GDP vs. ECONOMIC GROWTH

[unlawflcombatnt]

GDP vs. ECONOMIC GROWTH


The GDP equation is as follows:

GDP=ConsumerSpending+Investmnt+GovtSpending+TradeBalance

Economists state that consumer spending, or consumption, is 2/3 of all economic activity. It's the generally accepted consensus that consumer income is the biggest determinant of consumer spending. Logically, it is essentially the only long-term determinant of consumption. (Consumption financed by borrowing cannot last indefinitely.) Thus, consumer income is the biggest determinant of GDP.

Interestingly enough, debt-financed consumer spending is also included in the GDP equation. So consumer spending includes the sale of goods bought with money that doesn't even exist. Much of consumer spending is financed with money from home equity loans. Does such spending really indicate economic "growth," or is it economic "fantasy"? Does increased debt really indicate economic "growth"? Don't we have to pay that back some day? Does the overvaluation of assets in the real estate market and stock market really indicate economic growth? When money borrowed off these overvalued assets is used to prop up consumer spending, does that really contribute to economic growth? Should this "overvaluation-financed" spending really be added to GDP? The truth is, the GDP equation becomes a less accurate indicator when workers are compensated more poorly.

Investment, and investment capital, only have value if they increase the amount of goods SOLD. (It's SALE of goods that create profits, not production.) If consumer spending is low, obviously less investment capital is needed. In spite of this, the equation allows for investment capital to actually make-up for decreased consumer spending. This is simply illogical. If consumers are NOT spending their money and buying more goods, what benefit is there to building more factories? How can anyone call that economic "growth"? Basically, this allows the government to falsely state that the economy is "growing," while the sale of goods is declining.

Also included in the "investment" category is unsold inventory. So by this equation, the economy can "grow" by building more unused production facilities, and producing more un-sold goods. So if someone produces goods nobody can afford to purchase, the "assumed" value is simply added to the total.


If income is reduced, shouldn't it affect the other factors? If so, how would it affect them? Let's start with investment. Investment will not make any real contribution to GDP if consumer spending declines. Increased investment is supposed to increase production. If income falls, so does demand for production. If demand falls, there is NO benefit to increased investment. There is no need to build more production facilities or provide more services, if there is no demand for them. Excess "investment" would simply go into corporate coffers, in the form of CEO salaries, stock holder dividends, "cash-on-hand" and bank accounts. In actual reality, as opposed to economists' "pseudo-reality," this investment would add absolutely NOTHING to GDP in the long-term. (It's mis-allocated money that would have contributed to GDP, if it had it gone toward consumer spending.)

How about government spending? Government spending is financed exclusively from taxes. Taxes subtract directly from private wealth. Thus, government spending reduces private wealth, dollar-per-dollar. However, the "marginal propensity to consume" concept needs to be considered here. (Which basically states that the more affluent devote a smaller percentage of their wealth towards consumption. The more affluent they are, the smaller the percentage.) Taxes on lower income individuals reduce consumption more than those on higher income individuals. Taxes directed mainly at consumers, such as sales tax, reduce consumption spending dollar-for-dollar. In contrast, taxes on corporations primarily reduce investment spending. Thus, the type of taxation affects how much it subtracts from consumer spending. But it is clear that government spending subtracts significantly from consumer spending. In addition, reduced consumer income reduces the money availabe for taxation. Government spending cannot make up for consumer spending reduction. Not only does it depend on consumer income, it subtracts from consumer spending directly.

In summary, the GDP equation is almost overwhelmingly dependent on consumer income. Labor cost reductions reduce income, and GDP. When $90/day workers are replaced with $2/day foreign workers, consumer income drops. Consumer spending then drops as well, further reducing demand for goods and services. The increased profits made from the labor cost reduction do NOT help the economy. The increased investment capital that results has NO benefit when consumption drops. It merely provides a short-term gain in profits, at the expense of a long-term loss in GDP. Unfortunately, many "experts" have a blindspot to this simple mathematical reality.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

_____________________________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for production DOES create jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.

[On the Road]

1. Is That Really the Formula?

I would have thought it included all business spending (not just investment). I see why the trade balance is entered separately -- purchases of external goods are not part of GDP, but exports are.

Your last comment seems to involve the observation that investment creates its own demand. A former economics professor changed my understanding of this truism, which never seemed correct to me. Apparently the correct way of thinking about it any investment involves purchases of labor, goods, and services. Even if a factory produces white elephants that no one wants, building the factory temporarily increases GDP by creating demand for construction, labor, inventory, etc.

[unlawflcombatnt]

2. Investment does not create Demand

Thanks for your response. Also, thank you for alerting me to my lack of clarity with my "investment does not create jobs" statement. I think you got my intended meaning backwards. Apparently I didn't explain it very well. Investment does NOT create demand. I had hoped my statement on this was very clear. (I'll definitely have to change my signature.)

I think you were originally correct about your belief in investment. It does not create demand. The cost of building a production facility is miniscule compared to the demand necessary to keep it open. If the price of the labor to build the factory was high enough to make a large difference in aggregate labor income, the factory wouldn't be built. It would be too costly. Industries that build factories hope the labor wages to build the factory are small compared to the income from sales of their product. To sell their product, there needs to be enough consumer income to fuel the long-term, continued sale of product. The labor income from building the factory just won't suffice.

I think you had it right in the first place. You thought 'investment creating demand' didn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to me, either. I think that's because it simply doesn't MAKE any sense. That's the point I was trying to stress in my signature. Consumer income creates DEMAND, not investment. People aren't going to buy a product that they don't want, or cannot pay for. No amount of "investment" is going to change that.


Regarding the GDP equation, "investment" is supposed to represent "gross domestic business investment." Another definition of GDP is the "market value of final output produced within borders of a nation." (from Barron's "Economics" by Walter J. Wessels) To me, this verbal definition seems far more accurate than the equation. Part of the reason, is that it uses the term "market value." It implies sale, or potential sale of product. It also implies consumers will determine this, not the producers. It implies that costs are not the major determinant of market value. Instead, spendable consumer wealth IS the determining factor. Producers sell their products for as much as they can get. If it costs 1 cent to make a product, and they can get $1,000, they sell it for $1,000. If it costs $600 to make, and they can get $1,000. They sell it for $1,000. The producer costs have nothing to do with the market value. It is consumer spending and demand that determine the market value. If the products costs $2,000 to make, and only sells for $1,000, they won't make the product.

Barron's verbal definition should eliminate the extra value added from un-sold inventory. In addition, it would seem illogical to add in the value of unusable business investment. However, it's convenient for the Bush Administration to add these amounts into the equation, so they can claim economic "growth." And they definitely ARE adding these values in.

I don't know if I mentioned this in my posting, but reducing American labor costs, by reducing or eliminating American wages, should DECREASE the GDP. Anything reducing AGGREGATE American wages, reduces spendable consumer income. This reduces consumer spending, and reduces the sum of the GDP equation. It is just amazing that contemporary financial analysts never even mention this.

Lower consumer income reduces consumer spending, which is 2/3 of economic activity. So does reducing American labor costs help our economy? Does it increase GDP value using the GDP equation? Doesn't it reduce the total market value of all goods, since that value is limited by spendable consumer income?

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/
__________________________
The economy needs balance between the "means of production" & "means of consumption."

[unlawflcombatnt]

3. GDP & Economic Growth

It doesn't appear I sparked a lot of interest here.

I probably should have titled it something like "Bush Economic 'Growth' vs. Real Economic Growth." It's a myth that our economy is growing. It's simply a statistical claim based on false statistics and false assumptions. The only things "growing" are national debt, CEO salaries, pension fund defaults, and new corporate scams.

unlawflcombatnt

[unlawflcombatnt]

4. Some Keynesian Input

In Keynesian economics, not all "investment" (gross private investment) contributes to GDP. That part that does not contribute to satisfying consumer demand is NOT included. The Neocons would hate for this concept to catch on. Here is the quote from the Wikipedia Encyclopedia.

"In Keynesian economics, not all of gross private domestic investment counts as part of aggregate demand. Much or most of the investment in inventories can be due to a short-fall in demand (unplanned inventory accumulation or "general over-production"). (Inventory accumulation would correspond to an excess supply of products; in the National Income and Product Accounts, it is treated as a purchase by its producer.) Thus, only the planned or intended or desired part of investment (Ip) is counted as part of aggregate demand.

In sum, for a single country at a given time, aggregate demand (D or AD) = C + Ip + G + NX"

The link for this can be found under the "aggregate demand" section at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand

Substituting the Ip for the investment part makes a lot more sense to me. I suspect we used to calculate GDP this way, prior to our government's abandonment of Keynesian economic principles. Now we can just invest, invest, invest, and still have it count as part of GDP. Never mind whether the investment is beneficial or not. This is how the Bush plutocracy increases its statement of our "economic growth."

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/
________________________________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Only DEMAND for goods creates jobs, because it requires workers to produce goods. Investment may "permit" job growth, but only DEMAND necessitates it.

[PsycheCC]

6. This Makes More Sense

If I understand it correctly, this Keynesian formula makes much more sense to me. Thanks! :think:

[PsycheCC]

5. So GDP Doesn't Really Predict Economic Health?

Unlawflcombatnt said, "In summary, the GDP equation is almost overwhelmingly dependent on consumer income. Labor cost reductions reduce income, and GDP. When $90/day workers are replaced with $2/day foreign workers, consumer income drops. Consumer spending then drops as well, further reducing demand for goods and services. The increased profits made from the labor cost reduction do NOT help the economy. The increased investment capital that results has NO benefit when consumption drops. It merely provides a short-term gain in profits, at the expense of a long-term loss in GDP. Unfortunately, many "experts" have a blindspot to this simple mathematical reality."

If the formula for GDP weighs all factors equally, but in fact, Consumer Spending is much more important to economic growth than the other factors, then GDP doesn't really measure growth very well. Is that right? (Sorry, I'm not an economist, but I AM interested in the big picture.)

Thanks for your posts on the economy. I find them pretty understandable despite my "Liberal Arts" education.:applause:

[unlawflcombatnt]

7. GDP vs. Economic Growth

I would definitely say the Keynesian GDP equation is more representative than the one currently used by the government.

Some economists thing the "Final Sales" aspect of the GDP is a better indicator than the GDP itself. GDP Final Sales subtracts Inventory from the sum tota. For example, the initial GDP increase was 3.1% for the 1st quarter of 2005. But the GDP final sales was only 1.9% (the revised GDP final sales is probably a little higher, since the GDP was revised upward to 3.5%)

I still think the Keynesian GDP is better, because it makes a deliberate attempt to subtract unuseable investment from the total.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/
_________________________
As Corporate America reduces labor costs, it reduces America's ability to purchase its own production.

[unlawflcombatnt]

8. Spelling Corrections

I would definitely say the Keynesian GDP equation is more representative than the one currently used by the government.

Some economists think the "Final Sales" aspect of the GDP is a better indicator than the GDP itself. GDP Final Sales subtracts Inventory from the sum total. For example, the initial GDP increase was 3.1% for the 1st quarter of 2005. But the GDP final sales was only 1.9% (the revised GDP final sales is probably a little higher, since the GDP was revised upward to 3.5%)

I still think the Keynesian GDP is better, because it makes a deliberate attempt to subtract unusable investment from the total.

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com /
_________________________
As Corporate America reduces labor costs, it reduces America's ability to purchase its own production.

[Coexist]

9. thank you so much for your Economics 101 class

and it's free to boot! I learn a lot from you.

[rman]

11. "economic health" doesn't say sh*t about the well-being of the people

I'd say that's one of the more basic issues.

With all the economic growth and advances in technology over the past decades, the rich got up to several 100% richer, while to poor got poorer and "middle-class" has gotten a whole new meaning ("living one month salary away from bankrupcy" - though that has now been fixed by making backrupcy practically illegal, for citizens that is).

Sorry for going a bit tangent.

[PsycheCC]

16. Excellent Point

You're right rman, a strong economy says little about the state of the middle class if wealth is as unevenly distributed as it is now.

In school, we were taught that Democracy requires a large middle class that is content with life and not looking to overthrow government in order to survive. The French Revolution comes to mind. I sometimes wonder if we in the U.S. aren't heading down that same road, ending in a dwindling middle class and a lot of angry poor peaking in the windows at Kennybumport, Maine; Crawford, Texas; and the like.

[unlawflcombatnt]

19. Right on Target

You're absolutely right about the rich getting richer. CEO salaries have grown far more than wages. In fact, since January 2005, average inflation-adjusted hourly wages have declined 1.8%. Inflation adusted hourly wages were $8.32/hour in January 2005. In May, they were $8.17/hour. These figures are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost (It is series ID CEU0500000049) I don't think the working man would consider this economic "growth."

unlawflcombatnt

[PsycheCC]

20. Rich, Poor, and Revolution

And yet to listen to the Bushies, the economy is strong and growing stronger all the time. (In a recent congressional hearing, Rumsfeld actually referenced the strong economy as his FIRST reason for the failure to meet military enlistment quotas). Gee, I might have said it has do with a war nobody supports. But that's another topic.

So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and we've been saying this forever because it always seems to be true. But sometimes in life a universal truth such as this one becomes EVEN MORE TRUE and VERY CRITICAL. And what's more interesting is that often those in power are completely blind to the crucial shift that will literally change the world:

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a plain face, on the thrown of England; there were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face, on the thrown of France. In both countries IT WAS CLEARER THAN CRYSTAL TO THE LORDS OF THE STATE PRESERVES OF LOAVES AND FISHES, THAT THINGS IN GENERAL WERE SETTLED FOR EVER.

...(0ne paragraph not affecting meaning deleted)...

France...rolled with exceeding smoothness down hill, MAKING PAPER MONEY AND SPENDING IT. Under the guidance of her Christian pastors, she entertained herself, besides, with such humane achievements as sentencing a youth to have his hands cut off, his tongue torn out with pincers, and his body burned alive, because he had not kneeled down in the rain to do honour to a procession of monks which passed within his view, at a distance of fifty or sixty yards. It is likely enough that, rooted in the woods of France and Norway, there were growing trees, when that sufferer was put to death, already marked by the Woodsman, Fate, to come down and be sawn into boards, to make a certain movable framework with a sack and a knife in it, terrible in history. It is likely enough that in the rough outhouses of some tillers of heavy lands adjacent to Paris, there were sheltered from the weather that very day, rude carts, bespattered with rustic mire, snuffed about by pigs, and roosted in by poultry, which the Farmer, Death, had already set apart to be his tumbrils of the REVOLUTION. But that Woodman and that Farmer, though they work unceasingly, work silently, and NO ONE HEARD THEM as they went about with muffled tread: the rather, forasmuch as TO ENTERTAIN ANY SUSPICION THAT THEY WERE AWAKE, WAS TO BE ATHEISTICAL AND TRAITOROUS." (Caps for emphasis are mine).

This passage is from the opening of A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens. Many posts I've read here on DU, particularly those about the state of the economy, have gotten me thinking again about this wonderful book. I admit, Dickens likes his commas, and he takes a little work, but for those of you willing to do that work, I think there are some interesting comparisons between the period prior to the French Revolution as described by Dickens, and today. I don't claim that conditions are as bad as they were in 1775 in France, but the tax cuts for the top 2% and other Bush policies that place downward pressure on wages are creating an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor. If you ask me, that's a recipe for revolution.

I feel oppressed by this administration, and I watch as my congressional representatives are SYSTEMATICALLY SILENCED. Republicans say Democrats should just get used to being the minority party. Controlling the agenda and having the votes to pass legislation are fine, but SILENCING THE MINORITY VOICE is not.

No, I don't think we'll have a revolution because problem solving has always been one of our country's strengths. We always move forward into the Light, but in my opinion this is "the worst of times," though far too many fail to see this truth.

If you haven't read it lately, A Tale of Two Cities is still a great book, and well worth the work. It is a story of love and sacrifice and what happens to humanity when the oppressed are pushed beyond their ability to adapt. (My apologies to those of you who don't think literature has a place in this discussion. For me, literature relates to just about everything.)

[unlawflcombatnt]

21. Rumsfeld and Revolution

I actually heard Rumsfeld's "astute" remark about people not going into the military because of how strong the economy is. Statements like that provide further evidence that he has lost touch with reality. After hearing that, it's no wonder we hear him tell us how well the war is going in Iraq. He is either very dishonest, or very delusional. And he's responsible for the welfare of American troops.

I've read a little about the French Revolution. It does seem we are moving in that direction, with the increasing disparity in wealth distribution. We're not as far gone as France was at the time, but nothing near that degree of plutocracy will ever occur here. Due to a much greater public awareness of current affairs, revolution will occur long before it gets that bad.

Hopefully, we can turn things around before that happens. But the similarities between the Bush administration and Nazi Germany increase every day. Media distortion and deception are increasing rapidly. The Bush administration is steadily chipping away at personal privacy protections. Clearly, he would like to repeal the 4th amendment, regarding freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the necessity of obtaining warrants. The 1st amendment seems to be causing him some problems as well.

His administration is rapidly increasing the level of government secrecy. The Bush plutocracy is aggressively trying to control the press, by both publishing false information and suppressing unfavorable information. The Freedom of Information Act is simply ignored by the Bush administration, whenever it proves inconvenient.

Bush seems oblivious to his decreasing popularity and support. He seems to be stepping up his misinformation and propaganda dissemination. He has successfully squelched most mainstream media criticism. He has intimidated many members of Congress and the Senate. The tide may be changing, however. Will the Bush plutocracy change its ways, or will it step up its race towards Fascism, even further censoring the press and the media? Only time will tell. How much longer can we tolerate a twice fraudulently elected president, and his plutocracy? This country has been through one "Revolution" and one "Civil War." Are we heading for another one of these?

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment.

There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[PAdem2]

14. Sorry, but Keynesian policy caused

horrible inflation during the Nixon and Ford administrations and on into the Carter administration (remember (Whip Inflation Now????). There is a reason it is discredited today.

The thing missing in all of the discussions I've read in this string is PRODUCTIVITY. That is, when a worker is able to produce more in the same time good things happen. Good things for the worker, for his economic power, for his standard of living.

The statements about borrowing to buy stuff doesn't take into account that this is precisely how money is created; you borrow money you haven't made yet to do things. It's kind of like economic time travel. If you pay that money back with money you've earned with increased productivity you retain your earning power (and avoid inflation). This is really simplified.

For those that are just looking for a black cloud to a silver lining, there are LOTS of economic dangers that we are facing. Going back to Keynesian policies would just make all of them worse.

[unlawflcombatnt]

17. Keynes & Productivity

You are wrong about productivity. If the wealth created by the increased productivity is not passed on to the workers, it does NOT improve the economy. Someone must be able to BUY that increased production. There must be a concomitant increase in consumer buying power. If there is not, there will no increase in business profits. The dollar-value of goods sold will not increase. It may even DECREASE. If workers produce more dollar-value of goods, but aren't paid any more, the increased productivity may even be harmful. If less workers are needed to fill the production demand by American consumers, and those workers are paid a constant wage, it HURTS the economy. It results in decreased aggregate consumer income, which ultimately reduces the demand for American production.

There certainly WAS a reason Keynesian economics was discredited. But you are absolutely wrong about the REAL reason Keynesian economics was abandoned. Right-wingers had been searching for years for an excuse to discredit Keynesian economics. His principles didn't allow for the rich industrialists to get as rich as they wanted. His principles did not support unlimited corporate welfare. His principles dispelled the myth that cutting business costs and increasing the wealth of the most affluent did not always help the economy. Keynes understood that it is consumer demand for production that creates jobs, not investment. (This was a lesson learned from the Depression, where factories sat idle due to greatly reduced consumer spending.)

The right-wingers didn't like the importance Keynes attached to DEMAND. Keynesian economics implied that AGGREGATE DEMAND was the biggest factor driving our economy. This didn't please the supply-siders who wanted to justify tax cuts for the affluent, and labor cost reduction whenever possible. Keynesian economic theory offered little support for cutting taxes on the rich and corporations. His theories offered no justification for the current administration's "take from the poor and give to the rich" policies. Keynes would have advocated cutting taxes on the non-affluent, as a way to increase aggregate demand. (So have most non-Bush administration economists, such as Joseph Stiglitz.)

Keynes clearly understood that someone had to BUY production. Cutting taxes on the affluent does little to help consumers buy more production. It does make more capital available for investment. In our current economic state, more capital is of little benefit. We are overcapitalized at present. In contrast, consumer spending, which creates AGGREGATE DEMAND, is hanging by a thread.

Keynesian economics encourages increased government spending AS A LAST RESORT, when all other measures to increase aggregate demand have failed. Massive government spending was meant to be a temporary stop-gap measure, unlike Bush's "no corporation left behind" policies.

Keynesian economics had nothing whatsoever to do with the stagflation of the 70's. Most attribute it to the Arab oil crises. Another major contribution was from going off the gold standard. It allowed the government to print completely worthless money that was not backed by anything. But Keynesian economic policies were given the blame. It was the opening the right-wingers had been waiting for. (It was kind of like Iraq. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq. But it was a perfect excuse to invade Iraq. And so it was with Keynesian economic policy. The 70's "stagflation" offered a perfect, though fully incorrect, opportunity to discredit Keynes. And it was jumped on with joy by Corporate America and the rich.)

unlawflcombatnt
EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

______________________
Capitalism cannot function without consumer income. The benefits of capital investment are limited by consumers' ability to buy the products of capital investment. There must be balance between the "means of consumption" and the "means of production."

[sadiesworld]

10. Have you read "Greenspan's Fraud" by Ravi Batra?

(He was on book notes this past weekend and I was able to catch about 20 minutes.)

[unlawflcombatnt]

12. Greenspan's Fraud

Sadie,

Do great minds think alike, or what? I also saw Ravi Batra this weekend. I have not read the book yet. But I ordered not 1, but 2 copies of "Greenspan's Fraud." (The first site promised delivery in 2 weeks, the second site promised delivery in 2 days. I didn't want to wait. And I'm sure I can find some use for the 2nd copy.)

Everything Batra said I agreed with. I think it's going to be a very good book. Did you order it too?

unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary
http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/
_________________________
As Corporate America reduces labor costs, it reduces America's ability to purchase its own production.

[sadiesworld]

13. No, I haven't ordered it yet but I intend to...

You may enjoy one of my favorite quotes:

"Populists, as opposed to liberals, do not get particularly excited about culture wars. We do not believe the important differences in this country are about smokers versus nonsmokers or wine versus beer drinkers. This fight is not about yoga and vegetarianism. It is not about lifestyles. It is not about religion. Keep your eye on the shell with the pea under it. It's about who's getting screwed and about who's doing the screwing. And anybody who tells you different is lying for money." -Molly Ivins

G'night.

[unlawflcombatnt]

15. Good Quote

Sadie,

Thanks for the quote. I always thought I liked Molly Ivins. Now I'm pretty sure about it.

[unlawflcombatnt]

18. Greenspan's Fraud

I received my copy of "Greenspan's Fraud" today. I might have to take some time off from posting to read it. It looks pretty good.:)

unlawflcombatnt