Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Readers Chime in on Union Productivity
Disingenuous Bernanke Calls for Bigger State "Rainy Day" Buffers, No Spending Cuts
Blog Wars? No, Hopefully Not - Just Temporary Insanity at Naked Capitalism Regarding Unions

Posted: 02 Aug 2010 02:54 PM PDT

I received several interesting responses to Blog Wars? No, Hopefully Not - Just Temporary Insanity at Naked Capitalism Regarding Unions.

Laurent who is from Europe writes:

Hello Mish,

I happen to read your blog very regularly from Europe, and I am obviously shocked by the graph from Strong unions, strong productivity by the Economic Policy Institute, that shows over 90% of union-covered people in France.

Although what is called "branch agreement" cover everybody working with an employer, it is very far from outright "unionisation" of workers. Typically 15% of private company workers and 35-60% of public worker are unionised in France. Thus the implied strong "unionisation" in the graph is a complete and dishonest fallacy.

Although neither workers nor employer can opt out of collective bargaining agreements, those agreements are in general, not very significant with only modest impacts on work organisation and rules. Moreover, collective bargaining has little reach because the law is already so rigid in directing work contracts that there was moderate motivation for unions to add further insanity in the collective bargaining.

Best regards.

Laurent.

Strong Unions, Strong Productivity or Strong Nonsense?

The graph Laurent refers to is from Strong unions, strong productivity. Yves posted it, but I didn't. Here it is with some paragraphs from the article.

Unionization in the United States has declined since the late 1970s, when 27% of U.S. workers were covered by union contracts, to today, when only about 12% are covered. This has had substantial adverse effects on inequality, the wages of typical workers, and pension and health benefit coverage.

By contrast, most of the major continental European countries have maintained strong unions, and most of their employees are covered by collectively bargained contracts, ranging from 68% in Germany to over 90% in Belgium, France, and Sweden (see the first chart below).

click on chart for sharper image

The Underground Economy

In my article, I made a reference as to the increasing slope of the underground economy. Here is the chart once again for convenience.

click on chart for sharper image

Reader "Josh" correctly pointed out that county by-country comparisons are difficult because of the stacked nature of the chart. I removed one line in my article referencing "slope" because it is a cumulative effect.

Nonetheless, a second chart (repeated below for convenience) does show the shadow economy as a percentage of GDP is far bigger in Europe than the United States.

Worldwide Shadow Economies

click on chart for sharper image

With hedonics in the US, and huge underground economies in Europe, and the fact that union work rules increase costs thus overstating GDP everywhere - (government spending no matter how useless is reflected in GDP), attempts to purport productivity in Europe is higher because of unions is simply absurd.

There are simply too many factors at play, and as I have pointed out "correlation is not causation", even if the conclusion that productivity in general is higher in Europe, something I highly doubt.

As Laurent pointed out, the collective bargaining graph sited by the Economic Policy Institute is grossly misleading in the first place.

Italian Cash Economy

JP writes ...

Hello Mish

Unless you live in Italy, it's really difficult to grasp how big the "underground" economy is. Other than at large supermarkets, every shopkeeper and service provider always asks "Got cash?" Paperwork is called "facture". My dentist just asked me "You don't need a facture do you, do you have any cash on hand?"

Even my car insurance company asks for cash. You can live your whole life in Italy with no connection to anything other than the cash economy. Italians who visit the States find it bizarre that almost everything is on the books, it is incomprehensible to them.

JP

Union Bus Drivers in Italy

Kenneth writes ...

My aunt is married to a man from Sicily, to where they go on vacation each year. They can confirm Mr. Giavazzis view about the Italian labor market.

For example, if you want to take the bus on a Sunday, you cannot trust the time table. The bus driver might simply stay home because he doesn't like to work on a Sunday. Timetable be damned, you'll be standing on the bus stop til the next day

Kenneth
Stockholm, Sweden

That is one of the big problems with unions that I forgot to mention. Union work rues are such that it is impossible to fire incompetent teachers, bus drivers who get the "blue flue", corrupt policeman, police who use excessive force, etc.

Impossible to Get Rid of Incompetent Union Workers

In the private sector if you fail to show up for work you get fired. In the public sector nothing happens. If a teacher is incompetent the teacher gets "more training", decades of it if necessary.

Even predatory teachers are impossible to dismiss as are police officers who use excessive force.

Union "Productivity" in Greece

Here is an article from last Thursday regarding union strife in Greece. The Guardian reports Greek police fire tear gas at striking truckers

The stand-off between striking truck drivers and authorities in Greece intensified today hours after the government issued an emergency order to force protesters back to work.

With fuel shortages stranding thousands of tourists and disrupting supplies of food and medicines nationwide, prime minister George Papandreou resorted to emergency legislation, more usually used at times of war or great natural disaster, to end the walk-out.

But hopes of a return to normal were quickly dashed when riot police fired tear gas at thousands of truckers gathered outside the transport ministry this morning.

"The order is coming through to [drivers] but I have no idea how they are going to react to it," said Giorgos Stamos, a member of the truck drivers' union. "It is highly unusual that after just three days of going on strike we should be mobilised in this way."

The ruling socialists called for the mobilisation – the fourth time since the collapse of military rule in 1974 that such an order has been issued – as it became clear that Greece was facing a public health crisis because of the strike.

The mayhem began on Monday when some 33,000 licensed truck drivers walked off the job in protest at government plans to open up the freight industry, one of many 'closed–shop' professions blamed for keeping the Greek economy isolated and uncompetitive.

The strike has further dented tourism – widely seen as the linchpin of the country's economic recovery this summer. With one in five Greeks working in the sector, tourism accounts for almost 20% of GDP.

Union "Productivity" in the US

In response to How public-sector union greed, arrogance, and influence peddling broke California "Bryan" sent in this video referred to in the post.

Thanks Bryan

I can post hundreds of examples like that. One literally has to have holes in their head to think unions increase productivity.

Public-sector union greed, arrogance, and influence peddling broke California, and it will break every state in the nation unless you vote union supporters out of office.

For example, please consider Inspired Reader Stands Up To Union Mobs

Public union wages and benefits (especially defined benefit pension plans) are the biggest problems states face. Any candidate winning endorsement of public unions is a candidate deserving to be thrown out on their ass in the upcoming election.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Disingenuous Bernanke Calls for Bigger State "Rainy Day" Buffers, No Spending Cuts

Posted: 02 Aug 2010 11:54 AM PDT

While essentially ignoring the ballooning federal deficit and the ballooning Fed balance sheet, Bernanke says states should build bigger buffers.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday called for states to build up larger rainy-day funds as he said consumer spending is set to sustain the economic recovery.

Bernanke said states should have taken more steps -- and should do so in the future -- to prepare for economic downturns. At the end of 2006, he noted, state governments had set aside 12% of their general expenditures in reserve funds.

"Given the depth of the recent recession, even these historically high reserve-fund balances proved insufficient to buffer fully the budgets of most states. Thus, state governments may wish to revisit their criteria for accumulating fiscal reserves. Building a rainy-day fund during good times may not be politically popular, but it can pay off during the bad times," the Fed chief and South Carolina native said.

He also said states may want to "consider revenue stability along with other critical features of the tax code such as fairness, support for economic growth, and administrative costs" in what seems like coded language for broadening and deepening state food and spending taxes.

He also asked states to refrain from across-the-board spending cuts and instead look to deliver necessary services -- particularly health care -- at lower costs.

Text of Bernanke's Speech

Inquiring minds are reading Challenges for the Economy and State Governments, Bernanke's Address at the Annual Meeting of the Southern Legislative Conference of the Council of State Governments, Charleston, South Carolina. Here are a few key snips:

The Economic Outlook

After a precipitous decline in late 2008 and early 2009, the U.S. economy stabilized in the middle of last year and is now expanding at a moderate pace. While the support to economic activity from stimulative fiscal policies and firms' restocking of their inventories will diminish over time, rising demand from households and businesses should help sustain growth. In particular, in the household sector, growth in real consumer spending seems likely to pick up in coming quarters from its recent modest pace, supported by gains in income and improving credit conditions. In the business sector, investment in equipment and software has been increasing rapidly, in part as a result of the deferral of capital outlays during the downturn and the need of many businesses to replace aging equipment. At the same time, rising U.S. exports, reflecting the expansion of the global economy and the recovery of world trade, have helped foster growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector.

To be sure, notable restraints on the recovery persist. The housing market has remained weak, with the overhang of vacant or foreclosed houses weighing on home prices and new construction. Similarly, poor economic fundamentals and tight credit are holding back investment in nonresidential structures, such as office buildings, hotels, and shopping malls.

Importantly, the slow recovery in the labor market and the attendant uncertainty about job prospects are weighing on household confidence and spending. After two years of job losses, private payrolls expanded at an average of about 100,000 per month during the first half of this year, an improvement but still a pace insufficient to reduce the unemployment rate materially. In all likelihood, significant time will be required to restore the nearly 8-1/2 million jobs that were lost over 2008 and 2009. Moreover, nearly half of the unemployed have been out of work for longer than six months. Long-term unemployment not only imposes exceptional near-term hardships on workers and their families, it also erodes skills and may have long-lasting effects on workers' employment and earnings prospects.

Fiscal Challenges for State Governments

Cuts in state and local programs and employment are also weighing on economic activity. These cuts principally reflect the historically large decreases in state tax revenues during the recession. Sales tax revenues have declined with household and business spending, and income tax revenues have been hit by drops in wages and salaries, capital gains, and corporate profits. In contrast, property tax revenues collected by local governments generally held up well through the beginning of this year, although reappraisals of the values of homes and commercial properties may affect those collections in the future.

Medicaid spending is another source of pressure on state budgets. The recession and the weak job market have swelled the rolls of Medicaid participants. In 2009, caseloads were 11 percent above their 2007 level in the region represented by the SLC, again similar to the average in all states.

A question for the longer run is whether the vulnerability of state budgets to business-cycle downturns can be ameliorated. The pressures that states face during and after a recession are the result, in part, of balanced-budget rules in state constitutions that prohibit the use of long-term borrowing to cover operating budget shortfalls, a constraint not faced by the federal government, as you know. I do not advocate changing the balanced-budget rules followed by 49 of the 50 states; they provide important discipline and are a key reason that states have not built up long-term debt burdens comparable to those of many national governments. However, as is the case today, these rules may force significant state cutbacks in bad economic times when services are most needed. Moreover, many government programs--in areas such as education or health care, for example--are likely to be most effective when funding sources are stable and predictable, allowing for longer-term planning.

Tools exist to help mitigate the effects of the business cycle on state budgets. Many states deal with revenue fluctuations by building up reserve--or "rainy day"--funds during good economic times. Measured as a percent of general fund expenditures, the aggregate reserve fund balances for all state governments stood at a record of about 12 percent at the end of 2006; the states represented by the SLC had accumulated above-average reserves of around 16 percent. These high reserve-fund balances were helpful in lessening the severity of spending cuts or tax increases in many states. Nevertheless, given the depth of the recent recession, even these historically high reserve-fund balances proved insufficient to buffer fully the budgets of most states. Thus, state governments may wish to revisit their criteria for accumulating fiscal reserves. Building a rainy-day fund during good times may not be politically popular, but it can pay off during the bad times.

As state legislatures review their tax systems, they may wish to consider revenue stability along with other critical features of the tax code such as fairness, support for economic growth, and administrative costs.

As you know, with the retirement of state employees that are part of the baby-boom generation and the continued rise in health-care costs, states' retiree pension and health-care obligations will become even more difficult to meet in coming years. Estimates of states' unfunded pension liabilities span a wide range, but some researchers put the figure as high as $2 trillion at the end of last year. States' unfunded liabilities are significantly higher than before the recession and financial crisis because many pension fund investments have declined in value, and because many states have found it difficult to maintain pension contributions while their budgets are under stress. Indeed, some estimates suggest that, on average, states would need to more than double their typical annual pension contributions over the next decade to avoid collectively exhausting their pension funds during the next couple of decades. This daunting problem has no easy solution; in particular, proposals that include modifications of benefits schedules must take into account that accrued pension benefits of state and local workers in many jurisdictions are accorded strong legal protection, including, in some states, constitutional protection.

In addition to pensions, states will have to address the burgeoning cost of retiree health benefits. Estimates of these liabilities are subject to significant uncertainty, largely because we have little basis on which to project health-care costs decades into the future. However, one recent estimate suggests that state governments have a collective liability of almost $600 billion for retiree health benefits. These benefits have traditionally been funded on a pay-as-you-go basis and therefore could entail a substantial fiscal burden in coming years as large numbers of state workers retire.

Of course, the demographic and health-care trends faced by state governments present severe challenges for federal fiscal policymakers as well. Long-term projections of the federal government's budget under current policies and plausible economic assumptions show a structural budget gap that is both large relative to the size of the economy and increasing over time. To steer clear of sudden, sharp, and disruptive shifts in spending programs and tax policies, and to retain the confidence of the public and financial markets, federal policymakers need to develop a credible plan to restore fiscal sustainability.

The states have the opportunity to serve as role models for effective long-term fiscal planning. Given the size of long-term obligations and the importance of meeting commitments to employees and the public, I don't think these problems can be solved simply through across-the-board cuts in existing state programs. Instead, states should intensively review the effectiveness of all of their programs and be willing to make significant changes to deliver necessary services at lower cost. This willingness to look for new solutions seems especially important in the case of health programs, where costs are growing the most quickly.

Bernanke's "Timely" Warning

Bernanke's warning regarding what states should have done a decade ago sure is "timely". It is also disingenuous. He now wants states to save more, but not make spending cuts. When does this start? Now? Of course not. It might wreck the nascent recovery, always a Keynesian concern.

If balanced budgets are good for states, why aren't they equally good for the federal government, now running a deficit of $1.4 trillion? Where is the federal "rainy day" fund proposal?

Somehow Bernanke thinks that states can magically reduce medical expenses without cutting services. Is he hinting that unions should pick up more of their costs?

Ironically, Greenspan is starting to speak sentences that are understandable, while Bernanke is now speaking in riddles. MarketWatch decoded Bernanke-Speak that states should "consider revenue stability along with other critical features of the tax code such as fairness, support for economic growth, and administrative costs" as a call for broadening food stamp programs and raising taxes.

Is that what he is saying? Who knows?

Finally, in spite of souring consumer spending plans, housing headed back in the gutter, high unemployment rates, and consumer balance sheets in disarray, somehow Bernanke thinks consumer spending is "set to sustain the economic recovery".

I don't and neither does the treasury market. 10-year treasuries are sitting at 2.95 percent in spite of today's better than expected manufacturing ISM numbers.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Blog Wars? No, Hopefully Not - Just Temporary Insanity at Naked Capitalism Regarding Unions

Posted: 02 Aug 2010 02:58 AM PDT

I remain in awe of how people who can think clearly most of the time, occasionally stray off the deep end defending socialist idiocy. This is one of those times.

For some inexplicable reason Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has chosen to re-post Summer Rerun: Debunking the Notion that Unions Hurt Productivity

The post first appeared on June 23, 2007. The article was ludicrous then. It is far more ludicrous now.

The essence of the article, is "A neat little analysis by Ross Eisenbrey at the Economic Policy Institute may be difficult for union foes to explain away."

Here is a chart that supposedly proves unions do not decrease productivity.

Labor Productivity

There is a common myth that unions hurt productivity, supposedly because they impose work rules that make their employers less efficient. The evidence from industrial relations studies does not support this myth. A broad study of the economics literature found "a positive association [of unions on productivity] is established for the United States in general and for U.S. manufacturing" in particular (Doucouliagos and Laroche 2003, 1).1 And as the second chart below reveals, international comparisons suggest that high productivity and very high union density are entirely compatible.

The above chart, cited by Naked Capitalism, is courtesy of Strong unions, strong productivity by the Economic Policy Institute.

Four Problems

1. There is no starting point.

2. Correlation is not the same as causation.

3. Common sense

4. The analysis ignores the unseen costs of unions

No Starting Point

Assuming one believes the above chart (I don't) I would like to point out that the variances do not seem that significant. More importantly, they do not reflect changes over time.

For example: Public union excesses in the US have gone rampant. We keep getting less and less services for taxpayer dollars in the US. Public union salaries and benefits are clearly at the heart of it.

Correlation is Not Causation

The rooster crows at dawn and the sun comes up. It is of course preposterous to assume the sun comes up because the rooster crows. One might as well say that because newspaper circulation went down and productivity up, that newspaper circulation inversely affects productivity. Clearly that is preposterous.

Let's assume one believes in the productivity of German workers. I do. Why not? Is that because of unions or in spite of unions?

Here is an indisputable point of fact: Unions have wrecked Greece, Spain, and the UK. Greece is a certifiable basket case because of public unions.

Thus, the idea that presumed productivity increases relative to the US are preposterous.

Common Sense

I am a proud supporter of common sense. I believe you can lead a horse to water but not make him drink.

With that in mind, I suggest it is preposterous to think that union rules do not affect productivity. For a case in point: Conventions Say Good Riddance to Chicago Over Costs and Union Work Rules.

The work rules in question mean that exhibitors need an "electrician" to plug in their computer. They need union workers to setup their exhibit. The list goes on and on.

In response to union work rules and their costs, conventions left Chicago in droves for Las Vegas, Miami, and other places. Recently, Chicago has changed its union work rules in an attempt to lure back customers with some success and ironically with idiotic unions kicking and screaming every step of the way.

Even if you are foolish enough to think such insanity is not a detriment to productivity, it does increase costs. Given that increased prices of goods and services are reflected in GDP, and given that unions increase prices of goods and services, it is ludicrous to state that relative country-to-country GDP measurement is proof of the benefits of unions.

Moreover, it is silly to believe any of these GDP measurements (of any country) in the first place. Ironically, Yves Smith used my analysis regarding US hedonic adjustments to GDP to support her position.

Yes, US GDP is overstated. Arguably every country's GDP is overstated and/or not reflective of what is happening and why.

Unseen Costs of Unions

Whether or not you are convinced that unions decrease productivity, it is not debatable that unions increase costs. GM went bankrupt over union costs. More importantly, Greece is bankrupt over public unions, California is bankrupt over union salaries and pension benefits, and so is Illinois.

Of course Oakland, East St. Louis, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are technically bankrupt over union salaries and pension promises that cannot be met.

Right to Strike

In a 1964 issue of Christian Economics Ludwig von Mises wrote:

"What is today euphemistically called the right to strike is in fact the right of striking workers, by recourse to violence, to prevent people who want to work from working. This means that the authorities have surrendered to the unions an essential attribute of their governmental functions . . . . If a union succeeds in forcing the employers to pay higher wage rates than those they were prepared to pay under the prevailing state of market conditions, this is not a victory for "labor" . . . . It is a boon only for those workers who will be employed at the new rates. It is a calamity for all those whom it condemns to lasting unemployment."

Gratefully Mises considers the seen and the unseen of public union salaries. The direct result of higher salaries for public unions is taxes go up to support the unions and unemployment rises as well.

Complete fools might argue that wages across the board should go up and that everyone should get the same benefits. However, this would further encourage job flight to Asia on account of global wage arbitrage.

Collapse in Global Trade

Some propose tariffs as the solution to keeping wages up. Those economic illiterates forget what the Smoot Hawley act did to global trade in the Great Depression.

Even ignoring tariffs, the chances of a collapse in global trade are very real. I recently discussed the idea of a collapse in global trade in Should China Dump Dollars for Commodities? What about the "Nuclear Option" of Dumping Treasuries? Can Global Trade Collapse?

If something like Smoot-Hawley is passed again, the odds of a global trade collapse approach 100%.

Off the Books

The key point now is that every conceivable argument supporting unions has been thoroughly trounced.

Yet, I still have not finished with the trouncing.

Please consider Is Italy Too Italian?

Since the economic crisis began, [Italy] has regularly turned up on the informal list of Nations That Worry Europe. While its finances are not as precarious as those of Greece, Portugal or Ireland, because it is far larger — the Italian economy is the seventh largest in the world — its troubles are more frightening. As a recent report by UniCredit, a European banking group, put it, Italy is "the swing factor" in the crisis, "the largest of the vulnerable countries, and most vulnerable of the large."

FIVE years ago, Francesco Giavazzi needed a taxi. Cabs are relatively scarce in Milan, especially at 5 a.m., when he wanted to head to the airport, so he called a company at 4:30 to schedule a pickup. But when he climbed into the cab half an hour later, he discovered that the meter had been running for more than 20 minutes, because the taxi driver had arrived soon after the call and started charging for his time. Allowed by the rules, but to Mr. Giavazzi, utterly unfair.

"So it was 20 euros before we started the trip to the airport," recalls Mr. Giavazzi, who is an economics professor at Bocconi University. "I said, 'This is impossible.' "

Professor Giavazzi later wrote an op-ed article denouncing this episode as another example of the toll exacted by Italy's innumerable guilds, known by several names here, including "associazioni di categoria." (These are different from unions, another force here, in that guilds are made up of independent players in a trade or profession who have joined to keep outsiders out and maintain standards, as opposed to representing employees in negotiations with management, as a union might.) Even baby sitters have associations in Italy.

The op-ed did not endear Professor Giavazzi to the city's cab drivers. They pinned leaflets with his name and address at taxi stands around Milan and for the next five nights, cabs drove around his home, honking their horns.

"This is a country with a lot of rents," says Professor Giavazzi, sitting in his office one recent afternoon, using the economists' term for excess profits that flow to a business because of a lack of competition. "You need a notary public, it's like 1,000 euros before you even open your mouth. If you're a notary public in this country, you live like a king.

THE protectionist impulses of the guilds are mimicked throughout the Italian labor market. The rules are different for small companies, but in effect, people with a full-time job in a company with more than 18 workers have what amounts to tenure, even if they don't belong to a union. This makes managers reluctant to hire, especially in a downturn. You are stuck with new employees in perpetuity, whether they're good or not.

So how does Italy keep going? Given the numbers, you expect it to be flat on its back. But when you visit, there are hardly any signs of despair, even in Biella, where hundreds of factories and warehouses have closed in the last decade. Why?

One answer is the black economy, say economists. Roughly one-quarter of Italy's G.D.P. is off the books.

Underground "Shadow Economy" Accounts for 35% of World GDP

One reason productivity might seem higher in some countries is that in highly unionized and highly regulated economies, many transactions are "off the books". Businesses and consumers are willing to do anything to avoid government regulation, union rules, etc.

Please consider a timely Bloomberg article The Underground Economy.

The global shadow economy—activity that isn't necessarily illegal but goes unreported—amounts to almost 35 percent of the world's official GDP, according to Friedrich Schneider, a professor at the University of Linz in Austria and an authority on the topic. In a June report, Schneider examines informal economies, which range from 9 percent of GDP in the U.S. to more than 70 percent in Bolivia and Georgia. The report takes into account such activities as undocumented immigrant labor, home businesses, and freelancing that escape the attention of tax authorities. It doesn't cover drug trafficking and other criminal enterprises.

Size of Informal Economies

click on chart for sharper image

The interesting thing to me is not the size of the underground economy, but the growth rate of the underground economy.

Worldwide Shadow Economies

click on chart for sharper image

Correlation is not causation, but seriously, does anyone think that avoidance of government regulations and union work rules is not at the heart of those charts?

Protecting Incomes

The Economic Policy Institute concludes...

If Congress is concerned about protecting middle-class incomes, it should pass measures to facilitate union organizing and collective bargaining coverage, including the Employee Free Choice Act. There is no reason to fear that higher rates of unionization will impede efficiency or labor productivity.

The idea that we can protect middle-class incomes by taxing everyone to death to support public union workers is sheer insanity.

Why Yves would bother to post such idiocy in the first place is beyond me. The repost in light of enormous public union problems, clearly bankrupting cities and states is even more puzzling.

Yet Yves wrote "Maybe more unions are just the thing we need……"

No Yves, more unions are 100% without a doubt the last thing we need. Public union pensions are a minimum of $2-3 trillion underfunded and taxpayers are currently liable. Public unions wrecked Greece, California, Illinois, New Jersey, nearly all the states, and countless cities. The damage will take decades to fix. We need to get rid of public unions completely to get this nation back on track.

Blog Wars?

By the way, this is not an attack on Yves or the start of a blog war. I have had disagreements with many people I respect including Calculated Risk, Barry Ritholtz, Michel Pettis, and Nouriel Roubini. More often than not, those disagreements are not on what is happening, but rather the cures for what ails us. In this case, given that unions are without a doubt one of the key problems, it is axiomatic that more unions is not the solution.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com
Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List

Home Refinance Calculator

Monday, August 2, 2010

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

No comments:

Post a Comment