A quick scan of BAAQMD’s massive report shows a lot of concern for concentrations of various pollutants in different locations, but zero consideration of sources. Frankly, that’s stupid. BAAQMD cannot determine the effectiveness of their regulations until they know the percentage of current pollution emitted by exempt structures. Until then they are simply whistling in the dark.
The point I’d like to add is that the U.S. has already done this once. In the 1970s, led by Cornell Professor Alfred E. Kahn, several important industries were deregulated: airlines, trucking, transportation generally, energy, communications (remember the old AT&T monopoly?), and finance (including banking). Each of these industries lowered prices, increased quantity offered and increased the variety of products available to consumers. Arguably, deregulation helped dampen the sluggish growth during those two decades.
What, then, is the meaning of the expected change in the exchange rate, the term on the right side of the = sign? The Greek euro cannot depreciate against the German euro. In this case, we are measuring the default risk premium of the various countries.
The subject line was “My First Client.” “Swell,” I thought, “real estate, hookers, who knows.” I was about to delete it when I saw the highlighted sentence below.
Average annual growth rates of M1 and M2 are in the 6% – 8% range. Reserves have averaged 215.25% per year. Reserves are not being loaned. And until lending picks up the Fed might as well close up shop.
Honestly, this material is not difficult and the data is readily available. I always have trouble understanding why people don’t simply look at the facts instead of trusting the media. Nearly everyone in the media, including most of those who report on economics, are illiterate about even the most basic economic concepts. Remember, their college degrees are in journalism or communications. Somewhere along the way an editor decided they knew some economics. They don’t.
The good guys win one! Let’s all be happy for a few days.
I wish I could say there is good news in this report. But the best I can offer is that some trends seem to have leveled off. At this point, however, it’s safe to say the U.S. economy has lost a substantial number of young potential workers who will never make up the ground they have lost.
In some of my other research I’m exploring the possibility that these younger people may actually be working in the “informal sector” (also called the underground economy or hidden economy). It’s possible that the growth of this sector has absorbed some young people, meaning that the reported LFPR’s are lower than the actual participation rate. … Consider the Affordable Care Act. This plan fundamentally requires young people to subsidize health insurance for older people. One way to avoid this tax is to not report any income (and therefore not file any tax returns). Working off the books for cash probably looks like a pretty good deal to some of these folks.
The best I can say about this is that the pricing is confusing and appears irrational. If The Economist really wants my business, they’ll have to make me an offer I can understand.