The Way of the Leprechaun

by Henry on July 1, 2005

An indubitable Airmiles classic :

There is a huge debate roiling in Europe today over which economic model to follow: the Franco-German shorter-workweek-six-weeks’-vacation-never-fire-anyone-but-high-unemployment social model or the less protected but more innovative, high-employment Anglo-Saxon model preferred by Britain, Ireland and Eastern Europe. It is obvious to me that the Irish-British model is the way of the future, and the only question is when Germany and France will face reality: either they become Ireland or they become museums. That is their real choice over the next few years – it’s either the leprechaun way or the Louvre.

Now those familiar with leprechauns will recall that they’re untrustworthy little bastards, inclined to evaporate along with the pot of gold when given half a chance. The same is true of dodgy generalizations constructed around trite metaphors, especially when they’re employed by someone who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. We’ll leave aside the basic claim that a small post-industrial economy provides the right model for two largish economies with large industrial bases, and concentrate on the glaring material errors in Friedman’s account. Point One: Ireland is not an exemplar of the “Anglo Saxon model.” For evidence, take a look at this recent paper by Lane Kenworthy, which argues convincingly that Ireland doesn’t fit well into either the Anglo-Saxon ‘liberal market economy’ or Rhenish ‘coordinated model economy’ models. Point Two: Ireland is an especially poor fit with the Anglo-Saxon model in the area of labour market policy, a fact which rather undercuts the argument Friedman is trying to make. Again, Dr. Kenworthy:

beginning in the late 1980s and continuing throughout the 1990s, [Ireland] has had a highly coordinated system of wage setting (Baccaro and Simoni 2004). In addition, Ireland has higher levels of employment and unemployment protection than other liberal market economies and longer median job tenure (Estevez-Abe et al. 2001, pp. 165, 168, 170).

Finally, there’s a very strong argument to be made that it is exactly the non-Anglo-Saxon features of the Irish economy – and in particular the systematized concertation between trade unions, management, government and other social actors – that was at the heart of Ireland’s economic success in the 1990’s. This system, unbeloved of free market economists, set the broad parameters for wage and income tax policy, and provided Ireland with the necessary stability for economic growth. It’s now coming under strain thanks to growing inequality in Irish society, but that’s another story. As already noted, Ireland isn’t necessarily the best example for big industrial economies to follow; but insofar as it does set an example, it isn’t the kind of example that Friedman thinks it is.

{ 1 trackback }

Inside the USA » Suivez le lutin irlandais
07.05.05 at 11:50 pm

{ 53 comments }

1

Ray 07.01.05 at 11:03 am

And we get holidays – 18 days pa is the basic, most places offer about 21 days, on top of the 12 (?) public holidays each year. Six weeks vacation, in other words.

2

c++guy 07.01.05 at 11:24 am

Friedman may be wrong about the details of the economic model, I can’t judge that. However, Germany and, to a lesser extent, France have already gone through their phase of rapid economic growth with concurrent social stability provided by “systematized concertation”. Germans are now, rightly or wrongly, feeling stifled by their system of happy agreement between labor and business but it’s just too cozy to give up.

3

chris 07.01.05 at 11:26 am

The first thing – quite literally – you get taught in “A” level economics is the principle of trade offs, and the way this is traditionally illustrated is the “Robinson Crusoe” trade off of work/income vs leisure.

And yet these people still refuse to understand that most people would rather be comfortable with six weeks off than filthy rich with two. What do the American right do with all their extra moolah? They have no time to spend it.

4

LizardBreath 07.01.05 at 12:08 pm

We spend it on services that we wouldn’t need if we weren’t working so much (takeout, housecleaners…). It nets out to not that much more money, but less leisure. Fun!

5

almostinfamous 07.01.05 at 12:13 pm

err chris, the rich american right-wingers fund megachurches, buy SUVs, invest in google, lobby to destroy the environment, and all tha funky jazz.

and it’s because they have no time to spend it that they are arguing so hard for the estate tax repeal. didn’t you get the memo?

6

Uncle Kvetch 07.01.05 at 12:13 pm

What do the American right do with all their extra moolah?

Health insurance premiums, of course.

7

jasper emmering 07.01.05 at 12:23 pm

Friedman also ignores all the lavish EU subsidies (IIRC it was something like €319 per Irishman in 2004), and, of course, a huge housing bubble that is about to burst.

8

Jared 07.01.05 at 12:23 pm

But… but… it’s the way of the future!

9

Sebastian holsclaw 07.01.05 at 12:24 pm

“And yet these people still refuse to understand that most people would rather be comfortable with six weeks off than filthy rich with two. What do the American right do with all their extra moolah? They have no time to spend it.”

You can negotiate for more time off with less salary if you have a medium or high demand job even in America. Just a thought.

10

Francis 07.01.05 at 12:44 pm

re no. 9: all two of them.

without a shred of evidence, i’d guess that it’s the very low income earners — Wal-Mart employees, for example — that get more time off. (Of course, they may actually want to work more hours.)

11

Maria 07.01.05 at 12:45 pm

Jasper – in fairness to him, Friedman mentioned the subsidies in his first leprechaun piece this week: “By the mid-1980’s, though, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of E.U. membership – subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into.”

12

Matt 07.01.05 at 12:47 pm

Sebastian,

While many jobs allow some negotiation for time off, many do not- Lawyers at big firms, for example, or most teaching jobs (if you want benefits and even basically decent pay, anyway), or police officers, and many others, I’m sure. I suspect that this is in fact a minority position. At the least a large percentage of people don’t really have the option of working less for less pay at their jobs.

13

LizardBreath 07.01.05 at 12:54 pm

Yup. If there’s a way to get a 40-hr/wk litigation job for a salary that’s a pro-rated reduction of what big-firm high-pressure lawyers make, I don’t know what it is.

14

abb1 07.01.05 at 12:57 pm

I like the Louvre.

Btw: What do the American right do with all their extra moolah? – you have to get your kids thru college, don’t you. That might set you back by about $300K (after tax) for two children/decent college. That’s, say, about $500K pre-tax. And that’s like $50K/year over 10 years.

15

Henry 07.01.05 at 1:06 pm

bq. Yup. If there’s a way to get a 40-hr/wk litigation job for a salary that’s a pro-rated reduction of what big-firm high-pressure lawyers make, I don’t know what it is.

Indeed. I know a couple of people who’ve tried to go the part time litigation route, and ended up effectively working full time for half the money. And these are obviously in a privileged section of the labour force – trying to negotiate for ” more time off with less salary” with, say “Walmart”:http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2005-06-15-walmart-shift_x.htm obviously isn’t going to get you very far.

16

Andrew 07.01.05 at 1:25 pm

What do the American right do with all their extra moolah?

Well, I’m not the “american right”, but I make a huge salary here (>$100K), have five weeks off a year (11 holidays, 2 weeks vacation and 1 week sick leave), full health insurance, etc. I think most “filthy rich” people have similar working situations. (Much of the American right, however, is made up of people making $20K with no insurance and 2 weeks off a year if they are lucky).
What do I do with all the money? I live on the beach in California, my living room looks like the bridge in Star Trek, and I drive a 2005 Mustang GT to Vegas every other weekend.

I don’t mean to be boastful, and I’m not trying to make anyone envious (yes I’m sure you’re not as well), but I feel that rich people have no problem spending their money if they want to. And if they don’t, what’s wrong with that?

Sure I could get fired some day, but at 24 years old, I still prefer my life style over a small apartment in paris and 35 hour work weeks regardless of how good the croissants are, and I think a lot of Parisians might just agree.

17

paul 07.01.05 at 1:30 pm

Another response to Chris’s question, “What do the American right do with all their extra moolah? They have no time to spend it.”

With so little time, they need servants. And, as Schumpeter said (I may not recall the quote quite correctly, but I think I’m within spitting distance)”A servant is worth a 1000 gadgets.” Finally, with the poor social welfare policies and ease of laying people off, good help is relatively easy to find.

18

reuben 07.01.05 at 1:38 pm

Sebastian

Even if it is the case that high demand professionals can negotiate more time off (I have no idea if this is true), I strongly suspect that the vast majority of hard-working Americans cannot.

Both my parents are mid-level professionals and very good at their jobs, and both would love to negotiate more time off. They have been unable to do so, even though I suspect that their jobs qualify as “medium demand” – and are certainly high stress. Even when my dad was effectively poached from one company by his current one, his new boss – a personal friend of his – was unable to offer him more time off in lieu of salary. This was even though this boss wanted to, and even though my father’s current company is widely considered, by American standards, very progressive.

Combined, my parents have worked for 64 years longer than I have, yet get exactly (again, combined) two more days of annual leave than I do by myself.

The difference? I immigrated to the UK – where, I should note, my standard of living is just as high as when I lived in the US – but with four extra weeks of holiday time to enjoy myself.

I should also note that, with the diffuse nature of modern Amerian settlement patterns, two or three weeks of vacation time is barely enough to visit relatives, let alone sneak in a decent holiday.

Cheers

19

engels 07.01.05 at 1:49 pm

What do the American right do with all their extra moolah?

According to Robert Gordon, as summarised in this article in the Economist, half of it goes mostly on air conditioning and heating, roads and gas bills, and prisons.

20

engels 07.01.05 at 2:04 pm

I make a huge salary here (>$100K)… I live on the beach in California, my living room looks like the bridge in Star Trek, and I drive a 2005 Mustang GT to Vegas every other weekend…. I don’t mean to be boastful…

Exhibit Z for Why I’d Rather Not Live in the US.

21

c++guy 07.01.05 at 2:15 pm

As to trading time off for less pay: not a problem here (HP, also full health, good salary, sick leave etc.) but I notice that lots of my coworkers never even take their 3 weeks of vacation. Some go so far as to come to work and lose their vacation when they bump up against the max. I’m sure many Americans are not in a position to negotiate their hours but many than are feel pressured to show up anyway.

22

Barry 07.01.05 at 2:34 pm

From what I’ve seen (Ford, a major university), and from what I’ve heard talking with professionals, very, very few ‘medium-demand’ professionals can do what Sebastian said. And it’d be a very tentative thing, a sort of privileged existence. I’ve only known it to happen to an occasional position in the university.

If ‘high-demand’ professionals were defined as ‘in such a high demand that they can negotiate hours like that’, then sure, but that’s a uninteresting tautology.

In short, Sebastian is either living back in the dot-com era, has had some strange experiences in the US, or is simply, how should I put it – yes – speaking from an alternate USA.

23

Uncle Kvetch 07.01.05 at 2:36 pm

Reuben: I immigrated to the UK – where, I should note, my standard of living is just as high as when I lived in the US – but with four extra weeks of holiday time to enjoy myself.

But…but…I thought the UK was one of the good, Airmiles-approved countries! Now I find out they’re all decadent spoiled crybabies too? It’s all so confusing…

c++guy: I notice that lots of my coworkers never even take their 3 weeks of vacation.

I think it’s pretty common for managerial/professional workers in the US to not take their full allotment of vacation time because their employers can’t “spare” them for that long…

24

Jon H 07.01.05 at 2:39 pm

Then it came to me; he’s saying the Leprechaun is flat!

25

Barry 07.01.05 at 2:43 pm

You know, one could summon a good case for a hegemonic, pseduo-Chomskey view of the media, just by reading Airmiles and other ‘neoliberals’ who still make a pretense of centrism. Never getting near the vast GOP noise machine.

26

Jeremy Osner 07.01.05 at 2:46 pm

I don’t mean to be boastful…

Yes, it’s hard to tell quite what you mean to be.

27

engels 07.01.05 at 2:50 pm

In short, Sebastian is either living back in the dot-com era, has had some strange experiences in the US, or is simply, how should I put it – yes – speaking from an alternate USA.

Or else he’s relying on that favourite conservative assumption: if you have the the legal right to do X then you are “free” to do X, regardless of economic conditions or social norms which prevent you from doing it.

28

John 07.01.05 at 2:53 pm

Many Americans will shun time off for more pay. The electricians union, for one, continuously rejects paid holidays in favor of higher hourly wages. I don’t think they get paid sick days either. The only thing they want is a higher hourly wage and as much overtime as they can get.

Different cultures, different expectations.

29

Andrew 07.01.05 at 3:12 pm

Yes, it’s hard to tell quite what you mean to be.
My point is that someone can be rich and have free time to spend the money. And that not everyone in America works for the sake of working. Then again I wasn’t born in America, so that may have something to do with it.

30

Barry 07.01.05 at 3:13 pm

There’s a related post on Brad DeLong’s website; I commented there to let people know about this thread.

31

Andrew 07.01.05 at 3:16 pm

Exhibit Z for Why I’d Rather Not Live in the US.
Oh come on, you don’t like star trek?

32

yabonn 07.01.05 at 3:51 pm

Now those familiar with leprechauns will recall that they’re untrustworthy little bastards, inclined to evaporate along with the pot of gold when given half a chance.

Wishful meanness : Mimiles knows them only from “American Gods” he read last summer.

33

Daniel 07.01.05 at 4:04 pm

If there’s a way to get a 40-hr/wk litigation job for a salary that’s a pro-rated reduction of what big-firm high-pressure lawyers make, I don’t know what it is.

In the EU, have a kid and ask.

I was going to write a little bit on this, just on the subject of “overseas investment”. The whole point about Ireland is that it’s attracted loads of overseas capital. The whole point about France and Germany is that they’re not in the position of needing overseas capital. etc etc.

34

engels 07.01.05 at 4:11 pm

Oh come on, you don’t like star trek?

I didn’t know they had those conventions every two weeks in Vegas. Do you dress as a Klingon?

35

Andrew 07.01.05 at 4:27 pm

Do you dress as a Klingon?
I dress as a borg, Thank you. And there’s more fun in Vegas for a 24 yo than just Star Trek conventions.

36

almostinfamous 07.01.05 at 4:58 pm

And there’s more fun in Vegas for a 24 yo than just Star Trek conventions.

yeah, last i heard Herpes: The Ride was very popular… it even replaced The Gonnorhea Tunnel as the most romantic spot in Vegas.

37

Mrs Tilton 07.01.05 at 5:50 pm

I cannot speak for any firm but the one I work for. Here, though, several people have cut deals under which they work a bit less for a bit less pay. However:

- It’s quite rare.

- I am not aware of anybody having done this recently. In 1999 any of us could have cut almost any deal we liked. It is no longer 1999.

- There is a general perception (whether right or wrong, I cannot say) that cutting such a deal would not be career-enhancing. The few people who have done so are, with only one exception to my knowledge, all married women. Women in the firm I work for very often have husbands with similar jobs, and may feel that going off-track (if indeed that is what happens) is a luxury they can afford. The one man I know who cut such a deal did so under circumstances in which it would have been breathtakingly scummy and heartless, even by the standards of our profession, for the firm to have refused.

- ‘Working a bit less’ is a highly relative concept.

38

jasper emmering 07.01.05 at 6:30 pm

[Maria wrote] – in fairness to him, Friedman mentioned the subsidies in his first leprechaun piece this week: “By the mid-1980’s, though, Ireland had reaped the initial benefits of E.U. membership – subsidies to build better infrastructure and a big market to sell into.”

And that was another sentence that made me smash my head into the keyboard. Friedman implies that the subsidies have stopped when they obviously have not.

39

Greg 07.01.05 at 7:08 pm

I know! And that implies that they stopped twenty years ago, rather than still flowing our way…

He also implied in his last article that the introduction of free university education in the mid-1990’s massively boosted the country by ‘creating an even more educated work force’.

He didn’t force his point, possibly because to advocate free university education for all might seem a bit left-wing, but more probably because I don’t think that Ms Brennan’s legislation made a jot of difference except to make it cheaper for people to go to university who were going anyway.

It was our system of maintenance grants that needed reforming if poorer people were to be encouraged to go to university – and as far as I know it’s not much better now than it was when I was home.

But yes, by far the biggest problem with these articles, is the fact that the various partnership agreements that have held the country together since about 1987 are given only the most cursory nod. Plonker.

40

nick 07.02.05 at 12:00 am

Friedman implies that the subsidies have stopped when they obviously have not.

Precisely: it’s pretty damn deceitful of Airmiles to suggest that after the mid-80s the Tiger and the Circuit Board and the Leprechaun on Customer Support took over the show. Which, as I mentioned elsethread, was news to me, given the number of EU-flagged building projects dotted around Dublin during the 90s, and even a few years ago when I last visited.

Many Americans will shun time off for more pay.

Many Americans don’t get the choice. Or at least get a catch-22 arrangement. My wife has accrued the maximum amount of comp-time she can use at her job; she can’t actually take that time off, since staff levels are kept artificially low and to take time off would be considered ‘undermining the team’. No pay in lieu of comp time, either. Lovely. And that’s what Sebastian would call a ‘medium demand job’.

41

Jim Glass 07.02.05 at 12:21 am

“the systematized concertation between trade unions, management, government and other social actors – that was at the heart of Ireland’s economic success”

Yes a ‘systemated concertation’ that reduced the size of government by 50% (26 points of GDP) … and slashed taxes by a third (corporate tax rate from 40% to 12.5%) to the lowest level in the EU, while deregulating markets and major employers … with the result that GDP growth tripled and GDP per capita zoomed up from 65% of the EU average to 120%, and #1 in the rankings (excluding Luxembourg, which doesn’t really count), while unemployment dropped from 17% to 4%.

Now it’s true that labor unions elsewhere don’t generally actively participate in such “systematized concertation” regarding such policies, taking a full partner role in planning them out and pushing them through the legislature. So this is not exactly a “British model”, it’s sui generis. But if you want to place it somewhere on the Continent, it’s obviously a heck of a lot closer to Britain than to Italy, Germany, France … though somewhere out in the ocean, maybe.

“Friedman implies that the subsidies have stopped when they obviously have not.”

No, but they’re down to 1% of GDP — compared to 6% of GDP back in the 1980s when unemployment was 17%, government spending was 53% of GDP, taxes were at Scandinavian levels, the country was broke, and the unions joined the “systematized concertation” of economic reform to make Ireland the richest country in Europe as it is today.

42

Cristobal Senior 07.02.05 at 4:22 am

Question is why would you bother reading what this
unintelligent right wing moron Andrew Sullivan has
to say?
Cristobal Senior

43

Barry 07.02.05 at 7:44 am

Wrong thread, but right thought – Friedman, in terms of economics, ranks with Andrew Sullivan.

44

Eamonn Fitzgerald 07.02.05 at 8:39 am

Here’s to Ireland’s success! I left it in 1984 when it was a most depressing place, despite 10 years of EU money. Today, lots of my Limerick relatives are enjoying the good life thanks to Dell. They’re busy building houses and enjoying the Spanish sun in summer and the Austrian snow in winter. Doubt if any of them read Crooked Timber, though.

45

Henry 07.02.05 at 9:51 am

“slashed government size by 50%” is to put it mildly rather misleading (remember we’re talking about an economy which was growing by 6-9% per year for a considerable period here. Kept it in check might be a rather more accurate statement.

46

Clark Hillsdale 07.02.05 at 11:43 pm

“Today, lots of my Limerick relatives are enjoying the good life thanks to Dell.”

Not becase of Dell. Because of their vibrant socialist economy.

47

David George Ferguson 07.03.05 at 3:17 am

Even though there is on this page a collection of anecdotal accounts of whether people have labor flexibility, a data set anecdotes does not make. Being a statistics kind of person so I remain a bit agnostic. Yet since as a student I can’t even contribute a lowly data point of my own, let me instead offer a few ideas and see if I can encourage a bit less argument and a bit more discourse.

To begin lets consider a completely unregulated market: no limit on hours per week or overtime compensation; lets throw out minimum wage. Nothing. Would this market be the most efficient, or better yet would it create the most happiness? Even given the difficulty in answering this question in a well-defined way, I want to say clearly not, but I’m not so sure what’s so clear about it. I just don’t buy the argument that the powerful have unfair leverage. Unless there is threat of violence against labor mobility (which was hardly uncommon), two people voluntarily entering into a contract is the definition of fair.

I suppose the central assertion of why this ‘no-regulation’ approach is undesirable is that there is an over supply of low-skill labor. Or said differently (assuming a ‘fair’ market), human productivity has an extremely skewed distribution.

Another important effect might be the non-divisibility of work, i.e. the boss knows that hiring two people at half the price and half the hours will result in less than full production.

So what is my point? My point is that in my opinion criticism of a free market system must be coupled with a discussion of how the market being discussed is inefficient. Once this is identified this will lead into how the government can implement regulation to produce a new market with some quantifiably better distribution.

Of course this essentially is what everyone assumed without feeling the need to say it, and just got straight to voicing their opinion on what type of government regulation is optimal. Only I feel that there is an abundance of certainty (as is common in the blog-o-sphere) when in the face of truly complex questions a bit more humility would perhaps be more conducive to a reasoned debate.

Though probably less fun…

48

jasper emmering 07.03.05 at 8:12 am

jim glass – EU subsidies are down to 1 % of GDP… and you think that this amount is small?

By all means a rich country like Ireland should be paying about 1% of GDP into the EU (IIRC, gross input is currently set at 1.14 percent per country).

The Irish GDP gets an annual 2 percent bonus. That’s not small, that’s huge.

49

burritoboy 07.03.05 at 4:45 pm

Talking about literally tiny economies (such as Ireland) is essentially useless. There are only 4 million people in Ireland (and roughly the same in Israel – the two economies function somewhat similarly). The effective labor force size ends up being in the range of 2 million (in Ireland, that number was 1.8 mil in 2001). In an economy that small, a US firm opening up a relatively small branch of only 2,000 people increases employment by 1/10 of 1% by that act alone. 10 companies doing the same – 1% less unemployment for the entire country.

And, in the cases of Israel and Ireland, the growth has come from (largely) US firms opening up operations in those two countries – organic internal economic growth has not been the main driver in either country.

Conversely, that much job creation likely wouldn’t even register in the data in a single major US urban area (NY/LA/Houston/Chicago), much less the nation as a whole. The same goes for the other large EU economies.

50

Mrs Tilton 07.04.05 at 6:02 am

Burritoboy,

you might be right about Israel’s economy on the whole, for all I know. Still, I’ve had a fair bit to do with Israeli companies over the years (most heavily in the later 90s and the beginning of the 00s, but to a lesser extent even unto this day). And most of what I saw was home-grown. Lots of foreign venture capital, of course, but that’s not quite the same thing as foreign firms opening up local operations.

51

sean mccray 07.04.05 at 7:06 pm

what about quality of leisure? there is nothign that says more “leisure” time is automatically better. that is a huge assumption. Am i the only one who has forgotten that in America “work hard, play hard” is a common idiom.
I would also like to see what the satisfaction level is with their jobs. If I enjoy my job, why is it bad to work more hours?
These type of articles are simple minded and short sighted. They also ignore the societal impact of a slower growth economy on living standards.
here, people can chose to work fewer hours. People are doing it everyday. All the so called liberals, can choose to work fewer hours.
I dont think looking at numbers mostly from the 90’s gives any true indicator of an economy. The world experienced an economic boom, the US carried many countries with our high growth. You have to let time pass, at least look at 20 year numbers.
i also would like to point out population numbers and factors. The US economy has had to absorb millions of immigrants, on top of a population that is growing faster than France. Therefore the real growth is even greater than just the numbers show.
I do think its misleading to point to small countries, and ignore the equivalents here in the US. Why is so much done to show the difference among the states? I would like to see how the recreational number changes depending on location. (Do Floridians spend more time doing recreation, than Ohioans?) I would bet, Floridians probably enjoy more recreation than most other states.
Yet Florida has a very low unemployment rate, even thought they have no state income tax, and a large elderly population. Lets look at our own examples within our borders; i know this is not what many liberals want to think about.
Just having more vacation days does not automatically mean more recreation time. What about company outings, and trips? What about the way many white collar workers leave eraly for apointments, take long lunch breaks, etc.
In other words, those simple numbers can be made to say whatever a person wants them to say.

52

sean mccray 07.04.05 at 7:16 pm

if americans have no leisure time, then where are all these travel related businesses getting their customers from?
Our domestic travel market is huge. i think people are looking at the wrong things.

53

RedWhiteBlue 07.04.05 at 8:11 pm

What do we Americans do with all that extra money we earn for having only two weeks of vacation every year? We

(1) Use it to pay for medical care for all the extra stress-related illnesses we get in comparison to Europe,

(2) Pay for unworkable fad diets to lose all the weight from the obesity that results from not having enough time to exercise,

(3) Pay up into trust funds to subsidize our kids’ education since unlike in Ireland and France and Germany, we don’t have much state support of higher education,

(4) Pay to clean up the environmental mess left by corporations who are all but encouraged by the Executive Branch to dump their crap in our local streams, and

(5) Pay into our kids’ trust funds to prepare for the day when the real estate bubble crashes and we actually have to pay for our country’s $10 trillion or so national debt, racked up in part by stupid wars that our people are just too busy working to notice and protest against.

See, we Americans do wonderful things with our extra money.

Comments on this entry are closed.