of monetary policy.
I did hear the typical stock bulls say QEII would make stocks go up, but they also say a space alien invasion will make stocks go up. I certainly wasn’t enough of a believer. Then the tax cut extension probably “helped” too. But wouldn’t you know it, we are talking about closing the USofA now. Go figure.
There is one transmission mechanism I’m fairly sure of. The buck dropped 10%. So exports would get close to that in topline margin growth, assuming they didn’t cut prices much in foreign currency. S&P earnings hit a record high of $100, so a weak buck was probably a help there.
Dan,
I think the comments say it all: No one wants to address the inequalities. You are, of course, absolutely correct in your assessment. The middle class is being decimated. Think back a few years when globalization was celebrated by leading economists.
Has anyone spoken for the American middle class? Have any policies been fashioned for its benefit?
Really, the game is over.
god i’d have to spend too much time searching for all the quotes and doubt that ed harrison, jim grant or yves smith fall in the category of advocate — maybe smithers in the uk or federated’s doug noland. surely some in japan
or chris ciovacco’s ‘reading between the lines’ re. j. bullard’s paper –
“We believe quantitative easing can impact asset prices in the short-to-intermediate term. We do not believe quantitative easing is the solution to the global economy’s problems, nor do we believe it will create long-term prosperity or job growth. As money managers, our job is to understand the possible impact of Fed policy on the value of our clients’ investments. The short-to-intermediate-term driver of asset prices would be the perception of market participants, right or wrong, that the Fed can create positive inflation. We firmly believe quantitative easing can impact the prices of stocks, commodities, and currencies in the short-to-intermediate term. In that light, we believe quantitative easing, or even the potential for the Fed to buy Treasury bonds, is an important factor in determining investment outcomes in the next six to twelve months. Financial market performance and the long-term economic impacts of quantitative easing are two separate issues.”
Far as i recall Buiter was aginst QE though he did differentiate between Quantitive and Qualitative easing.
Policy point is to break the, kindly put, stagnation -which won’t happen through continued reliance upon rentierism and financial capital [and – given overaccumulation – may also not via a reindustrialization]
AJS
or NT’s paul kasriel –
“Different times and different magnitudes. But if the quantitative easing of the mid 1930s worked to stimulate nominal GDP, why wouldn’t the recently-announced quantitative easing by the Fed work similarly, assuming the Fed puts enough zeroes into the program?”
i get really worn with all the different flavors of just add money or allow those with the most to retain not only it but more, as though this/these will bring about the dreamt of free market utopia, as though thhere are no obvious social relationsev involved, as though capital can be valorized simply through what is no more than accounting——even Keynes had a moment of understading, had a few good ideas; they were politicized.
“I’m speaking for the middle-class. (Those of this class can correct me if I’m wrong.)”
what you’re wrong about it the use of the word middle; there’s 80% of us on the bottom who havent benefitted an iota…
Yes RJS, the middle 3 quintiles. No benefit. It is the middle, but it’s not American Dream middle-class.
Hi Stormy, good to see you. I have to agree, and I hope I’m not being offensive to those commentors above, but I was surprised the first few comments were about the QE when the post is about the lack of effect on the super majority regardless of the “did it or didn’t it” debate concerning QE.
QE is policy still from the view of “trickle down” theory. People are not drowing in debt. They are dying of dehydration. There’s a difference.
I’m with you Juan.
juan
i tried earlier to suggest that rising stock prices are not “wealth.” got no takers.
Stormy and Dan, I agree completely. Dan, excellent job!
Daniel,
Thanks for keeping it simple. And your right about the fact the stock market keeping a slow steady growth is not really helping the middle.
BUt the problem is most of the middle are drowning in debt – mostly tied to a depreciating asset – their house. We still have a ways to go to hit historic housing trend lines – some places still have 10-15% to go, and there is always overshoot before we settle back to equlibrium. Add the obvious job issues, wage stagnation, and you have a middle that’s tightening its belt. Going into more debt would be crazy.
Your specific problem is your business is a luxery product. In the last 6 months I have bought flowers exactly 5 times. 3 for the wife on the kids’ brithdays (and she makes me get them for under $25 per), 1 corsage for son’s girlfriend at Prom, and 5 coral honeysuckles to replace my yearly planting of Jack Beans (long term planting). Right now I have Lantana blooming like crazy, the honeysuckle is taking off, day lilies are great, knock-out roses are a red/pink slash of color, and even my cactus plants are flowering (I didn’t even know they flowered until they did). All of these plants (and the rest) are native/native adapted and come back every year. Other than trim them back (or hack them back for the Lantana) I don’t do much. This fall I’ll buy some more day-lilies to fill in a few holes and 2-4 knock-off roses bushes (and I’ll get them on sale). If I need something I don’t go to the flower shop – too expensive. I can do better at the local nursery and buy plants that I’ll have for years – not just 10 days.
I hope you survive the downturn, but cut & arranged flowers are just a luxery.
Islam will change
Hi, coberly! 🙂
There is, as far as I can tell, no operational definition of the “wealth” that stock prices represent. Sure, if every owner of the stocks could sell them, then the result would be that wealth. But we know what would happen if everybody tried to sell. Prices would drop through the bucket. 😉
There is a wealth illusion, but that is something else. 🙂
“Your specific problem is your business is a luxery product.”
No, his problem is that his product is a luxury to the masses rather than being a luxury product. I sell a luxury product. Trust me the rich, that’s the 2% group, are doing quite well. I don’t need an economist’s measurements to tell me that. I see the results in record sales of cars selling for well in excess of $70,000. Flowers are an unnecessary luxury for the other 98% and the 2% for whom flowers are chump change can’t buy enough to make up for what the 98% can’t spare the cash to buy. Sell booze to the working class because when they can’t afford top shelf they’ll be happy enough to buy the less advertised brands. The taste and the effects are just as good as the so called top shelf variety.
All the professional jargon any economist can dream up, I love the dramatic but obscure sense of Quantitative Easing, does not address the problem of stagnant income multiplied by unemployment. If most of the income goes to the few at the top, the One and Two Percenters, then what are those with jobs to do with the scant income they’re allowed? The problem isn’t how much money is drifting around the economy. It’s where the money is that counts and how many have access to a reasonble amount of that money so that they don’t have to live pay check to pay check while working a full time job, if they’re lucky enough to even have that.
Stormy:
One of the biggest advocates of the Middle Class has been Dr, Elizabeth Warren as a watch dog of the Treasury and aso in her studies such as:
“The Coming Collapse of the Middle Class; Medical Bankruptcy in the US 2007, Did Bankruptcy Reform Fail? An Empirical Study of Consumer Debtors, The Vanishing Middle Class” in Ending Poverty in America: How to Restore the American Dream, Unsafe at Any Rate, Bankruptcy’s Aging Population – The Increasing Vulnerability of Older Americans: Evidence from the Bankruptcy Court, etc.”
Dr. Warren speaks for the Middle Class and main street the same as Geithner, Bernanke, and the others speak for Wall Street, Sachs, and TBTF.
Income inequality is a very serious problem in this country and I think people are underestimating its impact on the current economic stalemate we are experiencing. May I point out that income inequality has not been this great in America since right before the Great Depression. Coincidence? Maybe but I prefer to use the word correlation here. Why is our economy still so sluggish and stagnant despite the fact that interest rates are at all time lows and the federal reserve is pumping money into the economy. The United Kingdom is experiencing this very same problem and their income inequality is growing as well. The problem is that all this money is going to a select group of people and it is not being distributed enough. The economy benefits from having a lot of participants, no gains are made from having a few giant players in the game who are only acting in their own interests. Why should richy Rich care about how much economic growth his money makes. He only cares about how much more money his money just made him. Apparently when richy Rich makes money we all have the opportunity to make more money, but this is an idealistic keynsian belief that holds little weight in the real world. Really it is just a flaw of the keynsian model. Economic models are not perfect and they never will be. They are cute attempts at predicting the unpredictable which is human behavior. I think we need to learn from this crisis and the aftermath it created. Economic theory needs to be reevaluated and studies need to be conducted. First and foremost their needs to be some policy changes in order to get the ball rolling, but for us to not learn from this as human beings would be a waste of an economic crisis. If we are going to pretend that this crisis was an anamoly and that we can solve all of our problems by going back to the same way of doing things, then I have lost faith in our policy makers and economists. As a new economist (graduating from the University of Delaware in December with an B.S. in economics) I plan on learning all I can from this crisis to decide how policy needs to be changed moving forward. Unfortunately in America it takes money to make money and those who already have it just make more of it. Its amazing how much investment and consumption would come about if more than 1% of America had an extra buck in its pocket. I do not think we are out of the hot water yet. This growing government deficit and stagnant GDP growth are going to reveal even more flaws in the economy. Hopefully we will be ready to adapt as a nation so that we can learn from all that has happened and leave it where it belongs; In the past.
Hi Nick,
Welcome to AB and way to go on the degree. My main theme here as been income, financialization and inequality. Most of those are under Divorced one like Bush. Also look at Stormy’s work here on outsourcing as it is part of this issue.
One thought, it is only since the late 70’s and then high gear was reach with Reagan that this naiton has moved to financialization as the means of making money. Before that, we understood labor as the foundation and promulgated policy to promote such.
Certainly, the pre Depression era is similar in fact so similar the rhetoric is as that which lead us to today since Reagan. You can read such at the Tax History site.
thanks Min. what surprises me is that no one agrees with us.
Vineyard?
I had just got home after a recent typical 14 hour day of tutoring (the semester is over at Rowan University where I’m an adjunct and I desperately need money so I supplement it by tutoring at the University of Delaware where I’m a doctoral candidate). I was enjoying a nice Chateau de Budweiser at my inherited ramshackle manse when I noticed that someone had quoted one of my comments in a post.
Look, the point is that there are other channels to monetary policy than the interest rate and the credit channel. Furthermore there is plenty of historical evidence that monetary policy is still effective in a liquidity trap (1934-1937 in the US and 2003-2007 in Japan) chiefly through these channels. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (see the Romers or Eichengreen). For whatever reason some people (fiscalists) seem insistent on denying this is a possibility and wave their wand and say the only improvement in household job figures and the unemployment rate in the past year and a half can’t have anything to do with a monetary stimulus mostly because that would mean questioning their world view.
I just want to stimulate AD. Do you really think that ARRA worked? And do you really think QE2, as modest as it was, didn’t?
QE2 ends after this month. Fasten your seatbelts.
Robert wrote:
“I really shouldn’t comment on Sadowski, because I don’t read his comments on me, but I have a quite different problem. One would expect monetary policy to affect first interest rates (here medium term nominal down and expected inflation up so medium term TIPS down a lot) and then investment especially housing investment.”
Um, whatever. One would expect a policy that boosted nominal GDP expectations to increase real interest rates, not reduce them. And no one expects housing investment to go up until housing prices fall in line (and we have a long, long, long way to go yet).
You wrote:
“One would not expect medium term nominal interest rates to go up, real stay about the same, housing investment to grow very slowly, productive capital investment about as it was growing, GDP growth disappointing *and* Stock prices going way up and consumption growing strongly.”
There’s no need for improved investment in physical capital as long as we’re running so far below capacity. And final sales of domestic product have fared quite well especially when one factors out the sharp declines in government consumption and investment due to the rapid withdrawl of ARRA. Stock prices are up sharply as any student of monetary policy would expect. Consumption is subject to the wealth effect so it follows suit. Go figure.
Sorry if your particular model of the universe can’t explain this.
Vineyard?
I had just got home after a recent typical 14 hour day of tutoring (the semester is over at Rowan University where I’m an adjunct and I desperately need money so I supplement it by tutoring at the University of Delaware where I’m a doctoral candidate). I was enjoying a nice Chateau de Budweiser at my inherited ramshackle manse when I noticed that someone had quoted one of my comments in a post.
Look, the point is that there are other channels to monetary policy than the interest rate and the credit channel. Furthermore there is plenty of historical evidence that monetary policy is still effective in a liquidity trap (1934-1937 in the US and 2003-2007 in Japan) chiefly through these channels. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (see the Romers or Eichengreen). For whatever reason some people (Austrians and fiscalists) seem insistent on denying this is a possibility and wave their wand and say the only improvement in household job figures and the unemployment rate in the past year and a half can’t have anything to do with a monetary stimulus mostly because that would mean questioning their world view.
I just want to stimulate AD. Do you really think that ARRA worked? And do you really think QE2, as modest as it was, didn’t?
QE2 ends after this month. Fasten your seatbelts.
I had just got home after a typical recent 14 hour day of tutoring (the semester is over at Rowan University where I’m an adjunct and I desperately need money so I supplement it by tutoring at the University of Delaware where I’m a doctoral candidate). I was enjoying a nice Chateau de Budweiser at my inherited ramshackle manse when I noticed that someone had quoted one of my comments in a post.
Look, the point is that there are other channels to monetary policy than the interest rate and the credit channel. Furthermore there is plenty of historical evidence that monetary policy is still effective in a liquidity trap (1934-1937 in the US and 2003-2007 in Japan) chiefly through these channels. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (see the Romers or Eichengreen). For whatever reason some people (Austrians and fiscalists) seem insistent on denying this is a possibility and wave their wand and say the only improvement in household job figures and the unemployment rate in the past year and a half can’t have anything to do with a monetary stimulus mostly because that would mean questioning their world view.
I just want to stimulate AD. Do you really think that ARRA worked? And do you really think QE2, as modest as it was, didn’t?
QE2 ends after this month. Fasten your seatbelts.
Vineyard?
I had just got home after a typical recent 14 hour day of tutoring (the semester is over at Rowan University where I’m an adjunct and I desperately need money so I supplement it by tutoring at the University of Delaware where I’m a doctoral candidate). I was enjoying a nice Chateau de Budweiser at my inherited ramshackle manse when I noticed that someone had quoted one of my comments in a post.
Look, the point is that there are other channels to monetary policy than the interest rate and the credit channel. Furthermore there is plenty of historical evidence that monetary policy is still effective in a liquidity trap (1934-1937 in the US and 2003-2007 in Japan) chiefly through these channels. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (see the Romers or Eichengreen). For whatever reason some people (Austrians and fiscalists) seem insistent on denying this is a possibility and wave their wand and say the only improvement in household job figures and the unemployment rate in the past year and a half can’t have anything to do with a monetary stimulus mostly because that would mean questioning their world view.
I just want to stimulate AD. Do you really think that ARRA worked? And do you really think QE2, as modest as it was, didn’t?
QE2 ends after this month. Fasten your seatbelts.
Vineyard?
I had just got home after a typical recent 14 hour day of tutoring (the semester is over at Rowan University where I’m an adjunct and I desperately need money so I supplement it by tutoring at the University of Delaware where I’m a doctoral candidate). I was enjoying a nice Chateau de Budweiser at my inherited ramshackle manse when I noticed that someone had quoted one of my comments in a post.
Look, the point is that there are other channels to monetary policy than the interest rate and the credit channel. Furthermore there is plenty of historical evidence that monetary policy is still effective in a liquidity trap (1934-1937 in the US and 2003-2007 in Japan) chiefly through these channels. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (see the Romers or Eichengreen). For whatever reason some people (Austrians and fiscalists) seem insistent on denying this is a possibility and wave their wand and say the only improvement in household job figures and the unemployment rate in the past year and a half can’t have anything to do with a monetary stimulus mostly because that would mean questioning their world view.
I just want to stimulate AD. Do you really think that ARRA worked? And do you really think QE2, as modest and poorly executed as it was, didn’t?
QE2 ends after this month. Fasten your seatbelts.
Daniel,
I can understand your frustration that QE, TARP, etc. did nothing to stimulate your business directly, maybe even barely indirectly.
So what federal government policy might help directly? First of all, who are your customers? I would guess that they are the middle, upper-middle, and upper-income consumer, as well as businesses. They are the ones that have some discretionary income. I would guess that government is not a big purchaser.
So what might the federal government do to give your customers more discretionary income so that they can buy your and others products and services, and stimulate the Main Street economy?
How about a “tax cut for the rich”?
Here’s my point and a few others around the here: So what? The masses ain’t feeling it.
Less hysterical on my part, the focus on liquidity and thus monetary policy is a top down focus. It’s like fixing the leaking roof to preserve the house when the foundation is compromised by the 3+ decades of leaking roof. Great, you fixed the roof.
The middle has no money Sammy. It’s a matter of numbers of people with money for any small business. And cutting taxes, as noted can not make up for $1.4 trillion per year no longer in the hands of the 99%. Put that money back there, and I along with many small businesss will be prospering again and thus will the big and biggest businesses.
Tax cutting is a ever deep hole. It is just robbing the future for the present.
Jack,
Your right. Cut flowers are a luxery product to teh masses and teh really wealthy can’t make up the delta.
BTW, I have also noticed the high-end not having any issues down here in TX either. Saw some very expensive cars just teh other day driving around (Ferrari and something that looked exotic but I didn’t get close enough to read the log/and I didn’t recognize it). But the employment situation and housing effects arn’t as bad as elsewhere.
Islam will change
sammy
daniel becker is right. tax cutting is a cure for everything the same way “bleeding the patient” was a cure for everything back in the early 19th century.
government policies that might help would be higher taxes on those with higher incomes and directing the money into infrastructure and jobs. small business loans, discouraging off shoring of core industries. encouraging unions and minimum wage laws.
all of this looks horrible to you because you have never understood “you’ve got to spend money to make money” applies to nations as well as businesses. only more so.
if for some reason my brain decided that my liver was a “dead weight loss” and cut off it’s calorie supply and shifted those calories to my stomach… which does a better job of telling my brain it’s happy than does my liver… you would see something like a national economic policy that continues to “reward” the rich while starving the poor.
btw
i am not sure that i agree with daniel that “the middle has no money.” i think they have enough money for a good life. what they don’t have is “enough” money to “stimulate the economy.” in particular they have transitioned from an economy in which money was almost “free” in the sense that they could spend it without thinking. but now the economy is a little tight, and they have bills left over from when they spent without thinking. this puts a little downward pressure on purchases of flowers.
we have something else going on, which looks like a cancer at the top… growth of “income” beyond any healthy use of that income. and the poor poor still live lives of quiet desperation, but they and the middle are hurt more by sending their hearts and minds out lusting after the cancer at the top… they all want to live like millionaires… than by their actual “poverty” which they could learn to live very happily with… if they could find jobs and housing that were not destructive of their human spirit.
Fixing the economy comes from a concern for the bottom my friend. The only people who don’t care if the economy ever improves are comfortable already. I believe in doing what is tried and proved, not unscientific gobbledegook.
And as far as the masses go, they’re easily duped as the last election proved. (Grandma didn’t want the government messing with her Medicare. Now it turns out thanks to the people she elected there may be no Medicare for the rest of us in few years.)