
Civility, root causes of our problems, community, good news, the economy, Trump, history, religion, popular culture, Indiana, Hamilton County.
Scroll down to the bottom to subscribe.


Overall, at the same core 2.5% growth rate seen for the last decade.

Labor productivity growth down a bit from the pandemic recovery bump.

Median wage growth remains at 2%, down a bit from pre-pandemic 2.5%.

Job growth is very weak. Typically, this indicates a coming recession, but the reduction of the immigration labor supply makes historical comparisons difficult.

Unemployment rate remains at historically low 4.5% but it has been increasing for more than 2 years.

The “underemployed” rate shows the same relative level and trend.

Labor force participation hit record levels after the pandemic and has remained there.

The personal savings rate is low, a bit below the pandemic and trending slightly downward.

Mortgage rates remain elevated, around 6.5%.

New home sales are pretty stable, at pre-pandemic level.

Housing prices jumped from $320,000 to $440,000 after the pandemic. They have fallen back by 5% in 4 years.

The US stock market continues to climb.

Corporate profits have roughly doubled since before the pandemic.

Manufacturing employment continues to decline.

Exports are up 50% and still growing slowly.

Imports also increased by 50%.

Businesses continue to invest.

Business confidence remains weak.

Businesses have maintained their target inventory to sales ratios.

Consumer confidence is down and weak.


Federal debt % of GDP remains at 120%, up from 105%.

Value of the US dollar increased by 10-12% after the pandemic, but has retreated by 6%.

The Federal Reserve Board has reduced interest rates by 1.5%.

Core inflation rate has levelled off near 3%.

The GDP Price deflator measure of inflation is a little better, approaching 2.5%, but also level or growing.

Misery index is up a bit at 7.5%.
Stock market is solidly up together with corporate profits and business investment.
Inflation and unemployment are up. Budget deficits and debt remain high. Dollar value is down. Manufacturing employment is down. Business and consumer confidence is down.
Other measures are comparable to the 2023-2024 Biden economy base; not improving as often claimed.
The US economy is increasingly resilient and not easily changed by small policy choices or “jawboning”.

I wrote many posts during the Biden administration to counteract the recurring false claims about “runaway inflation”. Biden was certainly guilty of spending too much taxpayers’ money for economic recovery, infrastructure, green projects and student loan forgiveness. This aggravated the inflation rate, made it slower to fall and established expectations of higher long-term inflation. However, the primary drivers of inflation were the pandemic driven demand for physical goods after factories closed, loose monetary policy and bipartisan government spending to offset the pandemic. We all enjoyed 20 years of price stability before this. A little bumpiness after a pandemic driven global shutdown was not surprising.

The climbing inflation rate broke in June, 2022 more than 3 years ago. It has not slowed under Trump’s stewardship.

The inflation rate has been in the 3% +/- range for the last 2 years. That means that prices, on average, continue to increase each year. 2% inflation was the normal rate for the prior 20 years. It (3%) seems to be a rate that is “non-accelerating”. Economic agents, including consumers, are able to ignore 2% inflation. It is immaterial, too small to really notice. 3% inflation is on the border of being “concerning”. Inflation can more easily accelerate from 3% to a concerning 5% or higher. President Trump can claim that he has maintained the Biden inflation reduction from 9% to 3% but he cannot claim that he has reduced prices, reduced inflation or made the cost of living more affordable.

The core inflation rate, excluding the more volatile food and energy prices, has shown the same pattern. It peaked at 6.5% and declined to “about 3%” by June, 2024. It has moved down by one-quarter percent since then. Unfortunately, it seems to be flat. Trump has not moved it down.
President Trump has pursued 2 of these 12 areas but worked in the opposite way to increase inflation on most. He has pressured drug prices down. He has encouraged increased supply of traditional fossil fuels energy.

Federal budget deficit remains at an unsustainable $1.7T per year. Too much demand, not enough supply.

President Trump has been harassing Fed Chair Jerome Powell (who he appointed) to cut interest rates. The real, inflation adjusted, interest rate is currently 1%. Monetary policy is neutral or a little tight. President Trump encourages looser monetary policy which increases inflation. Not an inflation fighter.

The US dollar has declined in value since Trump took office, making foreign purchases more expensive.

Housing prices peaked in 2022, drifted down by 5% in 2022 and have remained flat for the last two and a half years. Trump policies have no impact here.

3% medical inflation continues despite efforts to reduce drug prices.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/11/business/prescription-drug-prices-trump

Food prices are more volatile than most. Inflation reached 11% in 2022. It approached 2% in 2024 but has since increased to 3% annually.

Energy prices jumped in the first 2 years of recovery from the pandemic. They have been flat since then. Trump has cancelled $8B worth of previously authorized energy projects.

Gas prices averaged $2.50/gallon before the pandemic, spiked up to $4.50/gallon during the recovery and settled back to $3.00/gallon for the last 3 years.


US consumers enjoyed immaterial average import tariff rates for the last 50 years. Trump has levied an 18% tax on imports, increasing costs for American consumers of the 14% of their consumption that is imported. The inflationary impact of the Trump tariffs has not yet been passed along to consumers. The frequent changes in tariff rates have led businesses to absorb costs in the short run. This will not continue.
Trump invests fewer resources in collecting taxes, reducing budget deficits and reducing inflation.
No support from Trump for increased labor union power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_Government_Efficiency
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-firings-watchdogs-inspectors-general-60-minutes/
Marginal results from the highly publicized DOGE efforts, despite very large opportunities for improvement.
A $10 billion-dollar permanent loss of output.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/oct/31/federal-shutdown-cost-economy-trump/
This recent tax change benefits individuals with enough income to pay federal income taxes, so improves affordability for an estimated 4 million people.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/how-does-no-tax-on-tips-work-in-the-one-big-beautiful-bill/
This recent tax change exempts the overtime premium from federal taxation, so promotes affordability for hourly wage earners.
This provision of OBBA benefits low to moderate income households aged 65 and older. Many experts criticize its structure, but it clearly makes life more affordable for those who benefit from the change.
.https://taxfoundation.org/blog/obbba-senior-deduction-tax-relief/
Higher income taxpayers who itemize deductions received a significant federal tax reduction. This change does not benefit most low to moderate income households.
https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/SALT-deduction-increase
The OBBBA increased tax credits to partially offset childcare costs. Critics considered these changes to be inadequate, noting that a “pro-family” political party should do better.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/10/25/5-facts-about-child-care-costs-in-the-us/
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the-top-five-trump-attacks-exacerbating-the-child-care-crisis/

Real, inflation adjusted, compensation is slowly recovering towards its pre-pandemic level.
Greatly reduced net immigration will tighten the labor supply in some industries, leading to higher compensation for some workers and higher prices for consumers. Economists have not reached a consensus on the net impact to the typical American.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-firings-watchdogs-inspectors-general-60-minutes/
Inflation continues at 3% annually. Real wages are keeping up with inflation. The memory of large price increases in 2022 that were never reversed seems to have reset inflation expectations from 1-2% to 3-4% per year. Some tax law changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill meaningfully cut taxes. Fiscal policy remains very loose and drives inflation. Monetary policy is considered neutral by most economists, but Trump is trying to loosen it, which risks further inflation. Trump’s “on/off” tariff negotiations have not yet driven large consumer price increases but have slowed business investments. Trump’s claims to have improved “affordability” rest on his specific actions that point in that direction, not on the economy wide statistics or large-scale policies that might significantly improve affordability for the “average” family.

The “orange one” does not “hold all of the cards”. He is critically threatened by his foreign handlers and the US justice system. He was not elected to promote a trade war. No one expected a trade war. He merely “shadow boxed” during his first term on trade. He has made the “trade war” his first priority because it is a “sure win” politically, in the short-run. He first bluffed exaggerated 50% and 100% tariffs, and the media duly reported these crazy claims that anchor or outline the story. He now claims HUGE victories with 15% tariffs. The self-described GOAT negotiator thereby proves his standing. He claims victory. He uses this temporary bump in support to take over the government.
Citizens need to recognize that this is clearly not a “win” for the country. Import tariffs are simply taxes. They get split between the foreign exporter, the importer and the retail customer. At 15%, the typical payment split is 25%, 25% and 50%. Exporters still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They have fixed costs. They have profits. They can reduce prices in the short-term. Importers still want to sell goods and maintain market share. They can limit price increases in the short-term. Most markets are “sticky”. Brands, supply chains, habits, marketing and convenience matter. Import costs are half to three-quarters of retail prices. The consumer price increase is 5-8%. Some consumers switch to lower priced options, some don’t. The “next best” low price option for an imported good is probably another imported good. The “Trump tariffs” distort markets. They don’t deliver a “victory” for American consumers, producers, labor, finance or government. They merely “gum up the works”.
The “orange one” understands leverage, populism and persuasion. He really doesn’t understand markets, as demonstrated by his dozens of business failures. A 15% import tariff will cause pain for foreign exporters, US importers and consumers. It’s not large enough to cause a domestic firm to invest in expanded capacity. They will use all of their existing capacity and even cut prices a little to win market share. Manufacturing investments require 20-30-40 year timeframes to be viable. They require confidence in government policies on trade, regulations, antitrust, labor, environment, intellectual property, lobbying, property taxes, inventory taxes, corporate income taxes, international taxes, international finance, transportation, supply chains, labor costs, etc. Trump’s policies strongly work against such investments.
US industries don’t import goods to save just 10%. They import goods because the total cost of imports is at least 20% lower and trending in the right direction. Importing always has extra costs for transportation, communications, delays, coordination, property risks, quality control, product development, supplier management, flexibility, tariff risks on both ends, legal risks, capital controls, financial transactions, inventory, obsolescence, etc. There is a “step function” involved here. US firms from 1970-2000 only relinquished their domestic manufacturing because when they completely ignored all fixed costs and only looked at short-term variable costs, they had to outsource production. There will be no overall manufacturing renaissance. There will be some very low labor cost manufacturing that returns to the states. That is, only where labor costs are a small percentage of the total production cost. Hence the “job creation” impact will be tiny, impossible to measure.
So … if they won’t build new factories, what will be the leading responses of domestic importers? They will find ways to import/reroute goods from lowest tariff countries. They will find ways to reclassify goods and avoid tariffs. They will lobby for exemptions. They will import only key components and do “final assembly” locally in highly automated factories. They will hold imported goods in a Free Trade Zone. They will split physical products from services and intellectual property to minimize tariffs. They will lobby for domestic government subsidies. They will offer “service hour models” to customers as in aircraft engines and never sell the physical goods and incur the tariffs.
Will the import tariffs reduce the federal budget deficit? Yes. The US imports 15% of GDP. Tariffs will be applied to about half of the imports. Imports will be reduced and replaced by domestic production, a little. 15% of 5% is about 0.75% of GDP. The federal budget deficit is 6.5% and climbing. This will help a little. Consumers will pay for half of this as in a sales tax.
What are the secondary impacts of the tariffs? Domestic firms will invest management time and money in managing the system instead of developing better goods and services. Lower import competition often leads to higher prices overall. Domestic producers experience higher input costs and attempt to pass them along to consumers. Foreign countries will increase their tariff and non-tariff barriers to US exporters. The US loses its moral advantage as a promoter of “free trade”. The US loses opportunities to reduce trade barriers through global and regional “free trade” agreements. The US loses the opportunity to drive global labor and environmental standards. The US loses the opportunity to expand free trade in services, the industries of the future. The US’s “unfair advantage” as the manager of the US dollar as the global currency will be challenged. The US’s soft power in language, arts, education, language, culture, and global leadership will be questioned. The US’s role as a stalwart ally will be undermined, leading to merely costlier and unreliable transactional relations with former allies. Foreign citizens will choose to not consume US goods and services. The US will have to pay directly for its global military bases. The US will have to pay for allies’ support on the “war on terror”. The US will have to pay for all global initiatives. The US will have to directly control “rogue states”. The indirect costs are HUGE and unappreciated.
Why did the US pursue the post WW II new world order? Ending imperialism and colonies. Forming the United Nations and trying to use it to manage some conflicts. Principles of political self-determination and human rights. Global bodies for better health. Investments in Germany, Italy, Japan and Europe instead of reparations. International Monetary Foundation and World Bank to support developing nations and manage currencies. GATT and WTO to promote lower trade barriers and multilateral deals. NATO and other alliances rather than colonies and protectorates. The win/lose approach of the 1800’s, WWI and WWII had failed. The world was ready to try a win/win approach. The US, with its history of isolationism, exceptionalism and national independence, chose to not pursue “world dominance”. The post- WWII institutions were not perfect, but they demonstrated that they were much better than those that had governed international relations for the prior 500 years.
Again, put everything in perspective. The US imports 15% of GDP. 15% import tariffs on half of goods. Consumers adjust and substitute domestic and lower total price imports. US consumers pay a 1% sales tax on imported goods. US military and influence costs rise by much more than 1% of GDP. Consumers pay higher prices. The US has less global influence. Where is the win? Marginal manufacturing plants and jobs are not returning to the US, no matter what the “orange one” says unless they are subsidized by the local, state or national government.
This is just another “con” by the “orange one”. We want to believe that American jobs have been unfairly stolen by government subsidized factories and low-cost labor without environmental protections in foreign countries. There is a grain of truth in each claim. Foreign governments do subsidize export firms. They try to maintain low currency values to support exports. They accept low total labor costs and environmental damages. Every country tries to be globally competitive.
No “magic wand” exists to force or entice everyone into embracing win/win institutions or deals naively. There is always an incentive to be a “free rider”, taking advantage of the global deals and quietly not really complying, just like some oil producers in OPEC. There is always an advantage for a single country with enough power to “hold out” or bluff or play “chicken” to extract a better deal for that country than for the others. This is the real world of bargaining, negotiations and deal-making. No system, philosophy, institutions, social pressure, or trump card easily delivers win/win results without overcoming the win/lose incentives of the game’s players.
There was a time when “Republicans” were supposedly the party of realism, pragmatism, common sense, business, efficiency, logic, finance, trade, capitalism, science, industry, proof, objectivity, best practices, and elite opinion. “Democrats” allegedly appealed to emotions, wishes, utopias, fairness, justice, perspectives, hopes, possibilities, oppression, victimhood, persuasion, popular opinion, populism, and ideals. The post-WWII institutions were supported on a bipartisan basis for more than 50 years. In 1992, President Clinton and the Democratic party embraced the “third way”, fully supporting these policies, capitalism and limited government, despite criticisms from the progressive, new, far left. The post – WWII system of international institutions has been criticized as “globalism” and “neo-liberalism” by the left wing of the Democratic party.
The post-WWII institutions were not perfect for Democrats, Republicans, the USA or the global community. But they worked incredibly well. Real global GDP has increased by 40 times since 1945, from $2.5 trillion to $100 trillion!!!!! That is 4.72% real growth compounded year after year after year for 80 years, coming out of a world war, encompassing a cold war, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, a global pandemic, the collapse of birth rates, business cycles, financial panics, energy crises, Middle East wars, and terrorism.
The US real GDP increased by more than 11X in the same period, growing by 3.1% annually.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPC1
A comparable 80-year period before the Great Depression shows just 4-fold global real GDP growth, not 40-fold. Of course, much of this difference is due to differences other than the post-WWII institutions. This was a time of 1.75% annual growth rather than the modern 4.72%. The 3% annual difference compounded across 80 years delivers 10 times greater growth. This is not a marginal advantage. This is an UNBELIEVABLE advantage. This is difficult to communicate. Small percentage differences across a lifetime.
The “bottom line” is that the “orange one” only believes in “win/lose” and rejects any form of “win/win”. The post-WWII institutions are win/win, so they must be rejected. Capitalism, alliances, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations, modern supplier relations, families, communities, nations, treaties, fraternities, sororities, ecosystems, clubs, cooperatives, unions, study partners, mentors/mentees, credit unions, mutual insurance companies, social enterprises, not-for-profits, churches, service organizations and many others are win/win. The “win/lose” framework supports the “orange one’s” desired position as a great leader needed to save the people.
Free trade has provided truly amazing benefits for the US and the world. The post-WWII cooperative institutions have reduced wars and conflicts. The “Trump tariffs” will slow global economic growth. They will not provide any material benefits for the US.
The US has enough economic, social, political and military power to force country by country “deals” that appear to benefit the US, when considered in a short-term win/lose framework. These deals will harm the US and the global economy.
From 1945-2000 “free trade” was Republican economic orthodoxy. “Free trade” benefitted US multi-national corporations which had the ability to take advantage of global markets. The US economy and labor markets were flexible enough to manage the changes. Capitalism was supported as the best economic system versus communism, fascism, socialism, protectionism, imperialism, colonialism or mercantilism. US financial institutions were well positioned to facilitate trade. US universities were ready to educate the world. Imported goods and immigrant labor drove lower US wages.
Trump is appealing to his populist base to oppose the “others” of immigrants, non-whites, non-fundamentalist Christians, criminals, thieves, rapists, sweat shops, subsidized factories, polluters, underpaid workers, etc. “We should produce everything we need in America. We have the factory capacity, finances and skills to do so.” He appeals to nationalism while ignoring the critical principle of comparative advantage. Countries export only what they are very best at growing, producing or serving. They do not produce everything themselves just like states, firms and individuals that are not fully self-sufficient.

1602 – Dutch East India Company, limited liability corporation, global trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company
1776 – The Wealth of Nations from markets, specialization and trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
1817 – Comparative advantage drives international trade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ricardo
1865 – Gilded age economic expansion and inequality in the US, laissez faire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age
1867 – Trade unions legalized in the United Kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions_in_the_United_Kingdom
1910 – Scientific management, Frederick Taylor, Taylor method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_management
1911 – Breakup of the Standard Oil Company – anti-monopoly power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_the_Standard_Oil_Company
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
1913 – Federal Reserve Bank created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
1913 – Industrial assembly line- Ford
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line
1929 – Great Depression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
1933 – Securities and Exchange Commission regulates financial markets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933
1936 – Modern macroeconomics is outlined
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
1939 – Silicon Valley begins with Hewlett-Packard, product and financing innovation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hewlett-Packard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley
1942 – Creative Destruction is an essential part of effective capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter
1947 – Military industrial sector, defense complex created
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
1948 – Japanese companies start modern manufacturing based upon statistical insights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Production_System
1950 – The study of “sequence of events” leads to modern project management.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_path_method
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_project_management
1952 – Henry Markowitz formalizes modern portfolio theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory
1955 – Destination theme park travel begins – Walt Disney
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disneyland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Experiences
1955 – Enclosed Shopping Mall
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_center
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopping_mall
1956 – Intermodal shipping container and freight transport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermodal_freight_transport
1958 – General purpose credit cards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_card
1958 – A meritocratic work environment was dominating, and critics objected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
1962 – Product and process standardization, franchising take off
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald%27s
1962 – Discount retailing, big box stores, category killers arise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Walmart
1968 – For profit health care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCA_Healthcare
1970 – Income inequality begins to grow again in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States
1971 – Discount air travel, standardized routes and aircraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Southwest_Airlines
1973 – How much is a financial option worth?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model
1973 – Reliable express delivery is founded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FedEx
1974 – Tax-advantaged individual retirement accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_retirement_account
1975 – Index funds and mutual funds simplify and lower transaction costs of investing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vanguard_Group
1978 – Executive stock options provide high levels of tax-advantaged compensation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_option
1979 – Monetary policy can stop inflation, at a cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker
1980 – Junk bonds provide financing for riskier companies and tools for investors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-yield_debt
1980 – Michael Porter clarifies the effective use of business strategy to compete in markets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_advantage
1984 – Eli Goldratt offers a “theory of constraints” as a way to understand and manage complex systems effectively, leading to true “lean manufacturing” and “lean operations”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_constraints
1994 – On-line retailing, everything is in stock, and available soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Amazon
2007 – Great Recession highlights the ongoing risks of financial deregulation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession
Process standardization. Financial innovation. Highly focused strategies. New business forms. Markets and international trade deliver desired products, lower prices and competition. A role for government regulation remains. The macroeconomy can be managed to reduce the impact of business cycles and shocks.

https://www.yourobserver.com/news/2023/dec/01/construction-begins-legacy-trail-overpasses/

From 1945 through 1985 the US economy regularly accelerated its growth, reached a peak, fell back and then recovered. Businesses, economists, politicians and the public expected that this 3-5 year business cycle would continue forever.
Looking back, it seems like the business cycle was broken by 1985. All of the subsequent downturns have been prompted by extraneous, outside of the system, shocks. In 1990 a second global oil shortage shock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1990s_recession_in_the_United_States
In 2000-2001, a stock market bubble popped.
In 2007, a mortgage lending bubble popped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession
In 2020, a pandemic driven recession, followed by a very unexpected rapid recovery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_recession
40 years without a classic business cycle recession is long enough to claim victory.
How could this happen? The independent Federal Reserve Bank has maintained a neutral monetary policy. We have not “shot ourselves in the foot” and we have implemented reasonable policies to offset external shocks. The federal government budget deficit has generally returned towards zero following depression periods. Automatic stabilizers and congressional action have addressed recessionary periods with enough stimulus to stop economic decline and restart recovery.
More importantly, the structure of the US economy has changed. The share of high fixed cost manufacturing has declined as “services” has increased as a share of the total economy. The share of international trade (imports and exports) less directly connected to the domestic economy alone, has increased. The power of labor (unionized or not) has fallen, allowing firms to reduce hours and real wages during a downturn. In most recent times, firms better recognize the cost of attracting and developing highly skilled labor in a complex production world, so they retain key staff even during downturns. Vertical integration has been reduced, allowing firms to respond to minor demand changes more effectively. Based upon the quality revolution, major firms have reset their capacity utilization targets to 80% rather than 95%, providing firms with greater flexibility in managing variable demand and not reaching the point where internal costs increase and the need to increase prices occurs.
Financial leverage has also decreased. US firms have access to deep bond markets so are they able to incur only necessary levels of indebtedness.

Even with a much greater level of imported goods, retailers hold lower levels of inventory, allowing them to not overreact to changes in demand. Firms have more effective supply chain management processes.

The unemployment rate also shows this structural change. When it was pushed below 5% in the 1960’s, inflation increased and was not permanently checked for 20 years. By 2000 the economy was able to expand and keep unemployment below 5% for extended periods of time without triggering “cost-push” inflation. Unemployment still increases during an economic downturn, but low unemployment does not seem to trigger a recession.

From the 1950’s through the 1980’s inflation tended to increase as the economy overheated before a reduction in credit availability would slow the overall economy. Aside from the Covid pandemic shortages, we no longer see major inflation increases.

The business cycle caused firms to underinvest because the best available forecast was always that the boom period would be interrupted in 1-5 years. Sales, margins and profits could not be assumed to increase forever.
The business cycle caused firms to follow a stop-start pattern for capital investment projects, process improvement, research & development, new product introduction, new markets, new channels and mergers & acquisitions. Seeing a downturn, firms would cancel existing initiatives, even at a significant cost, in order to conserve cash and signal to stakeholders that management was actively managing the business. Projects would slowly resume after it was clear that the business cycle recovery was under way 2 years later.
For individuals, the “last hired, first fired” cycle applied. Firms froze open position hiring. They released interns and summer workers. They prohibited overtime. They cancel contracts with temporary labor firms. Less experienced workers and minority groups suffered. Labor intensive industries, especially construction, were hard hit. Smaller firms closed. The hiring cycle would resume 2 years later.
Historically, stock market values also followed the pattern of the business cycle closely. Stock market declines were seen as an “early warning” indicator by forecasters. Since stock market values are theoretically determined by a risk-adjusted discount rate, the reduction of business cycle variability allows investors to use a lower interest/discount rate and value future earnings at a higher net present value.
The business cycle appears to be gone. The modern economy does not have the same high fixed costs it once had. Firms are able to increase their sales, profits and capacities in tandem without greatly overshooting the mark. Our national institutions help to keep growth at a sustainable level. Workers, firms, investors and society all benefit from this great advance, even if it is not publicly celebrated.

We have lost control of our political system and confidence in our institutions. I offer some root cause reasons for this situation in a series of posts. Second post in the series.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/647303/confidence-institutions-mostly-flat-police.aspx

Real, inflation adjusted, gross domestic product (GDP) is up 4 and 1/2 times since WWII when the American economy was the savior of Western Civilization and about to invest in the recovery of Europe and Japan. In this long-term perspective, growth is very constant. Critics can point to the capture of a greater share by the wealthy. Optimists can point to the radical improvement in quality not captured by GDP, increased consumer choices available and a larger share of retirees in the population.

Consumer confidence rises with the economy and declines with recessions and polarized politics, but it has no upward trend to match real incomes!
Economists assume that people have unlimited wants. Most research and common-sense experience show that this is true.
http://www2.harpercollege.edu/mhealy/eco211/lectures/microch1-17.htm
Post-war economists have persistently claimed that Americans “now” have everything they need materially to be happy, but they have been persistently wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society
Other research shows that beyond a certain level of income, more money doesn’t make people happier.
https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/does-more-money-correlate-greater-happiness-Penn-Princeton-research
Real people, at all levels of income, report that they would be happy, satisfied and secure if they only earned 50% more.
Our happiness often is based on our perceptions of comparative social and economic status. There is always someone with more.
We focus on our most recent experience rather than seeing the big picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recency_bias
Once we have an idea in mind, we tend to consume information that confirms the idea and avoid or deny challenges. Positive, constructive people will be optimists. Others will be pessimists and follow the bad news media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
When we do try to rationally assess our current situation, we compare it with something obvious. It’s usually something prominent, recent, large, and shiny. We compare today with our best ever experience or situation. We reset our expectations to compare with something prominent in our experience. We don’t plot graphs of our real annual earnings, wealth and leisure. Our expectations are anchored in our best experiences. Current expectations tend to move back to a neutral evaluation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
Humans want more. We are rarely satisfied. That means we are easily distracted in the modern world by marketers, influencers, journalists, bloggers and politicians. Human nature has not changed. Our true economic condition has improved with little impact. Our access to information, education, knowledge and wisdom has increased with minor impact. The ability of communicators to influence our perceptions of the world has greatly increased and we have generally not improved our defenses. “We have much, much work to do today” – Mr. Thoburn Dunlap, 1970, Fairport Harbor, Ohio high school teacher.
P.S. Focus on how the media works.
P.S.S. Positive view of economic and social progress.

https://www.amazon.com/Janesville-American-Story-Amy-Goldstein/dp/1501102265
This 2017 bestseller was applauded by the WSJ, The Economist, Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam, JD Vance (as a complement to Hillbilly Elegy) and Barrack Obama. It tells the story of Janesville, Wisconsin as a General Motors assembly plant with 3,000 workers was permanently closed in the turmoil of the Great Recession. It focuses on the impact on real people and the community’s response. The author concludes that neither the liberal response of job training nor the conservative response of economic redevelopment incentives was adequate to meet the community’s needs. What could work?
The US economic and legal system protects the property rights of investors, corporations, and banks. It doesn’t protect or promote the property rights of the other actors in society quite so well: workers, suppliers, local governments, charities, retirees, and children. It is the fundamental discrepancy between different groups that is highlighted in this book, catalyzing the last 15 year’s populist reaction against our system, and begging for a practical solution.
Financial interests are flexible. They can be bought, sold and mortgaged. They are geographically mobile. Money and financial instruments are fungible. They can be exchanged with zero to small loss of value.
Other interests are much less flexible and mobile. Labor assets are tied to an individual. Individual labor assets may be tied to a specific situation OR broadly applicable. Real property is tied to a local and regional location. Local governments and charities are tied to a geography. Families are emotionally tied to a location.
The historical political conflict was between the wealthy and the non-wealthy. Landed aristocracy and peasants. Capitalists and workers.
Wealth still matters. The advantages of financial wealth have multiplied in the modern world. Financial rates of return are higher. International opportunities exist. Financial markets are effective and efficient. Risk can be managed through portfolios and derivatives. The shear amount of wealth, and wealth per person, is large enough to be scientifically managed. Generational wealth is preserved. Wealthy interests have effectively “captured” the political system to ensure they are not over-taxed or over-regulated. Network effects from neighborhoods and elite colleges accumulate. The network effects from large metropolitan areas accumulate.
As the advantages of financial wealth have compounded in our society, the distribution of income and wealth has become more and more unequal. For the good of our whole society, it’s time to take some steps to “level the playing field”. This is not strictly about protecting the poor or “fairly” taxing the rich. It is about providing “roughly” equal protection to the various property interests in our society.
In a meritocratic, capitalist society, there will be an unequal distribution of income and wealth. It is difficult to find an obvious “rule of thumb” to limit this dispersion. The higher income and wealth individuals are sure that they have “earned” their returns. Many libertarians and conservatives believe that the “job creators” and “value creators” in society are under rewarded, even before progressive taxation claims a greater share. Most working, middle and professional class earners are sure that they are underpaid compared to their value-added and that the tax system is designed to benefit “others”. Many vote for the conservative political party because they accept this as unavoidable, see disincentives and unintended consequences from attempts to change this, or aspire to become one of the winners. Economists and psychologists report that individuals are much more motivated by economic losses, taxes, risks or takeaways than gains. Hence, any kind of straightforward income or wealth redistribution system is difficult to achieve or maintain. The incentives to pull towards one end or the other are very strong. The philosopher John Rawls’ argument that everyone can, should, will agree to a set of reasonable policies pointing towards limiting income and wealth inequality has been applauded by the left, criticized by the right and ignored by most everyone. We need to find a different framework aside from the “tug of war”.
A dynamic capitalist economic system will include Schumpeterian “creative destruction”. There is enough new wealth to be made and captured that competitors will disrupt and compete with existing leaders in all markets. Firms will grow and die. New firms will be founded. Some will succeed. The real and financial capital within some firms at some times will be destroyed. For some firms this will be part of the portfolio of growing, stable and dying components. For some firms, this will be death. Capitalists will focus on the core goals of value creation, value capture and value preservation. They will do whatever is required to meet these goals. As Milton Friedman argued, at the extreme times they will not look out for the interests of other stakeholders. In good times, perhaps, a little. Based on social pressures, in good times, perhaps, a little. We need to clearly separate “what is” from “what should be”.
Financial investors do not have geographical responsibilities. They have financial responsibilities to owners and lenders. They have secondary interests in maintaining positive relations with suppliers, customers, key employees, key executives and regulators. Large organizations will close low performing assets as required, be they small stores or 3,000 employee factories. New and existing businesses locate plants, offices and distribution centers based on expected costs and benefits, risks and rewards. They are also guided by the convenience and views of their senior executives who generally prefer to live in cosmopolitan surroundings. Firms will decentralize and decentralize to meet various needs. For most firms, local economic incentives are a very minor factor.
Employees, suppliers, governments and charities are fundamentally local. They live real lives with a small number of interactions. They stay in place and appreciate the familiarity of their home, church, school and community. They might move when they finish college or before they have children in school or to meet an extreme need. The move from the east coast to the Midwest to the west took centuries. The move from the farms to the cities has continued for more than a century. The consolidation of the population into less than 100 metro areas has accelerated in the last 75 years. The move from the Midwest, northeast and Middle-Atlantic states to the sunbelt has continued for 75 years. Individuals move based on circumstances and incentives. A fair society provides support for individuals who do not wish to move because economic situations have changed.
Individuals who honestly review the growth of incomes, wealth and standards of living in the US for the last 75 years must celebrate the amazing 6-fold increase in real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Labor productivity and overall productivity have improved similarly. Median incomes rose with GDP and productivity until 1975, stalled for 25 years and have since slowly resumed their climb. Quality of life, including health, economic choices, economic security, leisure, safety, product quality, entertainment, and product choices has continued to improve, even when income growth lagged behind output growth. The US economic system produces great wealth and benefits. There is an inherent tendency for the owners of financial wealth to capture an increasing share. We need to find a balanced solution, not undermine the economic system through misguided taxation or regulation.
The US is an outlier in the developed world in not managing health care as a public good. Liberals see health care as a human right. A majority of Americans disagree. We will not soon adopt “socialized health care”. We can work together to adopt policies that reduce the total cost of health care, and which prevent health care costs from bankrupting our fellow citizens.
We live in a society that prefers to support communities locally and not rely upon government support. We can fine-tune our laws to encourage local support.
In our modern world we have to ensure that all individuals are financially prepared for 30 years of retirement. Early and constant savings. Wise investments. Good advisors. For everyone.
Lifetime employment is gone. Fixed benefits pensions are gone. We live 20 years longer. We need a more robust unemployment insurance system. Individuals may secure a position that pays 25% – 33% – 50% more than their “second best” alternatives. When individuals lose their jobs, we need to buffer their losses and nudge them towards their “next best” options in a timely manner.
In the modern world, consumers face sophisticated marketers and professional services firms. They can benefit from centralized support.
It looks like our economic system is going to require one-thirds college educated and two-thirds less than college degreed adults. Economically and socially, we need to support all individuals to serve in their roles and for all of us to support the various roles. Think “essential workers” during the pandemic.
The corporate world reduces costs and improves valued results by 1-2% year after year after year. We need to set the same expectations for local, state and federal governments.
I have separately proposed a set of constitutional amendments that limit taxation of the wealthy, allowing them to support steps like those above without fear of being fleeced.
Our society hasn’t found a clear organizing principle to guide it between the claims of the people and its leaders. We tend to lean towards the individual, liberty and freedom. This has led to a large number of modest initiatives. We have an opportunity to help our community embrace and support the political steps required to achieve our goals.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/amy-goldstein/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
Bernie Staller – National FFA leader (my supervisor from 2000-2004) Janesville leader.
https://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=25007
https://wisconsinagconnection.com/news/staller-inducted-into-alpha-gamma-rho-hall-of-fame
https://www.agrimarketing.com/show_story.php?id=25005
https://www.newswise.com/articles/bernie-staller-to-retire-from-the-national-ffa-organization

https://case.edu/ech/articles/d/diamond-shamrock-corp
https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0504696
On a personal note, I grew up in Fairport Harbor, Ohio, a small village of 3-4,000 people. The Diamond Alkali chemical plant once employed 5,000 people. It shut down in 1976. My dad was a pipefitter and union leader. My uncle Joe was also an employee and a union and political leader. The negative community impact was very large. The negative impacts described by Amy Goldstein in Janesville were exactly the same in Painesville 40 years earlier.

The president-elect’s tariff threats are rejected by all professional economists and almost all business leaders. They are mistakenly intended to provide international relations negotiating leverage, force firms to build US factories, and increase domestic manufacturing employment employment. They are based upon the misguided belief that the US economy is broken. It is ironic that Democrats and liberal have trumpet the amazing condition of the US economy.