The US economy has been in a slow, but accelerating, collapse over the
past 50 years, as demonstrated in stark detail in the following article by Paul
Gallagher in the current issue of EIR. Contrast this to the explosive
development in the BRICS nations and their allies, and you can understand why
the LaRouche movement is demanding that the US accept Xi Jinping's offer for the
US to join the BRICS in global development. Mike
Billington
This article appears in the November 28, 2014 issue
of Executive Intelligence Review.
WHY WE MUST ALLY
WITH THE BRICS
America's 50-Year
Economic Nightmare Since Kennedy
by Paul
Gallagher
The great
projects of the BRICS countries today—girdling six continents with high-speed
railroads, mining the Moon, and breaking through to thermonuclear fusion power
by 2030—are precisely the kind of "missions" with which John F. Kennedy
challenged and led Americans during his brief Presidency. Add the task of
defending the Earth from asteroid and great meteorite strikes, and the combined
mission would have been big enough for JFK.
Lyndon
LaRouche has long insisted that there has been no real growth in the United
States economy, but rather an outright decline, since Kennedy was assassinated a
half-century ago. Today LaRouche's point is frequently documented
retrospectively from one standpoint: that of real wages, household incomes,
living standards of most Americans; they are lower than they were in the early
1970s. From the World War II generation, the direction has been successively
downward for the majorities of the three generations of Americans
since.
While others
have reported this, LaRouche publicly forecast it in the years after
Kennedy's death. This was the first of the extraordinarily prescient
long-term economic forecasts LaRouche has made, and which have made him so
respected—and feared—by Wall Street and the City of London. In published
writings in the late 1960s, LaRouche had forecast that the 1960s' successive
crises of the British pound sterling were being steered toward the forced
breakup of the Bretton Woods fixed-exchange-rate system "at about the end of the
1960s decade." Under then-current policy trends, LaRouche had written, Bretton
Woods would be broken up and its destruction would be followed by a turn to deep
("fascist") austerity against the United States economy.
His forecast
was then confirmed with shocking impact on Aug. 15, 1971, when President Richard
Nixon abandoned Franklin Roosevelt's Bretton Woods System. A new era began, in
which the United States lost control of its currency to City of London financial
forces, and slowly evolved into a relatively low-wage nation with a service
economy.
A
half-century later, Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have promoted and hailed the
emergence of the new development banks and "Eurasian Land-Bridge" development
corridors of the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa).
Zepp-LaRouche is regularly interviewed in Chinese media as an early
conceptualizer and expert on the "New Silk Road" policy.
At the joint
press conference of Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping on Nov. 12 following
the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing, we witnessed the
Chinese President inviting the United States to join the new Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and "Silk Road Fund." Among other effects
of this positive development dynamic, the United States now has the prospect,
after more than 40 years, of regaining control of its currency and credit
issuance and using it for high-technology infrastructure development.
Instead, the
Administration of Barack Obama, who was just "politically impeached" by an angry
and economically depressed American electorate, is fighting to suppress
the Chinese-initiated AIIB. The bank has been joined by more than 21 other
nations, despite Obama's armtwisting.
Obama's
conduct is suicidal for the United States. There is no greater contrast than
that between China's and America's contributions to world economic growth,
employment, productivity, and labor power during the 21st Century. The United
States urgently needs a general agreement with China to cooperate on these
goals.
Downhill Since the
1970s
There is
broad public understanding that the "Obama recovery" has left most Americans
worse off economically than before the 2008 financial crash. And many remember
that household income had already declined (by almost 5%) in real terms during
George W. Bush's two terms as President, before that crash.
But few
understand what LaRouche foresaw. The U.S. economy and living standards have
deteriorated since the 1970s, and this was clearly set off after the killing of
Kennedy, by the events leading into and surrounding Nixon's fatal action in
August 1971, which LaRouche had so precisely forecast along with all its
consequences.
Figure 1 (see
PDF
version) shows the course of the median[1]
weekly (gross) income of an employed American since 1960, based on constant 1982
dollars. Not only has that real income dropped by 8.6% over 50 years, according
to this calculation; but the drop is 13.7% in the 40 years since 1972. And, it
was concentrated in a disastrous 20% fall from 1972 onwards into the early
1990s. Worse, if there had not been a series of deceptive changes since 1980 in
how the U.S. Labor Department calculates inflation and the Consumer Price Index,
the 40-year 1972-2013 fall in real median weekly income of an employed American
would actually be more than a fifth, just under 21%: a 25% drop from 1972-93,
followed by up-and-down stagnation since.
This has not
been the result only of the drop in the workweek from 39 to 33 hours over those
decades (more than half of American workers are now employed part-time, as temps
through contractors, or as freelancers). Hourly pay has also fallen. Pew
Research Center, in an analysis of Labor Department and Census data back to
1964, published Oct. 18, 2014, on its website, demonstrates this. Converting to
2014 dollars, Pew found that the average of real hourly wages was
$22.61 in 1972, when they reached their highest point. That average is now
$20.64, and thus 10% lower than 40 years ago. But with income inequality rapidly
growing, the median real hourly wage is $17.85/hour, or 18% lower
today, than in 1972.
The median
real household income in America appears to have grown by about 11%
since 1970, using Labor Department data and 2012 dollars as the constant. This
results from the number of people working per household having risen from 1.18
to 1.43, or about 25%. But again, if the Labor Department's pre-1980, relatively
straightforward method of calculating inflation had continued to be used until
today, real household income would be seen to have been flat for 40 years (from
$46,921 to $46,936), despite the additional household members working.[2]
A tell-tale
sign of the impoverishment over those decades is the long climb of the American
public's need to use food stamps (Figure 2), which clearly has
occurred not only during the Bush/Obama administrations, but also between the
start of the 1970s and the early 1990s (the program dates to 1964).
Collapse of
Productivity
The U.S.
economy is no longer productive. Its productivity can only really be measured in
comparison to its own past performance, by which measure it has fallen
dramatically through an uninterrupted period of 50 years since of JFK's
assassination.
Strangely,
the central banks of Europe and the United States today, while flooding
securities markets with vast oceans of printed and electronic liquidity since
2008, are proclaiming the urgent need for giving their real economies a "total
factor productivity shock."
That would
certainly be needed. But at the same time, U.S. and European government and
"institutional" economists make the incredible claim that China, since the early
1990s, has "sacrificed productivity" by pursuing investments in new economic
infrastructure at 8-9% of GDP every year.
Where, then,
do these economists believe productivity comes from? Their money-colored view is
that productivity is connected to labor intensivity—less capital expenditures
mobilizing more labor at lower labor costs per unit of "production"; more and
more, this means "production" of non-productive services! These services are
labor-intensive. Compare three economies now roughly equal in size: China's
fixed capital investment is growing at 16% annually; in the United States, by
less than 4%; in Europe, by 1%.
The central
bank economists associate productivity with "structural reform," or austerity
programs: removing trade union protections and getting more workers to produce
more work in the same time and/or for less compensation. This was stated bluntly
by European Central Bank board member Benoit Coeoure at a Johns Hopkins
University event during the Oct. 14-15 IMF/World Bank meetings in
Washington.
Even by this
degraded measure, productivity has not grown in the U.S. economy, for example,
for the last 14 quarters.
But this
measure itself is criminally incompetent, as shown by actual historical studies
of the "total factor productivity" growth they aim to achieve. This parameter
attempts to measure that rate of growth of an economy that is due to
technological advance, rather than the simple application of more labor and/or
more capital to economic sectors.
The highest
annual rate of growth of productivity thus measured, in America's history, was
clearly not associated with austerity programs. It was instead the 3.30% rate
of the 1930s, under President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal
re-employment and massive "Four Corners" infrastructure programs. This was due
to the very strong growth in electric power generation and distribution,
transportation, communications, civil and structural engineering for bridges,
tunnels, dams, highways, railroads, and transmission systems; and private
research and development.[3]
Studies of
U.S. economic history call 1940-70 the "golden age of productivity" because of
sustained growth in total factor productivity which built on FDR's New Deal and
Four Corners. Next best after the 1930s was the 2.70% annual rate of
productivity growth for the 1940s, reached again during President Kennedy's
1960s. Today, U.S. total factor productivity growth is estimated at "1%
annually," where it has been for most of the period since 1972 (Figure
3).
And the major
cause for this? U.S. investment in new infrastructure as a percentage of GDP,
which again reached and exceeded 3% during Kennedy's 1960s, now scrapes the
bottom among industrial countries at 1.4% of GDP (Figure
4)—compared to China's 8.8% average over the past 22 years
(1992-2014).
And perhaps
the most important "infrastructure project"—NASA's space exploration, key to the
productivity gains in aerospace which outpaced every other economic sector—was
cut down perhaps in the most dramatic fashion in American economic history.
Figure 5 shows that U.S. investment in the exploration of the
Moon and Solar System was cut by 90%, as a share of GDP, in just a few years
after John F. Kennedy was killed. It has remained an order of magnitude less
than what Kennedy launched, ever since.
The United
States was the model for development, into the post-World War II years. In this
period came the Atoms for Peace program, for advanced power and large-scale
infrastructure projects internationally. American teams collaborated on building
dams for hydro-power and irrigation, from Haiti to Afghanistan. Plans for
nuclear power in Egypt, Iran, and throughout Southwest Asia were initiated by
Detroit Edison, Westinghouse, and other private firms, working with the U.S.
diplmatic corps. In North America, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) model
continued in the great California Water Project (1960-73), the upper Missouri
River Basin project (Pick-Sloan Plan, 1944). In 1959, the St. Lawrence Seaway
was completed, a transportation corridor to mutually serve Canada and the United
States.
President
Dwight Eisenhower's national interstate highway building program, with its
dedicated capital source, was continued and expanded in the Kennedy years. The
Apollo space program led the world to the Moon. The North American Water and
Power Alliance (NAWAPA) was put forward as history's greatest water-management
works, to benefit the entire continent (it was never built). Kennedy's call was
that "no drop of water in the West [of North America] should go to the ocean
unmanaged." Nuclear isotope production for medicine and biology, and nuclear
power production took off, and nuclear desalination projects were launched. The
U.S. public health system, centered on hospitals, was built up nationwide; TB,
polio, and other diseases were conquered. Crop genetics advances in the Green
Revolution foretold a future without famine.
The Nature of
Employment
But also by
the measure of employment, the U.S. economy has become unproductive since 1970.
The shares of its workforce involved in broadly productive employment on the one
hand, and in broadly non-productive employment on the other, have "flipped." The
U.S. economy has more than twice as many retail trade employees today as in
1970; more than twice as many working in the financial, insurance, and real
estate sectors; more than three times as many "leisure and hospitality" workers;
and more than four times as many employees in "professional and business
services." The share of the American workforce employed in these areas—the
furthest removed from goods production and construction—rose by just 5% from
1940-70 (from 19% to 24%), but by another 13% since then (from 24% to 37%). The
total number of Americans employed in these four sectors grew from 21 million in
1970 to 57 million today.
But in the
broadest definition of productive employment—goods production, construction,
mining, transportation, power utilities, and engineering—there are fewer
Americans working today (25.1 million) than in 1970 (26.8 million). And as a
share of the workforce they have fallen in half, from 32.5% to 16.1%, while
clearly non-productive employment has doubled from 18% to 37%.
If one
considers manufacturing, mining, and construction workers alone—the common
economic definition of "goods-producing" workers—the decline is absolute. Their
numbers nearly doubled from 1940 to 1970, but have dropped since then from 22
million to 18.7 million.
Why was the
plunge in incomes so sharp in the 1970s through the early 1990s, and the loss of
economic productivity so dramatic since the Kennedy Presidency?
London's
Dollar
One key
parameter is that the dollar became decoupled from its sovereign function as
credit for production, and was made the instrument for simply "making
money."
The United
States maintained essential control of its own issuance of currency and national
credit, from the time President Franklin Roosevelt replaced the British gold
standard with a gold-reserve system in 1933, through the strong capital and
exchange controls of the postwar Bretton Woods System initiated by Roosevelt's
Administration.
The idea of
Roosevelt's Bretton Woods was that national capital and currency stayed at home
for investment—the "non-exportable currency" explained in detail 70 years
earlier by President Abraham Lincoln's economist Henry C. Carey. International
credit was to enable underdeveloped nations to purchase goods, machinery, and
technology from developed ones. Governments restricted cross-border flows of
financial capital to payments for trade; banks in member countries were not
usually allowed to take deposits in foreign currencies unless the depositor
proved that the deposits served for payment of trade. Economic growth was high
and broad-based under this system.
The
government of China exercises such currency, capital, and credit policies
today.
LaRouche
explained already in his 1967 pamphlet The Third Stage of Imperialism
that when Eisenhower's United States failed to follow through on the actual
needs for extending development credit internationally, Wall Street and London
started the unregulated export of capital, and the "export of production," from
the United States instead.
The City of
London banks, beginning with the one now called HSBC (formerly the Hongkong and
Shanghai Banking Corp.), set up British offshore centers of the so-called
"eurodollar" market from just prior to 1960, directly violating the rules of the
Bretton Woods System. British banks opened offshore dollar accounts which paid
significantly higher interest rates than did accounts in U.S. banks, and which
made speculative loans and securities investments initially in Europe,
particularly for corporate takeovers.
The London
banks did this initially, starting in 1955, in collaboration with banks in the
Soviet Union, which wanted to move dollar accounts belonging to Soviet citizens
or Soviet agencies out of the United States. But soon after this ironic
beginning, Wall Street banks jumped in. Before long, both City of London and
Wall Street banks were directing the oil revenues of Middle Eastern countries
and the Soviet Union into these "eurodollar-petrodollar" accounts as well.
Already in 1958, $1 billion flowed from U.S. bank deposits into the eurodollar
market. By the mid-1960s, the flow had reached $60 billion, equal to almost 10%
of U.S. GDP.
This began
London's "comeback" as what is today, again, the world's dominant and imperial
financial center. It is the world leader in foreign exchange trading,
cross-border bank lending, exchange listing of companies and, by far, in
financial derivatives issuance.
The
eurodollar accounts had the elevated interest rates and offshore speculative
purposes of what has since been called a "carry trade." Especially as European
countries all made their currencies freely convertible into dollars by 1960, the
eurodollar market progressively drew the U.S. money supply offshore and robbed
the Treasury of control of creation of its own currency. By 1980, approximately
80% of U.S. dollars were circulating, and effectively being created, outside the
U.S. economy.
The
petrodollar, or "London dollar," effectively replaced the U.S.
dollar.
U.S. and
other national "prime" interest rates were replaced in this process by the
LIBOR—London Interbank Offered Rates—which became dominant, and are now known to
have been systematically rigged by the British Banking Association, which set
them daily.
U.S. banking
regulations disappeared. A top Bank of England (BoE) official, James Keogh, said
in 1963: "It doesn't matter to me whether Citibank is evading American
regulations in London. I wouldn't particularly want to know." The BoE stated in
a memo that year, as London offered unregulated and unnamed ("bearer")
Eurobonds—perfect vehicles for tax evasion and financial crime—"However much we
dislike hot money, we cannot be international bankers and refuse to accept
money."[4]
And these
offshore dollars, in the form of high-interest eurodollar loans syndicated by
London and Wall Street banks, began to be used to replace American and European
manufacturing and industrial production plants with substitutes in countries
featuring lower, even much lower, wages.
Kennedy vs. London
and Wall Street
As this
process progressed during the later 1960s and 1970s, inflation was triggered in
the United States, and domestic interest rates were pulled up at the same time.
The dollar-gold reserve fixing, which was central to the Bretton Woods System,
was threatened with the breakdown which LaRouche forecast.
The big Wall
Street banks followed their accounts to the City of London, opening "offshore"
arms there which evaded the Glass-Steagall Act's limits on securities
speculation.
The last
President who tried to stop this massive speculative export of U.S. currency was
John Kennedy. Kennedy planned, with aides, to restore enforcement of the
currency and capital controls of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Kennedy is quoted
in Nomi Prins' All the President's Bankers:
"It's an
insane system to have all these dollars floating around [that] people can cash
in for a very limited supply of gold."
Prins reports
that on July 18, 1962, Kennedy "announced a program ... that included a 15% tax
on purchases by Americans of foreign securities and a tax on loans made by
American banks to foreign borrowers." He wanted to go further and reimpose
currency and capital controls.
Wall Street
strongly opposed him, led by then-New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller.
Life magazine on July 6, 1962 featured Rockefeller's open letter to
Kennedy, opposing his proposed exchange controls and claiming that the entire
financial and business community opposed him. Kennedy lost the battle. After
JFK's death, Walter Wriston of Citibank wrote (again quoted by Prins]:
"In 1963,
the United States began a futile bout with capital controls.... In this
period, New York banks began to finance projects in America with dollars
deposited in European [i.e., London—ed.] banks."[5]
President
Nixon made the loss of U.S. management of the dollar into an uncontrollable
flood. The turning point into this devolution was 1972, immediately after Nixon
was bullied by the British and by his Office of Management and Budget
Director/Treasury Secretary George P. Shultz into breaking Roosevelt's Bretton
Woods System. The United States then let the dollar float speculatively against
gold and other currencies. Nixon's and Shultz's actions triggered an explosion
in the offshore markets for speculative U.S. dollar accounts: the
eurodollar/petrodollar markets. They also triggered an explosion of unregulated
foreign exchange ("forex") trading to now $5 trillion daily, 98-99% of that
trading independent of any trade in goods and services. Major London banks have
recently acknowledged to regulators that forex values, too, have been unlawfully
rigged.
Since 2011,
British financial institutions have been working to establish the City of London
as an offshore financial center for investment and trading in China's currency,
the renminbi. Beijing is well warned, and has given priority instead to
Frankfurt, for purposes of China's trade with Europe.
Today's
Reality
Since the
1960s forecast by LaRouche described above, the nearly 50-year slow-motion
collapse of the U.S. productive economy and the standards of living of its
once-productive citizens, has made that long-term forecast one of the most
telling in economic history.
The 1970s
U.S. economy was marked by steadily rising, and apparently uncontrollable
inflation, and by a doubling of the number of officially unemployed Americans
from 4 million to 8 million. The 1960s' sharp reduction of officially defined
poverty was reversed, and the poverty rate rose from 12.5% in 1970 to 14% in
1980, its peak until the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash (it is now
15.9%). The decade was ended by Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker's brutal
crushing of inflation by raising baseline interest rates to a usurious 21%,
causing a deep and "double-dip" recession.
That
recession, including its 1981-82 second "dip," was also precisely forecast by
LaRouche and his EIR economics team in early 1980.
Employment
recovered during the 1980s, but real household incomes and real hourly wages
continued to drop. The stages of deep austerity that LaRouche had forecast would
follow Nixon's breaking up the Bretton Woods system, were being carried
out.
Another
extraordinary marker of what the destruction of Roosevelt's Bretton Woods meant,
is the explosion of the amount of debt necessary to produce a given amount of
GDP—under the circumstances of London's eurodollar/petrodollar system, floating
exchange rates, and then globalized securitization of debt. Figure
6 shows the approximate ratios of debt of all kinds—government,
business, and household—to GDP in the U.S. economy from 1950 to the present. No
comment is necessary.
The drop in
real incomes and living standards leveled off in the late 1980s, and was
replaced by relative stagnation, until Bush, the 2008 crash, and Obama's
"recovery" started another downhill slide. The leveling-off reflected the
collapse of the Soviet Union, greatly strengthening the petrodollar. The United
States was enabled to consume imports and run trade deficits in the hundreds of
billions of dollars annually for decades.
But the
decline in productive employment did not stabilize; it has fallen by another 4
million, another 7% of the workforce, since 1990.
Fifty years
later, the U.S. economy is in a permanent low-productivity, cheap-labor,
part-time/temporary/self-employment morass, sometimes repugnantly called "the
new normal." Low and declining real wages and household incomes now dominate the
economic and social reality of the nation.
Entire,
once-productive sections of the economic platform of the continent have been
destroyed—for example, the steel centers of Monterrey, Mexico and Pittsburgh,
Pa. The North American rail grid is dysfunctional—it cannot move out the High
Plains Canadian and U.S. harvests. Detroit and other once great industrial and
cultural cities are bankrupt ruins. The entire state of California has only 18
months of water left, unless miracle rains occur.
The North
American continent lacks rail—let alone high-speed rail—connectivity, although
it was the first continent with not one but five East-West transcontinental
railroad corridors by 1890. The contiguous ("lower 48" states) United States is
unconnected with the great western plain provinces of Canada, and unconnected
with Alaska. The entirety of North America is unlinked, even by highway, to
South America.
Here too, the
aftermath of JFK's assassination was the turning point. Though the national
interstate highway program initiated under President Eisenhower had literally
identified America with the connectivity provided by good roads, that process
reversed after 1965. Trunk highways have become choked and structurally degraded
by truck traffic, as total road mileage in use per capita has declined by 50%
since 1965. Rail mileage (Class 1 plus Amtrak passenger rail) per capita has
fallen from 90 miles in 1965 to just 54 now. The North American rail system is
so dysfunctional that in Spring 2014, fertilizer shipments were delayed past
planting time in the northern High Plains of the United States and Canada. Then,
after the harvest, the trains could not move out the crops.
The nation's
mileage of electrified railroad track, which was 16% of its total rail
network in 1965, is now just 1% of the network.
We see the
same picture in electricity production and price, which are vital for economic
growth and productivity (Figure 7). After doubling in the
1950s, and again in the 1960s, electricity production per capita in the United
States grew by just one-quarter in the 1970s, by one-fifth in the 1980s, by just
8% over the 1990s, and has stagnated and fallen by 8% since the turn of the 21st
Century. And the price index for electricity, having been stable for 25 years
(1945-70), rose sharply from the 1970s on, even before the impact of electricity
deregulation.
In the use
and provision of water supplies, with the exception of public or municipal use,
all the main uses of water—by industry, by agriculture for irrigation, for
thermoelectric power generation—peaked between 1970 and 1980, and have dropped
since by anywhere from 23% to 65%. As a result, the U.S. economy as a whole used
17% less water in 2010 than in 1980, even including public use by a population
which has grown nearly 40% in that time. These uses have been reported at
five-year intervals since 1950 by the United States Geological
Survey.
Worst and
most dangerous to its well-being, the United States has come to lack water
management and faces an enormous and intensifying drought which threatens its
food supply. The last major water management projects in the dry West of the
country were those dedicated by JFK, and by President Lyndon Johnson later in
the 1960s. And Kennedy was backing the Senate initiative, in which his brother
Sen. Robert Kennedy also got involved, to create the North American Water and
Power Alliance (NAWAPA), the scheme with 10 times the scope and productiveness
of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and which was sometimes inadequately termed
"water from Alaska." The plan, along with Kennedy's mission for widespread
desalination with nuclear power, died during the Vietnam War, and no other
comprehensive strategy for anti-drought infrastructure has ever taken its place.
The history is dramatically told in LaRouchePAC's one-hour documentary, "JFK Speeches
Toward a Nationwide TVA."
National
Credit
Various
proposals for "infrastructure banks" have been raised during the Bush and Obama
administrations. They have, for the most part, been far, far too small to
address the United States' huge and urgent needs for investment in new
infrastructure platforms, technological frontier advances centered around fusion
power development, and revived space exploration. They have been centered on
attracting private infrastructure investments, merely using Federal credit to
guarantee interest payments.
The real
credit to be attracted for this purpose, however, overwhelmingly hails from the
21st Century's center of economic growth and productive employment creation:
China. This is the process which is creating the "BRICS dynamic," which became
visibly dominant at the Nov. 10-11 APEC summit.
In order to
join this process and reverse its own real economic decline, the United States
will have to create its own national development bank, with Federal credit, on
Alexander Hamilton's national banking principles.
By issuing
credit from such a national development bank in cooperation with the new BRICS
development banks and funds being created primarily by China, the United States
will be acting for the economic benefit of other nations—and becoming the
greatest beneficiary itself.
[1]
Median income: Half of the relevant population earned more than this amount, and
half earned less. Not to be confused with "average" income.
[2]
For calculations of the effects of bringing the pre-1980 measure of inflation
forward to the present time, credit is due to John Williams'
www.shadowstats.com. The government admits the bias; the 1999 "Economic Report
to the President" stated the changes to the method of calculating inflation from
1980-2000 would lower the rate of inflation applied against wages and living
standards, by 0.68% per year. Others, including State Street Bank Research,
estimate this inflation fraud at 1.0-1.5% over the whole period; and additional
changes have been made by the Labor Department since 2000.
[3]
"Sources of TFP Growth in the Golden Age," National Bureau of Economics
Research, 2005.
[4]
Nomi Prins, All the President's Bankers (Nation Books, 2014), pp.
226-228, 245-247.
[5]
Nicholas Shaxson, "The Much Too Special Relationship," The American
Interest, March 19, 2014.
