Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy

mazeltov · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:49 pm

These graphs are so shitty. Dates descending from left to right ffs.

Usdk · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:11 pm

fixt!

Aestu · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:58 pm

Eturnal's response is really good, so I'm going to sleep on my response for a bit.

I will volunteer at this point that my choice of words "less employment" versus "more unemployment" was intentional because the two are not the same. The unemployed do not include all potentially employable individuals, and the definition of unemployed has changed quite a bit over the years to conceal negative developments.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:35 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

FAKE EDIT: I guess you did address Aestu's points.

Quote:

If you don't like it, GET OUT!

I see that the calls for an informed, intelligent conversation evaporated after two sentences.

If you want to see it as "get out," I'm OK with that, mainly because you can't respond to anything without taking what was said to a retardedly exaggerated degree of what's stated. Still begs the question: if it's so awesome, why can't you supremely enlightened souls find a way to do it where the rest of us don't have be involved? I'm suggesting the best way to do it, instead of dragging the disinterested under with you, is to go someplace where they're already doing what you want...especially Aestu, who seems to think the rest of the western world is some sort of utopian paradise compared with how we do things here. I think we get enough news of how things aren't really that rosy and bright over in Europe right alongside all the news of how shitty things are here to see that argument, like most Aestu arguments, is laughable.

Your Pal,
Jubber

EDIT: I apparently don't pay enough attention to be trusted with buttons. Really sorry guys, but I hosed up one of Mayo's posts. I'm going to go bang my head against a wall now.

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:02 pm

Eturnalshift wrote:

"Proactive Government" is an Aestu term; I don't think anyone has ever used that as a legitimate term (I certainly haven't) and it could mean anything. Perhaps you should define it for us since it can have a million meanings.

By "proactive government", I mean policies and institutions meant to directly improve the quality of life for American citizens - WPA-style programs, or vocational training, things like that, as opposed to welfare check-cutting or trying to pull the strings of interest rates and money supply.

Eturnalshift wrote:

This isn't true. The definition of a Recession (in economic terms) is two or more consecutive periods of Negative GDP Growth and that means the country's Product value (how much we've produced in dollars) is lower than the previous quarters. Since the great depression there have been many recessions lasting longer than a year, and several more lasting almost a year. Interestingly enough, and in contrast to what you've said, during the times of depression, unemployment rates have increased. (Use this link to follow along)

To illustrate this without jumping between pages, I pulled unemployment numbers and GDP (Nominal and Real) from Q2 2005 through Q2 2011. You'll see that during the increase in GDP, unemployment was lower.

As the GDP started to fall during the last recession, unemployment rates spiked. This chart isn't very shocking since the relationship can be seen with the information I linked in the previous paragraph.
Unemployment Since 1948

Not quite, but almost. We've had plenty of periods of low employment rates.

...Looking back at the graphs, during times of a stronger Real GDP our unemployment rate was lower.

This is a case of missing the forest for the trees.

The correlation you describe exists on a small scale, recessions/booms, but it doesn't hold fast when viewing economic growth over the long term. Per capita GDP has increased cumulatively above the short-term cycles of boom and bust, but those gains have not cured social ills of unemployment and lack of mobility.

Eturnalshift wrote:

Productivity is not the same as efficiency, but often times efficiency leads to greater productivity. To increase productivity, you can increase efficiency or workforce, but it'd be hard to argue that decreasing the workforce will lead to greater productivity. I'd actually think the opposite would happen - if every American was contributing to the GDP then the GDP is likely to be higher, not lower.

If you can do more with less - yes it will. That's what technology does, and that's why improvements in efficiency don't lead to increased employment, but the contrary. You can have five monkeys looking things up in huge volumes, typing up reports on the typewriter, and running them through the mimeograph, or you can have one monkey typing things up on the PC and printing a hundred copies on the laser printer. Profits and productivity have gone up.

Since improvements in efficiency have been a major driving force for economic growth, it is not logical to believe that long-term growth is going to drive an increase in employment.

Employment isn't infinitely elastic. Companies won't employ more people than they need. Hence staking our hopes for improved employment in the long term on growth isn't rational.

Eturnalshift wrote:

I don't care much for what the EU does and I don't see them as a prime example of a strong economy since their GDP and employment rates are just as 'strong' as ours. Anyways, higher GDP in the US at current Tax rates can translate to more revenue for the government. Also, times of positive GDP growth show lower unemployment rates, meaning people have money to do things they want and buy essentials like food and health needs.

So how do you think American GDP is to be increased?

Eturnalshift wrote:

Quote:

Onto proactive government and economic stagnation: again, evidence runs to the contrary since societies in both the here and now and recent and ancient past with less government have not done better; quite the contrary, in fact. The government's role in legislating the economy or day-to-day live in the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, or Africa, or any other undeveloped country, is extremely marginal, and those countries aren't doing well - quite the contrary. If what you say is true and that correlation were real, those countries would be rocketing past us in development.

So what evidence do you have to support correlation #2?

You said contrary three times in that paragraph. Anyways, assuming 'proactive government' means 'a government that likes to try to fix things', then I'd look at the bailouts of the banks (which didn't increase liquidity in the markets), the auto makers (which some are still struggling to find their footing), TARP (which didn't help the housing market), Stimulus Package (which didn't keep unemployment rates under 8% nor did it create the growth we were told it would create) and the Health Care Reform, which was said to be a giant cost-saving legislation that would let people keep their doctors... but it turns out that isn't the case since the CBO (last time I read a report) showed the cost savings to be almost nothing and my doctor stopped taking Madicare patients due to the legislation. I'd also throw in Dept. of Education not really making us smarter or our government intervention into foreign affairs aren't making us liked any more.

You didn't answer my question. If limited government is so good, why aren't countries with limited government doing better than us?

Eturnalshift wrote:

Quote:

Proactive government and tyranny. I asked you what "freedoms and liberties" you thought were under threat by proactive government - you still haven't answered.

I was explaining what Weena said to Mayo (and others) since the message was clearly lost. My freedoms and liberties aren't knowingly infringed... well, maybe the Fourth Amendment is being infringed upon when I fly domestically. Maybe it's I don't care if a few of my liberties/freedoms are sidestepped - If the NSA want's to listen to me call my grandmother then let them waste their time - still an invasion of my privacy, right? The point that was being made (I think) is that the moment we start giving up some freedoms to the government (such as privacy in the name of security) then there isn't any knowing how far it'll go. Seriously, look at the TSA for an example; first they check your bags, then you need to take off your shoes, then it's frisking (without violating religious people but while violating everyone else), then it's electronically looking at your dick. Again, this is someone elses issue and less mine, but maybe if some of the resident monkeys didn't start acting like asses, we could've gotten an explanation from the source. All I can do is assume this is what he meant but I could be wrong.

All of that is a matter of policy not spending.

Again, you didn't answer the question - how do you establish that correlation between government spending and tyranny when many governments spend more on their citizens without infringing on freedoms, while others spend much less and tyrannize their citizens?

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:09 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

If you want to see it as "get out," I'm OK with that, mainly because you can't respond to anything without taking what was said to a retardedly exaggerated degree of what's stated. Still begs the question: if it's so awesome, why can't you supremely enlightened souls find a way to do it where the rest of us don't have be involved? I'm suggesting the best way to do it, instead of dragging the disinterested under with you, is to go someplace where they're already doing what you want...especially Aestu, who seems to think the rest of the western world is some sort of utopian paradise compared with how we do things here.

So I should change my citizenship because I don't agree with the status quo? By that logic, America should still have slavery, senators nominated by state legislatures, and no legal or regulatory progress of any kind since 1776 that didn't meet with unanimous consensus, and a population of 10 million. Everyone who ever got voted down, or had strongly held views that were in the minority in their time, should have just gotten back on the boat.

No "winner-take-all" political system is viable. Things, views, policies change.

Jubbergun wrote:

I think we get enough news of how things aren't really that rosy and bright over in Europe right alongside all the news of how shitty things are here to see that argument, like most Aestu arguments, is laughable.

And is life perfect in America? Don't we have quite a few problems they don't? Is there nothing they do better?

Just because the EU isn't perfect and doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean they have nothing to teach us. After all, we're not perfect and they learned a lot from us. Why can't it go both ways?

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:26 pm

Quote:

mainly because you can't respond to anything without taking what was said to a retardedly exaggerated degree of what's stated

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 7:45 pm

Aestu wrote:

So I should change my citizenship because I don't agree with the status quo? By that logic, America should still have slavery, senators nominated by state legislatures, and no legal or regulatory progress of any kind since 1776 that didn't meet with unanimous consensus, and a population of 10 million. Everyone who ever got voted down, or had strongly held views that were in the minority in their time, should have just gotten back on the boat.

No, you shouldn't do it because you disagree with the status quo, you should do it because someone is already doing what you believe is the best way to do things. If what you believe to be better really is, it will prove itself in time (it hasn't, which is a big part of the reason many European countries are in the financial situation they're in), and we'll see the benefit of it and adopt it here.

Aside from that, state legislatures should still be appointing senators. The House is supposed to represent the interests of the people, and the Senate the interests of the states.

This is a good example of why I think you have serious issues with reading comprehension:

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

I think we get enough news of how things aren't really that rosy and bright over in Europe right alongside all the news of how shitty things are here to see that argument, like most Aestu arguments, is laughable.

And is life perfect in America? Don't we have quite a few problems they don't? Is there nothing they do better?

The UK makes better TV comedies.
France makes better croissants.
Germany makes better beer.

Aestu wrote:

Just because the EU isn't perfect and doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean they have nothing to teach us. After all, we're not perfect and they learned a lot from us. Why can't it go both ways?

I'm not saying they have nothing to offer. I'm saying that the idea that they're somehow leaps and bounds ahead of us and have all the answers is ridiculous, mainly because so many of the countries in the EU are operating the kinds of social welfare programs a lot of you think would be great here, and it's put them in a position where it's not just going to break the economy of those individual countries, but the entire European (global?) economy.

One of the great things about the way the country was originally set up was that each individual state had different laws with little federal interference (not saying that the application of the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the states was a bad things) so that one state might allow/disallow some activities that others didn't. This made the states, in essence, laboratories of governance. If they tried something in VT, and it was beneficial, NY might try it, but if it sucked balls and created a lot of problems, it would be a warning to the other states about enacting similar legislation. Massachusetts passed a healthcare bill...by most accounts, it's pretty terrible. That's one of the reasons none of the other states have done anything similar...but we're going to try it all together as a nation? I don't think it's a good idea.

Aestu wrote:

You didn't answer my question. If limited government is so good, why aren't countries with limited government doing better than us?

I read this while skimming, and it occurs to me...what countries? What country/countries would be the ones with limited government, and are those governments as limited in scope (or more so) than our own? Are they purposely limited in scope, or limited by the ability to enact policy? I don't think we can really compare/contrast without knowing what our targets are.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:25 pm

Jubbergun wrote:

No, you shouldn't do it because you disagree with the status quo, you should do it because someone is already doing what you believe is the best way to do things.

The EU banned slavery before the US did. Your argument is stupid and invalid.

Jubbergun wrote:

The UK makes better TV comedies.
France makes better croissants.
Germany makes better beer.

This is why people say you are ignorant (and you are).

The EU also has lower crime, lower mortality, lower poverty, and a generally less violent or violence-based society.

Of course you'll say you're just "kidding" but you accuse me of making stupid arguments then you'll say you were "joking" when the fact of the matter is you made a stupid response because you can't address the flaws in your claims in an intelligent way.

Jubbergun wrote:

the idea they have all the answers is ridiculous

Aestu wrote:

the EU isn't perfect and doesn't have all the answers

"When Black is White & White Is Black: Brainwashing And You"

Jubbergun wrote:

One of the great things about the way the country was originally set up was that each individual state had different laws with little federal interference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

Jubbergun wrote:

I read this while skimming, and it occurs to me...what countries? What country/countries would be the ones with limited government, and are those governments as limited in scope (or more so) than our own?

Aestu wrote:

The government's role in legislating the economy or day-to-day life in the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, or Africa, or any other undeveloped country is extremely marginal, and those countries aren't doing well

"When Black is White & White Is Black: Brainwashing And You"

Usdk · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:29 pm

the things that work today always worked forever and will always work forever.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:50 am

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

No, you shouldn't do it because you disagree with the status quo, you should do it because someone is already doing what you believe is the best way to do things.

The EU banned slavery before the US did. Your argument is stupid and invalid.

There's nothing stupid about it, and your comparison is flawed. I'm talking about participating in a mandatory system that has jurisdiction over everyone. You can't compare that with slavery, in which only certain people were subject to the abuses of the system. I do like the "ur a racist" Godwin, though, nice job/high five!

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

The UK makes better TV comedies.
France makes better croissants.
Germany makes better beer.

This is why people say you are ignorant (and you are).

You asked if I thought there was anything they did better. That's what I picked. If I were really 'ignorant,' I would have just said, "no, fuck you, Europe sucks balls and everyone there smells like they need a shower." I probably would have followed up with a joke about chicks with hairy pits. I didn't do that, though, did I? No, I considered your query with all the seriousness it deserved and that's the response you got.

Knowing how well you read, I'm just going to be the kind of ass that points out that the response you got is indicative of the degree of seriousness the question deserved.

Aestu wrote:

The EU also has lower crime, lower mortality, lower poverty, and a generally less violent or violence-based society.

And yet I see a lot of riots on the news in these enviable utopias, over everything from soccer (the world's shittiest sport) to 'please don't make me retire two years later,' to 'I'm a muslim, but I moved to France, and every day I face Mecca and pray these bastards will find out about soap." (See? Now I'm ignorant, I did a 'smelly Frenchman' joke...sorry Tuhl.) A 'less-violence based society?" Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttt, my ass.

Aestu wrote:

Of course you'll say you're just "kidding" but you accuse me of making stupid arguments then you'll say you were "joking" when the fact of the matter is you made a stupid response because you can't address the flaws in your claims in an intelligent way.

Or I'll just flatly point out the obvious, which is that I don't take you seriously enough any more to bother with a serious response 100% of the time, because you'll likely misread/misunderstand anyway and go off on a tangent about how it doesn't matter because the price of beans in Chile caused a change in the price of the tea in China, which will be either completely or only tangentially unrelated to the subject at hand.

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

the idea they have all the answers is ridiculous

Aestu wrote:

the EU isn't perfect and doesn't have all the answers

"When Black is White & White Is Black: Brainwashing And You"

Good of you to admit that. I will only submit this: They have the problems they have for the same reason we have the problems we have, which is because of the choices they made. I'm comfortable with the set of problems we have. I like to snuggle with them on the couch when no one is looking. I don't want the problems they have, because they smell of weird cheese and yak hair...which is why I say if it seems so appealing, feel free to try it out, but don't insist that I come along for the ride.

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

One of the great things about the way the country was originally set up was that each individual state had different laws with little federal interference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

Ahem...

Jubbergun wrote:

(not saying that the application of the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the states was a bad things)

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

I read this while skimming, and it occurs to me...what countries? What country/countries would be the ones with limited government, and are those governments as limited in scope (or more so) than our own?

The government's role in legislating the economy or day-to-day life in the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, or Africa, or any other undeveloped country is extremely marginal, and those countries aren't doing well

"When Black is White & White Is Black: Brainwashing And You"

[/quote]

Thanks for pointing out that oddly chosen list of countries, but the Middle East is (or given recent events, was) full of governments that were heavily involved in legislating day-to-day life...maybe you've not heard of the burqa and how these 'not-heavily-involved' governments are involving women's heads into them? I also like how you chop out one of the more important parts of my question before bringing your list to my attention: Are they purposely limited in scope, or limited by the ability to enact policy? With Eastern Europe (keep in mind I've spent time there) and Africa, I'd say it's more the latter than the former. Their ability to enact policy is a condition of their economic situation, which doesn't compare with us, because our economic situation is (at least in part) a result of enacted policies.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:17 am

Jubbergun wrote:

There's nothing stupid about it, and your comparison is flawed. I'm talking about participating in a mandatory system that has jurisdiction over everyone.

I am from a well-to-do family. I will likely be successful as well. The inequities of our society are no more directly my concern than slavery.

Lee called slavery a "moral & social evil". The moral evil is the cruelty and personal wrongdoing involved. The social evil is that brutality, as you noted in another thread, is self-degrading. So no the difference between "other people" in slavery and the moral costs of an unjust society are not so far apart.

Also see: suburbia and dumb college kids. That is the flip side of social injustice.

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

The EU also has lower crime, lower mortality, lower poverty, and a generally less violent or violence-based society.

And yet I see a lot of riots on the news in these enviable utopias, over everything from soccer (the world's shittiest sport) to 'please don't make me retire two years later,' to 'I'm a muslim, but I moved to France, and every day I face Mecca and pray these bastards will find out about soap." (See? Now I'm ignorant, I did a 'smelly Frenchman' joke...sorry Tuhl.) A 'less-violence based society?" Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttt, my ass.

You asked if I thought there was anything they did better. That's what I picked. If I were really 'ignorant,' I would have just said, "no, fuck you, Europe sucks balls and everyone there smells like they need a shower." I probably would have followed up with a joke about chicks with hairy pits. I didn't do that, though, did I? No, I considered your query with all the seriousness it deserved and that's the response you got.

Knowing how well you read, I'm just going to be the kind of ass that points out that the response you got is indicative of the degree of seriousness the question deserved.

Or I'll just flatly point out the obvious, which is that I don't take you seriously enough any more to bother with a serious response 100% of the time, because you'll likely misread/misunderstand anyway and go off on a tangent about how it doesn't matter because the price of beans in Chile caused a change in the price of the tea in China, which will be either completely or only tangentially unrelated to the subject at hand.

I pointed out the EU does do at least some things better.

You've been brainwashed, and you react as a brainwashed person typically does when confronted with inconvenient facts.

Brainwashing is always built around falsehood. Because the underlying beliefs are false, logic is anathema. To maintain the integrity of the programming, direct engagement with logic must be avoided at all costs. This can take the form of bluster, circular reasoning, or sheer volume of nonsense.

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

the idea they have all the answers is ridiculous

Aestu wrote:

the EU isn't perfect and doesn't have all the answers

"When Black is White & White Is Black: Brainwashing And You"

Good of you to admit that. I will only submit this: They have the problems they have for the same reason we have the problems we have, which is because of the choices they made. I'm comfortable with the set of problems we have. I like to snuggle with them on the couch when no one is looking. I don't want the problems they have, because they smell of weird cheese and yak hair...which is why I say if it seems so appealing, feel free to try it out, but don't insist that I come along for the ride.

So you're content with the absence of problems that directly affect your life personally.
See: Aestu's Favorite Nixon Quote

What problems do you believe the EU has that are unacceptable? What's the source of your knowledge of those problems?

Jubbergun wrote:

Aestu wrote:

Jubbergun wrote:

One of the great things about the way the country was originally set up was that each individual state had different laws with little federal interference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_clause

Ahem...

Jubbergun wrote:

(not saying that the application of the Bill of Rights and other amendments to the states was a bad things)

Supremacy clause isn't part of the Bill of Rights. Articles of Confederation predate the Constitution. American Civil War established once and for all this is a federal republic, not a loose association of states.

You talk shit about the EU. About how bad it is. I acknowledged it has its problems...and one very serious problem the EU does have - that we do not - is an excessively weak central government and constant intrigues/petty bickering/legal differences between the member-states.

EU states in general, internally, have relatively weak federal governments. This is a driving force in their political and social culture. So you say you think lax federal power is good and the EU is bad, even though strong federal power has always been an American strength (since long before WWII) and a EU weakness.

Again - this is ignorance. You criticize a system, but your knowledge is so poor you do not even criticize the elements of the system that are worthy of the most severe criticism.

Jubbergun wrote:

Thanks for pointing out that oddly chosen list of countries, but the Middle East is (or given recent events, was) full of governments that were heavily involved in legislating day-to-day life...maybe you've not heard of the burqa and how these 'not-heavily-involved' governments are involving women's heads into them? I also like how you chop out one of the more important parts of my question before bringing your list to my attention: Are they purposely limited in scope, or limited by the ability to enact policy? With Eastern Europe (keep in mind I've spent time there) and Africa, I'd say it's more the latter than the former. Their ability to enact policy is a condition of their economic situation, which doesn't compare with us, because our economic situation is (at least in part) a result of enacted policies.

We're talking about economic policy.

Burqas have nothing to do with it. Following your logic, the EU should be beating the crap out of us economically because EU society is far less prudish and frontal nudity is legal on TV there.

Burquas are unique to Saudi Arabia and a few tiny states bordering the Red Sea. Most Middle Eastern countries do not wear burqas, least of all because most Middle Eastern governments are atheist police states hostile to radical Islam (e.g., Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey; formerly Iraq and Egypt). Again, ignorance.

You also completely ignored my reference to countries outside the Middle East - in Eastern Europe, or Africa.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 4:43 am

these walls of texts just keep getting longer and longer, making this thread more and more boring.

Also, the world's shittiest sport is most definitely NOT soccer.

Usdk · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:23 am

so in one post you talk about how the middle east has very limited government, and in the next, list a half a dozen middle eastern police states.

ok.

and france will have more problems with islam than burqas in the coming years, and you know it.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:57 am

Aestu wrote:

Brainwashing is always built around falsehood. Because the underlying beliefs are false, logic is anathema. To maintain the integrity of the programming, direct engagement with logic must be avoided at all costs. This can take the form of bluster, circular reasoning, or sheer volume of nonsense.

I don't think you realize how adequately those three things describe the majority of what you post.

Aestu wrote:

You also completely ignored my reference to countries outside the Middle East - in Eastern Europe, or Africa.

ORLY?

Jubbergun wrote:

I also like how you chop out one of the more important parts of my question before bringing your list to my attention: Are they purposely limited in scope, or limited by the ability to enact policy? With Eastern Europe (keep in mind I've spent time there) and Africa, I'd say it's more the latter than the former. Their ability to enact policy is a condition of their economic situation, which doesn't compare with us, because our economic situation is (at least in part) a result of enacted policies.

Aestu wrote:

We're talking about economic policy.

Funny...

Aestu wrote:

The government's role in legislating the economy or day-to-day life in the Middle East, or Eastern Europe, or Africa, or any other undeveloped country is extremely marginal, and those countries aren't doing well.

I'm fairly certain, and you'll have to excuse me for this since I don't have your issues with the English language, that when you mention the thing "we're talking about" (economics) then add a conjunction (in this case, "or") and another subject/group ("day-to-day life") that you're expanding the subject of discussion. You don't get to do that then complain that I'm not sticking to economics. If you open the door, don't be surprised when I come in and start selling vacuum cleaners.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Reagan vs. Obama: Economic Policy

Who is online