What Disposable Income Looks Like: With And Without Government Handouts

Tyler Durden's picture

While it is now undisputed by even the Federal Reserve itself, that all the "benefits" of QE have accrued exclusively to the wealthiest segment of society, those 0.01% whose wealth is mostly invested in financial assets which have inflated in direct proportion with the Fed's balance sheet, some have tried to suggest that because the disposable income of the average American has also increased in the past few years, then QE has been a success. There is one problem with that statement: it isn't true.

As Eric Sprott points out in his latest letter, "if one looks past headline figures, things are not really getting better. As shown in Figure 1, real disposable income per capita in the U.S. has increased only modestly since the Great Recession. However, all of this increase is due to Government Transfers, not from an improvement in the real economy. If we exclude those transfers from the numbers, disposable income per capita is actually lower than it was at the end of 2005 and has been painfully flat since 2011. Also, those numbers assume that the headline Consumer Price Index (CPI) accurately represents people’s purchasing power."

Presenting our chart of the day: disposable income with and without government transfers.

And it is not just disposable income: as Sprott explains, "the U.S. economy has been on life support, graciously provided by Central Planners. However hard they try, they will soon realize that no amount of money printing can cleanse the rot of the U.S. economy."

Here is why for a large portion of the population, "things are not anywhere close to being better, in fact they are worse than before the recession."

From Eric Sprott

First of all, there is income inequality. Those in the top 20% have seen their incomes increase while those in the bottom 40% have stagnated or even decreased. Figure 2 shows the average after-tax income of U.S. households by quintiles, as measured by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey, since 2005. It is hard to see from the chart, but in 2012 for the lowest 20% (Quintile 1) of U.S. households, the average annual after-tax income is $10,171 (up from $9,220 in 2005). Similarly, the next 20% is not much better off, with incomes averaging $27,743 (up from $25,200 in 2005). By contrast, during the same period, the average household income for the top earning quintile (Quintile 5) increased 14% to $158,024. From our calculations, the bottom 40% of the U.S. population receives approximately 12% of the nation’s after-tax income, while the highest 20% receives more than 50%. So, because of the wide disparity between U.S. households, it is grossly misleading to consider aggregate measures to assess the health of the U.S. consumer. (Note: For the rest of this analysis we combine the bottom two quintiles (bottom 40%) as they share common characteristics and it facilitates the discussion.)

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - Consumer Expenditure Survey

In light of these disparities and to facilitate the analysis, we have combined the two bottom quintiles’ (bottom 40% of households) incomes and expenditures for 2005 (pre-crisis) and 2012 (most recent data from the Bureau of Labour Statistics). Data is presented in Figure 3.

The first panel of Figure 3 shows after tax income for the bottom 40% of households in 2005 and 2012, along with a breakdown of some of its components. All figures are in current dollars (i.e. not adjusted for inflation). Not too surprisingly, average after-tax annual household income increased by a meagre 8%, from $17,463 to $18,844. Wages and salaries, which represent about half of income, increased only 4%. Most of the increase has been in the form of government transfers; social security increased 14%, unemployment and veteran benefits 102% and other forms of public assistance 40%. In fact, of the $1,380 increase in average after-tax income, 93% comes from increases in government transfers.

Source: Consumer Expenditure Survey, 2012, 2005 & Sprott Calculations

The second and third panels of Figure 3 show average annual expenses in dollars as well as in percent of after tax income. We also show a breakdown of spending for categories that we consider “non-discretionary”, in the sense that they are unavoidable expenses such as food, shelter, utilities, health care and transportation. Perhaps the most striking (but not that surprising) finding from that table is the fact that 40% of U.S. households spend about 40% more than they make (138% and 145% in 2005 and 2012, respectively)! In case you wonder how a household can spend more than it earns, there are many ways such as: borrowing, selling assets, assistance from family, etc. While incomes increased only 8%, total expenses increased 14%, driven by very large increases in shelter (22%) and health care (18%) spending.

Additionally, an ever increasing proportion of people’s after tax income goes towards what we call “non-discretionary spending”. As shown at the bottom of Figure 3, in 2005 those households used to spend 97% of their income for basic necessities, while in 2012 this has increased to 104%.

Five years into this so-called economic recovery, on average 40% of the poorest U.S. households still spend more than they earn (including government transfers) for basic necessities!

We believe that there are two main reasons for this. The first one has to do with income inequality; as we have shown, incomes have been almost constant since 2005, with most of the increase driven by unsustainable governmental assistance. Furthermore, prices for basic necessities, which constitute the entirety of these households’ budgets, have been increasing at a steady pace. Figure 4 shows the reported price over the past 7 years for energy, food commodities and rents against the “Official” Headline Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Over that period, overall price levels, as measured by the CPI, went up 22% (versus 8% for after tax incomes). However, for the same period, rent, energy and food prices increased 26%, 54% and 115%, respectively. No wonder those same households spend 33% of their income on shelter, 21% on food and 14% on utilities and fuels!

Source: Bloomberg, Sprott Calculations

How can we have an economic recovery when there is barely any discretionary disposable income for 40% of the population? As we have shown above, those that have seen their incomes grow and not the ones most likely to spend, while the bottom 40% of households still rely heavily on government assistance, have had stagnant incomes and have been faced with increasing inflation for “non-discretionary” goods that constitute a very large share of their incomes.

There is clearly no recovery…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ebworthen's picture

"Scraping the bottom of the barrel" comes to mind.

And in this Depression, very few live on a farm or have an outhouse.

This is why local police forces are being militarized, as it will be urban chaos.

0b1knob's picture

A chart of income adjusted for both handouts AND income and social security taxes would be enlightening.

NidStyles's picture

Just imagine how different this would look if all of that money printing had ended up directly in the US economy. Now imagine what it will look when those USD's in foreign hands finally come home to roost. 

I mean, a lot of people think it looks ok now, and some people actually think the levels of inflation here are not causing much of the wealth-effect that they think it should have to prove it's accuracy.

The rush of incoming reserves to the US will be the rush of the door for international trade slamming shut in front of the average Americans face. They will not even see it coming, and when it does it will be so fast, so abrupt and violent that they will over-night see a change in the amount wealth they have had stolen from them. 

This is going to be very ugly. 



ZerOhead's picture

I wonder what GDP would have looked like without all those trillions in deficit spending...

TheReplacement's picture

Isn't that as easy as deducting the deficit spending from GDP?  Not good.

rbg81's picture

This is perhaps the most enlightening article I've read on ZH.  It also explains how the Liberals managed to out manuever the Conservatives -- little by little, they've gotten most of the population addicted to entitlements.  Companies too.  Just think what corporate profits would look like if companies actually had to pay workers enough to live on.

Who is really paying for all this?  Savers.  The thing that makes all this possible is ZIRP.  Take that away and the party ends really, really fast.

Siniverisyys's picture

Early capitalist theorists held that if wages become too low, one could simply opt-out of wage-earning. That would an the equalizer of the labour market; a person could strike out on their own. However, almost all capital and productive property is mostly owned by the very wealthiest. With economies-of-scale, automation, industrialization, and high-tech equipment, the barriers-to-entry to most markets are virtually impossible to overcome for small start-ups. Enjoy your slavery.

NidStyles's picture

Capital = productive property. There is no other definition for capital that applies without being self-defying through defintion. 


The great thing about early Capitalist Theories is that we can learn from them, and if we have learned throughout the centuries is that technology always get's in the way of monopolies.

You young guys need to stop thinking so deterministic. It's too vague and unrealistic. The data set today is too large for any one entity to control it, and that is why the economies around the world are falling apart. 


Unless you actually think those people like Hillary are actually competent. I mean Bill was the damn president and he couldn't even get a hummer without the whole world finding out. 




disabledvet's picture

Bill Clinton bought a Hummvee and got in trouble?

Is that recent? I don't recall reading about that.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

To be young is to naturally think deterministicly. I remember the time fondly. I was newly graduated and I had figured it all out. The text books had told me what bacteria do and how to identify them. All I needed to do was apply my knowledge. I was shocked to find out bacteria didn't read text books.

It seems to me economics are somewhat analogous to my field. A dynamic environment with multiple variables interacting in space and time. One species trying to dominate and control their resources and fighting to maintain it. Only the truly clueless or arrogant think they can accurately model it.

To make capitalism work at a higher level, rules must be applied so no one has an unfair advantage in the sandbox. These rules have no longer been respected, in fact, they have been spat on. Blow back at some point is inevitable. And all will learn from it.


Anusocracy's picture

Contrary to your thinking, having the ability to make and enforce rules created the unfair advantages in the sandbox.

No system predicated on the monopoly use of force will be fair, it will begin unfair and deteriorate accordingly.

Just as it has.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

The ability to make and enforce rules does not necessarily mean there is an unfair advantage. If I were put in a position as an arbiter I would base my decision on the arguments of the 2 parties in accordance of the laws in place. I must maintain my impartiality. If I were to accept money from one of the parties or have received my position from the negotiation of the other, then I could not hear the case for the obvious reason I would be biased.

Government has lain in the bed of the corporations. They cannot make impartial decisions, therefore any law made would be slanted towards their benefactors, not the citizenry. This is not the failure of capitalism. We are living in a fascistic Corporatocracy, the furthest thing from capitalism. The founding fathers put rules in place to prevent this and they have been nullified.


Tall Tom's picture

The current dynamic is that which resulted from the Initial Conditions (the Rules) set by the Founding Fathers.


The flaw that is inherent resides in the fact that most are unwilling to follow the rules from the very start. Thus the words on the document are vaccouus, void of any meaning as that contract (the Constitution) was abandoned for expedience at the very start. (What was the Whiskey Rebellion during Washington's tenure?  Following that President Adams made it a crime to criticize his White House. etc. etc. etc.)


"I meant to behave but there were other options."

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Yes, words on a piece of paper have no enforcement capabilities. Chamberlain found this out the hard way. The Constitution is worthless if its principles are not maintained by a vigilant awake population. Incrementally destroyed by those who want power in the presence the slumbering ignorant, is there no surprise at the outcome? I must share the responsibility as well for allowing the foxes to raid the hen house. I was fooled and distracted, powerless to stop the slow moving train wreck when I finally realized what had happened.

All of us do not like rules. Give me one and I plot to evade it. Soon I drive 95 mph on the freeway and then plead my case to the highway patrolman who nails me, usually to no avail. However, I do think twice after I pay my fine, and remember to watch my rear view window more judiciously in the future;-)


" there is no other option but to misbehave"

All Risk No Reward's picture

>>The ability to make and enforce rules does not necessarily mean there is an unfair advantage.<<

In theory, true.

At a national scale - it has never, ever, ever, ever happened.

The wicked people lust for control and seek power to gain that control.

The current crop of wicked people leverage science (yes, of the mind, too) to manipulate us, but their primary energy source is debt based money, hence I call the Debt Money Tyrants.

Our debt money system is a prima facie fraud.

If I lend you $20 @ 5% interest, in one year you owe me $21 due to double entry bookkeeping adjustments that add $1 interest liability to your balance sheet and $1 interest asset to my balance sheet.

IOW, in one year you have $20, yet owe me $21...  and when you can't pay I bankrupt you and seize your assets.

But, the government could stop you - EXACTLY, hence I finance my operatives into office to lie to you while I allow them to gain riches insider trading against the gullible public.

So, I control them, too.  If they get out of line, well, let's not go there. Let's just say we have pensions to threaten, dirt we've dug up to release, and one class of people tell no tales.

Would you like to know what a "bailout" is?  It is when I lend $20 into existence, just as in the example above, except instead of giving it to you, I stick it in my corporate front pocket.

In one year, I send you a bill for $21 EVEN THOUGH I GAVE YOU $0.  Oh, and I expect you to be so nescient in regards to monetary reality that I actually tell you I'm doing this for your benefit.  If you only knew what I was doing to you...  you'd shackle me right up.

“In our time, the curse is monetary illiteracy, just as inability to read plain print was the curse of earlier centuries.” ? Ezra Pound “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.” ~Henry Ford BTW, stealing $20 is no good - it isn't enough.  So they have to build the debt bubble up by making this inextinguishable debt payable for a time...  not forever mind you, but for a time. So they...  ger this...  lend another $20 into existence which makes the first $20 payable.  The next $20 isn't payable, but the due date was extended... creating an exponential debt growth curve. What is this called?  INFLATION!  Now you know the real reason WHY INFLATION IS A MUST IN THIS PRIMA FACIE DEBT MONEY FRAUDULENT SYSTEM. There is no economic, finance or monetary book on the planet available to the general public that will TELL THIS TRUTH TO YOU. Yet, there it is...  5th grade math + basic bookkeeping + basic common sense...  for all to see but few to comprehend. Those with quick insight will note that some of the debt receipts get lost every year (fire, couch, boating accident, whatever).  In a closed system, this would mean the zero sum debt / money game would turn into a net negative game that would decrease the money relative to the debt that created it every single year. The Debt Money Tyrants engineered an eloquent solution to this problem that would stress their slow burn to bust societal asset stripping Debt Star system...  coinage is created debt free, therefore, it can be produced to replace the Federal Reserve Note debt receipts that get lost every year. Again, you won't read that fact in any text book available to the general public. If this Veritas makes sense, please comment because I feel like I'm explaining this to a wall.  If you feel this analysis is wrong, PLEASE EXPLAIN, IN DETAIL WHY.  I pursue TRUTH...  I value rationally elucidated contrary opinions a lot.
Me.Grimlock's picture

" If this Veritas makes sense, please comment because I feel like I'm explaining this to a wall."

I fully understand your frustration, for I experience it, it seems, all the time also.  While family and friends will each tell you that I have "some wild ideas," they will also admit to me being "right... nearly all the time."  I attribute it to being early to the game and just being able to put the pieces together slightly ahead of some others.  That being said, I generally get three reactions when attempting to explain this type of situation to people:

1. Eyes glazed over; comments that I'm some sort of conspiracy nut and/or paranoid - usually by statists, young children; teenagers, college stupids and idiots (but I repeat myself).

2. "I don't want to have to think about that." - otherwise intelligent individuals that refuse to engage on important topics; reality tv watchers; those who understand that learning about it will require action to get results.

3. "I'm too old to do anything about it." - my parents and other family members, provided they will listen to what I have to say.

The wife often gets concerned about me when I come to bed, agitated and upset and she'll ask me what's wrong (which is likely the wrong question to ask, as it sends me on a tirade).  I just explain that I've been reading Zero Hedge (and some other pertinent web sites, or books or whatever) and she'll know that I've been putting things together that most others cannot (or will not) see. I'll get the inevitable "I'm glad I have you to worry about such things for us," but the like-minded know that such platitudes are more enraging than anything else.

She'll eventually calm me down and remind me that we're bigger than the game being foisted upon us.  I'll consider her words, look at the planning I've been able to accomplish despite the game (meager in comparison as they may be when compared to others), and silently remind myself that the fight is worth it... so I soldier on in trying to help people understand.

Miffed Microbiologist's picture

Megrimlock, I completely understand. I was the one who was agitated in bed, unable to sleep, mind a whir of thoughts and concerns. My husband was frustrated with me. He had several 100k in 401k and other investments and slept soundly. He said we were set for retirement. I wanted to by PMs. He looked at me and laughed. " explain to me how your gold will give me an 8% yearly return?" Then he'd pat me on the head and say" let me worry about the finances dear, I know what I'm doing". I started to drink too much. Finally I found ZH.

Let just say he had eaten lots of crow and we have both gotten on the same page. I have earned his respect.

Don't give up. I come here to be among like minded people and hone my knowledge. Some people will listen a little, most do not. I prep for my survival in the worst case scenario and pray I never have to need such skills. And, guess what...I laugh a lot and enjoy life. I treat every day as if it were my last and live life to the fullest. Be happy and do the same.


kaiserhoff's picture

Well, some of us will learn, and some, like Ben, never seem to learn.

Great analogy.  Thanks.

Professorlocknload's picture

Corporatist Capitalism isn't possible sans protectionist rules and regulations. But one can only hope that someday, as a first, Free Market Capitalism might be tried.

oooBooo's picture

The barriers to entry are the problem, but the barriers that really stop people are due to government regulation, licensing, etc and so on. the corporatist cartel that stops new comers from ever getting a foothold.




doctor10's picture

ObamaCare sucks up about 150% of that "increase"

Offthebeach's picture

Dog shooting, SWAT team rotation, even Tasers use all sensitize cops to shooting sheeple for ever minor acts, but mostly not obeying. The worst crime a serf sheeple can commit. Next step, pre-shooting, pre-punishment. On the plus side you can get pre-Appeals Court rejection of your pre-crime, so we'll have that going for us, which is nice.

ekm1's picture



USA.      - 4%


China.   - 8%


Canada.   -2%


EU   -6%


Germany.   -2%


World.  -5%


World economy will continue at minus -5% mainly due to quantitative easing which was designed to destroy the real economy on purpose by bank lobby.


Insolvent Bank lobby is basically doing Financial Jihad and is using Suicide Belt, or otherwise called: Quantitative Easing

I am Jobe's picture

Getting there. USSA is redefining GDP lately. Also don;t forget AMERIKA will be adding hookers and drugs to the GDP. 


Skateboarder's picture

Dawg without hookers and drugs, there is no GDP.

medium giraffe's picture

Do not try and bend the GDP. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth

What truth?

There is no GDP

There is no GDP?

Then you'll see, that it is not the GDP that bends, it is only yourself

Skateboarder's picture

GDP has more revision history than all the source code on the planet put together. ;-)

What a piece of shit metric.

Greenskeeper_Carl's picture

True. And even with all that bullshit you mention, and even with inflation drastically manipulated downward, we still had -3% GDP last quarter. Of love/hate to know what it really was.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Estimating pursuit of happiness would be all the constitution mandates fedgov to do.   Take Trayvon, sure he was materially poor, but he died pursuing the ingredients for Purple Drank, on very modest income.  It doesn't get much better than that.  

All Risk No Reward's picture

Uh, yeah, but they strapped the suicide belt to us and they got off the bus.  I guarantee you there are no plans to damage themselves.  To the contrary, they are licking their chops as the time approaches when they bust the debtors and asset strip them of everything... including thei dignitiy and soul if they can get them.


I am Jobe's picture

Amerikan exceptionalism I might say. Waiting for BlackFriday Sale, IPHONE SALE is the future of Amerikans. Yippie

Pairadimes's picture

What part of "currency printing does not equal wealth creation" is so difficult for policy makers to understand?

Yes, this is a rhetorical question.

All Risk No Reward's picture

What part of "currency printing doesn't exist" don't you understand...  THEY LEND MONEY INTO EXISTENCE AT INTEREST.

It is even worse than this fabled "currency printing" false narrative programmed into the minds of people that don't udnerstand the system.

"But QE is money printing..."  No, IT ISN'T.

QE is issuing money in return for (mostly worhtless - bank on it, pun intended) assets.  While a shallow understanding of this scenario might conclude it is the equivalent of "money printing," IT IS NOT.


The end result is that their is debt associated with every dollar issued...  SAME AS WITH ANY OTHER DOLLAR ISSUED TO SOCIETY.

The only difference is the time frame in which the debt is recognized...  with QE it is on the tail end and not up front.  BUT IT IS THERE...

Peter Pan's picture

All I can say is that all I can see is a slow motion genocide taking place of people, hopes and the system.

The question is whether we will see an explosion or whether within a generation people will come to accept their lot in life and become nothing more than scavengers.

All Risk No Reward's picture

Expect the latter until your faith in human dignity is dustified like the World Trade Center buildings (all three...  not just two).

Eventually it will blow...  but there will be no dignity associated with it.

Solipsism and narcissism are way over rated.

Offthebeach's picture

Some will be shot down in street protests. Many will join the security forces and do the shooting and clubbing. Many will rot away in urban reservations, living on govcheese, alcohol and fuel assistance. Others drift off to the next hopium fiat particle board abd Chinese sheetrock boomtown where they write 24 month Korean car loans.
And then you die.

All Risk No Reward's picture

We've been so punked...  wait until the stress activates the cancer causing monkey viruses in the vaccines (SV-40).

BTW, a good book for consideration is Dr. Mary's Monkey.  Mary's murder was stages in her apartment (100% - no way around it) and the story that surrounds it is quite interesting.

For reviews...

The verifiable information (how truth tellers were obliterated by the establishment, how local police and media operate to present such an obviously and provably false crime scene narrative) is scary all on its own.


CheapBastard's picture

"We want Moar" cried the Hoi Poloi.

PAWNMAN's picture

The illusion continues in earnest. Wonder if David Copperfield works over at the Fed?

Inthemix96's picture

Lets see what those in the financial world are worth when our currencies collapse.

You think these pampered cunts could grow a cabbage?  Could they change a lightbulb?  No?

Didnt think so.

It will be wholesale slaughter of the leeches.

It cant fucking come too soon.

And NSA, GCHQ, can you lot 'Really' look after yourselves in a man on man situation?  Didnt think so.


Hulk's picture

Interestingly enough inthemix96, one can remove a broken light bulb with a cabbage !!!

That is all for now, smoke if you got em...

Me.Grimlock's picture

Ostensibly, one can chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with...



All Risk No Reward's picture

>>Lets see what those in the financial world are worth when our currencies collapse.<<

This is an absurd statement... and I don't care how many Libertarian establishment types repeast it.

Money is debt.  Money **is** debt.

Repeat that as many times until it sinks in.

It is equivalent to say "when my collateralized debt collapses," but the absurdity is exposed.

Collapse on the debt and society loses everything to the debt holders...  Biggest Finance Capital Debt Money Tyrants.

Every dollar over in China has a corresponding debt somehwere else...  IT ISN'T SURPLUS MONEY.

Some poor debt serf needs the dollars or THEY GO BUST.  PERIOD.

We don't have Zimbabwe money. or even Weimar money....  we have debt based money controlled by DEBT MONEY TYRANTS and they've already told you what they are going to do...

"The Money Power Seeks to Create a World System of Financial Control in Private Hands Able to Dominate Every Nation on Earth

In addition to these pragmatic goals, the powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business."
~Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton mentor, Council on Foreign Relations historian

kchrisc's picture

As I told my fixed-income dad: "They created inflation by stealing from you and then they steal from you again by under-reporting inflation, so apply for all the 'government-assistance' you can to at least even things out. Then put as much of it as possible into gold and silver, steel and lead and blade and wood."


"Fuck the government until you get your guillotine built."

failure to perform's picture

But I just read this article.

The avereage checking accout balance reached $4,436 at the end of last year, nearly double the average balance of $2,100 seen over the last 25 years, according to a new report from Moebs Services, an economic research firm. Prior to 2003, checking account balances pretty much hovered around $2,000, according to the report.




FreedomGuy's picture

That alone does not measure wealth. The savings account could be empty. The 401k could be cashed out. Perhaps they sold one car and live with one. Income as a measure of wages is a good measure and predictor then perhaps a total asset evaluation.

I would add that it is normal in bad times for wealthy to get wealthier even if some go under. When you and I and our whole neighborhoood have to do a fire sale on our homes because we all lost our jobs, it is most likely the wealthy guy that comes in with the cash and buys them all at a 30% discount...then rents them back to us when we are reemployed. Wealth and the positions that generate great wealth are more insulated from downturns and better prepared to prosper. Stocks can be bought at 50% off while you and I have to cash out our 401k. BTW, the government is right there to collect the EXTRA taxes when you are laid off and cashing out assets, too. Yup, there to help you when you are down. With those extra taxes they will build new "infrastructure" so you have a shiny new bridge to live under when your cash is gone.

The problem is with the Fed and government policy creating booms, busts and stagnant recoveries, only the wealthy can navigate the times to prosper in any way. This is the legacy of centrally planned and centrally managed economies.

disabledvet's picture

Ah the "soft landing" days.

"Fine tuning" and other aspects of the insanity that is "the Federal Reserve."

Still I do like the Grandma Moses thing Yellens go going here. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing!

"On the outside she is Remus...but on the inside...SHE'S ROMULUS."

doctor10's picture

That just says monthly expenses have more than doubled!!!