…then a balanced budget is far off.
The CBO released its November budget review yesterday. In this figure, the red dashed line (receipts) is slowing its ascent. Expenditures are falling, but to the extent that transfers rise in slowdowns, one knows the likely trajectory of the blue line.
A week ago I reviewed the reasons why $90-a-barrel oil by itself would not be enough to cause an economic recession. As oil prices charged up to $96 on Friday, a reporter asked me at what price I’d change my mind.
I find it interesting that one of the big drags on economic growth — namely high oil prices — is at least partially self-induced by United States policy.
This week’s GDP and employment numbers were a pleasant surprise. Should this cause the Fed to change its warning in Wednesday’s FOMC minutes that
the pace of economic expansion will likely slow in the near term.
The BEA’s NIPA release had some surprises for many. Here are some aspects of the release that I find surprising.
Fret as we all might, the U.S. economy just keeps on growing.
There’s an idea floating around that asserts that the high price of oil is — at least in part — due to the weak dollar. Does this make sense?
For Halloween I could perhaps write something about what’s spooking the Fed as they contemplate tomorrow’s fed funds rate decision. But I decided instead to write about the Salem witch trials.
Cute pic from the Curious Capitalist.
Oil shocks in 1973, 1979, and 1990 were each followed by a recession. But we saw the price of oil climb from $20 a barrel in 2002 to $75 a year ago, and so far it has not resulted in a significant economic downturn. What’s different now, and can we count on it to continue?