The most straightforward answer seems to be leverage.

The titans of Wall Street and the City of London were exposed as hugely over leveraged.

Usually, it is credit that provides the leverage, and credit is by nature reflexive.

It lists already 1,000 entities that are offering debt and equity for social enterprise.

Investment banks with leverage of more than 30 times their capital in early 2007 are now down to little more than ten times.

Leverage is down sharply.

America has shown itself to be second to none in practicing cronyism, first with its rotten corporate scandals of recent years, and now in Iraq. Asian capitalists may have stolen some borrowed loot, but at least they didn't mix finance with war.

Asian capitalists may have stolen some borrowed loot, but at least they didn't mix finance with war.

In recent days, Italy's borrowing costs have soared dangerously and the prime ministers of both Italy and Greece have resigned.

Economic rot sets in as the ranks of dependent citizens grow, productive citizens dwindle in number, and society eventually runs out of other people s money.

Debt, by contrast, is a contractual commitment to repay creditors who are largely oblivious to how the money is spent.

They would have free use of their own allocations, but the IFIs would supervise how the borrowed allocations are used to ensure that the borrowed funds are well spent.

But the economic crisis has made it impossible to maintain a good life on borrowed money.

A chain of additional losses occurs when the inflated assets have been purchased with borrowed money.

The status quo allows banks instead to leverage taxpayer assistance by holding razor thin equity margins, relying on debt to a far greater extent than typical large non financial firms do.

While America benefits from increased demand for its Treasury bills (which reduces borrowing costs), developing countries receive a return of just 2 essentially zero in real terms.

Wherewithal to deliver.

XML Tools

Traditional means of communication

Detergent is poisonous.

It increases income, improves welfare, etc.

That's seven percent of revenues.

(a) Estimates of gross national income

After all, by allowing people to spend more than they have, borrowed money can fuel growth.

Imagine buying a house valued at three years' income and paying 45 of your income just to make mortgage payments.

Local remedies

GNOME Desktop Utilities

kde Documentation Tools

Does the end justify the means?

The owner of the vehicle is Tom.

the income distribution of the United States, 1970.

Most don t.

Household disposable income is about 60 of national income in China, and the household savings rate is close to 30 of disposable income.

The type of regime Mubarak was running had been clear for many years, and it was also clear how the money was being used.

While this is not a particularly generous proportion of rich country income (roughly one fourth of one percent of their combined gross national products), it is a lot of money just the same.

When most households own no productive assets, they cannot share any of the asset appreciation or property income.

Exponential growth at a fixed percentage rate can look like a hockey stick.

And here we have high income countries in the OECD.

This is the income distribution of China, 1970.

For most citizens, wages are the only source of income.

The citizen reporter will get revenue share on any that sales.

Right now she does not have an income.

The building would not become profitable until 1950.

We confused means with ends.

as a treatment against consumption.