Alan Greenspan died this week at age 100. He was the Federal Reserve chair during my entire childhood.
But since I wasn’t really following markets and macro at the time, I don’t think of him in terms of monthly announcements about interest rates. What I find most interesting now is the winding personal and intellectual path he took to become a long-serving Fed chair.
He studied clarinet at Julliard before later getting economics degrees at NYU. He supposedly attended the famous 1944 Bretton Woods conference that organized the post-war international monetary system- but as part of an orchestra, not as a monetary economist. In 1966 he coauthored “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” with Ayn Rand, where he argued against antitrust and consumer protection laws and for the gold standard. This may be why my intro macro professor Bobbie Horn always referred to Greenspan as “Ayn Rand’s boy toy”.
His advocacy for the gold standard is striking given that just two years later he would join the campaign of Richard Nixon, who took the US off the gold standard in 1971. Then Greenspan would go on to chair the Fed in the now-standard discretionary manner while making, as far as I can tell, no attempts to move it back in the direction of a gold standard.
While it’s unclear whether Greenspan’s unusual path improved his ability as a Chair, it was at least possible then to reach the office by his somewhat unusual path. Since his 1987 appointment the path to the highest appointed offices narrowed to include only more conventional candidates. Randy Barnett and Josh Blackman noted this in a 2015 article on the Supreme Court:
earnest, platinum-résumé’d law geeks have their eyes set on “the Big Bench,” so they keep tidy lives because they think they might someday face a confirmation hearing. It is an unfortunate reality today that to be a judge, you cannot hold vehement opinions prior to the nomination and confirmation process.
I see similar forces at work in economics, where the 50 economists who have a shot at being Fed Chair and the 500 who think they do all hold their tongues. But what does that mean for the kind of Fed Chairs we get?
the truth about SCOTUS-wannabes who “trim their sails” and limit their potential based on a fear of a future confirmation hearing: Such persons lack the character a justice needs…. “Courage is a muscle. You develop courage by exercising it. Sitting on the fence is not practice for standing up.” Imagine what it takes to live your whole professional and personal life as a “justice-in waiting.” These SCOTUS-wannabes spend their careers seeking the approval of others, in the hopes that one day they will be nominated because of their friendships across the political spectrum.
Barnett and Blackman argued that this should change, and I think this is now in the process of changing again:
Such willfully “stealth candidates” should be disqualified from consideration for the Supreme Court…. We need jurists who are fearlessly committed to the rule of law, reputation be damned…. Paper trails are an asset, not a disqualification.
The Atlantic has a great article about the history of the Boeing 747 aircraft, which is slowly being retired by airlines. Lots of fun details in the article about the plane itself and about that era. The author is also conscious of the fact that flying was expensive back then, and that a lot more people fly today (though in part, the 747 was a cause of mass flying). Still, the tone of the article is nostalgic for the era, in addition to just being a nice obituary for a marvel of engineering and luxury.
But just how much more expensive was flying when the 747 was introduced? The article doesn’t exactly tell us, though they do give some inflation-adjusted figures on the cost of building the planes. They do give us some hint of how luxurious flying was, even in coach: “on a 1970 Pan Am flight from JFK to Heathrow, a coach-class passenger would have enjoyed filet mignon.”
Sounds nice! But expensive. In 1970, a roundtrip flight on Pan Am from New York to London was $420. First class was $750. To put those numbers in context, the average wage in 1970 was $3.40, meaning it would have taken 124 hours of work to buy the coach ticket, and 221 hours to buy the first class ticket. The average wage today is $32.31, meaning that the coach ticket is the equivalent of almost $4,000 today, and the first class ticket is over $7,000. Filet mignon is nice, but not $4,000 nice.
Today, you can buy a coach ticket from New York to London for around $800. Of course, there is no one single price today, as there was in 1970 (something that frustrates buyers, to be sure), but I’ve searched multiple websites in different months, and you can generally get a direct flight for around $800 in economy class (often cheaper if you don’t have a direct flight). Today most airlines have multiple upper classes for international flights, not a single first class, but on American Airlines you can generally get a business class ticket to London for around $4,000 and a first class ticket for a bit over $5,000 (both direct flights from NYC).
In other words, for the same amount of work as buying one coach ticket in 1970, you could buy five tickets in 2026. Or, if you desire that luxury, you could also buy one business class ticket today, for roughly the same amount of hours worked as the coach ticket in 1970. Business class seats today take about half the hours of work as a first class seat in 1970, and an international first-class ticket today takes about 75% of the hours worked in 1970 as a first class ticket (American Airlines Flagship First class is a truly luxury experience, probably better than 1970, even though there is no piano bar on the plane).
The decline is much smaller than the decline for coach seats, but it is still a decline. But that is an important point: the biggest gains from deregulation and competition in air travel and the non-rich, who mostly weren’t flying anyway. Is the experience as good as 1970? Of course not, and The Atlantic article stresses this point repeatedly. You won’t get filet mignon, you’ll probably be in a cramped seat, with a frustrated flight attendant. But you can afford it, which for most middle-class families is probably the most important fact.
Imagine my surprise the other day when I noticed that $1000 had been transferred from my bank account to some nonprofit, without any knowledge or approval on my part. It turned out that an acquaintance, with no access to my banking credentials, had done this. They wanted to make a charitable donation, using a direct bank transfer rather than a credit card, to save the charity the 3% fee charged by Visa/Mastercard. I had written them a check some months back, and they accidently entered the routing number and account number from that check of mine, instead of their own account information.
Was this some unique, gross security lapse by the bank? Or can anyone drain money from your bank account from anywhere, simply knowing your routing and account numbers? After all, these numbers appear on every check you write.
In the old days, someone armed with those two numbers could print fake checks for your account and forge your signature. Sadly, the same principle holds true now in the age of electronic transfers.
The ACH network, which powers most bank-to-bank transfers, bill payments, and direct debits, was historically designed on the assumption that initiating a pull was authorization enough. Someone with your numbers can:
Set up a fake “bill pay” or utility payment pulling from your account
Add your account as a payment method on PayPal, Venmo, Amazon, or similar platforms
Set up recurring ACH debits through many merchant processors
Ouch. It seems there is really nothing you can do to prevent this, other than closing your existing account if you are worried, and opening a new account with different numbers.
The main mitigation method is to set your account to notify you every time there is an electronic transfer, and notify the bank immediately (call, and follow up in writing or bank’s message system). Start documenting all aspects of this dispute process, in case of litigation. Or at a minimum, look through every month’s statement soon after it appears, to check for shady transfers. Close or restrict the account if appropriate.
As I understand it, if you notify the bank within 60 days of when they sent the monthly statement, your max liability is $500. Beyond 60 days, you are toast – the money is just gone.
There is a slightly murky provision for limiting liability to $50 if you notify the bank within two days of you learning of the fraud (as long as that is within the 60-day window noted above). The application of this 2-day rule is clear if you are getting real-time notifications of transfers. But, say, if you slit open a printed statement the day after receiving it in the snail mail, perhaps three days after it was sent, notice a fraud and call the bank immediately, it is less clear whether you get dinged $50 or $500. If you are a good customer, I’m guessing the bank would make it $50.
All this is powerful motivation for using credit cards or Venmo/Zelle instead of paper checks. Bad guys can’t withdraw from your Venmo or Zelle unless they have your login information. With a credit card, you generally don’t get charged anything for a fraudulent transaction on your credit card (assuming you report it in reasonable time) – – plus you can usually get 2% or more cash back.
Economics is everywhere, but I find endless enjoyment in watching others learn about economics in unexpected places. In this case, it’s in the largest Dungeons and Dragons subreddit, where a particularly long-playing and supremely powerful group of adventurers get the bright idea to institute a tax…on magic. What could possibly go wrong?
Well, that is precisely the discussion that emerges. All the things that will and should go wrong if you decide to place a tax on what is essentially the wellspring of all technology and welfare in their world. All healthcare, production, sanitation, agriculture, public safety, etc etc. It all comes back to magic. And these hearty and hale adventurers think it would nice to rake in a few extra million gold pieces by placing, and presumably enforcing, a tax on it.
What’s fascinating is to walk through the comments and watch the crowd collectively puzzle out all the ways this is going to backfire, only to then march through ways the world is going to collectively respond and eventually rebel. There’s a reason why most tax discussions eventually become, at the very least, targeted and, at their very best, highly nuanced. Because it is no small decision how a society should best leverage taxation as a means to solve a problem. Do we want to tax the rich? Ok, what’s the line at rich? Do we want to eliminate regressive taxes targeting the poor? Ok, but is this only a tax or is it doing something else as well?
In this world of magic and mayhem, we see our heroic players stumble into literally the worst possible thing you could ever tax: the entire body of technology. Not labor, not capital, not income, not capital gains…no, they target the single most important input into all of economic growth and human welfare. From a pedagogical point of view, this is <chef kisses fingers> perfection. Absolutely no notes. I’m not kidding when I say that, if I was still teaching Principles of Economics, I would build a class discussion around this exact thread.
And special shout out the commenter to worked through the economic, political, and ecumenical consequences in real time:
It’s economics all the way down, apparently even into the depths of The Nine Hells.
Lately I’ve been experiencing personal advertising barrages. Sometimes, I actually buy a product online before realizing that I had been living in a fake information environment complete with fake AI-generated product reviews. What I want for myself right now is to hear more product reviews from real people. I’m not against earning money from affiliate links, but I will earn nothing from this post. Here’s what I’m using right now.
Sourdough Bread Baking gear kit – I got a kit with “bannetons” (if you’re not interested, don’t ask) back when I decided to get into sourdough baking. The appeal was the savings from buying it all in a bundle (i.e. “dough whisk,” etc.). The investment is worthwhile if you are going to make your own sourdough bread. As I wrote earlier, this is a big investment of time. I do not recommend starting the process at all if you will make homemade bread less than 5 times a year.
Homemade Driveway Pickleball Court – if you have a paved level driveway or large patio, you might be able to create a non-regulation-sized Pickleball court. It used to be that billionaires could have their own tennis court and the rest of us could have ping pong tables. Now there is a Third Thing. You will likely need to rig up nets as a backstop by piecing together sports gear meant for baseball backstops. The actual mid-court net can come cheap from Amazon (I went with 14 feet wide). A small Pickleball court is fun for children/teens, but adults will prefer going to a real court where you can hit the ball much harder. Pickleball facilities are appearing all over the country and many cities now provide free courts in parks and gyms.
Canvas LMS and New Quizzes – Samford University uses Canvas, and I have always liked the interface. Finally, in the year 2026, I have decided to build a new course using “New Quizzes” instead of Classic Quizzes. The rollout of this product has been so awkward, but if you are starting from scratch, Item Banks and “New Quizzes” works well now.
The book Misbehaving by Richard Thaler is about his career and the field of Behavioral Economics. I think anyone could learn from how the field evolves in the face of new evidence. It’s been helpful for me with my project on LLMs and financial decision making.
Codex – Thanks to Codex, I can finally do something teaching-related that ChatGPT had failed to do for me in summer of 2025. Codex can write straight to a subfolder on my computer, with coaching. For technical details, follow Aniket. What I used to say to people who wanted to “learn computer programming” is that it’s impossible to learn from reading books. Build something that you care about, even if it is just a tiny website. I would say the same for Codex. Use it to build something, even if that’s something for your personal life like a sourdough bread baking scheduling assistant.
I wrote a post about debt delinquency way back in 2023. At the time, people were concerned about an impending recession. I argued that, if there were to be a recession, then debt defaults would not be the cause. The delinquency numbers were low and stable. Though delinquencies did rise some, no recession materialized. I’ll say a little more about how to interpret the numbers and give an update.
There exists a stock of loan balances. Most loans are in good standing with scheduled payments being made. This is good debt. Some debt is delinquent, meaning that payments are not being made. This is bad debt. What happens to bad debt? Sometimes those borrowers catch up on their payments and their loan balances switch to being good debt. Borrowers can also transform their bad debt into good debt by restructuring it with new terms. Temporary administrative adjustments can also change the classification from bad to good debt. At any moment, the total stock of debt is composed of good and delinquent debt. We can express these as proportions of all debt.
But the lenders also recognize that not all bad debt will be made good. For one reason or another, sometimes borrowers just don’t repay. It doesn’t make sense to list delinquent debt as a balance sheet asset if it will never be paid. Rather than accumulating more bad debt every year that will never be paid, banks ‘charge off’ some of that bad debt. Charging off bad debt lets banks realize losses and makes for a more realistic balance sheet. The flow of charge offs is deducted from the stock of delinquent debt.
If banks charge off some delinquent debt, then the proportion of delinquent debt should be lower in the next period, all else constant. But all else isn’t constant. Some good debt will become delinquent and some delinquent debt will become good. Though, after a charge off it’s true that delinquent debt is less than it would have been otherwise. Below, I denote the net flow of good & bad debt transitions as ‘r’ and solve for it.
The variable ‘r’ is the net transition to good or to bad debt after charge offs. If r>0, then net new delinquencies occurred faster than banks realized their losses with charge offs. Is that good or bad? A higher rate of net new delinquencies can be bad because it reflects that people aren’t paying their contractually obligated debts. But it can also be good if the new delinquencies are a result of experimental entrepreneurship and an innovative economy. The bad interpretation is probably relevant cyclically as a short or medium run variable. The innovation interpretation probably changes in the medium or long run as a structural variable.
Let’s look at the numbers. There are several categories of loans, but let’s start with just consumer loans.
The delinquency rate is higher than it was after the pandemic stimulus checks, but is still lower than historical rates. The charge off rate is also near the historical average. Below right graphs ‘r’ and it’s always greater than zero, meaning that there’s always more people transitioning from good debt to delinquency than the reverse. There was more debt becoming delinquent as post-pandemic interest rates rose, but net delinquency transitions have been falling since 2024q1 until 2026q1 when they mildly up-ticked. In other words, the aggregate consumer debt picture looks pretty average except for the secular decline in rates of delinquency. I don’t know why that is. Maybe banks have gotten better are identifying risk? Or maybe newer forbearance rules are friendlier to borrowers who need to pause payments?
Below are the same two graphs for single-family residential mortgages. These delinquencies are close to historical lows and charge offs are average. However, the ‘r’ graph below has been rising for a decade and is currently at a twelve-year high. Since the data only goes back so far, it’s hard to say whether the low numbers of the late twenty-teens were an aberration of the post GFC, low interest rate environment or whether we should be concerned. It is worth noting that the ‘r’ values are often below zero, which means that people do often come back from delinquency. We know it’s not simply charge offs doing the work there since the charge off rate has been steady and very low.
Non-alcoholic beer always used to mean O’Doul’s, which is a poor substitute for real beer.
Then Athletic Brewing cracked the code of how to make something that tastes much more like real beer.
Their new process and the higher demand that came with it have led to an explosion in variety, with many new and established breweries offering their own new NA beers.
I tried many of these recently when my wife was pregnant, and was pleased enough that I plan to keep drinking them. Partly as an occasional healthier substitute for real beer (less alcohol also means fewer calories), and partly as a nice drink to have with lunch or in the afternoon when I wouldn’t normally drink beer.
My recommendations:
Re-created the category, pretty good taste, easiest to find: Athletic Brewing
Best NA version of a beer you know: Guinness
Best NA beer from a brewery you probably haven’t heard of: Collective Arts Brewing, Emerald Dark
“Spirituous liquors might remain as dear as ever, while at the same time the wholesome and invigorating liquors of beer and alemight be considerably reduced in their price.” -Adam Smith
The Washington Post recently ran a fun, data-filled article on berry consumption and parenting. Lots of good tidbits in the article, including that Americans eat a lot more berries than in the recent past, and that a lot of the availability is thanks to foreign trade and imports. But despite being somewhat light-hearted, the article does seem very negative, especially in the title and introduction, about how parents are spending a lot of money on berries.
First things first, are berries breaking the budget for parents? Probably not. While the Consumer Expenditure Survey doesn’t give us data on specific types of berry spending, the broader category of Fresh Fruits is a very small share of consumer spending. It has pretty consistently consumed between 0.30% and 0.45% of income for families with children over the past 4 decades. That’s less than $1 out of every $200 of income. True, there has been a slight rise since over the past 20 years or so, but this is still a small share of the budget.
On average, families with children are spending around $600 per year on Fresh Fruit. And that’s all fruit, not just berries! Just a little over $10 per week. But even for an item that families spend a small share of their income on, such as eggs, perhaps the fact that prices have increased so much recently makes families stand up and notice. Berry spending might seem out of control, even if it’s a small share of income.
What does the price data on berries show? My usual source on this the BLS average price data that forms the basis for the CPI, but they only publicly publishes a series for strawberries, not the other famous berries (blueberries, raspberries, etc.). There is one chart on prices in the WaPo article, but it only compares strawberries to bananas over time (they got both of these from BLS). Because banana prices have been very stable in nominal prices over time, it looks like strawberry prices are exploding! But it’s really more notable that banana prices haven’t rise.
USDA does have some fruit and vegetable specific retail price data, but it only goes from 2013 to 2023. That’s shorter than I would normally like, but it can give us a clue about whether there has been some recent explosion in berry prices. And ending in 2023 isn’t ideal either, but overall inflation has been moderate since 2023, so it’s probably an OK source to use. Here’s what the data shows (prices are for fresh berries, except cranberries which are for dried):
Relative to median wages, berries of all kinds are now more affordable than a decade ago. Parents may still feel squeezed by all the berries their kids are eating, but in terms of affordability and share of the family budget, there is probably no need for a Berry Panic.
Here is a graphic that compares the size of the initial public offering (vertical axis) and the total company market cap (size of circle) of SpaceX to everything that has come before:
Elon Musk’s space launch/AI conglomerate spin-off SpaceX went public on Friday. Retail investors were all over it like a pack of starving dogs, driving up prices of SPCX from its opening $162 to $192 as of the close Monday. This has been grand theater, with Musk serving up signature visions of gargantuan total addressable markets, while investors are in fact getting crumbs of a money-loser. In the restaurant biz, this is known as selling the sizzle instead of the steak.
Let us pause for a reverent moment to savor the grand vision used to sell SpaceX: making humanity multiplanetary by dramatically lowering the cost of access to space. It extends beyond launch services into global communications (via Starlink), space infrastructure, in-space manufacturing, resource extraction, transportation, and ultimately a potential Mars economy—expanding from billions to trillions of dollars in theoretically addressable markets. Ooh, ahh, who would not want a piece of that?
Well, there are some problems here. It is hard not to splutter when trying to explain it, it is so bad for investors. I will just call out three issues I see:
( 1 ) Governance: You Own It But Can’t Influence It The IPO float represents roughly 4-5% of total shares, so we the people only get a sliver of the company. But it gets worse. Public shareholders receive Class A shares with one vote each, while Musk holds Class B shares carrying ten votes each, giving him approximately 85% voting control. More unusually, the company bylaws explicitly prohibit shareholder proposals — meaning investors cannot even put advisory resolutions to a vote. This is governance subordination beyond what even Zuckerberg imposed on his investors.
( 2 ) Valuation: Priced for Perfection Without Profits There is no price/earnings ratio because there are no earnings. At $2 trillion, SpaceX trades at approximately 20 times REVENUE. That price/sales is not unheard of for a small, fast-growing software company with almost no capital requirements (think: early-stage Amazon, Google, Palantir, etc.). But it makes no sense to apply it to a capital-intensive hardware and infrastructure business with negative GAAP earnings. Starlink is growing rapidly but requires continuous heavy capital expenditure to maintain and expand its satellite constellation. And SpaceX faces meaningful competition for orbital launches from Blue Origin, ULA (for military missions), maybe Rocket Labs, and the Chinese (for non-West payloads). And, if you dig into it, over 90% of their proposed addressable market is not space at all, but enterprise AI (!!). SpaceX pitches a total addressable market of $28.5 trillion, with AI opportunities alone accounting for $26.5 trillion. This is essentially the entire global GDP of the planet for a single year, and I guess they assume their pitiful Grok will claw back lots of market share from Claude, ChatGPT, and Gemini. As we said, priced for perfection.
( 3 ) Unbuilt Revenue Streams SpaceX has announced contracts to provide AI compute services to other companies — potentially a significant revenue source — but the data centers required don’t yet exist. Investors are therefore paying partially for infrastructure that is neither built nor generating revenue, on a timeline that remains speculative.
OK, but we have seen shares of Musk’s other baby, Tesla (TSLA), remain at uniquely high price/sales and price/earnings, seemingly indefinitely. So, investing in SpaceX is much like investing in that shiny yellow metal called gold: there will never be conventional earnings payback, but there might well be some greater fool out there who will pay more for my shares than I did. This really comes down to a psychological head game, not fundamentals. Gold has in fact done very well over the years, and the pros learned the hard way not to short TSLA, not matter how unsupportable its price is.
Final comments on index fund buying to drive up the share price – one of the bull drivers for SpaceX has been the prospect that the huge company market cap (around $2 Trillion) would force index funds like NASDAQ and S&P500 to buy boatloads of SPCX stock, driving up the price. But it turns out this will not be such a big factor. These indices only take into account the publicly traded shares, not locked-up, non-traded founder shares. So, we are looking at around $100 billion in traded SPCX shares, not the full $2 billion, which is mainly shares controlled by Musk and venture capital. $100 billion is only about 0.15% of the total S&P500 market cap of about $70 trillion. This means fund purchases of SPCX should not by itself drive down prices of other companies.
It is true that inclusion in Nasdaq-100 and Russell indexes will force automatic buying of around $25 billion in SPCX shares from funds tracking those indices. That seems like a significant driver, but (a) everyone knows this, so it is already factored into today’s prices, and (b) index fund purchases will be offset by billions in sales from VC’s as they sell shares when their lock-up periods expire in a few months.
Side comment: Historically, the major indices have had a little gravitas about what companies to include. The Nasdaq-100 typically requires at least a 3 month “seasoning” period for an IPO to trade, and then waiting till the next regularly-scheduled reconstitution. Thus, it might take around six months for an IPO to make it into the Nasdaq-100 index. For SpaceX (and presumably for Anthropic and OpenAI IPOs), NASDAQ changed the rules to allow REALLY big IPOs to be included within 15 days. (This means that some other company will get booted from the Nasdaq-100). Russell caved even further than NASDAQ, with almost immediate inclusion in the Russell 3000.
Staid Standard and Poor’s alone has maintained its dignity here, refusing to compromise on its principles. For inclusion in the S&P 500, a company must be publicly listed for at least one full year, must show positive GAAP earnings in the most recent quarter and positive cumulative earnings across the trailing four quarters (this is going to be tough for a cash-burner like SpaceX), and at least 10% (not 5%) of its shares must be publicly traded. So, no S&P listing for SpaceX in the near future.
The Knicks won the NBA championship and the Canes won the Stanley Cup. The World Cup is here, with all of its grim authoritarian appeasement and absolutely incredible drama. It all serves as a reminder that so much of the joy is in the noise, the inability to forecast, both as individuals and collectively in the market, what will happen. Make no mistake, the hockey playoffs are grossly unfair as a measure of who exactly is the best hockey team (that was the Colorado Avalanche who were unceremonially swept in the conference finals). Pucks bounce, refs make mistakes, goalies get hot. Any knockout tournmanent is outrageously unfair to identify the best soccer/football team. Dominating teams losing 1-0 on a fluke goal is sufficiently frequent as to be commonly referred to as “getting footballed”.
And that, to be exceptionally clear, is the point. Sports remain an opportunity to watch something that is not only unscripted, but highly difficult to forecast with any sense of certainty. Upsets are joyful not just because they are unexpected, but because they happen just often enought that you don’t feel a fool hoping and cheering for one.
With all of the growing concern over sports gambling and prediction sites, I do wonder what people are more upset about. The self-debasement of individuals eroding their financial security in pursuit of a not-so-cheap high? Or the threat to unpredictability as the incentives of actors inside and outside the games being rearranged to undermine what is supposed to be a random number generator with a multi-agent human engine purposed towards creation of drama unpolluted by audience service and manipulation.
Because here’s the thing. People want to get hurt. They want the disappointmen of losing. Of failing. Or coming up just short. Of giving it away when victory was all but assured. They want that so that when things finally do work out they can wholly and earnestly give themselves away to celebration of something that really actually happened as a product of forces we cannot control. Movies, televisions, books, they all want to give you happy endings so you’ll come back. If they don’t they know what someone else will.
But sports? Sports cannot be bullied by the customer into any such contract because any competition there always and forever has to be a loser. And as a sports fan you will lose. Sometimes a lot. Sometimes for your entire life. But you keep coming back because the noise in the system says that you might win next time. You might get a lucky bounce. A hot goalie. Or a generationally great guard so grotesquely undervalued by another team that for the cost of having the 46th highest salary in the league, you get to have an NBA finals MVP lead you to your first championship in 53 years.
The joy is in the noise. Congrats to any and all Knick fans, especially my Aunt Jean, a dyed in the wool New Yorker who’s been waiting a long time for this.
Economist Writing Every Day 