Winner of the New Statesman SPERI Prize in Political Economy 2016

Friday, 27 March 2015

Protecting the public from policy entrepreneurs

One of Paul Krugman’s first books, Peddling Prosperity, made a distinction between academic economists and people he called "policy entrepreneurs". These are individuals who promote particular intellectual positions and ideological policy prescriptions which have little or no academic support, but which may appeal to certain politicians.

I remember it as a great book, and unfortunately one of the main subjects - the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves - is still current in the US. It remains the case that this idea has virtually zero academic support, but for whatever reason - the activities of policy entrepreneurs being one - it still has a tight hold on the Republican Party.

I also remember being dissatisfied with the concept of the policy entrepreneur. It seemed to me that the book failed to situate them in a more general framework of how different interests influenced policy. Why were policy entrepreneurs particularly prevalent in economics? Could academics also be policy entrepreneurs? But that was the social scientist in me speaking. It was clear that such people existed, and that their influence could be far from benign.

I was reminded of all this when someone referred me to Andrew Sentance’s latest piece where he advocates moving to a zero inflation target. Coupled with George Osborne and David Cameron proclaiming zero inflation as a great success, a horrible thought occurred. If these guys were re-elected, might they find the arguments of Andrew Sentance appealing, and actually go for zero inflation? (In the UK, the Chancellor sets the inflation target.) Getting rid of inflation completely - sounds like a vote winner!

Why is it a horrible thought? Because all the academic discussion has been going in the opposite direction, for a very good reason. The Great Recession has highlighted the problems caused by the lower bound for nominal interest rates. That problem will not go away if that lower bound turns out to be -1% rather than zero. The discussion of secular stagnation has highlighted how the ‘underlying’ level of real interest rates has steadily fallen over the last few decades. Put the two together, and you see that a 2% inflation target may mean that we hit the interest rate lower bound far too frequently for comfort. A higher inflation target is one way, although not the only way, of reducing this problem.

Given this, calling for a zero inflation target seems perverse. In response, Andrew Sentance says this: “And the fact that a target of zero inflation may not allow central banks to easily impose negative real interest rates may actually be a good thing – protecting savers, who have suffered heavily as a result of very low interest rates since the financial crisis.” This is just the kind of thing a policy entrepreneur would say: identify your target interest group, and appeal to their interests over the common good. A politician who wants to appeal to savers might think that sounds like a good idea, and before you know it the policy is in place.

I suspect things have moved on a little since Peddling Prosperity was published. The role of think tanks is probably greater. The good ones are a means of channelling academic research, as in this very recent discussion of how to enhance real wage growth from the Resolution Foundation (which I would call excellent if it didn’t have a contribution from me). But they are matched by others that are effectively the institutional equivalent of policy entrepreneurs.

One answer to this problem is delegation. If you delegate an issue to a non-political body, that institution is going to be less swayed by the policy entrepreneur, and more influenced by knowledge and evidence. The independent central bank is an obvious example. It is interesting that one of the contributions to the Resolution Foundation volume, from John Van Reenen, calls for a “permanent infrastructure strategy board”, to improve the level and quality of national infrastructure. Of course with delegation comes the danger of power without accountability, and one particular central bank is a good example of that.  

Is delegation the only way we have of protecting ourselves from the policy entrepreneur? I have one final thought. (The idea comes from Chris Dillow, but he said it on my blog first!). Policy entrepreneurs exist in part because of sectional interests. The problem arises if sectional interests drown out evidence based policy. Society as a whole clearly has an interest in evidence based policy, but one institution that is well placed to protect society’s interest here is academia. Although - in the UK at least - academia encourages the dissemination of research, most academics are always going to value their research above its dissemination, because that is how internal incentives work. So maybe the academic sector needs to create a few policy entrepreneurs of its own, whose mission is to disseminate not their own research, but research in a whole field. One of two examples already exist - maybe we should have more of them.  
 

43 comments:

  1. "Andrew Sentance is senior economic adviser to PwC and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee."

    "“And the fact that a target of zero inflation may not allow central banks to easily impose negative real interest rates may actually be a good thing – protecting savers, who have suffered heavily as a result of very low interest rates since the financial crisis.”"

    I'm not sure what PwC means, but God help the BoE's MPC. How do they choose their members?

    Is he a finance guy? They often don't get macro. Which is allowed, because we can't all do everything, and macro people sometimes have difficulty with finance too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Everyone I am Daniel Steve from Texas, USA. I will like to share the goodness of God in my life after so many months of trying to get a loan on the internet and was been scammed so i became restless and desperate in getting a loan from a legit lender online. But as God would have it, i saw a comment from a friend called William Ken and he talked about this legit loan company where he got his loan fast and easy without any stress so he introduced me to a man called Mr Mason Diego who controls a firm called Diego Loan Company, So i applied for a loan sum of ($170,000.00USD) with low interest rate of 2%, so the loan was approved and deposited into my bank account in less than 48hrs, that was how i was able to get back on my feet to keep my broken business running and also to pay off my bills so i am advising everyone of you who is interested in getting a loan without collateral, no credit check, no co signer with just 2% interest rate and better repayment plans/ schedule, to please contact Mr Mason Diego. You can contact him through his email: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com

      Delete
  2. If you remember, I suggested a BBC U be set up ('U' for University) to allow academic peer reviewed work to come onto the BBC as the old Third Programme used to, before it was split and weakened into BBC Radios 3 and 4.

    There a discussion could have taken place since 2008 about the danger of allowing a financial sector to over-lend to the private in the upswing of the bubble years and then threaten to under-lend to the public sector in the burst of the downswing; and the invisible bond vigilantes in Wall street and the City would have been exposed as just that, invisible.

    It's also nice to see Sentance reveal his hand: the 0%ers were the declared reason why Shiller and Akerlof wrote their 2009 book 'Animal Spirits'.

    Stefan Collini published a book in 1991 looking at political ideas and intellectual thought in the UK between 1850-1930, which he called 'Public Moralists'. And almost straight from the start of the 2008 crisis, as Krugman put it, "a large part of it, it seems obvious, is the intense desire to see economics as a morality play of sin and punishment, where the sinners are, of course, workers and governments, not the bankers" (September 30, 2011 'Defeatism').

    Moralists are sometimes but not always especially moral.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nick, PwC is Price Waterhouse Coopers

    ReplyDelete
  4. In theory, the descriptor of a professor's job, at least so far as Canada is concerned, includes civil participation in the very sense you propose. However, as a professor of mine duly noted in numerous instances, it's not because you set objectives that people will met them on their own. You need a structure that leads people to make the "proper" decision more frequently.

    Imagine if we could figure out a way for public interventions to act as a signal of quality so that instead of fighting over publications, colleges would compete over "getting it right" publicly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephane: . Yep. At Carleton we call it "community engagement". I think it's roughly the same thing. It's a distant third in the hierarchy, but we at least give it lip-service.

      Delete
  5. SWL's post is the best possible propaganda in favour of zero inflation by showing there is no sensible argument against it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The old conflict between expert knowledge and democratic opinion...
    What if people, through the democratic process, actually decide that they do not want inflation, either because they feel unharmed by the recession? Or because the benefit of a faster recovery covers less time than the disadvantage of higher inflation in "normal" economic times? Or because of other reasons, including those brought forward by policy entrepreneurs?
    I think it's a tough situation, and the best solution would be for academic economics to create their own policy entrepreneurs as a sort of counterweight. Otherwise, academic economics will suffer defeat again and again at the ballot box.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Class elites vs technocratic elites vs average Janes & Joes. Sounds like something neo-Marxist.

      Delete
    2. And how will those policy entrepreneurs convince the public that rising prices with lagging incomes (wages are sticky, aren't they) is supposed to be a good thing?

      Delete
    3. Don't the stats show that, at least in the UK, wages did better versus prices in the high inflation 70s than the recent low inflation era?

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous 15:17:

      That's the question, isn't it? One answer has to come from welfare analysis. Is it welfare-enhancing for society as a whole to accept higher inflation in good times, to have the option of monetary stimulus in bad times?
      Another answer might come from gastro george's point: Is inflation on its own good or bad for the welfare of the whole society? As far as I know, there is no clear answer, I had assumed that more inflation is better for wage earners than for capital holders, but Piketty says that it's not quite clear. There are arguments for both sides here.
      One can also point out that inflation a little above 2% are nothing extraordinary and nothing to worry about.

      Delete
    5. «convince the public that rising prices with lagging incomes (wages are sticky, aren't they) is supposed to be a good thing?»

      Better, bigger, house prices! That's the answer. A large number of voters want both better, bigger house prices and lower, leaner real wages, because they are rentiers whose income mostly dependent on tax-free effort-free property capital gains, and whose costs are mostly related to low-end wages.

      These voters are affluent southern english middle aged and older rentiers, especially middle aged and old ladies, people who bought their house in the 1970s and 1980s, or early 1990s. And secondarily their heirs.

      The whole electoral competition is about winning their votes, and has been since the 1980s.

      Delete
    6. Hello Everyone I am Daniel Steve from Texas, USA. I will like to share the goodness of God in my life after so many months of trying to get a loan on the internet and was been scammed so i became restless and desperate in getting a loan from a legit lender online. But as God would have it, i saw a comment from a friend called William Ken and he talked about this legit loan company where he got his loan fast and easy without any stress so he introduced me to a man called Mr Mason Diego who controls a firm called Diego Loan Company, So i applied for a loan sum of ($170,000.00USD) with low interest rate of 2%, so the loan was approved and deposited into my bank account in less than 48hrs, that was how i was able to get back on my feet to keep my broken business running and also to pay off my bills so i am advising everyone of you who is interested in getting a loan without collateral, no credit check, no co signer with just 2% interest rate and better repayment plans/ schedule, to please contact Mr Mason Diego. You can contact him through his email: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com

      Delete
  7. But aren't academic economists policy entrepreneurs who are certain that their objectives, assumptions and methodology are correct?

    Because they are independent they must be right?

    If you are allowed to define what 2 and + and = are, then if there is an agreed methodology 2+2 will always equal 4.

    In general I tend to think that politicians - because they are reflecting the objectives and knowledge of the people through the democratic process - tend to get things more right than academic (or independent) economists. History suggests to me that it is academic economists rather than 'practical men' who call things economic common sense when they are usually the ideas of long dead economists - the 364 economists, privatisation doesn't work - but they are quick to chronicle why the ideas and policies work (if they do) once they are introduced by 'practical men'.

    And of course all independent academic economists agree. So there is only one model to be followed. For example, in the Resolution Foundation book that you quote there is not even complete agreement about whether the real wage falls are due to excess inflation or insipid nominal wage growth (compare the Manning and Machin contributions). Let alone considering the question of whether wages (labour costs) determine productivity [the economics 101 theory if wages are administered or 'sticky'] rather than the almost universal conventional wisdom amongst academic economists that productivity determines wages.

    And the success story of 'independence of experts'. Of the independent Bank of England, OBR, and the Stats Authority it is not clear to me that their performance against their remit has been unambiguously superior to the 'Ken and Eddy' show, the Treasury forecast and spending teams or the ONS/CSO. The one exception that is commonly agreed to be successful is the LPC - which even I would sort of agree with. But that seems to me to be down to its very limited objective and its explicit recognition of the trade offs associated with political economy - the link between pay and jobs.

    Bill Wells

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. real wage growth happens due to long term mechanics within the economy, nothing about inflation or nominal wage growth can have any impact if other factors are present.

      Presence of strong unions is the first long term factor of real wage growth. They can influence minimum wage rise by political means or by direct preassure on employers but only with wide enough organization. Remember stagflation? Oil price was rising costs and strong unions prevented employers from putting the cost on workers so inflation was going up. Inflation did not supress real wages because unions.
      It was only when high enough interest rates forced stalling of borrowing that caused unemployment to rise and unions lost the power.

      Another long term mechanism on real wage growth is close to full employment achieved by public spending determined by full employment policies. Demand for skilled workers is pushing real wages up.

      Inflation is only a byproduct, a signal of an economy determined by public policies for full employment.

      Delete
    2. Productivity is affected by high wages coupled with near -0 real interest rates where demand is growing. High wages forces enterprenuers to invest in physical capital when demand is growing and inflation rising or interest rates falling which enables negative real interest rates for borrowers. Negative real interest rates are very important for borrowers. They will not invest in new production if the profit will not increase, if all will go to banks.

      Rising demand is affected by growing wages or growing debt or both as in good times.

      Delete
  8. Sociologists already do this. Google "public sociology". You economists should look into doing something similar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Economics really can't have the equivalent of public sociology, because it doesn't have the equivalent of ethnographic methods. Ethnography imparts a particular respect and legitimacy to the perspectives and lived experiences of the "subjects." If done right, it avoids the "third person" analysis that economists often do (the truth is in the equations). See SWL's earlier posts about interacting with other social sciences, and see how he pushes back when the limits and contradictions in economics thinking are raised.

      Delete
  9. "and more influenced by knowledge and evidence. The independent central bank is an obvious example."
    "danger of power without accountability, and one particular central bank (ECB) is a good example of that."

    ReplyDelete
  10. Savers will always be somewhat powerful, and will (successfully) use that power to keep inflation down. Once we accept that, we see that the current regime encourage savers to also push growth down. They dislike growth because it is associated with inflation.

    We need to turn that on its head. An NGDP-level target would help us here. Savers would then lobby in favour of real-GDP growth, instead of against growth, as it would be their best hope of avoiding the inflation they hate.

    I'm sure we could debate the details of this proposal, but I'm making a more general point about incentives and power and lobbying. We need a situation where the powerful are working for growth, not against it.

    And I'm not so sure central banks really are independent. Just because the politicians have given up day-to-day control, it doesn't mean that other powerful interests haven't taken over. Just as with regulatory capture, it's probably very tempting for central bankers (who probably have large savings themselves) to implement policies that are good for their own personal finance and for their buddies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What decisions savers take? What new company to open?
      Savers can invest in stocks, but no stock issuer has any benefit from it, stock issuing company has no benefit after IPO from price of stocks. Savers make no decisions to invest in new projects beside few rare Tesla, Virgin, which are minor players within an economy.

      New real economic investing is done by credit from banks or developement banks formed by state, savers have no say in that. Spending your own savings on some new corporationis too risky when 92% of new corporation do not reach two year term. It is always credit money that is invested.

      Delete
    2. "stock issuing company has no benefit after IPO from price of stocks."

      Quite false.

      Expanding companies often issue new shares, at or near the current market price, precisely to take advantage of the higher price.

      Anyway, it's generally difficult to see the relevance of your comment to mine. Under the current regime, savers will vote in elections in favour of the low growth party (low growth, but not so low as to foment revolution). I want to change that.

      I never said anything about encouraging savers to spend or invest their own money (as opposed to delegating that decision to a bank).

      Delete
    3. Again, you are giving savers too much credibility and forward looking prophetic powers. Most savers give their savings to banks or to investment menagers who skim off the milk. They are not thinking about economic performance only their own, and thinking of how to reduce inflation is prepostouros.
      Savers loose big time with low inflation since it also brings low interest income. What is the CD yield today?

      Delete
    4. "Expanding companies often issue new shares ..."

      As Jure says, not retail surely. New share issues in non-mature companies usually go to the corporate sector or other mediators, surely?

      Delete
    5. In modern financialized economies, especially those of the debt-boom anglo-american culture, savers are very few and far between, as many people, both rich and not so rich, are huge net borrowers.

      Today's borrowers want growth to be low, because they want nominal interest rates to be low, and also they want asset prices to balloon, as they tend to use borrowed money for highly leveraged speculation on assets prices.

      This involves both hedge fund borrowers, which often speculate with 50 or higher leverage ratios, and middle class or richer borrowers, which speculate on property with 20 or higher leverage ratios.

      Margin speculation by borrowing against ever increasing collateral valuations has been the main engine of "growth" in nominal GDP and for upward redistribution for decades, what I call the debt-collateral spiral.

      Borrowers also vote and donate to "conservative" parties for pushing down wages, not just for pushing up asset prices by lowering interest rates, because they tend to be rentiers, and their costs are mostly influenced by wages.

      Cameron blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2013/03/13/britains-fiscal-failure/
      «"It is hard to overstate the fundamental importance of low interest rates for an economy as indebted as ours… …and the unthinkable damage that a sharp rise in interest rates would do. When you’ve got a mountain of private sector debt, built up during the boom… …low interest rates mean indebted businesses and families don’t have to spend every spare pound just paying their interest bills. In this way, low interest rates mean more money to spare to invest for the future.
      A sharp rise in interest rates – as has happened in other countries which lost the world’s confidence – would put all this at risk… …with more businesses going bust and more families losing their homes."»

      Osborne: www.theguardian.com/business/2011/sep/23/george-osborne-european-debt-crisis
      «A credible fiscal plan allows you to have a looser monetary policy than would otherwise be the case. My approach is to be fiscally conservative but monetarily active.»

      Delete
    6. Hello Everyone I am Daniel Steve from Texas, USA. I will like to share the goodness of God in my life after so many months of trying to get a loan on the internet and was been scammed so i became restless and desperate in getting a loan from a legit lender online. But as God would have it, i saw a comment from a friend called William Ken and he talked about this legit loan company where he got his loan fast and easy without any stress so he introduced me to a man called Mr Mason Diego who controls a firm called Diego Loan Company, So i applied for a loan sum of ($170,000.00USD) with low interest rate of 2%, so the loan was approved and deposited into my bank account in less than 48hrs, that was how i was able to get back on my feet to keep my broken business running and also to pay off my bills so i am advising everyone of you who is interested in getting a loan without collateral, no credit check, no co signer with just 2% interest rate and better repayment plans/ schedule, to please contact Mr Mason Diego. You can contact him through his email: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com

      Delete
  11. Not even academics are right in many fields of economy. What about study of money, banks and private debts in economic theory?
    Only Misess' Austrians and MMT are dabling in that while other academics study barter economy without money, debts and flow of it trough banks. Untill mainstreamers find courage to investigate money and banks, untill finance guys and economists merge there will be no real economic science.
    Only MMT does that as subgroup of post-Keynesians.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The BoE doesn't have the capacity to achieve a certain rate of inflation. There is a basic misunderstanding about this here. The target they use is simply adapted to the current environment. It's like a slimming programme; always a bit unattainable

    ReplyDelete
  13. "A higher inflation target is one way, although not the only way, of reducing this problem. "

    It seems as if a higher inflation target will need greater stimulus. Greater stimulus by the central bank means more credit and more credit means more financialization and speculation. More spec means more volatile cycles meaning you hit the ZLB more frequently.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Proff SW-L
    Economic understanding would improve if academics would develop theories in common language and give real world examples that most people deal with in their lives.

    I use paper money to explain what deficit means to people, what saving by government does. Spending=> income and saving=>less income. I do it in order to explain paradox of thrift. It does wonders.

    There is a practical explanation of what money is that most women fall in love with when i use remembering of debt for gifts from friends and familly.

    Example of housing credit on fixed rate over 10-20 years is excellent example of importance of inflation. People can recall that monthly payments became smaller part of their wage as wages grew causing inflation leaving them with larger discretionary spending. Inflation caused by wage growth is the crucial part of economic truth in debt grown growth.

    Paradox of having negative Real interest rates for borrowers and positive for lenders at the same time would show importance of inflation over time and how it is achieved by banking system. In order to borrow borrowers need negative RIR, in order to lend savers want positive RIR. How to meet this requierment?

    Krugman does use common examples to explain economic theories in large part so he is succesfull in explaining economy.
    John T Harvey is even better:
    "Government spending isn’t money thrown into a sinkhole, it goes into the pockets of businesses and households. It’s the paycheck of a soldier, the Social Security check of a grandmother, the Medicare payment made to a doctor’s office, the grant money that finances a research project, and so on. And whether we raise taxes or cut spending, the outcome is the same: lower incomes, lower spending, and lower growth. We cannot let this happen.

    Think about this: if the United States has a trade deficit of $2.8 billion with Canada (January’s numbers), then what does Canada have with the US? Obviously, a trade surplus of $2.8 billion. Now substitute “federal government” for “United States” and “private sector” for “Canada” and you get a critical truth:

    the federal government’s deficit is, by definition, the private sector’s surplus. If the government is spending more than it earns, then the non-government sectors are earning more than they spend.

    This is an inescapable truth of what is actually a very simple accounting identity. It appears to be lost on Washington, however."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That lesson is not lost on Washington. The years from Reagan on have been a transfer of wealth from the many to the few, in part via the state debt.

      Krugman has rediscovered Marx, albeit in a really crude form.

      Delete
  15. So SW-L thinks zero inflation would be a problem. There was essentially zero inflation in the 1800s: the price of bread in 1900 was the same as it had been in 1800. And during that century we had the one of the fastest rates of economic growth in the history of planet Earth. Doesn’t sound like a problem to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. «There was essentially zero inflation in the 1800s: the price of bread in 1900 was the same as it had been in 1800. And during that century we had the one of the fastest rates of economic growth in the history of planet Earth. Doesn’t sound like a problem to me.»

      That seems energetic hand waving to me,. and arguing against a strawman.

      The handwaving is based on the usual misconception of "inflation", which is poorly defined collection of indices. 1800 to 1900 saw enormous changes in prices, and how you average them can result in wildly different "inflation" rates.

      The strawman is that by themselves inflation, price stability, or deflation matter, so much so that lack of inflation entirely by itself can kill growth entirely in every possible situation. This strawman is laughable in general.

      In the particular case of 1800-1900 that was a century of vast technical progress and increase in the asset-stripping of fossil fuels, which have a colossal effect on productivity, so even if there was a drag on growth from price stability it was more than compensated for by other factors.

      SImonWL's argument seems to be that in general a moderate rate of inflation helps growth to some degree, and price stability or deflation can hinder growth, and that in particular in our present circumstances where fiscal policy is politically unthinkable the drag on growth from price stability or deflation is an issue to worry about.

      Delete
    2. Ralph, that is wrong on two levels.

      First the claim about the rate of growth in the 1800s is wrong. Yes, compared to previous centuries, no compared to the century that was to come.

      Second it isn't zero inflation that is the problem for S W-L. It is the zero lower bound. On this, surely, he is right and you agree?

      I think he is over-estimating the ability of Sentance to influence actual policy. He is, on the right, the equivalent of Blanchflower on the left.

      Delete
  16. I have only recently become an academic, after working as an actuary for most of my working life. I am not sure about academia's rigorous adherence to evidence base at all times - I sat in a meeting this week where a group of academics (not at Leicester) all lined up behind the proposition that behavioural economics was a fad. I think to influence a policy debate you have to be prepared to sacrifice your ideal solution in favour of the best that can be currently hoped for. I suspect that many academics (and actuaries! ) are often unwilling to do this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick,

      The Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang put your point somewhat more forcefully. He said, “Unfortunately a lot of my academic colleagues not only do not work on the real world, but are not even interested in the real world.”

      Delete
    2. «Ha-Joon Chang put your point somewhat more forcefully. He said, “Unfortunately a lot of my academic colleagues not only do not work on the real world, but are not even interested in the real world.”»

      I really disagree with Chang's point, at least in a specific way: many of those Economists that Chang hints at seem very much working *in* the real world, a real world where they enjoy much larger incomes than their professorial salaries thanks to receiving huge "consulting" and "speaking" fees because their analysis and policy prescriptions are very popular with generous sponsors, perhaps precisely because they are not based on real world insights, and thus can align better with the interests of those sponsors. Some USA "aligned" Economists that seem "not even interested in the real world" have become very wealthy thanks to that.

      That seems to be very real world oriented :-).

      Delete
  17. In future if you refer to Mr Sentance in a blog post please use his correct name. Mr Andrew "Death" Sentance. One use of his full name is ok then any further reference should be just
    Death Sentance. If you make these corrections the post is much clearer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for mentioning. You're correct, he much prefers to be referred to as Death Sentance

      Delete
  18. Of course policy entrepreneurs cause harm but so can academic economists.

    What economists regard as "evidence" would not been as sufficient evidence to warrant action in more empirical fields.

    A system were the damage from policy errors is minimized is optimal for learning and risk minimizing(localized policy), but of course that would mean less importance given to Macroeconomists so there's no way you would get a majority of macroeconomists suggesting this.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hello Everyone I am Daniel Steve from Texas, USA. I will like to share the goodness of God in my life after so many months of trying to get a loan on the internet and was been scammed so i became restless and desperate in getting a loan from a legit lender online. But as God would have it, i saw a comment from a friend called William Ken and he talked about this legit loan company where he got his loan fast and easy without any stress so he introduced me to a man called Mr Mason Diego who controls a firm called Diego Loan Company, So i applied for a loan sum of ($170,000.00USD) with low interest rate of 2%, so the loan was approved and deposited into my bank account in less than 48hrs, that was how i was able to get back on my feet to keep my broken business running and also to pay off my bills so i am advising everyone of you who is interested in getting a loan without collateral, no credit check, no co signer with just 2% interest rate and better repayment plans/ schedule, to please contact Mr Mason Diego. You can contact him through his email: diegoloancompany@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete

Unfortunately because of spam with embedded links (which then flag up warnings about the whole site on some browsers), I have to personally moderate all comments. As a result, your comment may not appear for some time.