Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Weekend Economists Be Mother May 8-10, 2015
What does it mean to be a mother? Many different things, based on context.
Long ago, in a distant galaxy far away....no, that was last Weekend! This Weekend, it's in an Empire 200 years away...the British Empire. Consider the quaint English construction:
It's normally heard as "Shall I be mother?" meaning 'Shall I pour the tea?'
It's used because pouring the tea has traditionally been seen as a mother's role.
(OR THE HOSTESS' ROLE, OR THE HONORED FEMALE, OR THE FEMALE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT, OR...)
I suspect it's now heard less than it once was for various social rather than linguistic reasons. It's not slang and it's not facetious, but because of the nature of tea-drinking it's likely to be heard in informal situations.
TEABAGS HAVE ELIMINATED THIS USAGE, AS WELL
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/61370/be-mother-etymology-and-usage
It is also a saying that stems from the superstition that a female guest should never pour the tea in another woman's household - for then she would fall pregnant.
So should a woman offer to pour the tea in another woman's household ("I'll be mother"
, she desires to become a mother. Or it may also be used as tongue-in-cheek by those who are not in the least superstitious.
From author and folk historian Dr. Alec Gill:
Tea-drinking and fertility were intermingled. Indeed, the tea-pouring cliche‚ "I'll be Mother" stems directly from primitive superstition. The consequences of two people pouring from the same pot could be dire.
During the 1930s, if a man and woman took turns in pouring, a child would be born to them. A female visitor must not pour tea in another woman's house - otherwise, she would fall pregnant. This evolved to having twins and - even worse at the superstitious level - ginger-headed twins.
Thus, an early form of birth-control was to let only one person do all the pouring in company!
It's used because pouring the tea has traditionally been seen as a mother's role.
(OR THE HOSTESS' ROLE, OR THE HONORED FEMALE, OR THE FEMALE LEAST LIKELY TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT, OR...)
I suspect it's now heard less than it once was for various social rather than linguistic reasons. It's not slang and it's not facetious, but because of the nature of tea-drinking it's likely to be heard in informal situations.
TEABAGS HAVE ELIMINATED THIS USAGE, AS WELL
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/61370/be-mother-etymology-and-usage
It is also a saying that stems from the superstition that a female guest should never pour the tea in another woman's household - for then she would fall pregnant.
So should a woman offer to pour the tea in another woman's household ("I'll be mother"
, she desires to become a mother. Or it may also be used as tongue-in-cheek by those who are not in the least superstitious.
From author and folk historian Dr. Alec Gill:
Tea-drinking and fertility were intermingled. Indeed, the tea-pouring cliche‚ "I'll be Mother" stems directly from primitive superstition. The consequences of two people pouring from the same pot could be dire.
During the 1930s, if a man and woman took turns in pouring, a child would be born to them. A female visitor must not pour tea in another woman's house - otherwise, she would fall pregnant. This evolved to having twins and - even worse at the superstitious level - ginger-headed twins.
Thus, an early form of birth-control was to let only one person do all the pouring in company!
Or, consider what it means in THIS Empire, today:
US 'worst place to be a mother' among developed nations - report
http://rt.com/usa/255617-america-worst-mother-report/
America is the worst developed country in the world to be a mother, ranking 61st globally in maternal health, a groundbreaking analysis of global health inequalities has found. The US performed worse than last year, when it was in 31st place overall. This year it is 33rd. Although it did well on economic and educational status, according to this year's Mother's Index the country lags behind on children's well-being, where it is 42nd, and on maternal health, ranking 61st.
A woman in the United States is more than 10 times as likely as a woman in Austria, Belarus or Poland to die from a pregnancy-related cause, according to a comprehensive report, State of the World's Mothers 2015, published by Save the Children. Women in the US face a 1 in 1,800 risk of childbirth-related death. It's the worst performance of any developed country in the world, the report, released ahead of Mother's Day, celebrated on the second Sunday in May, has warned.
“Other countries are passing us by,” CEO of Save the Children, Carolyn Miles, told reporters at the United Nations. Save the Children also scrutinized infant mortality rates in 25 capital cities of wealthy countries and found that Washington DC had the highest, at 6.6 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013. This rate is a historic low for the District of Columbia, but is still three times the rates in Tokyo and Stockholm. In 2012, the district had an infant mortality rate of 7.9 deaths per 1,000 live births (while Stockholm or Oslo had infant mortality rates at or below 2.0, according to the report.)
Many major American cities, meanwhile, have even higher infant mortality rates. In 2011, Cleveland and Detroit reported infant mortality rates of 14.1 and 12.4 per 1,000 live births, respectively. A Detroit News investigation last year found that infant deaths accounted for 130 of the 208 Detroit children who died before the age of five in 2011. Prematurity was cited as the leading killer of Detroit babies, according to the report. Other factors which served as a catalyst for infant deaths also included "pervasive poverty, young and uninformed mothers and poor prenatal care." Poverty among disadvantaged minorities could also be a factor. In many American cities, poor, unmarried and young African American mothers are losing their babies at much higher rates than the national average of 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, Save the Children stated. In San Francisco, for example, an African-American mother is six times as likely as a white mother to lose her baby before her child’s first birthday. The under-fives mortality rate is 6.9 per 1,000 live births in the US, roughly on a par with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovakia. "At this rate, children in the US are three times as likely as children in Iceland to die before their fifth birthday," the report said.
There are also alarming gaps between rich and poor in Washington, according to the report. "Babies in Ward 8, where over half of all children live in poverty, are about 10 times as likely as babies in Ward 3, the richest part of the city, to die before their first birthday," the report said. In some US cities, urban child survival gaps between rich and poor are even greater than those in developing countries. Urban mothers in the US also have different life expectancies, with ethnicity being a factor. In most US cities, the largest gap in female life expectancy is between Asian American and African American women, the report stated. The gaps are greatest in Chicago, where Asian American women outlive African American women by more than 14 years.
Save the Children’s 16th annual Mothers’ Index assesses the well-being of mothers and children in 179 countries – 46 developed nations and 133 in the developing world. Nordic countries dominate the top positions on the 2015 Mothers’ Index, while countries in sub-Saharan Africa fill the lowest ranks once again. The contrast between the top-ranked country, Norway, and the lowest-ranked country, Somalia, speaks for itself. While maternal death is a rare event in Norway (the lifetime chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth is 1 in 15,000), one Somali woman in 18 is likely to die of a maternal cause. While nearly every Norwegian child has a chance for good health and education, almost 15 percent of Somali children don't even live to see their fifth birthday (in Norway, it’s only 0.3 percent, according to the report). Children in Somalia can expect to receive less than 2.5 years of formal education, while an average Norwegian child stays in education for over 17 years.
http://rt.com/usa/255617-america-worst-mother-report/
America is the worst developed country in the world to be a mother, ranking 61st globally in maternal health, a groundbreaking analysis of global health inequalities has found. The US performed worse than last year, when it was in 31st place overall. This year it is 33rd. Although it did well on economic and educational status, according to this year's Mother's Index the country lags behind on children's well-being, where it is 42nd, and on maternal health, ranking 61st.
A woman in the United States is more than 10 times as likely as a woman in Austria, Belarus or Poland to die from a pregnancy-related cause, according to a comprehensive report, State of the World's Mothers 2015, published by Save the Children. Women in the US face a 1 in 1,800 risk of childbirth-related death. It's the worst performance of any developed country in the world, the report, released ahead of Mother's Day, celebrated on the second Sunday in May, has warned.
“Other countries are passing us by,” CEO of Save the Children, Carolyn Miles, told reporters at the United Nations. Save the Children also scrutinized infant mortality rates in 25 capital cities of wealthy countries and found that Washington DC had the highest, at 6.6 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2013. This rate is a historic low for the District of Columbia, but is still three times the rates in Tokyo and Stockholm. In 2012, the district had an infant mortality rate of 7.9 deaths per 1,000 live births (while Stockholm or Oslo had infant mortality rates at or below 2.0, according to the report.)
Many major American cities, meanwhile, have even higher infant mortality rates. In 2011, Cleveland and Detroit reported infant mortality rates of 14.1 and 12.4 per 1,000 live births, respectively. A Detroit News investigation last year found that infant deaths accounted for 130 of the 208 Detroit children who died before the age of five in 2011. Prematurity was cited as the leading killer of Detroit babies, according to the report. Other factors which served as a catalyst for infant deaths also included "pervasive poverty, young and uninformed mothers and poor prenatal care." Poverty among disadvantaged minorities could also be a factor. In many American cities, poor, unmarried and young African American mothers are losing their babies at much higher rates than the national average of 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births, Save the Children stated. In San Francisco, for example, an African-American mother is six times as likely as a white mother to lose her baby before her child’s first birthday. The under-fives mortality rate is 6.9 per 1,000 live births in the US, roughly on a par with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Serbia and Slovakia. "At this rate, children in the US are three times as likely as children in Iceland to die before their fifth birthday," the report said.
There are also alarming gaps between rich and poor in Washington, according to the report. "Babies in Ward 8, where over half of all children live in poverty, are about 10 times as likely as babies in Ward 3, the richest part of the city, to die before their first birthday," the report said. In some US cities, urban child survival gaps between rich and poor are even greater than those in developing countries. Urban mothers in the US also have different life expectancies, with ethnicity being a factor. In most US cities, the largest gap in female life expectancy is between Asian American and African American women, the report stated. The gaps are greatest in Chicago, where Asian American women outlive African American women by more than 14 years.
Save the Children’s 16th annual Mothers’ Index assesses the well-being of mothers and children in 179 countries – 46 developed nations and 133 in the developing world. Nordic countries dominate the top positions on the 2015 Mothers’ Index, while countries in sub-Saharan Africa fill the lowest ranks once again. The contrast between the top-ranked country, Norway, and the lowest-ranked country, Somalia, speaks for itself. While maternal death is a rare event in Norway (the lifetime chance of dying in pregnancy or childbirth is 1 in 15,000), one Somali woman in 18 is likely to die of a maternal cause. While nearly every Norwegian child has a chance for good health and education, almost 15 percent of Somali children don't even live to see their fifth birthday (in Norway, it’s only 0.3 percent, according to the report). Children in Somalia can expect to receive less than 2.5 years of formal education, while an average Norwegian child stays in education for over 17 years.
It's a shocking, illuminating glimpse into these United States. Too bad it comes from Russia...the bigots will ignore it.
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-07/buffett-climbs-from-derivative-hole-that-swallowed-berkshire-aaa
Warren Buffett’s derivatives wagers sapped earnings during the financial crisis at his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and were part of the reason the company lost its triple-A credit rating. Things are looking rosier now. Liabilities on the contracts shrunk to $3.5 billion on March 31 from about $15 billion six years earlier. Some of the derivatives are long-term bets that equities will rise, while others protect bondholders against losses if borrowers fail to meet their obligations.
Surging stock indexes in the U.S., U.K., Europe and Japan and a stronger dollar have helped reduce the liabilities on the equity-linked derivatives for years. The improvement accelerated in the first quarter, helping profit climb 9.8 percent to $5.16 billion, according to a company report Friday.
It didn’t always look that way. Liabilities on the derivatives ballooned during the financial crisis and contributed to a first-quarter loss in 2009. Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings cited the contracts when they stripped Berkshire of its top credit grade that year.
The large derivatives book seemed at odds with Buffett’s earlier statements. In 2003, he called them “financial weapons of mass destruction,” a phrase that would later be cited during the credit crisis that forced some of the nation’s largest banks and American International Group Inc. to take government bailouts...
A CASE OF "IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM, JOIN THEM?"
Warren Buffett’s derivatives wagers sapped earnings during the financial crisis at his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and were part of the reason the company lost its triple-A credit rating. Things are looking rosier now. Liabilities on the contracts shrunk to $3.5 billion on March 31 from about $15 billion six years earlier. Some of the derivatives are long-term bets that equities will rise, while others protect bondholders against losses if borrowers fail to meet their obligations.
Surging stock indexes in the U.S., U.K., Europe and Japan and a stronger dollar have helped reduce the liabilities on the equity-linked derivatives for years. The improvement accelerated in the first quarter, helping profit climb 9.8 percent to $5.16 billion, according to a company report Friday.
“Unless the world falls apart over the next couple of years, it’ll be another bet that he’s won,” said Meyer Shields, an analyst at Keefe Bruyette & Woods.
It didn’t always look that way. Liabilities on the derivatives ballooned during the financial crisis and contributed to a first-quarter loss in 2009. Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings cited the contracts when they stripped Berkshire of its top credit grade that year.
The large derivatives book seemed at odds with Buffett’s earlier statements. In 2003, he called them “financial weapons of mass destruction,” a phrase that would later be cited during the credit crisis that forced some of the nation’s largest banks and American International Group Inc. to take government bailouts...
A CASE OF "IF YOU CAN'T BEAT THEM, JOIN THEM?"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/06/the-rich-get-richer/
- Why are stocks still flying-high when the smart money has fled overseas and the US economy has ground to a halt?
According to Marketwatch:
So if retail investors are moving their cash to Europe and Japan (to take advantage of QE), and the US economy is dead-in-the-water, (First Quarter GDP checked in at an abysmal 0.1 percent) then why are stocks still just two percent off their peak?
Answer: Stock buybacks.
The Fed’s uber-accommodative monetary policy has created an environment in which corporate bosses can borrow boatloads of money at historic low rates in the bond market which they then use to purchase their own company’s shares. When a company reduces the number of outstanding shares on the market, stock prices move higher which provides lavish rewards for both management and shareholders. Of course, goosing prices adds nothing to the company’s overall productivity or growth prospects, in fact, it undermines future earnings by adding more red ink to the balance sheet. But these “negatives” are never factored into the decision-making which focuses exclusively on short-term profits. Now get a load of this from Morgan Stanley via Zero Hedge:
So corporations are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from investors through the bond market. They’re using this cheap capital to repurchase shares in order to boost skyrocketing executive compensation and to line the pockets of their shareholders. At the same time, they are weakening the capital structure of the company by loading on more debt. (It’s worth noting that “highly rated U.S. nonfinancial companies” are now more leveraged than they were in 2007 just before the crash.) This madcap buyback binge has gotten so crazy, that buybacks actually exceeded profits in two quarters in 2014. Here’s the story from Bloomberg:
But maybe we’re being too pessimistic here. Maybe stocks would have risen anyway due to record high earnings and improvements in the economy. That’s possible, isn’t it?
Nope. Not according to Morgan Stanley at least. Check it out:
“More than 50% “! There’s your market summary in one damning sentence. No buybacks means no 5-year stock market rally. Period. If it wasn’t for financial engineering and the Fed’s easy money, stocks would be in the same general location as the real economy, circling the plughole, that is. What’s so frustrating about the present phenom is that the Fed knows exactly what’s going on, but just looks the other way. So while the stock bubble gets bigger and bigger, CAPEX –which is investment in future productivity and growth– continues to deteriorate, GDP drops to zero, and demand gets progressively weaker. Shouldn’t that warrant a rethinking of the policy? Heck, no. The Fed is determined to stick with the same lame policy until hell freezes over. Whether it works or not is entirely irrelevant.
Now take a look at this eye-popper from Wolf Street:
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read similar stories in the last couple years. The company’s revenues are shrinking, they’re losing money hand over fist, and what do they do? They announce they’re going to buy back $50 billion of their own shares. What a joke. And it doesn’t stop there. The Fed’s policies have also ignited a flurry of activity in margin borrowing. This is from CNBC:
Margin debt is created when investors borrow money in order to buy stocks. If an investor buys $100 worth of stocks with $50 in capital, that individual has $50 of margin debt outstanding. Since margin debt provides leverage, it amplifies gains, but also increases the risk to an investor.” (“What record-high margin debt means for stocks”, CNBC)
More borrowing, more risk taking, more financial instability. And it’s all the Fed’s doing. If rates were neutral, then prices would normalize and CEOs would not be engaged in this reckless game of Russian roulette. Instead, it’s caution to the wind; just keep piling on the debt until the whole market comes crashing down in a heap like it did six years ago. And that’s the trajectory we’re on today, in fact, according to TrimTabs Investment Research, February saw buybacks in the amount of $104 billion, ” the largest monthly figure since these flows were first tracked 20 years ago. ” So things are getting worse not better. Bottom line: The Fed has led the country to the cliff-edge once again where the slightest uptick in interest rates is going to send the economy into freefall. But why? Why does the Fed keep steering the country from one financial catastrophe to the next? That’s a question that economists Atif Mian and Amir Sufi answer persuasively with one small chart. Check it out:
“Here is the distribution of financial asset holdings across the wealth distribution. This is from the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances:
The top 20% of the wealth distribution holds over 85% of the financial assets in the economy. So it is clear that the direct income from capital goes to the wealthiest American households.” (Capital Ownership and Inequality, House of Debt)
Why does the Fed create one bubble after the other? Now you know.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
- Why are stocks still flying-high when the smart money has fled overseas and the US economy has ground to a halt?
According to Marketwatch:
“For the eighth week in a row, long-term mutual funds saw more money flowing out of U.S. stocks and into international stocks, according to the Investment Company Institute……For the week ended April 22, U.S. stocks saw $3.4 billion in net outflows from long-term mutual funds…For the year to date, net outflows for U.S. stocks are $13.79 billion, while inflows for international stocks are $41.12 billion.
Those figures, however, don’t count exchange-traded funds. In April alone, mutual funds and ETFs that focus on international stocks saw $31.8 billion in net inflows, while U.S.-focused funds and ETFs shed $15.4 billion, according to TrimTabs Investment Research.” (“Why U.S. stocks are near highs even as fund investors flee“, Marketwatch)
Those figures, however, don’t count exchange-traded funds. In April alone, mutual funds and ETFs that focus on international stocks saw $31.8 billion in net inflows, while U.S.-focused funds and ETFs shed $15.4 billion, according to TrimTabs Investment Research.” (“Why U.S. stocks are near highs even as fund investors flee“, Marketwatch)
So if retail investors are moving their cash to Europe and Japan (to take advantage of QE), and the US economy is dead-in-the-water, (First Quarter GDP checked in at an abysmal 0.1 percent) then why are stocks still just two percent off their peak?
Answer: Stock buybacks.
The Fed’s uber-accommodative monetary policy has created an environment in which corporate bosses can borrow boatloads of money at historic low rates in the bond market which they then use to purchase their own company’s shares. When a company reduces the number of outstanding shares on the market, stock prices move higher which provides lavish rewards for both management and shareholders. Of course, goosing prices adds nothing to the company’s overall productivity or growth prospects, in fact, it undermines future earnings by adding more red ink to the balance sheet. But these “negatives” are never factored into the decision-making which focuses exclusively on short-term profits. Now get a load of this from Morgan Stanley via Zero Hedge:
“In 2014, the constituents of the S&P 500 on a net basis bought back ~$430Bn worth of common stock and spent a further ~$375Bn on dividend payouts. The total capital returned to shareholders was only slightly less than the annual earnings reported. On the fixed income front, the investment grade corporate bond market saw a record $577Bn of net issuance in 2014. While the equity and bond universes don’t overlap 100%, we think these numbers convey a simple yet important story. US corporations have essentially been issuing record levels of debt and using a significant chunk of their earnings and cash reserves to buy back record levels of common stock.” (“Buyback Bonanza, Margin Madness Behind US Equity Rally”, Zero Hedge)
So corporations are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from investors through the bond market. They’re using this cheap capital to repurchase shares in order to boost skyrocketing executive compensation and to line the pockets of their shareholders. At the same time, they are weakening the capital structure of the company by loading on more debt. (It’s worth noting that “highly rated U.S. nonfinancial companies” are now more leveraged than they were in 2007 just before the crash.) This madcap buyback binge has gotten so crazy, that buybacks actually exceeded profits in two quarters in 2014. Here’s the story from Bloomberg:
“Companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index really love their shareholders….Money returned to stock owners exceeded profits in the first quarter and may again in the third. The proportion of cash flow used for repurchases has almost doubled over the last decade while it’s slipped for capital investments, according to Jonathan Glionna, head of U.S. equity strategy research at Barclays Plc.
Buybacks have helped fuel one of the strongest rallies of the past 50 years as stocks with the most repurchases gained more than 300 percent since March 2009.” (Bloomberg)
Buybacks have helped fuel one of the strongest rallies of the past 50 years as stocks with the most repurchases gained more than 300 percent since March 2009.” (Bloomberg)
But maybe we’re being too pessimistic here. Maybe stocks would have risen anyway due to record high earnings and improvements in the economy. That’s possible, isn’t it?
Nope. Not according to Morgan Stanley at least. Check it out:
“Since 2012, more than 50% of EPS growth in the S&P 500 has been driven by buybacks and growth ex-buybacks has been a mere 3.3% annualized. (EPS: Earnings Per Share)
“More than 50% “! There’s your market summary in one damning sentence. No buybacks means no 5-year stock market rally. Period. If it wasn’t for financial engineering and the Fed’s easy money, stocks would be in the same general location as the real economy, circling the plughole, that is. What’s so frustrating about the present phenom is that the Fed knows exactly what’s going on, but just looks the other way. So while the stock bubble gets bigger and bigger, CAPEX –which is investment in future productivity and growth– continues to deteriorate, GDP drops to zero, and demand gets progressively weaker. Shouldn’t that warrant a rethinking of the policy? Heck, no. The Fed is determined to stick with the same lame policy until hell freezes over. Whether it works or not is entirely irrelevant.
Now take a look at this eye-popper from Wolf Street:
“GE, in order to paper over a net loss of $13.6 billion and declining revenues in the first quarter, said on April 10 that it would buy back $50 billion of its own shares.” (Wolf Street)
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read similar stories in the last couple years. The company’s revenues are shrinking, they’re losing money hand over fist, and what do they do? They announce they’re going to buy back $50 billion of their own shares. What a joke. And it doesn’t stop there. The Fed’s policies have also ignited a flurry of activity in margin borrowing. This is from CNBC:
“NYSE margin debt rose to an all-time high in March, according to recently released data from the stock exchange….NYSE margin debt sat at $476.4 billion, up from $464.9 billion at the end of February..(Note: That’s $95 billion more than 2007 at the peak of the bubble.)
Margin debt is created when investors borrow money in order to buy stocks. If an investor buys $100 worth of stocks with $50 in capital, that individual has $50 of margin debt outstanding. Since margin debt provides leverage, it amplifies gains, but also increases the risk to an investor.” (“What record-high margin debt means for stocks”, CNBC)
More borrowing, more risk taking, more financial instability. And it’s all the Fed’s doing. If rates were neutral, then prices would normalize and CEOs would not be engaged in this reckless game of Russian roulette. Instead, it’s caution to the wind; just keep piling on the debt until the whole market comes crashing down in a heap like it did six years ago. And that’s the trajectory we’re on today, in fact, according to TrimTabs Investment Research, February saw buybacks in the amount of $104 billion, ” the largest monthly figure since these flows were first tracked 20 years ago. ” So things are getting worse not better. Bottom line: The Fed has led the country to the cliff-edge once again where the slightest uptick in interest rates is going to send the economy into freefall. But why? Why does the Fed keep steering the country from one financial catastrophe to the next? That’s a question that economists Atif Mian and Amir Sufi answer persuasively with one small chart. Check it out:
“Here is the distribution of financial asset holdings across the wealth distribution. This is from the 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances:
The top 20% of the wealth distribution holds over 85% of the financial assets in the economy. So it is clear that the direct income from capital goes to the wealthiest American households.” (Capital Ownership and Inequality, House of Debt)
Why does the Fed create one bubble after the other? Now you know.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
Happy Mothers Day. I miss my mom very, very much.