Slow Realization of Low Wages & the Japanification of the US
I remember a couple of years ago, when I was a constant commentator on Mark Thoma’s blog, I said that low wages and rising inequality were damaging the economy. Finding that comment is like finding a needle in a haystack. But Mark Thoma criticized the remark saying that inequality was necessary in the economy. Others on the blog backed me up. Now he is saying… (source)
“Some degree of inequality is needed to provide the incentives that make a capitalist system work, but inequality has risen far past what is needed to induce the effort that makes the system function.”
He is finally saying exactly what we were saying a couple of years ago. He was slow to realize.
Paul Krugman back in the late 1990’s undermined the living wage movement saying that it was a movement more about morality than economics. Time went by and wages continued to get relatively worse. Now Mr. Krugman is certain that wages will increase on their own, without government intervention. (Aren’t many economists writing recently about how government intervention helps capitalism correct its market failures?) Anyway, he seems quite certain that wages will rise when full employment is reached, so he encourages loose monetary policy to keep pushing toward lower and lower unemployment. He seems to think this strategy is safe. Yet, what if wages don’t rise enough and soon enough? because, you know, they really aren’t rising so much.
Mr. Krugman says that monetary tightening would trap the US into low inflation. (Wages of Fear, Paul Krugman) He says that this would lead to the Japanification of the US. However, he is slow to realize that low wages are the key.
“I believe wages hold the key,” Tokyo University Prof. Hiroshi Yoshikawa told The Wall Street Journal recently. “Japanese wages started to fall in 1997-98, and that has caused deflation to take hold.” (source WSJ)
I fully agree with Prof. Yoshikawa. and Today is the big day for Prime Minister Abe’s push for higher wages. His push is not direct government intervention, but an indirect plea to firms to raise wages.
“The next big test for Abenomics comes Wednesday when Japan’s major companies decide whether to raise base salaries for the first time in years. Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, has cast a spotlight on the question, with his unusual public campaign pressuring executives to lift worker pay.”
Our own contributor here at Angry Bear, run 75441 aka Bill, is signalling a concern for deflation, even as central bankers expect inflation to rise. I think his concern is very valid. It is very possible to have falling inflation as we hit full employment. One reason I agree with him is because consumption by capital income could pull back too much as financial instability increases. Consumption by capital income has recently reached levels far beyond those seen before the crisis. I estimate that capital income is consuming around $900 billion (real 2009 $). The highest level reached before the crisis was around $600 billion. So even if wages were to increase now, the effect could be more easily neutralized by capital income backing off some of their own consumption.
The real problem with Mr. Krugman’s strategy is that wages will not rise enough and soon enough. The transmission mechanisms from monetary policy to labor income are extremely weak, which wasn’t the case back in the 1970’s. Besides, monetary policy is making corporate profits easier to come by without the need for enticing labor with higher wages. As well, the high unemployment rate weakens wage demands.
As I read Mr. Krugman, underneath his words is an undying belief that the natural rate of unemployment is well below 6%. That delusional belief colors his strategy and makes it dangerous. Why dangerous? Financial instability is increasing… and you know the old saying, “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Increased financial instability will crash harder when wages start increasing on the other side of the safe and sustainable full employment level. Yet, Mr. Krugman likes the idea of breaking on through to the other side..
“And to get wage gains up to where they should be, we need a period of overfull employment.”
He is tempting fate…
Governments must intervene and implement a long term policy of carefully raising wages, here in the US, Japan and Europe. The guiding principle of policy to heal the economy should be… Economic power needs to be transferred back into the hands of labor. Long-term loose monetary policy works against this principle because transmission mechanisms to labor are weak, and capital income receives undue benefits.
Mr. Krugman would have you think that loose monetary policy works in favor of labor. Yet, a stronger capital income base and increased financial instability do not work in favor of labor thank you very much.
Update note: Assuming the economy at full employment, if capital income decided to cut back consumption by one-third, $300 billion, labor share would have to rise roughly 2.5% just to keep consumption stable. I don’t see labor share rising that much without a reaction from business. Business worked hard to get labor share down.
I heard on The BBC last night that the Prime Minister of Japan is trying to get workers a wage increase to boost the economy.
Proper enough???
Why would business ever want to reduce the unemployment rate? As long as there is substantial unemployment, business can hold wages flat or even shrink them. That is the principal reason why employment has been so slow to recover–business has earned record profits not because of in creased demand, but due to decreased costs. To be sure the economy has barely grown, demand is lackluster –you need to have money to demand things–and a huge part of the population is on the brink of being worse off in their lives economically than their parents, but business is continuing to enjoy record profits. as bad as this economy is for working men and women it is a Goldilocks economy for business and the people who finance/speculate for business. Remember when thinking about the possibility of sustained deflation, who that benefits. The system is rigged and the politicians of both major parties are in the bag to one degree or another
Terry: You kind of contradict yourself here:
Why would business ever want to reduce the unemployment rate? As long as there is substantial unemployment, business can hold wages flat or even shrink them. That is the principal reason why employment has been so slow to recover–business has earned record profits not because of in creased demand, but due to decreased costs and then here: To be sure the economy has barely grown, demand is lackluster
Why would you want full employment or at least 6% unemployment with a 66% Participation Rate? Because people buy the same as Ford giving people mo-money to buy his cars. JackD made the comment on my thread and he is exactly right.
Edward ,
You’re so right about the likes of Thoma , Krugman , DeLong , etc. In a way , I feel we have to give them a pass because they’ve suffered the almost inevitable brain damage that comes with mainstream econ indoctrination. ( How did you avoid it ? ) Still , if the working class is expecting them to lead us to the Promised Land , they’re barking up the wrong Burning Bush.
Dean Baker has typically been a bit better , but not by much. His recent criticism of the new Piketty book really pisses me off , though Baker’s rant was so insubstantial that I don’t think it matters much. I’m about ready to write him off entirely , too.
Going forward , we have to get labor share up , bring the super-rich back down , set a floor resembling a “living wage ” , and then design the system so that the Golden Rule applies forthwith and forevermore – incomes rise across the economy consistent with productivity gains. You can have big winners and big losers among individuals , but not among classes. Demand is then sustainable indefinitely , and you can focus on other ways to improve the economy and our quality of life.
I get your point Run 75441, but my premise is that the truly wealthy in this country–the 1% or better yet the .1%–who control vast amounts of capital, do not care about increasing demand. They just want to hold on to what they have and if everyone else gets weaker/poorer they get stronger/richer. They do not buy into the idea of a rising tide raising all boats–they simply want to increase the inequality of wealth in this country. There is no other explanation from an economic standpoint for the wealthy far right to oppose any and every policy which would help the economy and put people back to work. It also explains why they are so upset with Bernanke’s really rather pathetic efforts to reflate the economy in the absence of meaningful fiscal stimulus after the 2009 bill. This is not a case of honest people having differences of opinion and different ideologies.
Edward,
It would be nice if you suggested a method by which labor could reassert it’s potential bargaining power — and at the same time reassert the majority’s political power. Would you care to comment on the following (cut and paste) please? Let’s get a real conversation about a realistic modus operandi going here. (Hint: supermarket and airline workers would kill for centralized bargaining — perfect place to start. Double hint: reforming the US labor market would be all political gain and no pain for anyone who leads the way.)
Comment or I WILL ask you again. :-{
(cut and paste)
If anything can kill bring on American deflation it will be the continuing drop in labor’s share of income — reversible only one way …
… LEGALLY MANDATED, CENTRALIZED BARGAINING …
as instituted by post WWII continental industrialists (presumably very right wing) to stave off a European labor race-to-the-top so more money could be diverted to rebuilding.
MAGIC: requiring all employees doing similar work in the same geographic locale to negotiate one common contract with all employers prevents the race-to-the-bottom just a well. Used for 60+ years around the world (including French Canada).
I will pay anyone on this blog who can prescribe any other labor setup that might reform BOTH the course of labor AND politics in this country 64 thousand (Martian) dollars — it doesn’t have to be better than centralized bargaining; it just has to work some way at all. Bet nobody collects.
The Teamsters have something like this in their National Master Agreement.
Anybody got a better idea? Never mind better; any other idea at all to reform both?
Denis Drew,
The answer to that question is easy… Cooperatives.
Here is a video from Richard Wolff that lays out the whole case as to why cooperatives are the best solution… and I fully agree with him.
I instinctively dislike people who say inequality is necessary for the economy, or even “the capitalist economy.” People got along without inequality for thousands of years, and they could have gotten along without it under capitalism… without a communist police state… if the culture had not been shaped by conquest and slavery.
Similarly calling living wages a question of morality and not economics is to utterly fail to understand what “economics” should be about…. providing for people’s needs. If it’s good, or acceptible, “economics” to have people working for less than a living wage, we need something better than “economics.”
While I do not think that some inequality of wealth is necessarily bad, when that inequality is enforced by force… as it is…. or fraud… as it is…. or pushed too hard… as it is… then LESS inequality is certainly worth working for. Especially when obscene inequality leads to the rule by the rich.
I am not a great believer that “the poor” or even “the workers” can manage by themselves without “the rich”, but it is entirley possible to arrange things so that they and the rich can manage things together without the misery we have learned to expect since one conquering tribe discovered the advantages of enslaving the conquered.
I don’t think Krugman or Thoma are bad guys. But they don’t keep thinking after they have reached the answer they wanted or expected.
btw i like Lambert, but he needs to explain how a 6% unemployment rate is going to work out for those who are unemployed before I embrace his answer either.
I’d TAX THE RICH
Until they pissed
All day and night
And UNIONIZE
Half the workers of the world
With a CONTRACT
That’s air tight
And spend the money
On bridges and roads
And SINGLE PAYER too
On schools and infrastructure
On NASA and The Moon
‘Cause there’s good economy there
If WE give SCIENCE its fair due
And educate The Young
On THE CONSTITUTION
And The Internet Revolution
That’s what I would do
BUT FIRST
I’d TAX THE RICH
Until they pissed
Morning, noon and night.
Coberly,
Can you re-phrase your question about how 6% unemployment will work out for the unemployed? I am not sure what you are asking. I mean, higher unemployment means there are more workers marginalized from the economy. It is a common situation in Latin America.
Is that what you are asking?
Does one really have to be a professional economist or even a very intelligent person to understand that the strangulation of the purchasing power of the working class, i.e. the vast majority of any economy, will cause that economy to falter, wither and, at some point, collapse? it doesn’t seem like astrophysics. It just isn’t that complicated. An economy is defined as the production and purchase of goods and services. If there is too little income available to too many workers who the devil is going to purchase what is to be produced? That there is even an argument over the need for a financially strong working class as the basis for a strong economy is a joke. Unfortunately the joke, at the present time, is on the working class.
The biggest inequality IMO is high monetary policy is conducted. Increasing asset prices hoping for a trickle down effect into spending while asset holding are very skewed towards the wealthier severely diminished MP’s effectiveness.
Increasing asset prices is like increasing savings. Increased saving doesn’t lead to sufficient spending because of capital gains taxes when liquidating assets and because the wealthier have a higher savings rate.
The other main channel of monetary policy which is the lending channel is also ineffective because high levels of debt lead to less spending. Therefore the CB needs to directly interact with the broad public on a non debt basis when conducting MP when targeting inflation or NGDP.
A higher minimum wage will go a long way to correct a “market failure.” However, we shouldn’t ignore that much of the rise in real compensation was absorbed in higher health care costs from excess regulations.
Also, excess regulations and taxes prevented business start-ups and slowed the growth of small businesses. Most small businesses are created by the “middle class.”
Along with excess regulations, and taxes, in health care and small businesses, there are excessive regulations in energy, housing, education, environment, manufacturing, transportation, etc.
According to the CBO, the top 40% pay 106% of income taxes (the top 20% pay 92%), while the bottom 40% receive an average of over $18,000 a year in “transfer payments.” Many other taxes, fees, fines, fares, tolls, etc. are regressive, along with the $2 trillion a year of federal regulations.
The U.S. economy needs to expand at a faster rate, to create jobs, raise tax revenue, and reduce spending on the unemployed, along with raising living standards. Then, the country can afford more regulations.
the confusion between capital and land is the biggest hurdle to resolving the problems of the economy.
it economic rent that is increasing, not capital income.
the response, to use monetary rather than tax policy to rectify, just makes the problem worse by increase rents. this is why rent seeker wants light shining on their business model.
production is divided up between those who did work and those who didn’t. human nature wants to be in the latter group. that is why prosperous societies end up with some kind of slavery. now it is mexicans doing the homebuilding and dishes, indian programmers on h1.
rent is nothing but payments received for having done nothing except obstruction of the productive.
Lambert
i still have trouble reading AB in the 30 seconds or so it gives me before closing the window, so i may have misread your article.
i thought you were saying 6% unemployment was the best we could expect without inflation or some other “economic” dislocation.
i don’t think that’s true, but i don’t know much.
meanwhile i think that 6% permanently unemployed, or even temporarily involuntarily unemployed is too much misery to be left unaddressed. it that’s what “the economy” requires, we need a better way to deal with it than the present system.
Edward,
One minute into the video and I lost interest — goodie, goodie stuff: all the workers being nice to each other, owning the enterprise together.
I’m interested in meany, meany stuff: letting labor and ownership go at each others throats — but with an even balance of power.
Liberty, equality, fraternity: that is what the French revolution was (supposed to be) about. Our system assumed people would be all out for their own selfish interests and wisely knew that balancing the power between people was the only way you could (hope to) get just outcomes. Which system is still around?
Coops are not what make German democracy go — balance of power brought about by centralized bargaining is the key there and everywhere else it is in place.
Nothing would be easier to sell to supermarket workers whose middle class contracts are being gutted by underpaying Wal-Mart or to (especially regional) airline workers. A few years back (major) Northwest squeezed its flight crews (pilots) out of a billion dollars in givebacks — very next year gave a billion dollars in bonuses to 1,000 execs.
Let’s get the conversation going on a labor market setup that is famously successful in bringing economic — and political democracy (all present unions having equal campaign contribution and lobbying power as ownership — and almost all the votes) — everywhere it exists.
What do you say? Don’t force me to keep asking you. :-{
“..we shouldn’t ignore that much of the rise in real compensation was absorbed in higher health care costs from excess regulations.” Peak Trader (yet again).
Aside from the lack of any supporting reference for that statement, please, explain to us all how one can have excessive regulation of health care. Should Drs. and hospitals no longer be subject to certification of their quality of care? Should the poor be stricken from necessary health care because of their inability to support the medical profession? What is excess regulation in regards to health care?
Oh, and one other point. In case you hadn’t been keeping up with the general economic reports regarding workers’ compensation, there hasn’t been any “rise in real compensation” that could be absorbed by any increases in any part of cost of living. That is, there hasn’t been any “rise in real compensation” for the average worker over the past several decades. Or are you only referring to the executive class that has seen its income rise beyond any cost of living increases over that same several decades?
D.D., “I’m interested in meany, meany stuff: letting labor and ownership go at each others throats — but with an even balance of power.”
An even balance of power and a blade in hand might be necessary, but I certainly agree with your sentiment. But you’re one step behind the curve. Nothing is going to change until the masses change their electoral strategies. Nothing is going to change so long as the masses vote their fears and prejudices. Nothing is going to change until lying liars are prevented from posting their deceit all over the media without any significant challenge. Nothing is going to change until the political class comes to see its own future and well being allied to the masses rather than to the financial elites of our system.
Example: Americans For Prosperity can publish total fabrications of the truth. There is no adverse consequence to telling lies. The argument that gets started when the lie(s) is challenged only further publicizes the lie to begin with. Too much money is allowed to rule the public discourse.
Denis,
I think you are mis-understanding the new generation that is coming of age. They do not want to fight against the corporate powers. They are more cooperative in nature. The cooperative movement is growing much faster than the movements you want to see.
My opinion is that the cooperative movement is showing much more success and will show more success over the coming decade.
It is best to know your customer, and in this case, the customers are the young. And they would rather do business as a cooperative instead of fighting the corporate powers.
I think you will have to change your opinion in time.
Jack, real compensation has increased. Chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Realcompenstionusa.png
Also, what is employee compensation in the United States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_compensation_in_the_United_States
Here’s an example of how regulation affect health care costs:
“…the way doctors record a patient’s medical problem or disease is going to drastically change next year, and is yet another area reinforcing this medical-industrial perspective of healthcare. The International Classification of Diseases version 10 (ICD-10) contains 141,060 code sets used to report medical diagnoses and inpatient procedures. That’s a 712 percent increase over the 19,817 code sets in the currently used ICD-9 version. With the stop and go implementation of the ACA and an unending deluge of administrative changes in Medicare payment, 141,000 new codes could not come at a worse time for our doctors. As we have noted before, physicians are already spending 22 percent of their time interacting with insurers on formularies, claims, billing, credentialing, pre-authorizations, and quality measure data. The workload can only increase with the new codes.
The windfall of government regulations has given rise to over a dozen associations devoted to “compliance” with all of these rules and regulations. In fact, these associations hold numerous workshops nationwide on various regulatory compliance issues. The Health Care Compliance Association alone has over a dozen different workshops on the myriad of government rules and regulations and offers a “compliance certificate board” or CCB. There are, in fact, more pages of regulations for Medicare than in the Internal Revenue Service code, and the Medicare regulations are more complicated.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/physiciansfoundation/2013/11/05/healthcare-is-turing-into-an-industry-focused-on-compliance-regulation-rather-than-patient-care/
PeakTrader has repeatedly made the claim that higher health care costs in the US are due to excess regulations.
He may be right, but in all the research I have done on the matter, I have never seen excessive regulation cited as the reason why our per capita health care costs are twice as much as those in other developed countries, with really nothing to show for it. Not once.
Here are three analysis I found in a quick Google search. The first is a very interesting video.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Issue%20Brief/2012/May/1595_Squires_explaining_high_hlt_care_spending_intl_brief.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/
Not only would it be nice to see some facts, data, and logic from PeakTrader to back up his assertion; but I think it behooves him to explain which regulations are over the top, and how getting rid of them would either improve our level of health care, or reduce its cost.
I am not saying PeakTrader is wrong… only that I can’t find any evidence that he is right.
Lambert
i restated my comment. did it help?
Linus, I just gave an example above.
Excess regulation is a tremendous waste of time, effort, and money, which is paid for one way or another.
Industries with little regulation in a free competitive market have faster quality improvements and falling prices.
Is a heavy regulated and inefficient monopoly either selling a luxury good or providing a shortage better?
PeakTrader,
It appears that our comments passed in the mail.
While I agree that excess regulation can result in wasted time effort and money (not sure about the “tremendous”), your citation gives no indication regrading what components, if any, of existing regulation are excessive. Just general carping from those being regulated that additional regulations get in the way of being able to perform their duties as they see fit.
Unless you are contending that our health care providers are regulated more heavily than those in other developed countries, “excess regulation” cannot be considered to be a contributor to our per capita health care costs being twice as much as those in other developed countries, with no results to show for the higher expenditure.
In a market which is essentially noncompetitive, such as health care, we rely on a fairly aggressive level of regulation to ensure that consumers have at least a chance of getting what they pay for.
Do you have any particular regulations which you feel are especially inefficient? I have no way of knowing if increasing the number disease classifications from 19,817 to 141,060 is a good thing or a bad thing, or, if in the end it is going to increase or decrease the overall cost of health care. It sounds excessive, but there is usually some sort of sound reasoning behind making changes like these.
What percent of regulation do you think should be done away with? And how will you measure the efficacy of the reduction versus the public’s interest in being protected in an noncompetitive marketplace?
PeakTrader,
After reading up on the the ICD standards it seems that the changes are not sudden or unexpected. Work on ICD-10 (which includes the expanded codes) was begun in 1983. This is not something being dropped willy-nilly on healthcare providers by government bureaucrats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Statistical_Classification_of_Diseases_and_Related_Health_Problems#History_and_usage_in_the_United_States
Linus:
Seriously? Healthcare costs are driven by a cost model which is services for fees. The more services they sell, the higher the cost. This permeates the entire healthcare industry from pharma with its med of the year to the procedure of the day. Pull up Phillip Longman’s “The Best Care Anywhere” or Google Maggie Mahar “Money Driven Medcine” http://www.amazon.com/Money-Driven-Medicine-Reason-Health-Costs/dp/B000MGAHZU; http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2008/08/today-we-pay-fo/; http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2013/12/why-will-healthcare-insurance-be-cheaper-in-florida-with-the-ppaca.html; Uwe Reinhardt http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/29/u-s-health-care-prices-are-the-elephant-in-the-room/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 and http://www.realdailybuzz.com/rdb.nsf/DocView?Open&UNID=c9ce510cb75d81e685257c8d0051314e
Ezra Klein http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/why-an-mri-costs-1080-in-america-and-280-in-france/2011/08/25/gIQAVHztoR_blog.html
Go do some reading before you sell out to PT. Or if you want, do a search on run75441 as I write for AB on Healthcare and its costs. Much of Maggie Mahars posts are here. One question Linus, do you know what a Chargemaster is? If you don’t, find out.
Linus says: “Unless you are contending that our health care providers are regulated more heavily than those in other developed countries, “excess regulation” cannot be considered to be a contributor to our per capita health care costs being twice as much as those in other developed countries, with no results to show for the higher expenditure.”
I wasn’t comparing countries. I made a statement based on economics. In the U.S., excess regulation resulted in a high quality and expensive good. I stated above, the U.S. needs a higher quality and cheaper good – a good that’s really affordable.
I don’t have time to reply to all your comments. However, turning the U.S. health care system into something similar to the public school system, where some schools are better than others and many affluent parents send their kids to, and pay out of pocket, for private schools, while still paying the cost of a public education, has not turned out well for many Americans.
PeakTrader,
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were such a busy person. But if you ever do get the chance, I really would be interested in some considered response to my questions. Your last response was unintelligible to me, but that is probably because I am not a credentialed economist.
Run75441,
Thanks for your citations… I will read.
I do want to know why our healthcare costs are so out of line with the rest of the developed world. I was hopeful that PeakTrader would be able to contribute to my education with regard to how much “excess regulation” is adding to our burden. Apparently he does not have the time to do this.
Run75441,
Again, thanks for your citations. The only thing I haven’t read so far is Maggie Mahar’s book (which I have purchased and will soon be reading on my Kindle.)
I hope that PeakTrader can soon find time to defend his assertion that it is “excess regulation” that is driving up our medical costs. What I glean from what I have read so far, is that it may be a lack of regulation that is the problem.
I do have to point out that I am not an economist (mathematics is where I buried my head) so that there may be nuances I am missing here, but it sure seems to me that PeakTrader may be barking up a tree that contains no game.
Linus:
By far Maggie knows more than I do. She is the equivalent of an Ezra Klein on the topic of Healthcare and is often found on various news show discussing it. Work around the internet and I am sure you will find more.
Linus:
Phillip Longman’s book is good also and gives a good review of the inefficiencies in the healthcare system from his own viewpoint (his wife died of cancer), Timothy Noah’s wife viewpoint (she also died of cancer, and from a veteran’s viewpoint (USMC veteran [please don’t thank me, thank my friends who did not come back]). Many of the improvements in VA hospitals are also a part of the PPACA; although, the PPACA does not go far enough. While this is called Obamacare, it was written pass Congress and passed by Congress. This is something Hillary falled to do with Hillarycare which was having Congress write the bill.
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2014/01/why-attorneys-will-not-always-sue-in-malpractice.html Why Attorneys will Not always Sue”
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2014/03/the-ppaca-the-heathers-susan-mcginnis-cbs-battling-kidney-cancer-and-the-truth.html “CBS and Healthcare”
http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2014/01/on-the-horizon-for-healthcare-costs.html “On The Horizon After Obamacare”
Anyhoo, that is a start. If you read what Maggie has written since 2008 and absorb it, there are not many who will refute what you know. The PPACA is not perfect; but, it is better than nothing.
Linus Bell: Its called “Whatever The Market Will Bear”.
Whatever the market will bear
WE know YOU have to PAY it
YOUR life’s at stake
So that’s the breaks
YOUR health’s at risk
Ain’t that a bitch
Don’t feel good
Don’t wanna die
Even if the cost’s
Sky high
YOU are going to PAY it
Its what the market will bear
Edward,
We are not sure if your suggestion qualifies under the “any idea” requirement for the 64,000 Martian credits prize. If we decide so, you will need to forward 2,000 credits to us in advance for processing.
We turned Japanese , definitely. This chart shows the growth deviation from the 10-yr average pre-crisis trend for the US , UK , and Sweden (post-1991 banking crisis) compared to Japan post-1992. The US and UK are pretty nuch following in Japan’s footsteps , and it looks like it’s about time for another down leg:
https://twitter.com/Ramanan_V/status/444359334802120704/photo/1
It looks like we should have gone Swedish on the banksters……