The economy


America’s economy battles uncertainty, both home-made and imported

See article

Readers' comments



I love how the Republicans are always blamed for being the intransigent ones in Congress. Did it occur to anyone at TE that Harry Reid (D-Nev), the leader of the Senate, has not allowed the Senate to produce a budget for over 1100 days? The Democratic Party leader of the US Senate obstinately refuses to allow the lawmakers to do their job... create and pass a budget. The Republican-controlled House has passed several. Reid only allowed a Senate vote on one, and has blocked all the rest from getting a Senate vote.
The budget impasse in Congress lay squarely at the feet of Harry Reid and the Democratic Party. Do your job, Mr. Reid, and get the Senate to produce and pass a budget.

Brian Pelican in reply to DucatiRider


Beyond me, but suppression by the liberal media, which is most of the media, are not helpful in getting the facts out.

DucatiRider in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

Re: 2011 Debt Ceiling Debacle...

President Obama shares the blame for that. He held all of the federal government hostage over funding for Planned Parenthood, a less than honorable organization. Regardless of where you stand on abortion, this group is not worthy of anyone's support.

When Live Action exposed Planned Parenthood for covering up statutory rape in eight separate clinics, liberals said it was an anomaly. When Lila Rose posted videos of three offices accepting racially-motivated donations, it was a "rogue element." Then, there were the seven tapes of Planned Parenthood aiding sex traffickers and enabling pimps. We also have multiple cases of fraudulent billing for government funds, revealed by their own former staff. How much more evidence do we need to prove that this organization should not be receiving federal dollars?

Both parties share the blame for the debt ceiling debacle, but I will maintain that Obama owns more than half of that for his petty holdup of the federal government over funding for a single less-than-honorable organization.

Curate's Egg in reply to DucatiRider

Err, no. I almost called you names, but your manners seem to indicate that you are arguing in good faith, so I will go easy on you.

Let me begin by saying that I oppose late-term abortion. BUT, your arguments are hogwash, because:

1. Planned Parenthood (PP) has been receiving federal funds since 1970. By continuing to fund PP, the federal government was merely staying its course. It was the Republicans who kicked up a fuss over its federally-funded status. So that's one for the GOP, as far as aggressiveness is concerned.

2. All the nasty allegations that you bring against PP are just that; allegations. I am not sure if you have ever been to a liberal democracy before, but in the West, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. If you want to defund PP, you have to prove those allegations at a court.

3. BUT, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you were right. That still goes to show that your precious Republicans were willing to push the United States into a technical default over a goddamn single organization, out of thousands, that enjoy federally-funded status. Was that worth it?

So, please take my response to those who have misinformed you, and tell them that their spin holds no water in the eyes of any reasonable man, even if he be a staunch opponent of abortions for religious/logical reasons.

DucatiRider in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

I appreciate the fact you are willing to debate in good faith, instead of resorting to name calling. Nobody learns anything when the argument devolves to that.

1) The "status quo" is not a valid defense. The Federal government is spending beyond its means, so the status quo needs to change, and the Republicans are trying to find ways to cut spending. I suppose that makes them the "aggressors", but according to a recent poll, they're on the same side as the majority of constituents ( The Republicans were doing the people's bidding. Status quo or not, Obama is now fighting the will of the people.

2) I live in a liberal democracy. "Innocent until proven guilty" has to do with criminal charges and penalties... one does not have to be "proven guilty" for the public to have reason to remove taxpayer funding. We're not talking about closing the doors of PP by court order, we're talking about getting taxpayer dollars out of a business that has demonstrated questionable judgement. Furthermore, some of these "allegations" have been found true by courts of law. For items that have not been before a court, I would argue the video evidence is more than mere "allegation". For racially-motivated donations, those are not illegal, hence PP cannot be taken to court over this. Such donations, I would argue, are socially unacceptable and are legitimate grounds for removing taxpayer funding.

For the record, PP is currently under investigation in the fraud case:

They were found negligent in reporting sexual abuse in Arizona, guilty of Medicaid fraud in Washington State, are under investigation in Indiana for failure to report sexual abuse, and more... (see the "Violations Map"):
Note that some of these are no longer "allegations"... they are court judgements against Planned Parenthood.

3) Yes, in my opinion, it is always worth it to fight for what is right. I was raised that way, and it was reinforced by my engineering college professors... do not compromise on matters of ethics. It does not matter how many thousands of organizations are federally funded... as we find those who are abusing their status, they should be defunded. Change happens one step at a time. If that is not satisfactory to you, I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. You blame the Republicans for bringing illegitimate use of taxpayer dollars to light, I blame Obama for defending an indefensible organization and standing in the way of positive change.

In conclusion, I will not be taking your message to "those who have misinformed [me]"... because I was not misinformed. You and I may have a difference of opinion on points 1 and 3, but on point 2 there are court records that concur with my statements.

DucatiRider in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

Before this devolves further into the minutia of PP funding, I'd like to bring this back to the point of my first post: media coverage of who is intransigent in Congress has been woefully lopsided. Certainly, some Republicans have been and continue to be obstinate progress-blockers... My argument is that there are members of the Democratic Party (including Mr. Obama himself) who are equally guilty.
For the record: I am neither a registered Republican or Democrat. I cannot stand to be a member of either party, because they're both full of hypocrites and selfish, corrupt career politicians. I just want to see balanced coverage when the parties clash. The Economist, in my opinion, is laying all of the blame for the debt ceiling debacle on the Republicans, and hence calling them intransigent. At the same time, TE ignores the fact that the Democratic party leadership in the Senate refuses to work on the budget. A fairer assessment of congressional gridlock would be: both parties have their ideologues who refuse to work together for the common good of their constituents.


Everything hinges on global economic recovery. The system as we know it simply cannot endure economic contraction. If there is no real growth, it simply must be made up with deficit spending supported by money printing.
When the drug of easing wears off, economic growth slows and threatens to contract. Fears of default and deflation arrive quickly and to this point policymakers have responded with remarkable speed. Looking forward, at some point either the powerful and natural force of deflation will cleanse the system, or money printing will become disproportionally large enough to debase the debts.


I don't believe we will start to get real growth till we fix our structural problems.

Let's reform regulations, the tax code, and get our fiscal house in order. We waste billions of dollars and millions of man hours doing pointless busy work due to the complexity of regulations and the tax code. This time and money could all be spent doing something productive instead.


Is there any factual basis for the implied quantification of uncertainty? Certainty and uncertainty are opinions about the future and should be expressed as probabilities, not as substantive phenomena.

Alan MacDonald



For all the uncritical media shills (and/or rubes) starting to toss this term around, they should step-back, think a bit, and then understand that this phrase “Fiscal Cliff” is really the Luntz trigger word to soften the reality of the term “Kill Social Security and Medicare” --- which is what this dual-party “Vichy” facade of faux-democratic Republican and Democratic deceitful LIARS are planning to use this next “Useful Crisis” to accomplish, just as the phony 9/11 “Useful Crisis” was used to institutionalize secrecy, illegality, un-Constitutional powers, and militarism “abroad” and “at home” (as Hannah Arendt warned all Empires do).



Liberty, democracy, equality, and justice

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine


the kenyesian voodoo won't do the trick this time. the system is at it's end not even able to reinflate the bubble any longer.

Professor J. Refalo

When are people going to figure out (what the German's figured out long ago), that it is fundamentals: actually producing something, and producing more than you are consuming, that causes an economy to grow. This idea of simply printing our way out of an economic crisis by stimulating consumption is insane. It will ultimately devalue the dollar, and lead to magnitude greater levels of unemployment that we often see in a currency crisis.

Excess consumption is what caused this crisis. Excess consumption of housing creating a bubble, excess government spending, excess consumerism, none of which were sustainable (after all, we were having to borrow trillions abroad to finance it). That consumption combined with speculation is what drove the stock market to unsustainable levels, and it collapsed once investors realized the consumption party was over. Now were told while running enormous deficits financed by our enemies that we need consume beyond our means again--we already are.

Cut the spending, cut the taxes, you wind up with the years that Clinton got credit for--real financial growth from 94-98. Forget the fact that it was because with a Democrat in the White House, and Republicans in charge of the congress, nobody could agree on spending. Nothing got spent. Oh btw, it isn't just in the good old US, take a look at any country that has gone through a currency crisis, and the IMF prescription--fiscal austerity. And the IMF is loaded with socialists, but they know what works. No, the truth is we have to cut the spending and go the pain of recession. There is no pain-free lunch. And we better do it quickly, because it will be much better for the US that we self-impose austerity, then have the markets do it for us, and sell-off the dollar. Want ugly, just take a look at Mexico 95, Brazil 98, Argentina 2001. Greece. And nobody will be there to prop up the US. We're on our own.


What "much vaunted recovery" is TE referring to?? How delusional can one be! The country never came out of the recession, except perhaps in the addled minds of those in total denial.

And of course the GOP will continue mindlessly blaming the Obama Administration for all that ails the nation, even as they insanely & diabolically block or sabotage any efforts made by the Dems to surmount these astronomical fiscal problems. They are their own & the country's worst enemies.

Lord have mercy!


It is highly likely the Fed understands they've already hit the point of diminishing returns for QE. Expecting QE3 to be announced when the Dow is at 12,500 is unrealistic. The best efforts by the Fed (and they have been substantial, and may yet prove to be substantially expensive) are not going to be sufficient to stop the inevitable widespread re-balancing of asset prices. The previous points in time when macroeconomic data, fundamental data, and technical data looked like this were summer 2000, 2007, early 2010, and 2011. Please see for yourself. Adjust the readings of : the VIX, ECRI WLI, S&P500 PE, and the S&P500 Profit Margin -- to see the realtime impact on US stock market risk. Visit: and try the interactive greedometer. And read about this in detail in the new book: Greedometer. Dow 5000. Why nobody sees it coming.


"Employers and investors face increasing uncertainty in every big economy."

If you don't like uncertainty, then why start a business or invest?


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



