"But we need a recovery first, and then we can discuss deficit reduction."

..and then we must discuss deficit reduction?

although he didn't criticize China's currency manipulation (he was speaking in China).

Ever been to Asia?

Saving face is just as important as saving money there.

tg's link to...Nathan's Economic Edge  would have been more fitting in this thread. What a shocker.

This chart probably says it all.

Anonymous Bosch wrote:

This chart probably says it all

I wonder if Bernie Madoff had some similar charts near the end of his Ponzi...

The public has been educated that saving is bad policy. Wonder where they got that idea? On the other hand saving takes discipline and simple money math another skill not taught.

1 currency now -yogi wrote:

Maybe you can't criticize China's currency manipulation without implicitly criticizing the US's currency manipulation.

And why was it different for Japan? Did we feel sorry for them? Because, hell, Rubin coordinated with them to intervene in the currency markets.

An important component of government strategy to heal the knabs' balance sheets was to let them feast on the yield curve. Nobody's yelling about the evil shorts in that game.

CalculatedRisk wrote:

In 2001 Greenspan talked of surpluses for the foreseeable future. Greenspan offered projections of "an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion ... in fiscal year 2010". How did that work out?

Tax revenues continued to increase but expenditures went exponential. Not just the two unfunded wars but more importantly the entitlements. The US does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. Maybe $1T of the deficits since 2001 can be attributed to our foreign adventurism, For the other $4T you have to look to things like Medicare D.

Having China revalue their currency upwards is good for us as we are the world's reserve currency, but being forced to devalue the dollar downward would be be a disaster, along the lines of the rock-solid British Pound being devalued, as they began their reign as an also-ran.

OkieLawyer wrote:

Well, the choices are 1. spend less or 2. earn more, which simplifies the problem considerably.
You're welcome.
Well, JP, with a recession, I wouldn't bet on choice 2; so that leaves choice 1. What are the implications? Doesn't that necessarily mean deflation?

It also sends the debt/GDP ratio past the tipping point at the same time it makes it harder to repay the debt.

So it appears IMF warnings are simply blown off and are

Rob Dawg wrote:

It also sends the debt/GDP ratio past the tipping point at the same time it makes it harder to repay the debt.

Rob:

Usually I disagree with you (I don't know about the "past the tipping point" part), but deflation does make debt harder to repay (and we certainly are a nation of debtors). So, does that mean we will have to inflate to offset the deflation that is taking place now?

One advantage our retail merchants will have over most every other hyperinflation situation is the idea of having to continually raise prices will be much easier, just change the bar-code prices on everything by a certain percentage, no biggie.

I was in Mexico when they had their ordeal with hyperinflation, and imagine having to manually raise prices on everything once a month, and then once a week, and then every few days?

I suppose it was like a 2nd job for the proprietor, just trying to figure out what to charge for things and still hopefully make a profit...

...how often do you hear the price of oil quoted in RMB's?

Wait until the US is labeled a rogue economic terrorist nation subject to currency export restrictions.

Here is what is wrong with our country in a nutshell:
Some homeowners facing the prospect of repeated foreclosures

LA area, couple able to buy 3 homes having social security and workers comp as their only income.

...ran into the Fresno Cycling Club in a restaurant, and I love to listen in on conversations given the opportunity, and they were the next table over, and one of the cyclists was a teacher somewhere and he was complaining quite loudly how one had to watch their p's and q's, as they were looking for any reason to get rid of teachers salaries nowadays~

On a planet with a shrinking number of fiat currencies, a devaluation in one pretty much equals an appreciation in another.

I disagree. They can all depreciate versus real assets (gold, oil, etc).
in fact, I would argue that this has been going on for many decades.

(how much did a candy bar or oil cost in $, pound, franc, yen, etc in 1955 compared to 2000)

they will continue to do so. There will be a race to the bottom as they all try to competitively devalue (especially the mercantilists), but the only way "out" is for all countries to devalue together, since they almost all have debt burdens that are unsupportable in nominal terms given future demographic patterns.

nova wrote:

RD wrote something on the last thread that went off like a cheap, wet Chinese sparkler in my head.
...
Now, back to sleep

Too late. "The sleeper has awakened!"

nova wrote:

In the meantime if you can be considered expendable -- you will be.

Work yer fingers to the bone, what do you get?
YouTube - Hoyt Axton - Boney Fingers

I know Nova's not too keen on the hillbilly stuff, so I hope he is really back to sleep!

Outsider wrote:

Speaking of debt:
House Democrat official: 'We've got the votes' on health care - CNN.com
I hope I'm wrong and this isn't the straw that pushes us over the edge financially.

They still need to find a dozen votes of the 18 undeclared and the 4 that are lying (like Sanchez). Close but not 216.

Rajesh wrote:

Now is the time to address the structural deficit, when there is some worry in Congress. Pass laws now that reduce spending later. We can't fix the deficit in one year or even in one decade but we need to get started yesterday.

+1 The problem is they know they won't be in office when the deficit really becomes a problem.

Mike in Long Island wrote:

The problem is they know they won't be in office when the deficit really becomes a problem.

[repeat] I am reminded of an old New England Yankee story. The tiny Vermont town where everyone knew everyone going back 6 generations had one of those occasional problems. The young mayor saw that the granite steps to the town hall were worn and dangerous. The replacement costs were exorbitant but true to the frugal miser reputation that was his heritage he hit upon an idea. "Hey, we'll just take the existing step and flip them upside down. Let's find out if it will work." Clever fellow. About two hours later the engineer comes up to him with good news and bad news. The good news is that he's sure it will work. The bad news is that the mayor's great grandfather had the idea first.

Thanks for the link to the money magazine article in the last thread.WOW,Santa Rosa Ca is going to be one of the BIG WINNERS! as RE prices once again begin their inevitable upward march...thrilling news!!.Oh,wait,where are the jobs.....

As American as cherry pie . . . .

Outsider wrote:

Speaking of debt:

House Democrat official: 'We've got the votes' on health care - CNN.com

I hope I'm wrong and this isn't the straw that pushes us over the edge financially.

Maybe it's just what we need to finally break "it" beyond repair.

Like the poor person who drives their junker until it literally dies on the side of the road, we've got a "vehicle" whose rings are shot and spewing smoke to high heaven, the tires are bald, the windows don't go up or down, and the radio is kaput.

And yet we keep pulling into the gas station, "Check the gas and fill the oil." Every few miles we have to pull over and put another plug into one of the tires. And there's a portable radio coathangered to the dashboard.

All because the damned thing refuses to die.

A couple years ago it was all about the political economy, accountable government (ha!) and reform. That window has closed, and we're facing the consequences.

Now I'm convinced that it's about consciousness, and how we deal with the consequences.

Like it or not, people are going to have to recognize their common nemesis and come together somehow.

Mike in Long Island wrote:

They don't perceive it to be a problem now.

I think our duty as voters is to enlighten them.

nova wrote:

In the meantime if you can be considered expendable -- you will be. Cities, counties, states, they will be dumping employees in droves soon. It is the slow slide into squalor.

We have been, are and will be lowering our standard of living in almost every segment or our country. First was manufaturing, call centers. Then construction, more manufacturing, retail & service jobs went away. Next up is education and gov jobs. The jobs that remain are paying lower wages.

We will have higher taxes, higher food costs, higher utilitiy bills.

Either each of us can decide how we want to lower our standard of living or we can have it forced on us.

I agree - that chart doesn't make much sense. I would have thought that the appropriate measure of debt saturation would be the simple arithmetic ability of the available money supply to meet all monthly debt and capital servicing, modulo some fudge factor for the uneven distribution of money within the economy.

It's harder than it should be to calculate what the relevant money supply is, given that M2 and above measures all include some forms of debt, but back of the envelope doesn't indicate particular problems there, especially with the current interest rates. Until the wealth inequality effects are factored in that is.

Scottrade recently polled 226 registered investment advisers on the topic and found that 71% don't believe $1 million is enough for the average American family. Most said families need to save double, or more than triple, the amount.

"Younger generations, especially, need to set their retirement goals higher than other generations and start saving as early as possible," says Craig Hogan, Scottrade's director of customer-relationship management and reporting.

The survey solicited opinions about the current investment habits of Americans. Questions were broken down by generations to determine advisers' opinions on average investment goals in today's dollars for various groups.

Generation Y (ages 18 to 26) needs to save at least $2 million, according to 77% of advisers. Forty percent put the figure at $3 million.

Nearly half of advisers (46%) said Generation X (ages 27 to 42) should at least double the $1 million goal. Twenty-two percent suggested more than $3 million.

For Boomers (ages 43 to 64), 35% recommended $2 million to $3 million. Thirty percent suggested $1.5 million to $2 million.

According to Scottrade's analysis, seniors are the only generation that may come close to needing only $1 million. Forty-four percent of advisers said $500,000 to $1.5 million is sufficient for average families in that age bracket.

1-million-doesnt-cut-it-for-retirement: Personal Finance News from Yahoo! Finance

These 'detached from reality' investment advisers are talking to much less than 1% of Americans

Save a million? BWAHAHAHAHAHA The average employee in this country barely makes that in 40 years. Reality, what a concept.

What's the commission income for those so called registered investment advisers on the retirement "goals"?

Rajesh wrote:

I think our duty as voters is to enlighten them.

I don't disagree. The problem with that is many of the voters have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. I look at what is happening to Gov Patterson in NY - he has spoken openly about the need to gasp cut spending and in turn his own party has thrown him under the bus. Nothing will change until an outside influence forces change - in this case that outside influence will be a dearth of foreign buyers of our debt.

It's the same situation with everything Obama inherited, the status quo was looking down the barrel of instant unemployment if he stopped deployments, and the show must go on...

YouTube - Entry Of The Gladiators - Julius Fucik

Yearning to Learn wrote:

it's easy actually.

Well, the strategy you outline has worked well for millions of people in the more bubbly RE areas in the US and around the world over the last 5, 10, and 30 years.

But it hasn't worked quite so well for those who lived in the Midwest and Texas and other areas that missed most of the RE bubble.

It is also unsustainable, as we first saw clearly in the last 2 years. Govt money patched over the hole in the logic for the present, and might be able to keep the dream alive for another 5-10 years, but eventually people will have to confront the reality that getting paid enough to retire on, in return for sitting on a couch in a big expensive home, isn't an economic model that can work for all the people all of the time.

Edit: I did realize you were being sarcastic, but I couldn't resist commenting.

Good point JP, I should have said the majority, not the average The majority make much less than 50K per year. My husband and I both work full time and made less than that together last year.

Believe it or not: I really did mean median, so half make less than 50K and half make more.
(also note that the number in wikipedia was 2007. It has probably dropped since then?)

km4 wrote:
These 'detached from reality' investment advisers are talking to much less than 1% of Americans
'Retirement' has existed for a long time, it's just that it formerly was only applicable to a very small percentage of the population with enough put away that they could afford to live comfortably from the lower, minimal-risk returns provided purely through passive income. Now we have been sold the idea that everyone can be a Lord of the FIRE.

But it hasn't worked quite so well for those who lived in the Midwest and Texas and other areas that missed most of the RE bubble.

(sigh). Haven't you seen? All the people in flyover land are moving to the sunbelt and other bubble areas anyway. Thus, problem solved.
That's WHY we have bubbles in the bubble areas: Everybody wants to live there (trademark).

It is a mathematical fact that eventually everybody will live in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. Eventually.

If you find that your annual house appreciation is less than 10% per year forever, then clearly you are living in the wrong place. You should move as soon as possible to a place where housing goes up 10%/year forever, otherwise you are a whiner.

Must I think of everything around here?

We spend too much money foolish fighting wars and building useless armaments. If that stopped, we could return to balanced budgets. Doesn't Allen always ask when the war will be over? Ike knew the answer 60 years ago.

I admit: It seems higher than I remember. (Perhaps I have quoted household vs remembering personal?)

Comrade Kristina wrote:

The last numbers I saw were 50% make 32K or less per year JP.

And this is all coming from a BAU perspective, which is like the Austrians in 1913 arguing who their next Hapsburg ruler is going to be.

Anyone looked around lately?

Publisher's Clearing house "America's Retirement Plan!"

Comrade Kristina wrote:

50 K sounds like family income JP.

That's my recollection: median family income.

Per capita median income, per the CIA World Factbook, I am recalling at ~$42K.

Anonymous Bosch (profile) wrote on Sun, 3/21/2010 - 8:18 am
So all you have to do is go without a roof, clothes, food, or transportation for 40 years, and you're good to go. Makes perfect sense.

Analogous to how the gumbit calculates CPI i.e. if you don't eat and drive there's not really that much inflation so you're OK

The thing is, the money will have lost so much value in 40 years, a million will be a moot point by the time you get there.

A friend had an L.A. Times from the day after RFK's assasination in 1968, a full copy.

I went to the classified ads section, and the most expensive home listed was in tony Bel Air for $125k.

Yearning to Learn wrote:
You should move as soon as possible to a place where housing goes up 10%/year forever, otherwise you are a whiner.
Like, duh... If there is less money at A than at B you move to B. Or you could just change careers and become a neurosurgeon, and if that doesn't work out, maybe you can change again and be a microcode engineer. Maybe an NBA player.

NervousRex wrote:

I think this means the investors don't lose their investment even though these mortgages would be (have been?) written off.

Rex, these MBS were already guaranteed by the GSEs, so the investors already had the right to get their principal back. What's significant is that:

• $200bn of cash will be going into the pockets of existing holders of MBS, and that will make it available for purchases of new MBS. It's not quite as direct as the current Fed purchases of MBS, but it's almost as effective in pumping money into new purchases of MBSs, thereby keeping the demand for homes high.
• The $200bn is being used to buy out the worst of the existing loans, so that means the GSEs can modify those loans very generously, thereby preventing those homes from coming on the market. This will dry up supply in the areas that were the most overpriced, thereby keeping home prices well above their true market-clearing levels.

@ResistanceIsFeudal (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sun, 3/21/2010 - 8:20 am
Now we have been sold the idea that everyone can be a Lord of the FIRE

Yup gotta keep that illusion of American Dream alive....

And don't listen to Elizabeth Warren who says she's afraid of what the future holds for the economic well-being of almost all Americans.

Like I've been say....

• 1950's to 1980's viable middle class
• 1980's to 2005 asset inflated middle class

• 2005 + fast diminishing middle class

but the elites will keep on selling that illusive American Dream to the unwashed masses probably until there's a revolution !

Yearning to Learn wrote:
I used a retirement calculator and it wouldn't let me put in 60% per year forever, but it would let me put in 20% per year forever.
That is a totally reasonable assumption I think, and solidly supported by at least eight months of historical data. Would you like to come and work for our firm? We sell mostly to government pension funds.

...way back when, a Hundred-Grand Bar wasn't the cost of going to law school

A moment to savor is when SS sends me a summary of the payroll taxes I paid in over the years. Teenage gas pumping during the nixonian reign is in there, so assiduous are they.

Juvenal Delinquent wrote:

A friend had an L.A. Times from the day after RFK's assasination in 1968, a full copy.
I went to the classified ads section, and the most expensive home listed was in tony Bel Air for $125k.

Quick, repeat after me, "Inflation is not a problem". Chant that a thousand times, every hour. Gotta clear out those bad thoughts! Better yet, just quit thinking.

Lobbyist Ben Dover wrote:

$1-3 MM is not out of the question at all.

Net of expenses, taxes, and inflation, what do you think is the achievable long term rate of return on investment, averaged across all US savers?

patientrenter wrote:

Net of expenses, taxes, and inflation, what do you think is the achievable long term rate of return on investment, averaged across all US savers?

1 to 3%

There is no way that I am going to fall for asking about your third leg.

I was just pleased that I got to use the word "stool" so many times!
hehe hehe hehe. I said "stool".

on a side note: since you asked in a non-asking way, my third leg is my biggest commodity! (pun intended, ba-da-bing).

Yearning to Learn wrote:

Even now after 10 years of minimal S&P growth and 3 years of massive RE pain I STILL see people using retirement calculators and using 8% returns on equities and 7-10% returns on housing.

Which is why we should all pay William Sharp's newly public company to perform monte carlo sims of our retirement plans.
:eyeroll:

Yeah, it's like an obituary of your working years and how you performed.

adornosghost wrote:
Carp Fishing on Valium.
Damn you, that was my retirement plan.
I can't wait to see the shape we're in when 70% of the nation is on antidepressants and is legal.

And don't forget, JD, it's an entitlement.

YtL,are you on my city council?

Anak,

I pumped gas for a living around that same time period. I look at my SS statement and wonder how the hell I did it. Being young is the only answer I can come up with.

Resistance is Feudal wrote:
Like, duh... If there is less money at A than at B you move to B. Or you could just change careers and become a neurosurgeon, and if that doesn't work out, maybe you can change again and be a microcode engineer. Maybe an NBA player.
and then:
That is a totally reasonable assumption I think, and solidly supported by at least eight months of historical data. Would you like to come and work for our firm? We sell mostly to government pension funds.

RiF:
I am sorry, but I cannot work for your firm right away. I will soon be tapped to be the next "Recovery Czar" where I will be in charge of recovery. I may also have some oversight and regulatory responsibilities for the big Wall Street Firms depending on whether or not "Consumer Protection" is considered to be a part of recovery or not. A person of my knowledge and integrity is needed to restore confidence in the marketplace.
I will work there for a month or two, until recovery is completely assured. I will then go and work for the private sector.
Although I cannot work for you right now, I could be convinced to be a board member or take on some advisory role in your company.
Bidding on my services will commence immediately. May I remind you, that I have Summers/Geithners/Obama's ears, and yes I do take American Express?

on a side note, I like the cut of your jib. Perhaps you should come and work for me instead, together we could be quite formidable.

YTL, are you self-medicating?

gotta have some humor sometime!

renewed interest in Billy Jack movies

km4 wrote:

Perhaps renewed interest in commune living like back in late 1960 early 1970's since real estate will be kapu

Good morning.

Commune living is alive and well with an increase in room mates, multigenerational household living.

Mike in Long Island wrote:

1 to 3%

For an economy in a steady state, with around 1% population growth and around 1% productivity growth, I tend to agree. And if people did their retirement calculations using 1-3%, everyone would see very quickly how much they can really afford to spend, how much they really need to earn, how much they can really afford to pay in taxes, and how early they can really retire. It would be shocking, as we can see from the incredulity several people have already expressed here, and would lead to major and positive behavioral changes. Of course, that will never happen.

We are not in a steady state. As the baby boomers have grown into their peak earning years, the demand for investments has gone above steady state levels, increasing their prices above their steady state level. That's why P/E ratios are much higher now than in comparable periods of the business cycle back in the mid-1980's and earlier in our history. As the baby boomers age further, the proportion of people who are retired will grow, and this will necessarily lower the returns on their investments as they start to cash out in ever greater numbers in order to pay their medical and other bills . Since the market value of these investments will then be below their steady state level, the true net real returns on US investments over the next 20-30 years could be well below 1-3%, perhaps by a substantial amount.

anak,

You were good! I checked the oil and did the windshield. Amazing how many people, especially woman, drove around with out oil back then.

Ahhhh fond memories. I worked after school (grade school) in the bookstore where my mom worked. I wrapped packages and took them to the Post Office down the street. It was the first time I was made responsible for handling OPM. Can't remember if I was paid or not.
First real job as a carpenter's apprentice paid $11.00/day take-home, not included was the 1.5 hour commute each way.

Wow, AB was labor elite right from the start. :]

CK, his was a day...not per hour.

Well sir, the Humping to Please thing could be seen on any major thoroughfare in the central USA, well, a long time ago.

Now we only see it in models of the real thing:

Campbell '66' Express

For a second there, I thought I had just dreamed it up?

Oh lol nova, just saw that. How old are you AB? Sounds like my Dad's stories of wages. Of course he had to walk uphill both directions to get there

I'm off to stimulate the economy. Need chlorine for the pool, work boots for hubby and some groceries. More like "teasing" the economy now that I think about it.

anak! you were working for the squid!

nova wrote:

anak! you were working for the squid!

No such thing. I have been stir frying squid since I learned to locate their cuttle.

...into the valley of debt rode the 600

patientrenter wrote:

Since the market value of these investments will then be below their steady state level, the true net real returns on US investments over the next 20-30 years could be well below 1-3%, perhaps by a substantial amount.

Sadly I must agree. I was trying to be optimistic. My retirement plan more and more is looking like trying to find a country with currency worth much less than the dollar and move there...

But that won't be for another 20 yrs or so - so its not much of a plan at this point. At a minimum it will be someplace that I don't need heat in the winter to avoid freezing to death.

nova... a book you should read... SLANT by Greg Bear. You'll love it.

AB - thanks. I will put it on my wish list.

Republican Canon to right of them,
Democrat Canon to left of them,
Progressive Canon in front of them
  Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with taxes and health care,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Debt,
Into the mouth of who knows where
  Rode the three hundred million.

1 currency now -yogi (profile) wrote (in reply to...) on Sun, 3/21/2010 - 5:20 am On a planet with a shrinking number of fiat currencies, a devaluation in one pretty much equals an appreciation in another.

Unless you have a single reserve currency. This allows surplus nations to devalue vs. the reserve currency and will allow China to succumb to the pressure from Obama, Geithner, Krugman and CR and de-peg. But, the de-peg will be followed by a devaluation of the yuan. The US has had 60 years of positives by having the world's reserve currency, time for some negatives.

Juvenal Delinquent wrote:
into the valley of the shadow debt rode the 600

Mike in Long Island wrote:

My retirement plan more and more is looking like trying to find a country with currency worth much less than the dollar and move there.

Don't you want a currency worth much more than the US dollar. Didn't you mention Lords of FIRE upthread?

Are those salt and pepper layer cut, wind tossed retirees, grinning vigorously with preternaturally white teeth as they walk hand in hand down the beach not Lord Like enough?

Contact your financial planner at once! It's never too late to plan for a secure retirement!

And I'm off to refill the coffers of the MIC, EIC, CJIC, and the FEIC. I know that's a lot to ask of a load of cat food, but hey, one has to do one's part, right.

Most western world retirement systems are pay-as-you-go and dependent on continuous average yearly 1-2 percent GDP growth. Throw a 20 percent GDP collapse into to the system plus 20 percent unemployment rate and retired boomers will be growing their own food and buy maybe even whopping three potatoes with the monthly retirement check...

"This begs the question -- is a dreamed Nothingburger different than a real Nothingburger?? "

Depends on how zen you are.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

This begs the question -- is a dreamed different than a real ??

You don't get a bill with the former.

To increase the savings rate, banks will need to offer toasters (again):

Benj. Franklin Savings and Loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Residents of Oregon and Washington will remember[by whom?] TV commercials featuring Bob Hazen, President, a short fellow with a high voice, hawking toasters and other free gifts to woo new depositors, and pitching their other products and services. Bog Hazen is credited with inventing the thrift marketing phrase: "Pay Yourself First."

Tom Stone wrote:
RiF,I would probably be making mint juleps and playing the banjo for oprah's kids if I could find a secure plantation.
Not a bad plan. Of course the unstated assumption is that some will own the plantation they retire to, while others... not so much.

You guys kill.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

I also have little doubt that it will never constitute the majority of living arrangements even when it would otherwise be forced economically.

And I doubt your reasoning has to do with lack of need.... so what is it?

Re: "the need for rebalancing the world economy"

That seems to be an insult directed at Wal-mart and thus the hope that The People's Republic of China will stay out of the new global capitalist order.... need

josap wrote:

This is not acceptable or allowed in my group of friends. So we do what we need to do to fix it.

That is a I could see that outlook happening group by group, based on nothing more than human decency.

Progress comes like this. Probably not enough to help everybody, but it happens every day.

he has spoken openly about the need to gasp cut spending and in turn his own party has thrown him under the bus.

That's the party apparatus, not the public, not voters. In OR, a tax increase was passed. The question in OR remains (in my mind anyway) is if the additional revenue will be used for what I think of as "community" purposes, schools, basic services, infrastructure maintenance and/or repair, & I also classify mass transit in this category (know others may disagree).

I think that many voters---as opposed to party apparachniks, those who control the media, & a minority of voters--would agree to some tax increases if: (1) they aren't regressive; (2) they are dedicated to specific purposes. For example, some of the polls indicate that a majority of those polled wanted reform of the way health care is provided in the US--but often the options people favor, single payer, very broad public option, expanded Medicare with Medicare empowered to negotiate w/Big Pharma to decrease medication costs (as the VA does), are not even considered by most of our current representatives.

We really do need campaign finance reform. Plus overturning, via constitutional amendment or Congressional action (not likely) the US S.Ct decision that corporations are "persons".