OH,

How Economists Can Talk So Policymakers Will Listen

How Economists Can Talk So Policymakers Will Listen

By Karen Dynan

About the Author:

KAREN DYNAN is Professor of the Practice of Economics at Harvard University. From 2014 to 2017, she served as Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy and Chief Economists at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

Read more by Karen Dynan

In This Review

Advice and Dissent: Why America Suffers When Politics and Economics CollideBy Alan Blinder
Basic Books, 2018
368 pp.
Purchase








CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago

EasyBib

An uncomfortable truth for American economists is that they have limited influence on economic policy. Take trade, for example. Anyone who has studied introductory economics knows that free trade benefits countries in the long run, by allowing them to specialize in producing the goods and services in which they have a comparative advantage. Economists are in near-universal agreement about this point, although most also agree that it is important to help workers who lose their jobs in the short run because of trade.

Yet free trade has never been very popular in Washington. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed costly tariffs on imports from Canada, China, Mexico, and the EU, but such restrictions are not a mere idiosyncrasy of Trump. President Ronald Reagan introduced quotas on Japanese auto imports in 1981, and the North American Free Trade Agreement faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans when it was introduced to Congress in 1993. And many previous administrations have imposed trade restrictions on steel in order to support U.S. producers: Richard Nixon imposed import quotas, Jimmy Carter set price floors for foreign steel, and both George W. Bush and Barack Obama enacted steel tariffs during their presidencies.

Stay informed.

Get the latest book reviews delivered right to your inbox.
Email
Name

Trade is hardly the only area in which economic policy goes against expert consensus. The Republicans’ 2017 tax reform left largely intact the mortgage interest deduction, which allows homeowners to deduct the interest on loans used to buy or build a home, even though the vast majority of economists believe that it leads to overinvestment in housing and excessive mortgage debt relative to the social optimum. And in recent decades, U.S. states have greatly expanded occupational licensing—regulations setting minimum qualifications for entering a field—for florists, hair stylists, interior designers, and other professions for which the consumer protection benefits of licensing are doubtful. Most economists agree that this sort of occupational licensing hurts workers by restricting entry into a profession and hurts consumers by keeping prices high.

Why don’t economists have more influence? This is the question posed by Alan Blinder in his new book, Advice and Dissent. And Blinder, a prominent macroeconomist who formerly served on President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers and as vice chair of the Federal Reserve Board, is well equipped to answer it. Based on decades of experience in both economics and policymaking, Blinder argues that political incentives often force elected officials to ignore the best advice of economists, to the clear detriment of all. Although Blinder recognizes that there are no simple solutions, he provides clear and compelling, albeit modest, suggestions for how to design economic policy that takes account of political reality.

GET SMART

Blinder, riffing on a famous quote often misattributed to the Scottish writer Andrew Lang, argues that politicians typically use economists “the same way that a drunk uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination.” Economic policy is too often shaped by officials and their advisers in accordance with political goals, with economists used after the fact to justify policies that have been chosen by others. There are enough economists that a politician can always find one to support almost any policy, even one that most economists reject. The result is policies that make political sense but leave the country as a whole worse off.

The root of the problem, according to Blinder, is that politicians are dealing with a fundamentally different set of incentives and constraints than economists are. The framers of the U.S. Constitution designed a system in which it is difficult to make sweeping policy changes, meaning that politicians generally need broad popular support to do anything. Voters, in turn, have a limited understanding of many issues, especially those related to economic policy. And members of the media often privilege raising their own profile—or the market share of their employer—over fair and balanced reporting, limiting experts’ ability to better inform the electorate. Together, these factors produce a strong incentive for politicians to champion simple ideas that sell well over the more complex, less emotionally charged solutions preferred by economists.

The situation is made worse by political short-termism and the influence of interest groups. Politicians who face reelection every few years tend to adopt policies that will deliver gains in the near future, even if the costs will eventually outweigh the benefits. Conversely, economists favor bearing short-term costs in order to realize long-term gains. For example, Blinder notes that although “many economists favor a consumption tax over an income tax,” arguing that the former is more efficient, “the transitional problems that would arise” from enacting a consumption tax—such as the potentially steep penalty on retirees, who paid income taxes while working only to face higher consumption costs in retirement—are “enough to make a strong politician weep.” Likewise, a politician’s survival may require policies that disproportionately benefit small, well-organized groups yet impose significant costs on the rest of the population.

Advice and Dissent also explores how voters’ misconceptions and politicians’ devotion to special interests conspire to keep policymakers in Washington from applying economists’ knowledge in a number of hotly debated areas, such as inequality, international trade, and tax reform. On the topic of inequality, for instance, Blinder argues that if more people understood that “it is harder to raise taxes on mobile factors of production than immobile factors,” they would be more willing to “assign the job of redistribution to the federal government,” since “people are far less likely to change countries than to change cities.”

Yet even considering the conflicting incentives and uninspiring record, Blinder believes that there is room for improvement. He points out that contrary to the popular impression, economists agree on a great many things: that people and companies are heavily influenced by incentives, that there is a tradeoff between the size of a country’s economy and how equally its wealth is distributed, and that simple policy fixes, such as congestion charges for car use, could help solve common problems that inconvenience everyone, such as gridlock. Against the populist, antiestablishment sentiment driving much of U.S. politics today, Blinder advocates giving technocrats a greater role in government, especially in areas that are more or less value neutral. “An issue is a good candidate for technocratic decision making,” he writes, “if it is technically complex, if it requires a long time horizon, and if it involves the apportionment of pain. It is a bad candidate if value judgments are central to the decision.” For instance, Blinder proposes the creation of a federal infrastructure bank and a nonpolitical federal tax board to redesign the details of the tax system, both of which would represent a significant change from current arrangements.

Leah Millis / Reuters Donald Trump addresses supporters at a rally in Rochester, Minnesota, October 2018.

BIG LITTLE LIES

Blinder deserves ample credit for taking the interaction between economics and politics seriously at a time when the challenge of making good economic policy has become even more acute. Politicians and the public now show less deference to expertise than in the past, a view encapsulated in the 2016 remark by Michael Gove, then the British justice secretary and a pro-Brexit campaigner, that people “have had enough of experts.” This likely has multiple causes, including the rise of the Internet, a collapse of confidence in the press, and understandable frustration over the role played by experts in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, the 2007–8 financial crisis, and trade policies that have led to unemployment in certain sectors of the economy. But although these examples show that experts can clearly be wrong, expert economic opinion is generally more right than political guesswork. For example, despite economists’ failure to predict the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve’s response to it—providing additional liquidity to backstop the financial system—generated a much better outcome than would have been achieved by following the advice of politicians who wanted to let the banks fail. As trust in experts has declined, however, it has become easier for politicians to offer far-fetched solutions regardless of their economic merit.

To make matters worse, the major U.S. political parties have been severely weakened in their ability to select their preferred candidates or target their financial resources. This has only exacerbated short-termism. Party leaders generally have longer time horizons than individual politicians because they are responsible for ongoing relationships with the other party and with voters. Concern for maintaining these relationships and protecting their party’s reputation gives party leaders an incentive to restrain their members from pursuing misguided policies that deliver enticing short-term gains. And traditionally, party leaders have gotten what they wanted.

In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, however, Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont ran insurgent campaigns directly challenging their respective party establishments, with Trump winning the Republican nomination and Sanders only narrowly losing the Democratic one. Insurgent candidates are, as a rule, less worried about longer-term reputational consequences than are those beholden to a party hierarchy and are thus more willing to make wildly unrealistic proposals. Trump, for example, promised to simultaneously cut taxes, reduce deficits, maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits, and provide good health insurance to everyone.

Dishonest communication with the public is especially problematic because politicians shape the views of their constituents. According to data from the Pew Research Center, Republicans’ views on trade have been converging with those of Trump: in 2009, 57 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning voters polled thought that trade agreements had been a good thing for the United States; by 2018, only 43 percent thought so, with most of the drop occurring in the lead-up to the 2016 election. (Similar shifts, among both Democrats and Republicans, can be seen on other issues strongly associated with the president, including immigration and U.S. relations with Russia.) When politicians deliberately mislead voters, it makes it even more difficult for experts to advocate effective but potentially unpopular policies.

Economists should view political constraints as potentially useful sources of information about people’s preferences.

MARGINAL EVOLUTION

Blinder acknowledges that there is much more that economists could do to build bridges with politicians and voters. He urges his colleagues to speak in ways that nonexperts can understand and to recognize that “fairness is far more meaningful and important to most people than the economist’s cherished notion of efficiency.”

There are other ways that economists who want to influence policy could increase their own relevance. First, they need to take political constraints more seriously. Economists often see their job as designing policies that get the economics right and delivering them to Washington, at which point it becomes someone else’s job to turn those ideas into law. One problem with this attitude is that nearly all policy proposals require reworking before they can be put into action—and some need a great deal of reworking. Economists should keep this in mind and be more willing to develop what they call “second-best” solutions, or policies that move in a desirable direction while getting the economics as right as possible given political and other constraints. For example, most economists agree that the most efficient way to cut taxes in order to stimulate a weak economy is to narrowly target the cuts at those who are most likely to spend the extra money. But it will usually be more politically feasible to enact a broad-based payroll tax cut. This is a case in which it would be better to accept the less efficient policy if the alternative is having no fiscal stimulus at all.

More broadly, economists should view political constraints as potentially useful sources of information about people’s preferences. Although resistance to what economists regard as an ideal policy may sometimes reflect the entrenched influence of a powerful few, at other times it may represent a constructive form of popular feedback. For example, the second-best policy may be much easier to explain than the first-best, and there is real value in having policies that people can understand. In other cases, such as the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (a trade deal that Trump scrapped shortly after entering office), political resistance may reflect in part the fact that voters place greater value on equity than efficiency. Economists need not become legislative experts, but everyone would benefit if they showed more interest in working with politicians to find workable compromises.

Economists could also increase their influence by developing more realistic models that account for institutional considerations, such as the complex linkages among different parts of the financial system, and for behavior that does not fit the simplifying assumptions of traditional economics, which hold that fully informed individuals will rationally pursue their preferences without any cognitive biases or limitations. Making these changes will make economic research messier and less conclusive, but politicians and voters probably won’t support proposals based on analyses that only vaguely resemble the real world anyway.

The financial crisis was a wake-up call in this regard. Despite clear warning signs, economists were slow to recognize the inflation of a housing bubble in the years leading up to the crash because most were taught that markets were too efficient to overprice an asset for a long period of time. Economists also missed the ways in which risky mortgage-backed securities linked the housing market to the broader financial system, causing them to vastly underestimate the impact of a wave of foreclosures.

Traders standing outside the New York Stock Exchange, October 2012. Brendan McDermid / Reuters

Traders standing outside the New York Stock Exchange, October 2012.

Since the financial crisis, economists have made considerable strides in their understanding of financial institutions and how they are connected to the real economy. They are paying more attention to institutional considerations in other policy areas, as well. In student loan policy, for instance, economists are beginning to recognize the risks to students and taxpayers posed by for-profit colleges, many of which encourage students to borrow from the federal government to fund educations that are unlikely to result in high enough incomes to repay the debt. And in labor-market policy, there is a new focus on the challenge of developing institutions that can finance and administer benefits in the gig economy comparable to the arrangements, such as employer-provided health insurance, that have grown up over time with traditional employers.

Similarly, a thriving behavioral economics literature has emerged over the past two decades that incorporates more realistic assumptions about behavior than those embedded in traditional economic models. Consider retirement savings. Economists used to assume that individuals decided how much to save by projecting their income and consumption needs into the future and then saving in order to maintain a preferred standard of living over their lifetime. Yet behavioral economics has shown that people are generally not so sophisticated: they make decisions using simple rules of thumb and often have self-control problems, consuming in the present even when they know they shouldn’t. This insight has led to policies designed to address these limitations, such as workplace retirement saving plans, in which people commit to saving a certain amount out of every paycheck. These are effective at encouraging saving, especially if employers “nudge” their workers into such plans by signing them up automatically and making them request to opt out. Although economists are still only beginning to understand the degree to which individual economic decisions can be explained by cognitive limitations and biases, rather than rational calculations based on preferences, advances in behavioral economics will pave the way for improved policy.

Finally, economists must develop more and better evidence about which policies work. Such evidence can be hard to come by, because opportunities to conduct experiments and collect data on outcomes, especially across longer time periods, are necessarily limited. But today, both the accumulation of evidence from previous policies and improvements in methodology are allowing economists to more rigorously evaluate what works and why. One particularly important line of research has examined the long-term effects of government programs aimed at providing better education, health care, housing, and nutrition to children in low-income families. The economists Hilary Hoynes, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Douglas Almond, for instance, have shown that access to food stamps in childhood leads to significantly better adult outcomes in health and, for women, economic self-sufficiency. Politicians are likely to find policy proposals backed by hard evidence much more appealing than those that simply sound good on paper.

Such research may hold the potential to help move policy beyond the left-right divide. In 2016, Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House, and Patty Murray, a Democratic senator from Washington State, sponsored legislation creating the bipartisan Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking. The commission, which includes many economists in its ranks, issued a report last fall with recommendations for how the federal government can improve its gathering and use of data to shape policy, including increasing the coordination of evidence-gathering efforts within the government and developing a uniform process for outside researchers to gain secure access to confidential government data.

There is no silver bullet for making economic policy better in the face of political constraints. Economists and elected officials will continue to face different incentives, and in many cases, political necessity will triumph over economic sense. There is certainly some scope for increasing the influence of economists and other experts, through changes both in the policymaking process and in the way that economists do their work. But these changes need to go hand in hand with a commitment by elected leaders to communicate honestly and show respect for evidence. Political leaders need to recognize that they will ultimately get more support from voters by addressing their problems, which they can do effectively only with help from experts. Voters, for their part, need to hold their leaders responsible for outcomes. Otherwise, honesty, for a politician, will continue be a fool’s game.

Watch live: CGI U 2018

From: Clinton Foundation <reply-to>
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 6:43 PM

CGI U will engage the next generation of leaders to develop solutions for hurricane recovery, expanding civic participation, gun violence, youth…

WATCH: CGI U 2018
This weekend, more than 1,000 student leaders will come together to turn ideas into action at the University of Chicago for the 11th annual Clinton Global Initiative University (CGI U) meeting. This year, CGI U will engage the next generation of leaders to develop solutions for hurricane recovery, expanding civic participation, gun violence, youth incarceration, and more.

ajay, you have the opportunity to watch multiple discussions with President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, Chelsea Clinton, and other global leaders on Facebook Live.

YES, I'LL TUNE IN
Watch on Facebook Live:

Friday, October 19:
6:30-8:00 p.m. CT
Opening Plenary: Expanding Civic Engagement

Saturday, October 20:
9:00-10:15 a.m. CT
Morning Plenary: Freedom of Expression Around the World

2:00-3:15 p.m. CT
Afternoon Plenary: Gun Violence in the U.S.: A Case Study in Social Movements

5:15-6:30 p.m. CT
Closing Plenary: Final remarks with President Clinton, Secretary Clinton, and Chelsea Clinton

DONATE
The Clinton Foundation improves lives across the United States and around the world by working with partners to create economic opportunity, improve public health, and inspire civic engagement and service.
The Clinton Foundation has received top ratings from three leading charity evaluators: Charity Navigator, CharityWatch, and GuideStar. These ratings help you know that we make the most of every single dollar that you contribute.

Charity Watch Top-Rated Charity Navigator Four Star Charity GuideStar 2017 Platinum

View this email as a webpage

Clinton Foundation | 1200 President Clinton Ave | Little Rock, AR 72201

This email was sent to ajayinsead03.
You can update your preferences or if you no longer wish to receive emails from us, please unsubscribe.

open.php?u=e809aa89bab0cd5855ca8ede9&id=d949e2cd1f&e=1a34484569

Can Elites Change the World for the Better?

From: Knowledge@Wharton <knowledge>
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:36 PM
Subject: Can Elites Change the World for the Better?

The Wharton School
Knowledge@Wharton

PUBLIC POLICY

Winner-Take-All-Banner-450x240.jpg

‘Winners Take All’

Can Elites Really Change the World for the Better?
READ MORE

PUBLIC POLICY

Crazy Rich Indians

An Inside Look at the Burgeoning Bollygarchs

READ MORE

India-billionaires-high-rise-home-450x240.jpg

SOCIAL IMPACT

Environmental, Social and Governance Risks

How They Affect the Bottom Line

READ MORE

social-risk-450x240.jpg
SPONSORED CONTENT

AI Frontiers Conference

Showcasing the Frontier Technologies of AI Deployed in Large Scale
Join AI leaders and influencers November 9-11, 2018, in San Jose, CA, to discuss the latest breakthroughs and trends in AI. Speakers are leaders from Google, Facebook, Microsoft, OpenAI, Uber and DJI. Learn more and use the code p25wharton to receive 25% off your registration.

IIX and K@W

Women, Peace and Parity: Using Finance as a Tool for Progress
Around the world, innovative finance is becoming a crucial tool for building a better future — one that is more inclusive, just and sustainable. Pioneers across business, finance, development and public policy are innovating new solutions to age-old problems, including empowering women, achieving gender equality and promoting inclusion. Join us October 24th at Wharton San Francisco for this invite-only event. Request your invite.

FINANCE

Transforming Banking and Retail

The Rising Importance of Instant Payments

READ MORE

Instant-payments-450x240.jpg

MARKETING

When Does the Real Customer Journey Start?

Earlier Than You Think

READ MORE

customer-journey-450x240.jpg

In Case You Missed It

FOLLOW US

newsletter-fb-button.gif newsletter-twitter-button.gif newsletter-linkedin-button.gif

Facebook | Twitter (@whartonknows)

HELP SPREAD KNOWLEDGE

Do you know people who might be interested in business analysis and research?

If so, please forward this email to them. The Knowledge@Wharton Network is the free online journal of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

How Israeli Food Became Trendy

@myjewishlearning.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:30 PM
Subject: How Israeli Food Became Trendy
To: <lednichenkoolga>

Empowering Jewish Discovery
refugee-shabbat-600x90.png
7c93f0e9-bd1f-4616-a523-50978ef400e1.png
food
The Evolution of Israeli Cuisine
Increasingly trendy worldwide, Israeli food mixes the flavors of the Middle East and the Jewish Diaspora.
read More
Today’s Must Reads
The Ultimate DIY Bar Mitzvah Guide
Want to Preserve Your Fall Apple Harvest for Hanukkah? Here’s How.
Word of the Day
Get (ּגט)
Pronounced GETT, this term refers to a Jewish writ of divorce, traditionally given by a man to his wife to effect the religious dissolution of their marriage.
Learn more about Jewish divorce.
Eats
Lower East Side Breakfast Tart
Click Here
Today’s Question
Who Was Hank Greenberg?
Click Here
Weekly Torah Portion
crop-gb-lechlecha2.jpg
Parashat Lech-Lecha
Genesis 12:1-17:27
Summary
In this Torah portion, God makes a covenant with Abram promising to make his descendants a great nation. God changes Abram’s name to Abraham. Abraham has a child with Hagar and names him Ishmael. God then promises Abraham’s barren wife, Sarah, that she will have a child.
Learn more.
Commentary
What we can learn from Abraham’s other child.
Read more.
more torah
refugee-shabbat-600x90.png
mjl.gif
Follow Us
icon-facebook.gif icon-twitter.gif icon-youtube.gif
Update Your Preferences | Unsubscribe
My Jewish Learning
70 Faces Media | 24 West 30th Street, 4th Floor | New York, NY 10001 | USA
Copyright © 2018 My Jewish Learning
All rights reserved.
70faces.gif
This email was sent to lednichenkoolga by community

70 Faces Media | 24 West 30th Street, 4th Floor | New York, NY 10001 | USA
Edit Profile | Manage Subscriptions | Report Spam

Someone just viewed: ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga – tell me all i asked regards hotman

https://www.google.com/search?q=ajay+whars+all+theise+whats+this+to+do+woth+Olga+-+tell+me+all+i+asked+regards+hotman&num=30&pws=0&gl=us&nfpr=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZzo3InpLeAhUIO48KHTUEAmsQ_AUIDigB&biw=1229&bih=603

Thanks in Advance,
Sincerely
Ajay

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:19 PM Ajay Mishra <ajayinsead03> wrote:

About 6 results (0.59 seconds)

Did you mean: ajay what’s all this whats this to do with Olga – tell me all i asked regards hotman

Search Results

Web results

AJAY AND OBAMA , WHARS ALL THIESE OLGA AND ME HAS …


yoninetanyahu.com/…/ajay-and-obama-whars-all-thiese-olga-and-me-has-created-tell-…

Jun 11, 2018 – TELL ME IF U CAN.. REGARDS, OLGA AND KIKA AND HOTMANajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked

Someone just viewed: HINDI STATUS NOW IN HINDI MEDIAUM …


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/06/…/someone-just-viewed-hindi-status-now-in-hindi-mediau…

Someone just viewed: OLGA SHULMAN LEDNICHENKO HALF WHITE … ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked regards hotman → …

June | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/06/10/

Jun 10, 2018 – Daily Archives: June 10, 2018. ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked regards hotman. Posted on June 10, 2018 …

July | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/07/16/

Jul 16, 2018 – AJAY WHARS ALL THEISE? IS CUBA COOL? TELL ME ALL I ASKED REGARDS HOTMAN…. SO, WHATS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN INDIA AND IRAN ? ….. EGYPT IS NOT SHIA – BUT CHAS SOME RELATIIONSHIP WOTH ISAREL … Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which …

June | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/06/page/6/

11 posts published by OLGA SHULMAN LEDNICHENKO AND YONI NETANYAHU BLOG … BECAUSE IVE CONVERTED HIM – REGARDS HOTMAN …… ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked regards hotman.

Images for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth …

Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman

More images for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga – tell me all i asked regards hotmanReport images

Web results

July | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


https://yoninetanyahu.com/2018/07/page/17/

Trump’s Appalling Display in Helsinki Shows Netanyahu Was Right All Along to Invest in …. Unless there were more detailed secret understandings, Israel will have ….. AJAY WHARS ALL THEISE? IS CUBA COOL? TELL ME ALL I ASKED REGARDS HOTMAN ….. SO, WHATS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN INDIA AND IRAN ?

Someone just viewed: ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga – tell me all i asked regards hotman

About

6

results (0.59 seconds)

Did you mean: ajay what’s all this whats this to do with Olga – tell me all i asked regards hotman

Search Results

Web results

 

AJAY AND OBAMA , WHARS ALL THIESE OLGA AND ME HAS …


yoninetanyahu.com/…/ajay-and-obama-whars-all-thiese-olga-and-me-has-created-tell-…

Jun 11, 2018 – TELL ME IF U CAN.. REGARDS, OLGA AND KIKA AND HOTMANajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked

 

Someone just viewed: HINDI STATUS NOW IN HINDI MEDIAUM …


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/06/…/someone-just-viewed-hindi-status-now-in-hindi-mediau…

Someone just viewed: OLGA SHULMAN LEDNICHENKO HALF WHITE … ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked regards hotman → …

 

June | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/06/10/

Jun 10, 2018 – Daily Archives: June 10, 2018. ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked regards hotman. Posted on June 10, 2018 …

 

July | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/07/16/

Jul 16, 2018 – AJAY WHARS ALL THEISE? IS CUBA COOL? TELL ME ALL I ASKED REGARDS HOTMAN…. SO, WHATS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN INDIA AND IRAN ? ….. EGYPT IS NOT SHIA – BUT CHAS SOME RELATIIONSHIP WOTH ISAREL … Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which …

 

June | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


yoninetanyahu.com/2018/06/page/6/

11 posts published by OLGA SHULMAN LEDNICHENKO AND YONI NETANYAHU BLOG … BECAUSE IVE CONVERTED HIM – REGARDS HOTMAN …… ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olgatell me all i asked regards hotman.

Images for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth …

Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman
Image result for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga - tell me all i asked regards hotman

More images for ajay whars all theise whats this to do woth Olga – tell me all i asked regards hotmanReport images

Web results

 

July | 2018 – olga shulman lednichenko and yoni netanyahu


https://yoninetanyahu.com/2018/07/page/17/

Trump’s Appalling Display in Helsinki Shows Netanyahu Was Right All Along to Invest in …. Unless there were more detailed secret understandings, Israel will have ….. AJAY WHARS ALL THEISE? IS CUBA COOL? TELL ME ALL I ASKED REGARDS HOTMAN ….. SO, WHATS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN INDIA AND IRAN ?

COMPOUND INTEREST QUIZ: DONALD TRUMP GOT $443 MILLION FROM HIS DAD IN 1992 – IF HE INVESTED THAT ENTIRE MONEY IN A PASSIVE STOCK INDEX FUND – HOW MUCH WOULD DONALD TRUMP HAVE BEEN WORTH NOW ? AND SECOND QUESTION – WHATS HIS NET WORTH AS OF TODAY AND THIRED QUESTION – WHATS THE VARIANCE BETWEEN PASSIVE INVESTMENT AND DONALD ACTIVELY DOING HIS GIGS – CALLED IN BUSINESS SChOOLS ?

ANSWER [1] –

IF HE PUT $443 MILLION IN A STOCK MARKET INDEX FUND AND JUST LET IT SIT FROM 1992 TILL TODAY WHICH MEANS 26 YEARS –

TRUMP WOULD HAVE BEEN WORTH $6.6 BILLION

ANSWER [2]

AS OF TODAY, DONALD TRUMP IS WORTH $ 3.1 BILLION

ANSWER [3]

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ABOVE IS ABOUT $3.5 BILLION

AND IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS ITS CALLED – VALUE DESTRUCTION NOT VALUE CREATION BUT VALUE DESTRUCTION

SO BASCIALLY DONALD TRUMP THROUGH HIS BUSINESS GENIUS FROM WHARTON BBA – DESTROYED – VALUE – EQAUL IN AMOUNT TO $3.5 BILLION ..

A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN HE IS WORTH NOW

WOW

 

 

HERE IS THE MATHS

 

Where Does the Idea of a 12% Return on Investment Come From?

When Dave says you can expect to make a 12% return on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500.

The S&P 500 gauges the performance of the stocks of the 500 largest, most stable companies in the New York Stock Exchange—it’s often considered the most accurate measure of the stock market as a whole.

The current average annual return from 1923 (the year of the S&P’s inception) through 2016 is 12.25%.(1,2)That’s a long look back, and most people aren’t interested in what happened in the market 80 years ago.

So let’s look at some numbers that are closer to home. From 1992 to 2016, the S&P’s average is 10.72%. From 1987 to 2016, it’s 11.66% In 2015, the market’s annual return was 1.31%. In 2014, it was 13.81%. In 2013, it was 32.43%. (3)

 

So you can see, 12% is not a magic number. Based on the history of the market, it’s a reasonable expectation for your long-term investments. It’s simply a part of the conversation about investing.