Felix Salmon

How the government fudges job statistics

By Felix Salmon
February 17, 2010

In the Marketplace letters segment yesterday, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) took issue with me saying that infrastructure investment is an extremely expensive way of creating jobs and “costs a good $200,000 per job”. Just as well I didn’t use the $1 million figure here, which I stand by, and which was fact-checked by the Atlantic!

The host, Kai Ryssdal, had no time to read out the letter in full, but has allowed me to reprint it:

Dear Mr. Ryssdal:

I have always enjoyed your show and have enjoyed past opportunities to discuss issues as your guest. However, I was distressed last Friday to hear a purported expert guest, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon, state with great certainty that infrastructure investment is an inefficient jobs creator because those jobs are so expensive to create. To back up his argument he claimed that it costs $200,000 to create one infrastructure job. However, he provided no source for this claim and you failed to challenge his assertion.

The Council of Economic Advisors has estimated that $92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year, regardless of the sector of the economy. The U.S. Department of Transportation, arguably the most knowledgeable government agency when it comes to transportation spending and the resulting job creation, states that an investment of $35,941 creates one infrastructure-related job. Those two confirmable estimates are a far cry from the dubious $200,000-per-job claim from Mr. Salmon. Unfortunately Mr. Salmon’s assertion went unchallenged while the other guest, Heidi Moore of The Big Money, seemed to tacitly agree with him.

I am particularly sensitive about this issue since the AP ran an article last month on an “analysis” by AP reporters that used incomplete information to draw inaccurate and misleading conclusions about the success of the transportation infrastructure component of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The article claimed that “a surge in spending on roads and bridges has had no effect on local unemployment ” based on the reporters’ finding that “local unemployment rates rose and fell regardless of how much stimulus money Washington poured out for transportation.” However, instead of examining the impact of ARRA’s transportation investment on jobs in the transportation industry – an appropriate comparison – the reporters compared the transportation funding, which comprised only 6 percent of spending in the Recovery Act, to the overall unemployment rate. This led to a specious conclusion and ignores the fact that transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion.

I continue to support infrastructure investment as both a justified investment that future generations will benefit from as well as one of the most efficient creators of jobs, contrary to the beliefs of purported experts like Mr. Salmon and the so-called investigative reporters from the AP. I hope you will set the record straight. If you would like to discuss this further you can contact me directly at [redacted].


Peter A. DeFazio, M.C.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

(In case you were wondering, the “M.C.” just means Member of Congress.)

I have no dog in DeFazio’s fight with the AP. But his attacks on me are just plain wrong. Infrastructure investments are simply not “one of the most efficient creators of jobs”, no matter how much DeFazio might want them to be, and the sources he cites to back up that claim don’t support it.

What’s at issue here is a ratio: I’m talking about dollars per job created. To get that number, you take the number of dollars spent, and divide it by the number of jobs created. DeFazio, by contrast, subtly tries to change the denominator when he says that “$92,000 in direct government spending creates one job-year”: he’s taking dollars, dividing by jobs created, and then dividing again by the number of years that each job is expected to last.

In the real world, of course, if you spend $300,000 to create a job which lasts three years, then that’s one job created with your $300,000, not three jobs. Only in DC would people attempt to claim that their $300,000 had created three “job-years”.

What’s more, the $92,000 estimate covers government spending in general, not just infrastructure spending. Infrastructure spending gets you low bang for the buck, in terms of job creation, compared to other kinds of spending — my example on the show was arts subsidies. A lot of government spending goes on creating new federal jobs: you get much more job creation per buck that way than you do building infrastructure.

And if you look at the CEA report, you’ll see that it carefully fudges the difference between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs saved, on the other; in fact, it seems to used “created” and “created or saved” as synonyms. So if you’ve had a job for years, and you’re still in that job, you can still be counted in these job-creation statistics if the government somehow determines that you might not be in that job had the stimulus bill not passed.

The fact is that if you move away from vague country-level statistics and start drilling down to the actual number of jobs created by actual infrastructure projects, you never get anywhere near $92,000 per job. For instance, have a look at the job-creation statistics on this page.

A 5-mile stretch of highway, costing $50 million, creates a total of 79 jobs. That’s over $600,000 per job. Even if you divide that by two on the grounds that it’s a two-year project, that’s still $300,000 per job-year. In railways, a $15 million investment creates 12 jobs — that’s $1.25 million per job, and it’s a one-year project.

I’ve seen similar numbers surrounding hospitals, and higher numbers surrounding nuclear power stations — basically, infrastructure investment is an incredibly inefficient way of creating jobs.

But what of DeFazio’s $35,941 figure? I finally tracked it down to here — a report which does not say that spending $35,941 “creates one infrastructure-related job”. Again, it’s talking job-years, not jobs, but more importantly, it says this:

The FHWA analysis refers to jobs supported by highway investments, this includes ‘new jobs’ to the extent unemployed labor is hired; ‘better jobs’ as currently employed workers move into jobs with better compensation and/or full time positions; and ‘sustained jobs’ as current employees are retained with the expenditure.

This is an even looser definition than “created or saved” — it also includes substantially everybody who just gets a promotion as well, along with that ill-defined definition of “sustained jobs”, comprising people who just stay in the same job they’ve had all along.

Finally, what is DeFazio talking about when he says that “transportation projects funded by ARRA have created or sustained more than 250,000 direct, on-project jobs, with payroll expenditures of $1.3 billion”? Simple division here would seem to imply that each worker is earning no more than $5,200 a year, which can’t be right. But again, look at the footnotes — specifically in this report, which is the source of DeFazio’s statistic:

Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).

Yes, for the purposes of this report, the government has calculated the number of jobs created by taking the number of hours worked and dividing by 173. If you pay a man to wield a shovel for one year, working 40 hours a week, then hey, you’ve created 12 jobs! If you pay him overtime, and he works 60 hours a week, then you’ve created 18 jobs! If he keeps on working at that pace for three years, then you’re up to 54 jobs! All from one man earning one paycheck.

So it’s not just DeFazio, then: everybody in the government seems to be happy fudging job-creation statistics, especially by using job-years or even job-months rather than actual jobs, and also by eliding the distinction between jobs created, on the one hand, and jobs improved or saved, on the other. That’s worth remembering, next time you hear a politician kvelling about how the government is creating millions of new jobs.

31 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

That’s good work, Felix. You may yet win me over.

Posted by Curmudgeon | Report as abusive

The most “efficient” way to create jobs would be to pay someone $25,000 to sit home and watch TV. ALL the money spent would go into “wages”. But what do we get in return? If you build a highway for $50 million, and create 97 jobs, you also end up with a new highway. It seems kind of unfair to call this “inefficient” at creating jobs, since it also creates needed infrastructure. If all you are measuring is jobs created for dollars spent, the first option I mentioned is best, but somehow, I don’t think this is what we want – most would call that “welfare”.

Posted by RGC | Report as abusive

I don’t dispute your math, but I do think that perhaps there is room for lower numbers than 200,000 and 1 mil…

Firstly, when you are talking stimulus, the goal is to fill a temporary gap in jobs during a down turn. Now, perhaps there are more efficient ways to do this (hiring people to dig a ditch for 40k per job-year for example) but I don’t think it is nonsense to think in terms of job-years.

Additionally, one should also consider that infrastructure spending a) leaves something of value behind and b) often will have been spent anyway.

So I would propose that in addition to the utility of job-years, it would also be appropriate to subtract out the value of whatever is being built and then plug that into the denominator of a $/job-year calculation.

Because I think we can all agree that paying $40k to dig a ditch as a job creator doesn’t have the same ‘value’ as spending $200k (or whatever) to build/repair a highway etc.

(and I’m not even going after the potential for the infrastructure spending to grown GDP down the road!)

I like your blog, Felix, keep on with the good work.

Posted by chuck12 | Report as abusive

oops, should have been numerator…

Posted by chuck12 | Report as abusive

So if you use the same amount of money to hire one person for ten years, or ten people for one year, how many jobs have you created? By the Salmon approach it seems you count only the number of heads, ignoring the time factor. FTEs may be bureaucratese, but there is some logic to the idea, even to non-bureaucrats like me.

Posted by MervynP | Report as abusive

RGC, I think that if what you took away from this was a persuassive essay about the most efficient method of creating jobs, you missed Felix’s point.

Posted by drewbie | Report as abusive

“Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s reporting requirements, the number of direct jobs is based on direct, on-project full-time-equivalent (FTE) job months. One person working full time or two people working one-half time for one month represents one FTE job month. FTE job months are calculated by dividing cumulative job hours created or sustained by 173 hours (40 hours per week times 52 weeks divided by 12 months = 173 hours).”

I can’t agree that the report where the above quote is taken from uses only job-months as the number of jobs created. Unless it used the words “equal to” instead of “based on”, I can still see the report meaning:

((# of workers on a project * number of hours worked per worker) / 173 hours per month) * 12 = # of jobs

Unfortunately, it’s not made clear in the rest of the report.

Posted by newthrash | Report as abusive

my math is wrong above:

(# of workers * # of hours) / 2073 = # of jobs

2073 = 173 * 12

And I see now that the 280k jobs figure can’t be matched by that anyway…

Posted by newthrash | Report as abusive

drewbie, I don’t think either Felix or Mr. DeFazio were talking about the “most efficient” way of creating jobs. My point was that it is fundamentally unfair to use the total cost of a big project like a highway and divide that by the number of jobs created, and call that the “cost per job”. The money is being spent on making something of value in addition to providing jobs. I think chuck12 and MervynP have it about right.

Posted by RGC | Report as abusive

If the Federal Government spends $50 million to build a bridge that otherwise would not have been built the government has added $50 million in income to the private sector. This money will be distributed through the contracting companies to all the workers and suppliers who participate in the project. These income earners will spend a good bit of that income on goods and services offered by other people turning into income for them. This is the essence of stimulus. Oh, and we also get a new bridge. And, by the way, it didn’t really cost the federal government anything anyway.

These projects may create brand new jobs that did not exist before, but focusing on the exact number of “new” jobs is a bit off, in my opinion, and may be difficult to quantify anyway.

Just build some freaking bridges. And if you’re feeling green, how about a dozen nuclear reactors. Please.

Posted by Sensei | Report as abusive

Come on, on this article is so disingenuous. By simplifying the issue to look at only direct jobs is incredibly misleading to the point of demagoguery.

First, you need to look at secondary, tertiary, etc. jobs created.

Secondly, you need to look at the spread/velocity of money via these jobs. Comparing a construction company vs. an artist, as you have done, is an excellent example because the construction company has subcontractors, parts/supplies, etc. – which reach far into the broader market.

If I was working as a professional writer, I’d be embarassed of this simplicity. Simply dividing the contract by direct jobs created is just obfuscation.

You can do a better analysis than this.

Posted by TedS | Report as abusive

Maybe Reuters should also learn to set the blog server’s date/time settings. My original post happened at 7:36PM on Feb 17, 2010 – not Feb 18 @ 12:36am.

Posted by TedS | Report as abusive

The Reuters date/time settings are GMT.


I didn’t go into the question of direct vs indirect jobs, TedS, but I can assure you that the government statistics very much include indirect jobs created.


The phone rings. A guy picks up, hears someone asking:
[Voice] – Is this the guy who makes it look like we’ve created a lot of jobs?
[Guy] – Sure is!
[Voice] – Well, could you make it look like we’ve created a lot of jobs, then?
[Guy] – Who’s calling?
[Voice] – The U.S. Government, of course…
[Guy] – You? But you’ve never created any jobs, except for people like me.
[Voice] – Well… so?
[Guy] – Well, so it’s gonna cost you. A lot.
[Voice] – Even more than making it look like we found WMD?
[Guy] At least twice that much – and cheap at the price.
[Voice] – OK, fair enough. Let’s get cracking!

Posted by HBC | Report as abusive

another great post, Felix. keep up the good work

Posted by KidDynamite | Report as abusive

Here’s some job statistics: if elections were held today for all the electable National positions out there, ie US President, US Senator and US Representative, I would bet that tomorrow 90% of the incumbents would be out of work. Now that’s “GOOD” unemployment. They all need to start looking for work now ..

Posted by Woltmann | Report as abusive

To agree with some of the posts above, Felix’s definition of “job” is totally meaningless.
$200k to create a “job for life” (say 40 years worth of employment) seems incredibly good value to me.

Surely you have to agree a metric and then compare different investments for that metric.

The correct metric is job-years, as well demonstrated by the 1 year railway vs. 2 year highway example.

Then you need to subtract the VALUE that the project is creating in terms of end-product.
If the job is simply to dig a hole and fill it in again, then we can say the value created is ZERO since the end-product is the status quo.
For highways and railways there has to be a number that can be used to derive the value of the project.
Perhaps the value will be more than the cost invested, in which case the cost per job-year would be negative.
Frankly, any infrastructure project SHOULD be able to generate positive ROCE, particularly with ZERO cost of capital.

IMHO, arts subsidies simply don’t create value. Unless of course the end-product (“art” presumably) is more valuable that the cost to employ the artist+materials.
If that were the case, then why would the artist need the subsidy in the first place?

Felix is a. using the wrong metric and b. screwing with the numerator by ignoring value creation. Both errors favour the arts subsidy argument (particularly as infrastructure is so heavy on material costs vs. labour costs when compared with an artist).

Posted by TinyTim1 | Report as abusive

Felix, that was one great column. You’re turning me into a fan. Y’know, I have a customer, and she doesn’t believe ANYTHING the government says. Nothing at all.

Posted by Gotthardbahn | Report as abusive

The number of new jobs created is clearly debatable, since it is inherently difficult to quantify based on the available statistics. However, the fact is that the United States’ infrastructure is crumbling. Roads, bridges, trains, highways, refineries, power plants, dams, waterways, etc.. have all been allowed to decay due to insufficient investment over the past decade. Whether or not the transportation allocations create jobs is really not the point, and unfortunately it has been politicized within the context of jobs creation.

Infrastructure spending has been routinely shown to improve an area’s economic potential and quality of life. It benefits the greatest number of people, versus other dubious public works projects like stadiums, shopping districts etc.. Infrastructure is the artery that enables the economic organism to function. Without it, everything slowly degrades until robust economic activity ceases.

Unfortunately, Felix, you again demonstrate the vulnerabilities of your overly theoretical approach. It is not about “X” jobs created per “y” dollars. It is about keeping the economic engine running at its full potential. If you provide the best possible economic environment, then you will encourage growth, which in turn creates jobs. For every mile of road built, and every contractor employed, the ancillary economic effects are beyond your simple calculations. It is simplistic and amateur to say otherwise.

I can totally relate to Rep. DeFazio’s disgust with your assertions. The fact that such an ingenue would lecture a sitting congressman, who has more experience creating jobs, and building communities than you could even dream of, just demonstrates your disconnect from reality. It also further emphasizes the need for actual “experts” to comment on these issues, not arm-chair economists and media talking heads.

I bet you feel proud of yourself for successfully baiting a congressman. However, when you are proven wrong, will you take responsibility for the inaccuracy of your statements? It is inherently easy to criticize, but it is much more difficult to present solutions. So, since you are the job creation expert, what do you suggest should be done? Don’t fall back on the tired old solutions being tossed around the blogosphere, since you’re such the accomplished journalist and academic, why not suggest something new, instead of using your soapbox to discourage any positive economic measures.

Posted by LucidOne | Report as abusive


Great article. Politicians need to be honest. Felix did an excellent job of pointing out the lengths politicians will go make things look better or worse than they actually are.

We need the upgrade in infrastructure. This is true. And projects like that do create jobs. But don’t call that “job creation”. The unfortunate truth is that congress is so tied up in its pissing contests and campaigns that as a body it simply refuses set all of that pettiness aside in order to serve the citizenry properly.

Congress hasn’t done much of anything to serve the interests of the citizenry. And now they’re trying to color what little they have done as being more substantial than it is. It also goes to show how difficult it is for politicians to be honest with the people they supposedly serve.

They also want to start over on the health reform bill. Perhaps that new starting point should come with a whole new congress as well. Get rid of all the old dogs and their tricks. It’s time for true public servants to occupy the halls of congress.

Posted by Benny_Acosta | Report as abusive

As a long term critic of your columns some of your recent work is impressive. This and the JP Morgan are excellent pieces.

Seeing as how you like big words that the majority of the population have trouble following, I have one for you: sophistry. The government is clearly talking about job creation and job “saving”. The velocity of money is seriously negative right now due to debt not being repaid so that argument is just sad.


No one is remotely claiming “jobs for life” are being created.


It is true that our infrastructure is in average shape. However, the projects being done are almost all marginal improvements of existing infrastructure. If you repave a highway can anyone claim with a straight face that the economy will boom due to an almost imperceptible improvement in ride smoothness?!
US basic infrastructure is in place. India, which has very backward infrastructure, can clearly benefit by putting in decent roads and making sure the electricity stays on. The US has solved these problems.

Posted by mickeyc | Report as abusive

The whole discussion is pretty moot since a “job” isn’t a thing you can count. The back & forth on jobs vs. job-years and so on should prove this.

Posted by nyetter | Report as abusive


Condensing the value of job creation into $/job created ignores a host of issues. Namely, that all jobs are of equal economic value.

Posted by jmharris01 | Report as abusive

So if 8.4 million job opportunities have been lost since the start of the Recession then:

173 x 8,400,000 job opportunities = 1,453,200,000 job losses
in the USA since the Recession started.

I just want to clear this up.

Posted by snitzel | Report as abusive

How do you come up with the $200K per job for infrastructure number you mentioned, not to mention the $1Mill figure that you cited in the Atlantic article?

Its interesting line of discussion, but measuring how efficient spending is on job growth is all about what variables and other “indirect” job growth results. Think about it – with out sufficient infrastructure, job growth is likely to be none existent in a given community as individuals would not be able to engage in commerce at the level needed to participate in the global economy. Such long term investments that contribute to the flow of commerce and most importantly its growth, simply can’t be measured through a hard math equation.

Posted by NoVaCRE | Report as abusive


I am well aware that no one is claiming that jobs for life are being created.
I was trying to use that phrase to show the absurdity of using “per job” as a meaningful metric. (A reductio ad absurdum if you will.)

Clearly everyone agrees that $200k to employ someone for two years is better than just for one year. Forty years would be even better.

Let me simplify for Felix and you: THE LENGTH OF TIME THE JOB LASTS MATTERS.

Posted by TinyTim1 | Report as abusive

“Job creation” only works if people are getting back to work en mass. Anyone can fudge the numbers. But at the end of the day the people without jobs will not be voting for the representative that “quotes” numbers and claims success while citizens continue to live one paycheck at a time.

Senators and house reps need to stop staring into their magic eight-balls. No one is going to believe anything our circus clown politicians say. Not while average citizens scramble to find enough money just to get by. Just another example of congress talking a great game while doing nothing.

Posted by Benny_Acosta | Report as abusive

How Felix Salmon fudges reality.

Yes, he’s very adept and numerical acrobatics, but the crux of his entire philosophical position boils down the following:

“every $30,000 or so spent on the arts, one more person gets a job, compared with about $1 million if you’re building a road or hospital. And such spending has a truly lasting benefit: the Works Progress Administration didn’t just create murals, it subsidized enormous leaps in graphic design, in theater (including America’s first all-black production of Macbeth), and in fine art. ”

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/id eas-artists

So in Salmon’s view, the government should be, instead of investing in things like roads and hospitals, be paying everyone to paint murals. Why? Because in the world of Salmon’s statistical acrobatics, this gets the most “jobs per dollar.”

Jobs that only last one year, of course.

Jobs that pay sh!t, of course.

Jobs that contribute nothing to the long term productivity of America, of course.

But hey, they make for good math!

Perhaps we should just pay everyone in America $1 to sit at home and be a couch potato. Then we can create 300 million jobs with just $300 million. That would be an excellent program, according to Salmon. It meets his one, and sole criteria: “create a job [indefinitely] on the least fixed amount of money possible.”

Salmon thinks the $92,000 per job per year is inaccurate because it’s really $92,000×3=$276,000 over 3 years. So an employee who makes $75,000 annually and whose job requires $17,000 annually in office space, equipment, power, etc. is too expensive, according to Salmon. Ask any small business owner and they will tell you that it costs a lot MORE than the average salary to create a new job. If the business owner wants to hire a new employee at $50,000 per year base salary, they also have to pay for administrative overhead, legal risk, health insurance, dental insurance, office space, a computer, a phone, a truck or whatever other equipment the person needs, not to mention taxes. The total annual cost may come in at $70,000 for a $50,000 a year job or more than that. Over 3 years that is $210,000. Since most businesses will keep on competent employees or at least their position indefinitely so long as revenues are at least steady, over 10 years that is $700,000, over 20 years $1.4 million, for 1 job! And this is in the PRIVATE sector. But it IS WORTH IT.

Why? If that employee is contributing more to the enterprise than their total cost! That is the key. Just like conservative journalists who attribute all budget woes to spending while missing the revenues side, which is far more important in the long term, so does Felix Salmon completely miss the most important factor at work here: the VALUE of the labor provided! If everyone thought like him, no businesses would ever hire anyone for anything.

Instead, somehow we are supposed to create good paying mural painting jobs… at a rate of $30,000… which will create a job that lasts indefinitely? That would be a good job according to Salmon, assuming how you can figure out how to life for the rest of your life on 30 grand.

Having “more jobs” is NOT by itself necessarily desirable. All it means is that more people are working harder. The point of jobs is the idea that you’re building a stronger economy, a more prosperous future, and that people have the security they need to raise a family and afford health care and send their kids to school. Paying a million people a lump sum $29,500 plus $500 for paint brushes and telling them to go make murals wouldn’t accomplish that. Building roads, bridges, nuclear power plants, hospitals, etc. would accomplish that, something Salmon never even mentions.

The reason being he is more interested in making his argument than in making good policy, a trait that he shares with many Republican lawmakers. Earth to Salmon: No one gives a crap about the “first all black production of Macbeth”! When the Chinese or Japanese or whoever else we owe debt to comes asking for repayment, will they accept the “first all black production of Macbeth” or the apparent American dynamism in graphic design (which owes everything to the 1930s and nothing to advances in computer technology, according to Salmon) in lieu of trillions of dollars and the manufacturing goods those trillions could buy? Oops.

In his determination to make useless criticisms of Democratic lawmakers, Salmon forgets why any of this matters in the first place. It’s sheer insanity.

Posted by Beet | Report as abusive

There is an error in this article. The last study Salmon quotes says it is based off DOT guidance. The DOT’s website contradicts the interpretation Salmon gives of the numbers, where one person working for one year full time can lead to more than 1 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) job.

http://www.dot.gov/recovery/docs/section 1512jobsreporting.htm

“For example, for 40 hours per week in a 13-week quarter, the number of hours in a full-time schedule would be 520. Thus, even if the project started during the last month of the quarter, the grant recipient should take the job-hours worked during that last month and divide them by a full-time schedule for the entire quarter (i.e., 520 hours) to estimate the number of full-time-equivalent jobs that were worked during that quarter. Hence, if the project hired 30 people, each working a full-time schedule, but only for the last month of the calendar quarter, then the grant recipient should report that 30 people worked 173 hours each during the last month of the quarter, for a total of 5,190 job-hours.

The grant recipient should then divide those 5,190 job-hours by a full-time quarterly schedule of 520 hours to get 9.98 full-time equivalent jobs for the quarter.”

In other words according to the DOT, a full time equivalent job is not one person working for 1 month, as Salmon implies. 30 people working for 1 month in the quarter only count for 10 FTE jobs, not 30. Salmon is replacing “FTE equivalent job months” with “FTE equivalent jobs”. Nowhere in the passage he provides does it say that the total number of jobs is equivalent to the total number of job months. All it says is that the FTE job months are calculated by a certain formula in line with DOT guidance.

Salmon’s interpretation of the data is not supported by the quote his provided and is contradicting the very DOT guidance that the quote he provided says the study is based off.

Posted by Beet | Report as abusive


I appreciate that you’re smart enough to understand the velocity of money, but what you didn’t understand how it is different if the money enters through banks (traditionally how it’s done) vs. entering to a business. I agree that if it enters via a bank, the velocity is pitiful becase they hoard it because of their need to replenish their balance sheets. However, it isn’t the case if you give it to Joe’s Road Construction Company because they’ll disperse it quickly. I’m sorry that you’re not smart enough to figure out the contrast – you’re just a smart ass. How typical for an American.


Posted by TedS | Report as abusive

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/