CMP Associates Regulation Blog: Financial Risks, Slow Cyclical United States Growth with GDP Two Trillion Dollars below Trend, United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, United States Housing, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk: Part II

Financial Risks, Slow Cyclical United States Growth with GDP Two Trillion Dollars below Trend, United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, United States Housing, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk

Carlos M. Pelaez

Executive Summary

I Mediocre Cyclical United States Economic Growth with GDP Two Trillion Dollars Below Trend

IA Mediocre Cyclical United States Economic Growth

IA1 Contracting Real Private Fixed Investment

IIA United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities

IIA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy

IIB1 Functions of Banks

IIC United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities

IID Theory and Reality of Economic History, Cyclical Slow Growth Not Secular Stagnation and Monetary Policy Based on Fear of Deflation

IIB United States Housing Collapse

III World Financial Turbulence

IIIA Financial Risks

IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk

IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation

IV Global Inflation

V World Economic Slowdown

VA United States

VB Japan

VC China

VD Euro Area

VE Germany

VF France

VG Italy

VH United Kingdom

VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets

VII Economic Indicators

VIII Interest Rates

IX Conclusion

References

Appendixes

Appendix I The Great Inflation

IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies

IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact

IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort

IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis

IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth

IIIGB Adjustment during the Debt Crisis of the 1980s

IA Mediocre Cyclical United States Economic Growth with GDP Two Trillion Dollars below Trend. The US is experiencing the first expansion from a recession after World War II with stressing socioeconomic conditions:

Mediocre economic growth below potential and long-term trend, resulting in idle productive resources with GDP two trillion dollars below trend (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html)
Private fixed investment declining 2.7 percent in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IVQ2013 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html)
Thirty million or 18.5 percent of the effective labor force unemployed or underemployed in involuntary part-time jobs with stagnating or declining real wages (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/financial-instability-rules.html)
Stagnating real disposable income per person or income per person after inflation and taxes (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html)
Depressed hiring that does not afford an opportunity for reducing unemployment/underemployment and moving to better-paid jobs (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html)
Unsustainable government deficit/debt and balance of payments deficit (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/theory-and-reality-of-cyclical-slow.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/tapering-quantitative-easing-mediocre.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html)
Worldwide waves of inflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/squeeze-of-economic-activity-by-carry.html)
Deteriorating terms of trade and net revenue margins of production across countries in squeeze of economic activity by carry trades induced by zero interest rates (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/squeeze-of-economic-activity-by-carry.html)
Financial repression of interest rates and credit affecting the most people without means and access to sophisticated financial investments with likely adverse effects on income distribution and wealth disparity (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html)
47 million in poverty and 48 million without health insurance with family income adjusted for inflation regressing to 1995 levels (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/duration-dumping-and-peaking-valuations.html
Net worth of households and nonprofits organizations increasing by 1.9 percent after adjusting for inflation in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2013 when it would have been over 14 percent under trend of 3.0 percent per year in real terms from 1945 to 2012 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/12/collapse-of-united-states-dynamism-of.html and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states.html)

Valuations of risk financial assets approach historical highs. Long-term economic performance in the United States consisted of trend growth of GDP at 3 percent per year and of per capita GDP at 2 percent per year as measured for 1870 to 2010 by Robert E Lucas (2011May). The economy returned to trend growth after adverse events such as wars and recessions. The key characteristic of adversities such as recessions was much higher rates of growth in expansion periods that permitted the economy to recover output, income and employment losses that occurred during the contractions. Over the business cycle, the economy compensated the losses of contractions with higher growth in expansions to maintain trend growth of GDP of 3 percent and of GDP per capita of 2 percent. The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 18 quarters from IVQ2009 to IVQ2013. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the second estimate of GDP for IVQ2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/pdf/gdp4q13_2nd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by diving GDP of $14,738.0 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,356.9 billion in IIQ2009 {[$14,738.0/$14,356.9 -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.2 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Growth under trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IV2013 would have accumulated to 20.3 percent. GDP in IVQ2013 would be $18,040.3 billion if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,107.4 billion than actual $15,932.9 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than under trend, explaining the 30.3 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment of 18.5 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/financial-instability-rules.html). US GDP grew from $14,996.1 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $15,932.9 billion in IVQ2013 or 6.2 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.0 percent. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation. The economy of the US can be summarized in growth of economic activity or GDP as decelerating from mediocre growth of 2.5 percent on an annual basis in 2010 to 1.8 percent in 2011 to 2.8 percent in 2012. The following calculations show that actual growth is around 2.2 to 2.5 percent per year. This rate is well below 3 percent per year in trend from 1870 to 2010, which the economy of the US always attained for entire cycles in expansions after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). Revisions and enhancements of United States GDP and personal income accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) provide important information on long-term growth and cyclical behavior. Table Summary provides relevant data.

Long-term. US GDP grew at the average yearly rate of 3.3 percent from 1929 to 2013 and at 3.2 percent from 1947 to 2013. There were periodic contractions or recessions in this period but the economy grew at faster rates in the subsequent expansions, maintaining long-term economic growth at trend.
Cycles. The combined contraction of GDP in the two almost consecutive recessions in the early 1980s is 4.7 percent. The contraction of US GDP from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 during the global recession was 4.3 percent. The critical difference in the expansion is growth at average 7.8 percent in annual equivalent in the first four quarters of recovery from IQ1983 to IVQ1983. The average rate of growth of GDP in four cyclical expansions in the postwar period is 7.7 percent. In contrast, the rate of growth in the first four quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 was only 2.7 percent. Average annual equivalent growth in the expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was 5.9 percent and 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987. In contrast, average annual equivalent growth in the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2013 was only 2.3 percent. The US appears to have lost its dynamism of income growth and employment creation.

Table Summary, Long-term and Cyclical Growth of GDP, Real Disposable Income and Real Disposable Income per Capita

	GDP
Long-Term
1929-2013	3.3
1947-2013	3.2
Cyclical Contractions ∆%
IQ1980 to IIIQ1980, IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982	-4.7
IVQ2007 to IIQ2009	-4.3
Cyclical Expansions Average Annual Equivalent ∆%
IQ1983 to IVQ1985 IQ1983-IQ1986 IQ1983-IIIQ1986 IQ1983-IVQ1986 IQ1983-IQ1987 IQ1983-IIQ1987	5.9 5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.0
First Four Quarters IQ1983 to IVQ1983	7.8
IIIQ2009 to IVQ2013	2.3
First Four Quarters IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010	2.7
	Real Disposable Income	Real Disposable Income per Capita
Long-Term
1929-2013	3.2	2.0
1947-1999	3.7	2.3
Whole Cycles
1980-1989	3.5	2.6
2006-2013	1.3	0.5

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The revisions and enhancements of United States GDP and personal income accounts by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) also provide critical information in assessing the current rhythm of US economic growth. The economy appears to be moving at a pace from 2.2 to 2.5 percent per year. Table Summary GDP provides the data.

1. Average Annual Growth in the Past Eight Quarters. GDP growth in the four quarters of 2012 and the four quarters of 2013 accumulated to 4.5 percent. This growth is equivalent to 2.2 percent per year, obtained by dividing GDP in IVQ2013 of $15,932.9 billion by GDP in IVQ2011 of $15,242.1 billion and compounding by 4/8: {[($15,932.9/$15,242.1)^4/8 -1]100 = 2.2 percent.

2. Average Annual Growth in the Four Quarters of 2013. GDP growth in the four quarters of 2013 accumulated to 2.5 percent that is equivalent to 2.5 percent in a year. This is obtained by dividing GDP in IVQ2013 of $15,932.9 billion by GDP in IVQ2012 of $15,539.6 billion and compounding by 4/4: {[($15,932.9/$15,539.6)^4/4 -1]100 = 2.5%}. The US economy grew 2.5 percent in IVQ2013 relative to the same quarter a year earlier in IVQ2012. Another important revelation of the revisions and enhancements is that GDP was flat in IVQ2012, which is just at the borderline of contraction. The rate of growth of GDP in the third estimate of IIIQ2013 is 4.1 percent in seasonally adjusted annual rate (SAAR). Inventory accumulation contributed 1.67 percentage points to this rate of growth. The actual rate without this impulse of unsold inventories would have been 2.43 percent, or 0.6 percent in IIIQ2013, such that annual equivalent growth in 2013 is closer to 2.1 percent {[(1.003)(1.006)(1.006)(1.006^4/4-1]100 = 2.1%}, compounding the quarterly rates and converting into annual equivalent.

Table Summary GDP, US, Real GDP and Percentage Change Relative to IVQ2007 and Prior Quarter, Billions Chained 2005 Dollars and ∆%

	Real GDP, Billions Chained 2009 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	14,996.1	NA	NA	1.9
IVQ2011	15,242.1	1.6	1.2	2.0
IQ2012	15,381.6	2.6	0.9	3.3
IIQ2012	15,427.7	2.9	0.3	2.8
IIIQ2012	15,534.0	3.6	0.7	3.1
IVQ2012	15,539.6	3.6	0.0	2.0
IQ2013	15,583.9	3.9	0.3	1.3
IIQ2013	15,679.7	4.6	0.6	1.6
IIIQ2013	15,839.3	5.6	1.0	2.0
IVQ2013	15,932.9	6.2	0.6	2.5
Cumulative ∆% IQ2012 to IVQ2013	4.5		4.5
Annual Equivalent ∆%	2.2		2.2

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The objective of this section is analyzing US economic growth in the current cyclical expansion. There is initial discussion of the conventional explanation of the current recovery as being weak because of the depth of the contraction and the financial crisis and brief discussion of the concept of “slow-growth recession.” Analysis that is more complete is in IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation, which is updated with release of more information on the United States economic cycle (IX Conclusion and extended analysis at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/squeeze-of-economic-activity-by-carry.html). The bulk of the section consists of comparison of the current growth experience of the US with earlier expansions after past deep contractions and consideration of recent performance.

This blog has analyzed systematically the weakness of United States recovery in the current business cycle from IIIQ2009 to the present in comparison with the recovery from the two recessions in the 1980s from IQ1983 to IVQ1986. US economic growth has been at only 2.3 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 18 quarters from IVQ2009 to IVQ2013. Boskin (2010Sep) measures that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent in the first four quarters and 4.5 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the second quarter of 1975; and at 7.7 percent in the first four quarters and 5.8 percent in the first 12 quarters after the trough in the first quarter of 1983 (Professor Michael J. Boskin, Summer of Discontent, Wall Street Journal, Sep 2, 2010 http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465462926649950.html). There are new calculations using the revision of US GDP and personal income data since 1929 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and the second estimate of GDP for IVQ2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/pdf/gdp4q13_2nd.pdf). The average of 7.7 percent in the first four quarters of major cyclical expansions is in contrast with the rate of growth in the first four quarters of the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010 of only 2.7 percent obtained by diving GDP of $14,738.0 billion in IIQ2010 by GDP of $14,356.9 billion in IIQ2009 {[$14,738.0/$14,356.9 -1]100 = 2.7%], or accumulating the quarter on quarter growth rates (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 was at the average annual growth rate of 5.9 percent, 5.4 percent from IQ1983 to IIIQ1986, 5.2 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1986, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IQ1987, 5.0 percent from IQ1983 to IIQ1987 and at 7.8 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1983 (Section I and earlier http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/mediocre-cyclical-united-states.html). The US maintained growth at 3.0 percent on average over entire cycles with expansions at higher rates compensating for contractions. Growth under trend in the entire cycle from IVQ2007 to IV2013 would have accumulated to 20.3 percent. GDP in IVQ2013 would be $18,040.3 billion if the US had grown at trend, which is higher by $2,107.4 billion than actual $15,932.9 billion. There are about two trillion dollars of GDP less than under trend, explaining the 30.3 million unemployed or underemployed equivalent to actual unemployment of 18.5 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/financial-instability-rules.html). US GDP grew from $14,996.1 billion in IVQ2007 in constant dollars to $15,932.9 billion in IVQ2013 or 6.2 percent at the average annual equivalent rate of 1.0 percent. The US missed the opportunity to grow at higher rates during the expansion and it is difficult to catch up because rates in the final periods of expansions tend to decline. The US missed the opportunity for recovery of output and employment always afforded in the first four quarters of expansion from recessions. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing were not required or present in successful cyclical expansions and in secular economic growth at 3.0 percent per year and 2.0 percent per capita as measured by Lucas (2011May). There is cyclical uncommonly slow growth in the US instead of allegations of secular stagnation.

The conventional explanation is that the recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) was so profound that it caused subsequent weak recovery and that historically growth after recessions with financial crises has been weaker. Michael D. Bordo (2012Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) provide evidence contradicting the conventional explanation: recovery is much stronger on average after profound contractions and much stronger after recessions with financial crises than after recessions without financial crises. Insistence on the conventional explanation prevents finding policies that can accelerate growth, employment and prosperity.

A monumental effort of data gathering, calculation and analysis by Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff is highly relevant to banking crises, financial crash, debt crises and economic growth (Reinhart 2010CB; Reinhart and Rogoff 2011AF, 2011Jul14, 2011EJ, 2011CEPR, 2010FCDC, 2010GTD, 2009TD, 2009AFC, 2008TDPV; see also Reinhart and Reinhart 2011Feb, 2010AF and Reinhart and Sbrancia 2011). See http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-and-financial-risk-aversion-and.html The dataset of Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 1) is quite unique in breadth of countries and over time periods:

“Our results incorporate data on 44 countries spanning about 200 years. Taken together, the data incorporate over 3,700 annual observations covering a wide range of political systems, institutions, exchange rate and monetary arrangements and historic circumstances. We also employ more recent data on external debt, including debt owed by government and by private entities.”

Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 2011CEPR) classify the dataset of 2317 observations into 20 advanced economies and 24 emerging market economies. In each of the advanced and emerging categories, the data for countries is divided into buckets according to the ratio of gross central government debt to GDP: below 30, 30 to 60, 60 to 90 and higher than 90 (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010GTD, Table 1, 4). Median and average yearly percentage growth rates of GDP are calculated for each of the buckets for advanced economies. There does not appear to be any relation for debt/GDP ratios below 90. The highest growth rates are for debt/GDP ratios below 30: 3.7 percent for the average and 3.9 for the median. Growth is significantly lower for debt/GDP ratios above 90: 1.7 for the average and 1.9 percent for the median. GDP growth rates for the intermediate buckets are in a range around 3 percent: the highest 3.4 percent average is for the bucket 60 to 90 and 3.1 percent median for 30 to 60. There is even sharper contrast for the United States: 4.0 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio below 30; 3.4 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio of 30 to 60; 3.3 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio of 60 to 90; and minus 1.8 percent, contraction, of GDP for debt/GDP ratio above 90.

For the five countries with systemic financial crises—Iceland, Ireland, UK, Spain and the US—real average debt levels have increased by 75 percent between 2007 and 2009 (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010GTD, Figure 1). The cumulative increase in public debt in the three years after systemic banking crisis in a group of episodes after World War II is 86 percent (Reinhart and Rogoff 2011CEPR, Figure 2, 10).

An important concept is “this time is different syndrome,” which “is rooted in the firmly-held belief that financial crises are something that happens to other people in other countries at other times; crises do not happen here and now to us” (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010FCDC, 9). There is both an arrogance and ignorance in “this time is different” syndrome, as explained by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010FCDC, 34):

“The ignorance, of course, stems from the belief that financial crises happen to other people at other time in other places. Outside a small number of experts, few people fully appreciate the universality of financial crises. The arrogance is of those who believe they have figured out how to do things better and smarter so that the boom can long continue without a crisis.”

There is sober warning by Reinhart and Rogoff (2011CEPR, 42) on the basis of the momentous effort of their scholarly data gathering, calculation and analysis:

“Despite considerable deleveraging by the private financial sector, total debt remains near its historic high in 2008. Total public sector debt during the first quarter of 2010 is 117 percent of GDP. It has only been higher during a one-year sting at 119 percent in 1945. Perhaps soaring US debt levels will not prove to be a drag on growth in the decades to come. However, if history is any guide, that is a risky proposition and over-reliance on US exceptionalism may only be one more example of the “This Time is Different” syndrome.”

As both sides of the Atlantic economy maneuver around defaults, the experience on debt and growth deserves significant emphasis in research and policy. The world economy is slowing with high levels of unemployment in advanced economies. Countries do not grow themselves out of unsustainable debts but rather through de facto defaults by means of financial repression and in some cases through inflation. This time is not different.

Professor Michael D. Bordo (2012Sep27), at Rutgers University, is providing clear thought on the correct comparison of the current business cycles in the United States with those in United States history. There are two issues raised by Professor Bordo: (1) incomplete conclusions by lumping together countries with different institutions, economic policies and financial systems; and (2) the erroneous contention that growth is mediocre after financial crises and deep recessions, which is repeated daily in the media, but that Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) persuasively demonstrate to be inconsistent with United States experience.

Depriving economic history of institutions is perilous as is illustrated by the economic history of Brazil. Douglass C. North (1994) emphasized the key role of institutions in explaining economic history. Rondo E. Cameron (1961, 1967, 1972) applied institutional analysis to banking history. Friedman and Schwartz (1963) analyzed the relation of money, income and prices in the business cycle and related the monetary policy of an important institution, the Federal Reserve System, to the Great Depression. Bordo, Choudhri and Schwartz (1995) analyze the counterfactual of what would have been economic performance if the Fed had used during the Great Depression the Friedman (1960) monetary policy rule of constant growth of money (for analysis of the Great Depression see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 198-217). Alan Meltzer (2004, 2010a,b) analyzed the Federal Reserve System over its history. The reader would be intrigued by Figure 5 in Reinhart and Rogoff (2010FCDC, 15) in which Brazil is classified in external default for seven years between 1828 and 1834 but not again until 64 years later in 1989, above the 50 years of incidence for serial default. William R. Summerhill, Jr. (2007SC, 2007IR) has filled this void in scholarly research on nineteenth-century Brazil. There are important conclusions by Summerhill on the exceptional sample of institutional change or actually lack of change, public finance and financial repression in Brazil between 1822 and 1899, combining tools of economics, political science and history. During seven continuous decades, Brazil did not miss a single interest payment with government borrowing without repudiation of debt or default. What is surprising is that Brazil borrowed by means of long-term bonds and, even more surprising, interest rates fell over time. The external debt of Brazil in 1870 was ₤41,275,961 and the domestic debt in the internal market was ₤25,708,711, or 62.3 percent of the total (Summerhill 2007IR, 73).

The experience of Brazil differed from that of Latin America (Summerhill 2007IR). During the six decades when Brazil borrowed without difficulty, Latin American countries becoming independent after 1820 engaged in total defaults, suffering hardship in borrowing abroad. The countries that borrowed again fell again in default during the nineteenth century. Venezuela defaulted in four occasions. Mexico defaulted in 1827, rescheduling its debt eight different times and servicing the debt sporadically. About 44 percent of Latin America’s sovereign debt was in default in 1855 and approximately 86 percent of total government loans defaulted in London originated in Spanish American borrowing countries.

External economies of commitment to secure private rights in sovereign credit would encourage development of private financial institutions, as postulated in classic work by North and Weingast (1989), Summerhill 2007IR, 22). This is how banking institutions critical to the Industrial Revolution were developed in England (Cameron 1967). The obstacle in Brazil found by Summerhill (2007IR) is that sovereign debt credibility combined with financial repression. There was a break in Brazil of the chain of effects from protecting public borrowing, as in North and Weingast (1989), to development of private financial institutions.

Nicia Villela Luz and Carlos Manuel Peláez (1972, 276) find that:

“The lack of interest on historical moments by economists may explain their emphasis on secular trends in their research on the past instead of changes in the historical process. This may be the origin of why they fill gaps in documentation with their extrapolations.”

Vilela Luz (1961) provides classic analysis of industrialization in Brazil. According to Pelaez 1976, 283) following Cameron (1971, 1967):

“The banking law of 1860 placed severe restrictions on two basic modern economic institutions—the corporation and the commercial bank. The growth of the volume of bank credit was one of the most significant factors of financial intermediation and economic growth in the major trading countries of the gold standard group. But Brazil placed strong restrictions on the development of banking and intermediation functions, preventing the channeling of coffee savings into domestic industry at an earlier date.”

Brazil actually abandoned the gold standard during multiple financial crises in the nineteenth century, as it should have to protect domestic economic activity. Pelaez (1975, 447) finds similar experience in the first half of nineteenth-century Brazil:

“Brazil’s experience is particularly interesting in that in the period 1808-1851 there were three types of monetary systems. Between 1808 and 1829, there was only one government-related Bank of Brazil, enjoying a perfect monopoly of banking services. No new banks were established in the 1830s after the liquidation of the Bank of Brazil in 1829. During the coffee boom in the late 1830s and 1840s, a system of banks of issue, patterned after similar institutions in the industrial countries, supplied the financial services required in the first stage of modernization of the export economy.”

Financial crises in the advanced economies transmitted to nineteenth-century Brazil by the arrival of a ship (Pelaez and Suzigan 1981). The explanation of those crises and the economy of Brazil requires knowledge and roles of institutions, economic policies and the financial system chosen by Brazil, in agreement with Bordo (2012Sep27).

The departing theoretical framework of Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) is the plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988). Friedman (1988, 1) recalls, “I was led to the model in the course of investigating the direction of influence between money and income. Did the common cyclical fluctuation in money and income reflect primarily the influence of money on income or of income on money?” Friedman (1964, 1988) finds useful for this purpose to analyze the relation between expansions and contractions. Analyzing the business cycle in the United States between 1870 and 1961, Friedman (1964, 15) found that “a large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion.” The depth of the contraction opens up more room in the movement toward full employment (Friedman 1964, 17):

“Output is viewed as bumping along the ceiling of maximum feasible output except that every now and then it is plucked down by a cyclical contraction. Given institutional rigidities and prices, the contraction takes in considerable measure the form of a decline in output. Since there is no physical limit to the decline short of zero output, the size of the decline in output can vary widely. When subsequent recovery sets in, it tends to return output to the ceiling; it cannot go beyond, so there is an upper limit to output and the amplitude of the expansion tends to be correlated with the amplitude of the contraction.”

Kim and Nelson (1999) test the asymmetric plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988) relative to a symmetric model using reference cycles of the NBER, finding evidence supporting the Friedman model. Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) analyze 27 cycles beginning in 1872, using various measures of financial crises while considering different regulatory and monetary regimes. The revealing conclusion of Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR, 2) is that:

“Our analysis of the data shows that steep expansions tend to follow deep contractions, though this depends heavily on when the recovery is measured. In contrast to much conventional wisdom, the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis. In fact, on average, it is cycles without a financial crisis that show the weakest relation between contraction depth and recovery strength. For many configurations, the evidence for a robust bounce-back is stronger for cycles with financial crises than those without.”

The average rate of growth of real GDP in expansions after recessions with financial crises was 8 percent but only 6.9 percent on average for recessions without financial crises (Bordo 2012Sep27). Real GDP declined 12 percent in the Panic of 1907 and increased 13 percent in the recovery, consistent with the plucking model of Friedman (Bordo 2012Sep27). The comparison of recovery from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 is appropriate even when considering financial crises. There was significant financial turmoil during the 1980s. Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR, 11) identify a financial crisis in the United States starting in 1981. Benston and Kaufman (1997, 139) find that there was failure of 1150 US commercial and savings banks between 1983 and 1990, or about 8 percent of the industry in 1980, which is nearly twice more than between the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1934 through 1983. More than 900 savings and loans associations, representing 25 percent of the industry, were closed, merged or placed in conservatorships (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 74-7). The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) created the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) that received $150 billion of taxpayer funds to resolve insolvent savings and loans. The GDP of the US in 1989 was $5657.7 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the partial cost to taxpayers of that bailout was around 2.65 percent of GDP in a year. The US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates GDP in 2012 at $16,244.6 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the bailout would be equivalent to cost to taxpayers of about $430.5 billion in current GDP terms. A major difference with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for private-sector banks is that most of the costs were recovered with interest gains whereas in the case of savings and loans there was no recovery. Money center banks were under extraordinary pressure from the default of sovereign debt by various emerging nations that represented a large share of their net worth (see Pelaez 1986).

Bordo (2012Sep27) finds two probable explanations for the weak recovery during the current economic cycle: (1) collapse of United States housing; and (2) uncertainty originating in fiscal policy, regulation and structural changes. There are serious doubts if monetary policy is adequate to recover the economy under these conditions.

The concept of growth recession was popular during the stagflation from the late 1960s to the early 1980s. The economy of the US underperformed with several recession episodes in “stop and go” fashion of policy and economic activity while the rate of inflation rose to the highest in a peacetime period (see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/risk-aversion-and-stagflation.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/global-inflation-seigniorage-monetary.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html Appendix I; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1999, 1998LB, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012FP, 2012JMCB). A growth recession could be defined as a period in which economic growth is insufficient to move the economy toward full employment of humans, equipment and other productive resources. The US is experiencing a dramatic slow growth recession with 30.295 million people in job stress, consisting of an effective number of unemployed of 19.932 million, 7.771 million employed part-time because they cannot find full employment and 2.592 million marginally attached to the labor force for 18.5 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/financial-instability-rules.html). The discussion of the growth recession issue in the 1970s by two recognized economists of the twentieth century, James Tobin and Paul A. Samuelson, is worth recalling.

In analysis of the design of monetary policy in 1974, Tobin (1974, 219) finds that the forecast of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) was also the target such that monetary policy would have to be designed and implemented to attain that target. The concern was with maintaining full employment as provided in the Employment Law of 1946 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1021.html http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C21.txt http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED164974.pdf) see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html), which also created the CEA. Tobin (1974, 219) describes the forecast/target of the CEA for 1974:

“The expected and approved path appears to be quarter-to-quarter rates of growth of real gross national product in 1974 of roughly -0.5, 0.1, and 1 percent, with unemployment rising to about 5.6 percent in the second quarter and remaining there the rest of the year. The rate of price inflation would fall shortly in the second quarter, but rise slightly toward the end of the year.”

Referring to monetary policy design, Tobin (1974, 221) states: “if interest rates remain stable or rise during the current (growth) recession and recovery, this will be a unique episode in business cycle annals.” Subpar economic growth is often called a “growth recession.” The critically important concept is that economic growth is not sufficient to move the economy toward full employment, creating the social and economic adverse outcome of idle capacity and unemployed and underemployed workers, much the same as currently.

Samuelson considers the unexpected incidence of inflation surprises during growth recessions (1974, 76):

“Indeed, if there were in Las Vegas or New York a continuous casino on the money GNP of 1974’s fourth quarter, it would be absurd to think that the best economic forecasters could improve upon the guess posted there. Whatever knowledge and analytical skill they possess would already have been fed into the bidding. It is a manifest contradiction to think that most economists can be expected to do better than their own best performance. I am saying that the best forecasters have been poor in predicting the general price level’s movements and level even a year ahead. By Valentine’s Day 1973 the best forecasters were beginning to talk of the growth recession that we now know did set in at the end of the first quarter. Aside from their end-of-1972 forecasts, the fashionable crowd has little to blame itself for when it comes to their 1973 real GNP projections. But, of course, they did not foresee the upward surge of food and decontrolled industrial prices. This has been a recurring pattern: surprise during the event at the virulence of inflation, wisdom after the event in demonstrating that it did, after all, fit with past patterns of experience.”

Economists are known for their forecasts being second only to those of astrologers. Accurate forecasts are typically realized for the wrong reasons. In contrast with meteorologists, economists do not even agree on what happened. There is not even agreement on what caused the global recession and why the economy has reached a perilous standstill.

There is current interest in past theories of “secular stagnation.” Alvin H. Hansen (1939, 4, 7; see Hansen 1938, 1941; for an early critique see Simons 1942) argues:

“Not until the problem of full employment of our productive resources from the long-run, secular standpoint was upon us, were we compelled to give serious consideration to those factors and forces in our economy which tend to make business recoveries weak and anaemic (sic) and which tend to prolong and deepen the course of depressions. This is the essence of secular stagnation-sick recoveries which die in their infancy and depressions which feed on them-selves and leave a hard and seemingly immovable core of unemployment. Now the rate of population growth must necessarily play an important role in determining the character of the output; in other words, the com-position of the flow of final goods. Thus a rapidly growing population will demand a much larger per capita volume of new residential building construction than will a stationary population. A stationary population with its larger proportion of old people may perhaps demand more personal services; and the composition of consumer demand will have an important influence on the quantity of capital required. The demand for housing calls for large capital outlays, while the demand for personal services can be met without making large investment expenditures. It is therefore not unlikely that a shift from a rapidly growing population to a stationary or declining one may so alter the composition of the final flow of consumption goods that the ratio of capital to output as a whole will tend to decline.”

The argument that anemic population growth causes “secular stagnation” in the US (Hansen 1938, 1939, 1941) is as misplaced currently as in the late 1930s (for early dissent see Simons 1942). Youth workers would obtain employment at a premium in an economy with declining population. In fact, there is currently population growth in the ages of 16 to 24 years but not enough job creation and discouragement of job searches for all ages. This is merely another case of theory without reality with dubious policy proposals. Inferior performance of the US economy and labor markets is the critical current issue of analysis and policy design.

In revealing research, Edward P. Lazear and James R. Spletzer (2012JHJul22) use the wealth of data in the valuable database and resources of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/data/) in providing clear thought on the nature of the current labor market of the United States. The critical issue of analysis and policy currently is whether unemployment is structural or cyclical. Structural unemployment could occur because of (1) industrial and demographic shifts and (2) mismatches of skills and job vacancies in industries and locations. Consider the aggregate unemployment rate, Y, expressed in terms of share s_i of a demographic group in an industry i and unemployment rate y_i of that demographic group (Lazear and Spletzer 2012JHJul22, 5-6):

Y = ∑_is_iy_i (1)

This equation can be decomposed for analysis as (Lazear and Spletzer 2012JHJul22, 6):

∆Y = ∑_i∆s_iy*_i+ ∑_i∆y_is*_i (2)

The first term in (2) captures changes in the demographic and industrial composition of the economy ∆s_i multiplied by the average rate of unemployment y*_i, or structural factors. The second term in (2) captures changes in the unemployment rate specific to a group, or ∆y_i, multiplied by the average share of the group s*_i,or cyclical factors. There are also mismatches in skills and locations relative to available job vacancies. A simple observation by Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) casts intuitive doubt on structural factors: the rate of unemployment jumped from 4.4 percent in the spring of 2007 to 10 percent in October 2009. By nature, structural factors should be permanent or occur over relative long periods. The revealing result of the exhaustive research of Lazear and Spletzer (2012JHJul22) is:

“The analysis in this paper and in others that we review do not provide any compelling evidence that there have been changes in the structure of the labor market that are capable of explaining the pattern of persistently high unemployment rates. The evidence points to primarily cyclic factors.”

The theory of secular stagnation cannot explain sudden collapse of the US economy and labor markets. There are accentuated cyclic factors for both the entire population and the young population of ages 16 to 24 years. Table Summary provides the total noninstitutional population (ICP) of the US, full-time employment level (FTE), employment (EMP), civilian labor force (CLF), civilian labor force participation rate (CLFP), employment/population ratio (EPOP) and unemployment level (UNE). Secular stagnation would not be secular but immediate. All indicators of the labor market weakened sharply during the contraction and did not recover. Population continued to grow but all other variables collapsed and did not recover. The theory of secular stagnation departs from an aggregate production function in which output grows with the use of labor, capital and technology (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008a), 11-6). Hansen (1938, 1939) finds secular stagnation in lower growth of an aging population. In the current US economy, Table Summary shows that population is dynamic while the labor market is fractured. There is key explanation in the behavior of the civilian labor force participation rate (CLFP) and the employment population ratio (EPOP) that collapsed during the global recession with inadequate recovery. Abandoning job searches are difficult to capture in labor statistics but likely explain the decline in the participation of the population in the labor force. Allowing for abandoning job searches, the total number of people unemployed or underemployed is 30.3 million or 18.5 percent of the effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/financial-instability-rules.html).

Table Summary Total, US, Total Noninstitutional Civilian Population, Full-time Employment, Employment, Civilian Labor Force, Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, Employment Population Ratio, Unemployment, NSA, Thousands and Percent

	ICP	FTE	EMP	CLF	CLFP	EPOP	UNE
2006	228.8	119.7	144.4	151.4	66.2	63.1	7.0
2009	235.8	112.6	139.9	154.1	65.4	59.3	14.3
2012	243.3	114.8	142.5	155.0	63.7	58.6	12.5
2013	245.7	116.3	143.9	155.4	63.2	58.6	11.5
12/07	233.2	121.0	146.3	153.7	65.9	62.8	7.4
9/09	236.3	112.0	139.1	153.6	65.0	58.9	14.5
1/14	246.9	115.8	143.5	154.4	62.5	58.1	10.9

ICP: Total Noninstitutional Civilian Population; FT: Full-time Employment Level, EMP: Total Employment Level; CLF: Civilian Labor Force; CLFP: Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate; EPOP: Employment Population Ratio; UNE: Unemployment

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/

The same situation is present in the labor market for young people in ages 16 to 24 years with data in Table Summary Youth. The youth noninstitutional civilian population (ICP) continued to increase during and after the global recession. There is the same disastrous labor market with decline for young people in employment (EMP), civilian labor force (CLF), civilian labor force participation rate (CLFP) and employment population ratio (EPOP). There are only increases for unemployment of young people (UNE) and youth unemployment rate (UNER). If aging were a factor of secular stagnation, growth of population of young people would attract a premium in remuneration in labor markets. The sad fact is that young people are also facing tough labor markets. The application of the theory of secular stagnation to the US economy and labor markets is void of reality in the form of key facts.

Table Summary Youth, US, Youth, Ages 16 to 24 Years, Noninstitutional Civilian Population, Full-time Employment, Employment, Civilian Labor Force, Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, Employment Population Ratio, Unemployment, NSA, Thousands and Percent

	ICP	EMP	CLF	CLFP	EPOP	UNE	UNER
2006	36.9	20.0	22.4	60.6	54.2	2.4	10.5
2009	37.6	17.6	21.4	56.9	46.9	3.8	17.6
2012	38.7	17.8	21.3	54.9	46.0	3.5	16.2
2013	38.8	18.1	21.4	55.0	46.5	3.3	15.5
12/07	37.5	19.4	21.7	57.8	51.6	2.3	10.7
9/09	37.6	17.0	20.7	55.2	45.1	3.8	18.2
1/14	38.8	17.4	20.4	52.7	44.8	3.1	14.9

ICP: Youth Noninstitutional Civilian Population; EMP: Youth Employment Level; CLF: Youth Civilian Labor Force; CLFP: Youth Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate; EPOP: Youth Employment Population Ratio; UNE: Unemployment; UNER: Youth Unemployment Rate

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/

Table EMP provides the comparison between the labor market in the current whole cycle from 2007 to 2013 and the whole cycle from 1979 to 1986. In the entire cycle from 2007 to 2013, the number employed fell 2.118 million, full-time employed fell 4.777 million, part-time for economic reasons increased 3.534 and population increased 13.812 million. The number employed fell 1.5 percent, full-time employed fell 3.9 percent, part-time for economic reasons increased 80.3 percent and population increased 6.0 percent. There is sharp contrast with the contractions of the 1980s and with most economic history of the United States. In the whole cycle from 1979 to 1986, the number employed increased 10.773 million, full-time employed increased 7.875 million, part-time for economic reasons 2.011 million and population 15.724 million. In the entire cycle from 1979 to 1986, the number employed increased 10.9 percent, full-time employed 9.5 percent, part-time for economic reasons 56.2 percent and population 9.5 million. The difference between the 1980s and the current cycle after 2007 is in the high rate of growth after the contraction that maintained trend growth around 3.0 percent for the entire cycle and per capital growth at 2.0 percent. The evident fact is that current weakness in labor markets originates in cyclical slow growth and not in imaginary secular stagnation.

Table EMP, US, Annual Level of Employed, Full-Time Employed, Employed Part-Time for Economic Reasons and Noninstitutional Civilian Population, Millions

	Employed	Full-Time Employed	Part Time Economic Reasons	Noninstitutional Civilian Population
2000s
2000	136.891	113.846	3.227	212.577
2001	136.933	113.573	3.715	215.092
2002	136.485	112.700	4.213	217.570
2003	137.736	113.324	4.701	221.168
2004	139.252	114.518	4.567	223.357
2005	141.730	117.016	4.350	226.082
2006	144.427	119.688	4.162	228.815
2007	146.047	121.091	4.401	231.867
2008	145.362	120.030	5.875	233.788
2009	139.877	112.634	8.913	235.801
2010	139.064	111.714	8.874	237.830
2011	139.869	112.556	8.560	239.618
2012	142.469	114.809	8.122	243.284
2013	143.929	116.314	7.935	245.679
∆2007-2013	-2.118	-4.777	3.534	13.812
∆% 2007-2013	-1.5	-3.9	80.3	6.0
1980s
1979	98.824	82.654	3.577	164.863
1980	99.303	82.562	4.321	167.745
1981	100.397	83.243	4.768	170.130
1982	99.526	81.421	6.170	172.271
1983	100.834	82.322	6.266	174.215
1984	105.005	86.544	5.744	176.383
1985	107.150	88.534	5.590	178.206
1986	109.597	90.529	5.588	180.587
1987	112.440	92.957	5.401	182.753
1988	114.968	95.214	5.206	184.613
1989	117.342	97.369	4.894	186.393
∆1979-1986	10.773	7.875	2.011	15.724
∆% 1979-86	10.9	9.5	56.2	9.5

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

http://www.bls.gov/

Historical parallels are instructive but have all the limitations of empirical research in economics. The more instructive comparisons are not with the Great Depression of the 1930s but rather with the recessions in the 1950s, 1970s and 1980s. The growth rates and job creation in the expansion of the economy away from recession are subpar in the current expansion compared to others in the past. Four recessions are initially considered, following the reference dates of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html ): IIQ1953-IIQ1954, IIIQ1957-IIQ1958, IIIQ1973-IQ1975 and IQ1980-IIIQ1980. The data for the earlier contractions illustrate that the growth rate and job creation in the current expansion are inferior. The sharp contractions of the 1950s and 1970s are considered in Table I-1, showing the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) quarter-to-quarter, seasonally adjusted (SA), yearly-equivalent growth rates of GDP. The recovery from the recession of 1953 consisted of four consecutive quarters of high percentage growth rates from IIIQ1954 to IIIQ1955: 4.6, 8.0, 11.9 and 6.7. The recession of 1957 was followed by four consecutive high percentage growth rates from IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959: 9.6, 9.7, 7.7 and 10.1. The recession of 1973-1975 was followed by high percentage growth rates from IIQ1975 to IQ1976: 3.1, 6.8, 5.5 and 9.3. The disaster of the Great Inflation and Unemployment of the 1970s, which made stagflation notorious, is even better in growth rates during the expansion phase in comparison with the current slow-growth recession.

Table I-1, US, Seasonally Adjusted Quarterly Percentage Growth Rates in Annual Equivalent of GDP in Cyclical Recessions and Following Four Quarter Expansions ∆%

	IQ	IIQ	IIIQ	IV
R IIQ1953-IIQ1954
1953			-2.2	-5.9
1954	-1.9
E IIIQ1954-IIQ1955
1954			4.6	8.0
1955	11.9	6.7
R IIIQ1957-IIQ1958
1957				-4.1
1958	-10.0
E IIIQ1958-IIQ1959
1958			9.6	9.7
1959	7.7	10.1
R IVQ1969-IV1970
1969				-1.7
1970	-0.7
E IIQ1970-IQ1971
1970		0.7	3.6	-4.1
1971	11.2
R IVQ1973-IQ1975
1973				3.8
1974	-3.3	1.0	-3.8	-1.6
1975	-4.7
E IIQ1975-IQ1976
1975		3.1	6.8	5.5
1976	9.3
R IQ1980-IIIQ1980
1980	1.3	-7.9	-0.6
R IQ1981-IVQ1982
1981	8.5	-2.9	4.7	-4.6
1982	-6.5	2.2	-1.4	0.4
E IQ1983-IVQ1983
1983	5.3	9.4	8.1	8.5
R IVQ2007-IIQ2009
2008	-2.7	2.0	-2.0	-8.3
2009	-5.4	-0.4
E IIIQ2009-IIQ2010
2009			1.3	3.9
2010	1.6	3.9

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

The NBER dates another recession in 1980 that lasted about half a year. If the two recessions from IQ1980s to IIIQ1980 and IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982 are combined, the impact of lost GDP of 4.7 percent is more comparable to the latest revised 4.3 percent drop of the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. The recession in 1981-1982 is quite similar on its own to the 2007-2009 recession. In contrast, during the Great Depression in the four years of 1930 to 1933, GDP in constant dollars fell 26.4 percent cumulatively and fell 45.3 percent in current dollars (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 150-2, Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. II (2009b), 205-7 and revisions in http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Table I-2 provides the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) quarterly growth rates of GDP in SA yearly equivalents for the recessions of 1981 to 1982 and 2007 to 2009, using the latest major revision published on July 31, 2013 and the second estimate for IVQ2013 (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2014/pdf/gdp4q13_2nd.pdf), which are available in the dataset of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). There were four quarters of contraction in 1981-1982 ranging in rate from -1.4 percent to -6.5 percent and five quarters of contraction in 2007-2009 ranging in rate from -0.4 percent to -8.3 percent. The striking difference is that in the first eighteen quarters of expansion from IQ1983 to IIQ1987, shown in Table I-2 in relief, GDP grew at the high quarterly percentage growth rates of 5.3, 9.4, 8.1, 8.5, 8.2, 7.2, 4.0, 3.2, 4.0, 3.7, 6.4, 3.0, 3.8, 1.9, 4.1, 2.1, 2.8 and 4.6. In contrast, the percentage growth rates in the first eighteen quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IVQ2013 shown in relief in Table I-2 were mediocre: 1.3, 3.9, 1.6, 3.9, 2.8, 2.8, -1.3, 3.2, 1.4, 4.9, 3.7, 1.2, 2.8, 0.1, 1.1, 2.5, 4.1 and 2.4. Inventory accumulation contributed 2.73 percentage points to the rate of growth of 4.9 percent in IVQ2011, which is the only relatively high rate from IQ2011 to IIIQ2012, 0.60 percentage points to the rate of 2.8 percent in IIIQ2012 and 1.67 percentage points to the rate of 4.1 percent in IIIQ2013. Economic growth and employment creation decelerated rapidly during 2012 and in 2013 while much stronger growth would be required in movement to full employment.

Table I-2, US, Quarterly Growth Rates of GDP, % Annual Equivalent SA

Q	1981	1982	1983	1984	2008	2009	2010
I	8.5	-6.5	5.3	8.2	-2.7	-5.4	1.6
II	-2.9	2.2	9.4	7.2	2.0	-0.4	3.9
III	4.7	-1.4	8.1	4.0	-2.0	1.3	2.8
IV	-4.6	0.4	8.5	3.2	-8.3	3.9	2.8
				1985			2011
I				4.0			-1.3
II				3.7			3.2
III				6.4			1.4
IV				3.0			4.9
				1986			2012
I				3.8			3.7
II				1.9			1.2
III				4.1			2.8
IV				2.1			0.1
				1987			2013
I				2.8			1.1
II				4.6			2.5
III				3.7			4.1
IV				6.8			2.4
				1988			2014
I				2.3
II				5.4
III				2.3
IV				5.4

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-1 of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides strong growth of real GDP in the US between 1929 and 1999 at the yearly average rate of 3.5 percent. There is an evident acceleration of the rate of GDP growth in the 1990s as shown by a much sharper slope of the growth curve. Cobet and Wilson (2002) define labor productivity as the value of manufacturing output produced per unit of labor input used (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 137-44). Between 1950 and 2000, labor productivity in the US grew less rapidly than in Germany and Japan. The major part of the increase in productivity in Germany and Japan occurred between 1950 and 1973 while the rate of productivity growth in the US was relatively subdued in several periods. While Germany and Japan reached their highest growth rates of productivity before 1973, the US accelerated its rate of productivity growth in the second half of the 1990s. Between 1950 and 2000, the rate of productivity growth in the US of 2.9 percent per year was much lower than 6.3 percent in Japan and 4.7 percent in Germany. Between 1995 and 2000, the rate of productivity growth of the US of 4.6 percent exceeded that of Japan of 3.9 percent and the rate of Germany of 2.6 percent.

Chart I-1, US, Real GDP 1929-1999

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-1A provides real GDP annually from 1929 to 2013. Growth after the global recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 has not been sufficiently high to compensate for the contraction as it had occurred in past economic cycles. GDP is about two trillion lower than trend GDP, explaining 30.3 million unemployed or underemployed. There is dramatic decline of productivity growth in the whole cycle from 2.2 percent per year on average from 1947 to 2013 to 1.6 percent per year on average from 2007 and 2013. There is profound drop in the average rate of output growth from 3.4 percent on average from 1947 to 2013 to 1.2 percent from 2007 to 2013. Real hourly compensation collapsed from average 1.6 percent per year from 1947 to 2013 to 0.3 percent per year from 2007 to 2013 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2014/02/financial-instability-rules.html). The antithesis of secular stagnation is cyclical slow growth. The policy design deserves consideration of Kydland and Prescott (1977) and Prescott and Ohanian (2014Feb) to induce productivity growth for future progress.

Chart I-1A, US, Real GDP 1929-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm

Chart I-2 provides the growth of real quarterly GDP in the US between 1947 and 2012. The drop of output in the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 has been followed by anemic recovery compared with return to trend at 3.0 percent from 1870 to 2010 after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May) and a standstill that can lead to growth recession, or low rates of economic growth. The expansion is relatively long compared to earlier expansion and there could be even another contraction or conventional recession in the future. The average rate of growth from 1947 to 2013 is 3.2 percent. The average growth rate from IV2007 to IVQ2013 is only 1.0 percent with 2.8 percent annual equivalent from the end of the recession in IVQ2001 to the end of the expansion in IVQ2007.

Chart I-2, US, Real GDP, Quarterly, 1947-2013

Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis

Year	GDP ∆%	Year	GDP ∆%	Year	GDP ∆%
1930	-8.5	1980	-0.2	2000	4.1
1931	-6.4	1981	2.6	2001	1.0
1932	-12.9	1982	-1.9	2002	1.8
1933	-1.3	1983	4.6	2003	2.8
1934	10.8	1984	7.3	2004	3.8
1935	8.9	1985	4.2	2005	3.4
1936	12.9	1986	3.5	2006	2.7
1937	5.1	1987	3.5	2007	1.8
1938	-3.3	1988	4.2	2008	-0.3
1930	8.0	1989	3.7	2009	-2.8
1940	8.8	1990	1.9	2010	2.5
1941	17.7	1991	-0.1	2011	1.8
1942	18.9	1992	3.6	2012	2.8
1943	17.0	1993	2.7	2013	1.9

	Number of Quarters	Cumulative Percentage Contraction	Average Percentage Rate
IIQ1953 to IIQ1954	3	-2.4	-0.8
IIIQ1957 to IIQ1958	3	-3.0	-1.0
IVQ1973 to IQ1975	5	-3.1	-0.6
IQ1980 to IIIQ1980	2	-2.2	-1.1
IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982	4	-2.5	-0.64
IVQ2007 to IIQ2009	6	-4.3	-0.72

	Number of Quarters	Cumulative Growth ∆%	Average Annual Equivalent Growth Rate
IIIQ 1954 to IQ1957	11	12.8	4.5
First Four Quarters IIIQ1954 to IIQ1955	4	7.8
IIQ1958 to IIQ1959	5	10.0	7.9
First Four Quarters IIIQ1958 to IIQ1959	4	9.2
IIQ1975 to IVQ1976	8	8.3	4.1
First Four Quarters IIIQ1975 to IIQ1976	4	6.1
IQ1983-IQ1986 IQ1983-IIIQ1986 IQ1983-IVQ1986 IQ1983-IQ1987 IQ1983-IIQ1987	13 15 16 17 18	19.9 21.6 22.3 23.1 24.5	5.7 5.4 5.2 5.0 5.0
First Four Quarters IQ1983 to IVQ1983	4	7.8
Average First Four Quarters in Four Expansions*		7.7
IIIQ2009 to IVQ2013	18	11.0	2.3
First Four Quarters IIIQ2009 to IIQ2010		2.7

Quarters	Revised Estimate Jul 31, 2013	Revised Estimate Jul 27, 2012	Revised Estimate Jul 29, 2011	Earlier Estimate
2008
I	-2.7		-1.8	-0.7
II	2.0		1.3	0.6
III	-2.0		-3.7	-4.0
IV	-8.3		-8.9	-6.8
2009
I	-5.4	-5.3	-6.7	-4.9
II	-0.4	-0.3	-0.7	-0.7
III	1.3	1.4	1.7	1.6
IV	3.9	4.0	3.8	5.0
2010
I	1.6	2.3	3.9	3.7
II	3.9	2.2	3.8	1.7
III	2.8	2.6	2.5	2.6
IV	2.8	2.4	2.3	3.1
2011
I	-1.3	0.1	0.4	1.9
II	3.2	2.5
III	1.4	1.3
IV	4.9	4.1
2012
I	3.7	2.0
II	1.2	1.3
III	2.8	3.1
IV	0.1	0.4
2013
I	1.1	1.8
II	2.5
III	4.1
IV	2.4

	GDP	PCE	GDI	∆ PI	Trade	GOV
2013
I	1.1	1.54	0.71	0.93	-0.28	-0.82
II	2.5	1.24	1.38	0.41	-0.07	-0.07
III	4.1	1.36	2.56	1.67	0.14	0.08
IV	2.4	1.73	0.72	0.14	0.99	-1.05
2012
I	3.7	1.98	1.57	0.36	0.44	-0.28
II	1.2	1.28	-0.23	-0.91	0.10	0.05
III	2.8	1.15	0.99	0.60	-0.03	0.67
IV	0.1	1.13	-0.36	-2.00	0.68	-1.31
2011
I	-1.3	1.42	-1.11	-1.06	0.01	-1.61
II	3.2	1.03	1.88	0.72	0.53	-0.25
III	1.4	1.42	0.36	-1.60	0.10	-0.52
IV	4.9	1.65	4.13	2.73	-0.60	-0.31
2010
I	1.6	1.42	1.77	1.66	-0.96	-0.63
II	3.9	2.21	2.86	1.09	-1.77	0.61
III	2.8	1.87	1.86	1.90	-0.88	-0.07
IV	2.8	2.86	-0.51	-1.64	1.32	-0.87
2009
I	-5.4	-0.83	-7.02	-2.26	2.25	0.15
II	-0.4	-1.13	-3.25	-1.12	2.40	1.56
III	1.3	1.73	-0.40	-0.38	-0.53	0.48
IV	3.9	0.05	4.05	4.40	-0.05	-0.17
1982
I	-6.5	1.61	-7.60	-5.34	-0.49	-0.05
II	2.2	0.89	-0.06	2.26	0.81	0.56
III	-1.4	1.88	-0.62	1.11	-3.22	0.53
IV	0.4	4.51	-5.37	-5.33	-0.10	1.35
1983
I	5.3	2.45	2.36	0.92	-0.29	0.82
II	9.4	5.06	5.96	3.43	-2.46	0.89
III	8.1	4.50	4.40	0.57	-2.25	1.42
IV	8.5	4.06	6.94	3.01	-1.13	-1.36
1984
I	8.2	2.26	7.23	4.94	-2.31	1.01
II	7.2	3.64	2.57	-0.29	-0.87	1.87
III	4.0	1.95	1.69	0.21	-0.35	0.70
IV	3.2	3.29	-1.08	-2.44	-0.56	1.58
1985
I	4.0	4.23	-2.14	-2.86	0.94	1.01
II	3.7	2.35	1.34	0.35	-1.90	1.93
III	6.4	4.82	-0.43	-0.15	-0.01	1.98
IV	3.0	0.62	2.80	1.40	-0.66	0.27
1986
I	3.8	2.10	0.04	-0.17	0.92	0.70
II	1.9	2.77	-1.30	-1.30	-1.33	1.70
III	4.1	4.55	-1.97	-1.62	-0.45	1.95
IV	2.1	1.62	0.24	-0.29	0.71	-0.48
1987
I	2.8	0.05	1.98	3.28	0.23	0.57
II	4.6	3.54	0.08	-0.99	0.14	0.81
III	3.7	2.97	0.03	-1.19	0.45	0.23
IV	6.8	0.57	4.94	4.95	0.18	1.08

	IVQ 2012	IQ 2013	IIQ 2013	IIIQ 2012	IVQ 2013
GDP	0.1	1.1	2.5	4.1	2.4
PCE	1.7	2.3	1.8	2.0	2.6
Durable Goods	10.5	5.8	6.2	7.9	2.5
NRFI	9.8	-4.6	4.7	4.8	7.3
RFI	19.8	12.5	14.2	10.3	-8.7
Exports	1.1	-1.3	8.0	3.9	9.4
Imports	-3.1	0.6	6.9	2.4	1.5
GOV	-6.5	-4.2	-0.4	0.4	-5.6
Federal GOV	-13.9	-8.4	-1.6	-1.5	-12.8
National Defense	-21.6	-11.2	-0.6	-0.5	-14.4
Cont to GDP Growth % Points	-1.22	-0.57	-0.03	-0.02	-0.70
State/Local GOV	-1.0	-1.3	0.4	1.7	-0.5
∆ PI (PP)	-2.00	0.93	0.41	1.67	0.14
Final Sales of Domestic Product	2.2	0.2	2.1	2.5	2.3
Gross Domestic Purchases	-0.5	1.4	2.5	3.9	1.4
Prices Gross Domestic Purchases	1.6	1.2	0.2	1.8	1.4
Prices of GDP	1.1	1.3	0.6	2.0	1.6
Prices of GDP Excluding Food and Energy	1.4	1.6	0.9	1.9	1.9
Prices of PCE	1.6	1.1	-0.1	1.9	1.0
Prices of PCE Excluding Food and Energy	1.3	1.4	0.6	1.4	1.3
Prices of Market Based PCE	1.4	1.3	-0.3	2.0	0.8
Prices of Market Based PCE Excluding Food and Energy	0.9	1.6	0.5	1.4	1.0
Real Disposable Personal Income*	3.6	0.4	0.9	1.8	-0.2
Personal Savings As % Disposable Income	6.6	4.1	4.7	4.9	4.5

	IVQ2013
GDP	100.0
PCE	68.2
Goods	23.0
Durable	7.5
Nondurable	15.6
Services	45.1
Gross Private Domestic Investment	16.3
Fixed Investment	15.4
NRFI	12.3
Structures	2.8
Equipment & Software	5.6
Intellectual Property	3.9
RFI	3.1
Change in Private Inventories	0.9
Net Exports of Goods and Services	-2.7
Exports	13.6
Goods	9.5
Services	4.1
Imports	16.3
Goods	13.5
Services	2.7
Government	18.2
Federal	7.2
National Defense	4.4
Nondefense	2.8
State and Local	11.1

	SAAR IIQ2013	% Total	SAAR IIIQ2013	% Total
National Income WCCA	14,495.5	100.0	14,642.3	100.0
Domestic Industries	14,248.7	98.3	14,379.4	98.2
Private Industries	12,568.6	86.7	12,704.3	86.8
Agriculture	220.3	1.5	224.2	1.5
Mining	254.3	1.8	253.3	1.7
Utilities	216.5	1.5	221.4	1.5
Construction	629.0	4.3	638.7	4.4
Manufacturing	1558.9	10.8	1575.6	10.8
Durable Goods	888.1	6.1	910.6	6.2
Nondurable Goods	670.1	4.6	665.0	4.5
Wholesale Trade	874.4	6.0	884.6	6.0
Retail Trade	995.8	6.9	998.0	6.8
Transportation & WH	436.3	3.0	442.3	3.0
Information	507.2	3.5	498.9	3.4
Finance, Insurance, RE	2448.1	16.9	2517.6	17.2
Professional & Business Services	2004.7	13.8	2008.0	13.7
Education, Health Care	1438.9	9.9	1445.7	9.8
Arts, Entertainment	577.1	4.0	585.6	4.0
Other Services	409.7	2.8	410.4	2.8
Government	1680.1	11.6	1675.1	11.4
Rest of the World	246.8	1.7	262.9	1.8

	Real PFI, Billions Chained 2009 Dollars	∆% Relative to IVQ2007	∆% Relative to Prior Quarter	∆% over Year Earlier
IVQ2007	2586.3	NA	-1.2	-1.4
IQ2008	2539.1	-1.8	-1.8	-3.0
IIQ2008	2503.4	-3.2	-1.4	-4.6
IIIQ2008	2424.1	-6.3	-3.2	-7.1
IV2008	2263.8	-12.5	-6.6	-12.5
IQ2009	2089.3	-19.2	-7.7	-17.7
IIQ2009	2011.0	-22.2	-3.7	-19.7
IIIQ2009	2008.4	-22.3	-0.1	-17.1
IVQ2009	1994.1	-22.9	-0.7	-11.9
IQ2010	1997.9	-22.8	0.2	-4.4
IIQ2010	2062.8	-20.2	3.2	2.6
IIIQ2010	2060.8	-20.3	-0.1	2.6
IVQ2010	2103.1	-18.7	2.1	5.5
IQ2011	2100.7	-18.8	-0.1	5.1
IIQ2011	2144.4	-17.1	2.1	4.0
IIIQ2011	2219.8	-14.2	3.5	7.7
IVQ2011	2273.4	-12.1	2.4	8.1
IQ2012	2320.8	-10.3	2.1	10.5
IIQ2012	2347.9	-9.2	1.2	9.5
IIIQ2012	2363.5	-8.6	0.7	6.5
IVQ2012	2429.1	-6.1	2.8	6.8
IQ2013	2420.0	-6.4	-0.4	4.3
IIQ2013	2458.4	-4.9	1.6	4.7
IIIQ2013	2,494.0	-3.6	1.4	5.5
IVQ2013	2,517.5	-2.7	0.9	3.6

	IVQ2013	IVQ2006	IVQ2000
Gross Private Domestic Investment	16.3	18.8	19.7
Fixed Investment	15.4	18.5	19.2
Nonresidential	12.3	12.9	14.5
Structures	2.8	3.1	3.2
Equipment and Software	5.6	6.1	7.3
Intellectual Property	3.9	3.7	4.0
Residential	3.1	5.6	4.7
Change in Private Inventories	0.9	0.3	0.5

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
GDP Growth ∆%	-2.8	2.5	1.8	2.8	1.9
Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE)	-1.06	1.34	1.74	1.52	1.33
Goods	-0.68	0.77	0.76	0.77	0.82
Durable	-0.41	0.43	0.46	0.56	0.50
Nondurable	-0.27	0.34	0.30	0.22	0.31
Services	-0.38	0.57	0.98	0.74	0.52
Gross Private Domestic Investment (GPDI)	-3.52	1.66	0.69	1.36	0.84
Fixed Investment	-2.77	0.21	0.85	1.17	0.67
Nonresidential	-2.04	0.28	0.84	0.85	0.34
Structures	-0.70	-0.49	0.05	0.31	0.04
Equipment, software	-1.29	0.70	0.62	0.41	0.17
Intellectual Property	-0.05	0.07	0.17	0.13	0.13
Residential	-0.73	-0.07	0.01	0.32	0.33
Change Private Inventories	-0.76	1.45	-0.16	0.20	0.17
Net Exports of Goods and Services	1.14	-0.51	0.10	0.10	0.12
Exports	-1.10	1.28	0.89	0.48	0.36
Goods	-1.02	1.08	0.63	0.36	0.22
Services	-0.08	0.20	0.27	0.12	0.14
Imports	2.24	-1.79	-0.79	-0.38	-0.24
Goods	2.15	-1.72	-0.70	-0.30	-0.17
Services	0.08	-0.07	-0.09	-0.07	-0.07
Government Consumption Expenditures and Gross Investment	0.64	0.02	-0.68	-0.20	-0.44
Federal	0.44	0.37	-0.23	-0.12	-0.41
National Defense	0.27	0.18	-0.13	-0.17	-0.35
Nondefense	0.17	0.19	-0.10	0.05	-0.06
State and Local	0.20	-0.35	-0.46	-0.08	-0.03

	GDP	GDI	PFI	NRES	BES	IPP	RES	∆INV
2013
I	1.1	0.71	-0.23	-0.57	0.09	0.14	0.34	0.93
II	2.5	1.38	0.96	0.56	0.18	-0.06	0.40	0.41
III	4.1	2.56	0.89	0.58	0.02	0.22	0.31	1.67
IV	2.4	0.72	0.58	0.87	0.56	0.30	-0.29	0.14
2012
I	3.7	1.57	1.21	0.68	0.45	0.05	0.53	0.36
II	1.2	-0.23	0.68	0.53	0.29	0.07	0.15	-0.91
III	2.8	0.99	0.39	0.04	-0.22	0.11	0.35	0.60
IV	0.1	-0.36	1.63	1.13	0.47	0.21	0.50	-2.00
2011
I	-1.3	-1.11	-0.05	-0.09	0.59	0.14	0.04	-1.06
II	3.2	1.88	1.16	1.09	0.23	0.18	0.07	0.72
III	1.4	0.36	1.96	1.81	0.99	0.20	0.15	-1.60
IV	4.9	4.13	1.39	1.10	0.54	0.21	0.29	2.73
2010
I	1.6	1.77	0.11	0.46	1.25	-0.07	-0.35	1.66
II	3.9	2.86	1.77	1.21	1.02	-0.08	0.56	1.09
III	2.8	1.86	-0.04	0.90	0.83	0.22	-0.94	1.90
IV	2.8	-0.51	1.13	0.94	0.57	0.19	0.19	-1.64
2009
I	-5.4	-7.02	-4.75	-3.58	-2.25	-0.23	-1.17	-2.26
II	-0.4	-3.25	-2.13	-1.46	-0.60	0.16	-0.66	-1.12
III	1.3	-0.40	-0.02	-0.54	0.25	0.04	0.52	-0.38
IV	3.9	4.05	-0.36	-0.37	0.36	0.25	0.01	4.40
1982
I	-6.5	-7.60	-2.26	-1.45	-0.83	0.14	-0.81	-5.34
II	2.2	-0.06	-2.32	-1.89	-1.20	0.08	-0.44	2.26
III	-1.4	-0.62	-1.73	-1.71	-0.55	0.06	-0.02	1.11
IV	0.4	-5.37	-0.03	-1.05	-0.57	0.00	1.01	-5.33
1983
I	5.3	2.36	1.44	-0.92	-0.27	0.16	2.36	0.92
II	9.4	5.96	2.53	0.67	1.24	0.29	1.86	3.43
III	8.1	4.40	3.82	2.13	1.43	0.31	1.70	0.57
IV	8.5	6.94	3.93	3.14	2.32	0.35	0.79	3.01
1984
I	8.2	7.23	2.29	1.71	0.46	0.30	0.58	4.94
II	7.2	2.57	2.86	2.52	1.36	0.29	0.34	-0.29
III	4.0	1.69	1.48	1.70	0.88	0.25	-0.22	0.21
IV	3.2	-1.08	1.36	1.34	0.86	0.29	0.02	-2.44
1985
I	4.0	-2.14	0.72	0.67	-0.23	0.14	0.05	-2.86
II	3.7	1.34	0.99	0.83	0.64	0.20	0.16	0.35
III	6.4	-0.43	-0.28	-0.62	-0.38	0.13	0.34	-0.15
IV	3.0	2.80	1.40	1.00	0.53	0.26	0.40	1.40
1986
I	3.8	0.04	0.21	-0.55	-0.28	0.17	0.76	-0.17
II	1.9	-1.30	0.00	-1.12	0.34	0.15	1.12	-1.30
III	4.1	-1.97	-0.34	-0.63	-0.17	0.10	0.28	-1.62
IV	2.1	0.24	0.53	0.48	0.30	0.10	0.05	-0.29

CMP Associates Regulation Blog

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

Monday, March 3, 2014

Financial Risks, Slow Cyclical United States Growth with GDP Two Trillion Dollars below Trend, United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, United States Housing, World Cyclical Slow Growth and Global Recession Risk: Part II

No comments:

Post a Comment