Here are some numbers which I imagine may be a two-edged sword. The increase can be viewed as excellent, except for the possibility that it might all be going on Credit Cards. Credit and Wages should both be loosening up at this time, and if Wages are still dragging, we are asking for a flashback of the Credit Crisis with a noticeable lack of spare carry assets. What this means is that the growth in Income from new Jobs added to the economy should equal or exceed the growth of Credit; otherwise, there is not enough speed in the M2 to carry the debt burden. Translation: this means a net increase in bank liabilities without a net increase in bank Income; a distinct hazard understanding the Cost of the Writeoffs from bad debt previously built into the financial system. It ordinarily would not be an extreme risk, except for the extreme levels of Government debt currently draining financial resources throughout the World. Some may say I make too much of the Restaurant data, but the Restaurants are always the last to catch the Wave of prosperity; meaning that Credit increase has already shown up elsewhere.
There exhibits a lot of speculation about the Euro. The interesting element found universally in the developed world stands at the lack of real growth in domestic consumption. Realized growth comes from Exports if at all. Here resides the problem for the EU. Trade within the Unit must be treated as if it is domestic production, while Exporters need to deal with foreign demand at specialized Pricing so as to get the greatest Sales with the maximization of Profits by Trade deal specialized negotiations. Developed Producers suffer Profits and Sales losses by forced maintenance of uniform Pricing of Product; I know that California would like to break off from the rest of the United States over this issue. The later holds little possibility of achievement, but the EU breaking up under Crisis may be a distinct possibility, as the unification was in some sense very artificial. The Euro, as currency, must hold to the least capable of household support, so may suffer the erosion of the currencies they once replaced.
Arnold Kling makes an attempt to eliminate Boom and Bust from economic review, and does a relative good Job, but one wonders Why there is no 1982-94; could it possibly be that he does not want to embarrass the great Reagan Era? It is not my model, though I can imagine that the period 1969-81 could have been extended through 1994, especially with the S&L Bailout right in the middle of it. The devotion to Business shown from 1981 through 1992 might have exhibited a worse scenario than either side, and that the Period after 2001 might have been carried by the 1992-2001 Period to maintain uniformity. Here is the great difficulty in all economic models, not knowing just How to phrase your model for greatest utility. lgl