Growth Is The Answer To Everything

Growth Is the Answer to Everything
By John Mauldin | March 7, 2016

The Solution to Every Problem
Little Changes Add Up
Restoring Growth
From Carrot to Stick
Newport Beach, New York, and an SIC Conference Update
Growth is never by mere chance. It is the result of forces working together.

James Cash Penney
In this business we spend a lot of time thinking about problems. What if we could wave a magic
wand and make them all go away? Maybe we can.
The wand isnt made from wood. You dont need Latin phrases or a special incantation learned at
Hogwarts to make it work, either. Its a simple six-letter word: growth. Get the economy growing
at a decent pace again, and most of our problems will get better.
Conversely, theyll only get worse if we stay in slow-growth mode. And dont even think about
what a recession will do to the markets in this environment.
Fortunately, there are things we can do to bring growth back. We just have to decide to do them.
The Solution to Every Problem
A new reader browsing through my archives might get the impression I am a worrywart. In fact,
Thoughts from the Frontline is a free weekly economics e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial
expert John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting www.mauldineconomics.com

Page 1

Im quite optimistic about our future but I dont deny we face serious challenges. My weekly
letters are a peek into my ongoing thought process as I wonder how we will tackle those
challenges.
Just in the past few months weve looked at problems like retirement, energy prices, political
chaos, zero interest rates, negative interest rates, Chinas economy, terrorism, unemployment,
inflation, pensions, healthcare, refugees, and the Federal Reserve. And an overarching theme of
many letters has been the very big problem of growing debt. Whew so many problems.
We can look at each of these challenges individually and come up with possible solutions. Would
our solutions work? I dont know, but Im confident we would see improvement on all fronts if we
got GDP growth back up to 4% for a few years.
In the summer of 2012, a few weeks after House Speaker Newt Gingrich had withdrawn from the
presidential race, he and his wife Callista came to visit me at the villa we were renting in a tiny
town on a mountain in Tuscany, Italy. In addition to doing the usual tourist stuff, Newt and I spent
more than a few evenings talking late into the night about an extraordinarily wide variety of topics
and discovering that we had many interests in common.
I remember one late night in particular, when I challenged him a bit on the tax and budget plans he
had outlined in his campaign. While I agreed with their general direction (and still do), I was
concerned about the growing US debt and wanted to see a return to paying the debt down. His plan
simply balanced the budget and held government budget growth below economic growth. How
do we deal with the debt? was my question. His answer was simple: With the budget and
regulatory changes I outlined, we simply grow our way out of it.
That had been his experience when he and Rep. John Kasich (to whom he still gives a great deal of
credit) worked with then-President Bill Clinton to balance the budget and the country actually
began to run surpluses. We grew our way out of the problem. If the Republicans under President
Bush had not squandered the opportunity Clinton, Gingrich, and Kasich left them with, we would
have come to the 2008 recession with very little if any debt and a healthy ability to run deficits
without damaging the long-term prospects for growth in this country. And if we had actually used
those deficits to build the infrastructure that was talked about but never undertaken? We would
have something to show for the massive government debt were saddled with now.
So, is growing our way out of debt a pipe dream? It shouldnt be. The US economy grew about
3.5% a year from 1950 through the year 2000. During that period there were many expansions in
which the economy grew even faster than that average, and there were recession years when
growth was much lower.
This alternation is exactly what economic theory says we should expect every economy goes
through boom-bust cycles. Since the end of World War II, we have had a recession every 510
years or so. Our experience was that they always gave way to an expansion that made up the lost
ground and then some.
It hasnt worked that way this time. We entered a recession in late 2007 that officially ended in

Page 2

September 2009. Now its 2016. This month will mark 8 years of economic expansion. So why
is no one cheering?
Because the less than 2% average growth we have seen since the end of the recession (and
actually, since the year 2000) has added very little real income to most American households.
Many of us have seen our job situations end up dramatically changed, with our new positions
offering significantly less income. In addition, instead of the reduced healthcare costs we were
promised under Obamacare, most of us have seen our costs go up dramatically.
So the great majority of us arent feeling like we have recovered. While some are better off now,
the growing divide between those who are flush and those who are scraping by has resulted in a
groundswell of voters from both parties demanding change.
There is a fascinating quote attributed to Lord Salisbury, who was the Tory prime minister of
England during Queen Victorias reign. Supposedly, when she said things must change, he said,
Change? Change? Arent things bad enough already? Sometimes, when you wish for change,
youd better be prepared to get what you ask for. Sometimes you get it good and hard. And
speaking of change
Little Changes Add Up
Last month I ran across a fascinating study by economist John Cochrane. He is a senior fellow at
the Hoover Institution, former University of Chicago professor, and adjunct scholar with the Cato
Institute. He blogs as The Grumpy Economist but doesnt seem all that grumpy, as economists go.
Cochrane wrote a paper on economic growth last year as part of a project to design presidential
debate questions. Sadly, the candidates chose to talk about other issues such as finger length and
personal energy levels, but Cochranes paper is still useful. Ill discuss it briefly, but everyone
should read the full version. It is not at all technical, and you will learn much.
He begins by showing how small changes matter a great deal in the long run. The economy grew
by over 3% from 1950 to 2000. From 2000 the economy has grown at about half that rate, or
1.7%. And therein lies the reason that incomes have been so punk for much of America:
Small percentages hide a large reality. The average American is more than three times
better off than his or her counterpart in 1950. Real GDP per person has risen from $16,000
in 1952 to over $50,000 today, both measured in 2009 dollars. Many pundits seem to
remember the 1950s fondly, but $16,000 per person is a lot less than $50,000!
If the US economy had grown at 2% rather than 3.5% since 1950, income per person
by 2000 would have been $23,000 not $50,000! [emphasis mine] Thats a huge
difference. Nowhere in economic policy are we even talking about events that will double,
or halve, the average Americans living standards in the next generation.
I dont know about you, but to me those are stunning numbers, for several different reasons. I was
born in 1949, so GDP per person has more than tripled in my lifetime. Thats in constant dollars,

Page 3

so it isnt just growth by inflation.

Yet this tripling would not have occurred if the economy had grown at 2% a year instead of 3.5%
during my lifetime. That extra 1.5% made an enormous difference. In fact, the difference is even
greater.
GDP per capita does not capture the increase in lifespan nearly 10 years in health, in
environmental quality, security and quality of life that we have experienced. The average
American today lives far better than a 1950s American would if he or she had three rather
than one 1950s cars, TVs, telephones, encyclopedias (in place of internet), or three annual
visits to a 1950s doctor
Those 1950s doctors visits now seem like Stone Age medicine. And that doesnt take into account
mobile phones, Google maps, and a plethora of other things that make our life better because the
growth of the economy made us better able to afford them.
But even these less quantified benefits flow from economic growth. Only wealthy countries
can afford environmental protection and advanced health care. We can afford to worry
about global warming. India worries about 600 people per toilet, emphysema from burning
cow patties, and easily treatable parasitic infections. Our ability to defend freedom around
the world even if we are wise enough to do it sensibly depends on robust economic
growth. If GDP had grown at 2%, not 3.5%, we would only be able to afford half the
military we have today. The immense improvements in the quality of goods and many
services we have today are part of the engine of economic growth.
This is why the recent years of subpar growth are a big problem. It isnt just the current feeble
recovery: we are now almost a full generation into a low-growth era that marks a departure from
most peoples prior experience. Its no wonder so many folks are discouraged and angry. (And by
the way, were growing faster in the US than they are in Europe and Japan.)
Some economists will argue that the last century was an aberration. Robert Gordon is a good
example. Watch his TED Talk if youve never seen it. He believes a handful of one-time
breakthroughs (electricity, automobiles) accounted for most of the economic growth we now think
should be normal. I disagree with Gordon and will attempt to rebut him in my upcoming book
but I have to admit he makes some very good, valid points.
(The short version of my view is that I think were on the cusp of changes that will be just as
revolutionary as electricity and that will boost our growth considerably even by the standard
measure of GDP, which we know misses so much. This is why I am optimistic about our future.)
Cochrane points to the official Congressional Budget Office long-range outlook, which assumes
2.2% growth from now through 2040. That would be an improvement over the recent past, but its
still historically low.
If you change that assumption from 2.2% to 3.5%, total GDP in 2040 will be 38% higher. That
GDP boost means tax revenues will be 38% higher, and much of our debt problem will disappear.

Page 4

Shades of Newt Gingrich! Conversely, Cochrane notes that 1% GDP growth over that period
would yield a 26% drop in GDP and tax revenue, leaving us in a deep hole.
On the other hand, there is no reason to think 3.5% growth is the ceiling. With a few changes we
might be able to boost it even higher. Cochrane says what I have long believed: Rising
productivity is the key to economic growth. The more each human can produce, on average, the
higher everyones standard of living can rise.
Restoring Growth
Cochrane takes a matter-of-fact approach to the growth problem. What are the barriers to
productivity growth, and what can we do to remove them? Not surprisingly, most barriers are the
result of counterproductive government policies. He breaks them down into categories. Ill
highlight a few.
Regulation: The government interferes in just about every segment of the economy. Sometimes it
brings benefits like traffic safety and clean air. More often, regulation simply slows growth in
order to transfer wealth from one group to another. It interferes with growth by impeding
competition and distorting economic incentives. It distorts the signal that individuals send markets
about their preferences and adds a great deal of noise and cost, which distorts economic activity
from being its most efficient.
Finance: The Dodd-Frank financial regulations had the laudable goal of preventing future bank
crises, but in reality they simply work against other government policies. Washington encourages
and subsidizes debt and then tries to prevent the inevitable consequences. We wouldnt need
Dodd-Frank if the government were not rewarding excessive debt. As Ive written about
extensively in this letter (often citing Dr. Lacy Hunt and others), excessive, unproductive debt of
the type we are generating in the US and Europe actually inhibits growth.
Healthcare: Were all frustrated by Obamacare and health insurance generally. What we need is
simple, portable, catastrophic health insurance. Instead of promoting it, the government makes it
illegal.
Energy: Here again the government works at cross-purposes with itself. It subsidizes energy so
that it costs less, then tries to prevent us from using too much of it. Cochrane says the ethanol
mandate helps no one but the large corn-producing companies. Ditto for solar subsidies.
Taxes: Taxes should raise revenue, but instead we use them to redistribute income and
encourage/discourage behavior. A simpler tax code would remove massive economic distortions,
and it would be far better to tax consumption instead of income.
Social programs: Cochrane sees no need to be stingy with helping people in genuine need.
Welfare programs are far less costly than the many subsidies we give the middle class and large
corporations. The problem is that perverse incentives trap people and make them permanently
dependent. He suggests consolidating all the aid programs and making them time-based, like
unemployment benefits, rather than income-based.

Page 5

Immigration: We can end illegal immigration overnight, says Cochrane, by making it legal. The
question is the terms we apply to legal immigration. We should welcome skilled workers who
want to stay in the US and contribute to our economy. He also points out, wisely, that whether
someone should be here is a separate question from whether they should be allowed to work here.
Education: Public schools do not need more money; they need correct incentives. The way to
deliver them and ensure better opportunities for all is to adopt vouchers and charter schools. The
government doesnt have to directly provide the service in order to help people afford it.
Implementing these reforms is a political challenge, not an economic one. One mans waste is
another mans subsidy. People naturally resist when they perceive they are on the losing end of the
bargain. Serious change is very hard if everyone insists on keeping whatever benefits they
presently have.
Frankly, I realize that making these fundamental changes will be difficult, but we have to try.
Cochrane stresses that even small changes make a big difference over time. In a few weeks, I will
be sending you a very special Outside the Box, written by former Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn,
who has become my friend and who is one of the most focused and dedicated men I know when it
comes to dealing with the deficit and debt. He is advocating a Convention of the States to propose
constitutional amendments to force the government to effectively deal with the debt and
regulation.
Numerous states (including Texas) have already adopted these proposals, and we anticipate as
many as 15 more will adopt a resolution by the end of the year. Such a movement wouldnt be
necessary if we had a Congress and president that were capable of acting responsibly, but it
appears the politicians of both parties are all too willing to make small changes around the edges
without dealing with our central problems.
It is not just personal and government incomes that will continue to be affected if we dont do
something to boost growth; investors are going to suffer, too.
From Carrot to Stick
This week I received a very kind email from my friend Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research. Ed
and I have collaborated many times over the past 15 years, most recently on Its Not Over Until
the Fat Lady Goes on a P/E Diet.
A big part of Eds research focuses on the relationships between price/earnings ratios and
economic cycles. Bull markets end when company valuations grow excessively high. Then the
ensuing bear market ends when valuations get unreasonably low. These secular bull or bear
markets take many years (on average 17) to play out.
I noted at the end of last weeks letter that I would be writing about growth. Ed reminded me that
economic growth is directly related to P/E growth and thus stock market returns. In the aggregate
over a cycle, corporate profits cant grow faster than the economy grows. Yes, you can always

Page 6

point to exceptions, but were looking at the aggregate here.

Here is one aspect of the problem: if people perceive that underlying economic growth has
dropped to a permanently lower level, they will revise lower the amount they are willing to pay for
a share of corporate profits, based on what they perceive as diminished future prospects.
Eds research shows that in a world in which 3% GDP growth is the long-term average, P/E ratios
will average about 15.5. If expected GDP growth is only 2%, the historical average P/E drops to
11.5. That is a huge difference in long-term gains over a cycle.
Ed explained how he calculates the effect of slow growth on P/E in a 2013 article, Game
Changer: Market Beware Slower Economic Growth. I suggest you read it. The implications are
enormous. The difference between 3% and 2% long-run economic growth is a double whammy for
stocks.
Companies will be less profitable if the economy grows more slowly, and P/E multiples will be
lower because future profit expectations will not support the kind of valuations we used to think of
as normal.

Page 7

This is not a small problem. According to Eds research, if economic growth falls off just 1%, we
should expect stock prices on large indexes to fall by 26%. Thats the difference between 15.5x
and 11.5x P/E ratios. The reduction in stock prices will vary from cycle to cycle, but that is the
average.
From there, the problems radiate outward. Anyone saving for retirement will have to reduce the
amount they expect their stock portfolio to contribute. So will institutions and pension funds,
which as we saw last week are already severely challenged. Lower profits mean less ability to
invest in new capacity and more incentive to replace human workers with machines. Lower profits
mean fewer new jobs and lower incomes. Less wealth flowing through the economy will reduce
both tax revenue and contributions to charities.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Economic growth really is the one-stop-shop answer to
most of our economic problems. Income inequality? Low growth makes it worse, not better.
Bernie Sanders many new taxes on top of the existing burden would make income inequality
worse, not better. Middle America would soon be in a full-blown depression.
While most people agree the current recovery is too slow, I think many still believe we will
eventually bounce back to the halcyon days of 3% and 4% GDP growth. I hope they are right,
because we are all in deep trouble otherwise.
Many politicians would like to see the current growth malaise solved by monetary policy.
Monetary policy can be useful, but it cant overcome the enormous economic drag that bad fiscal
and regulatory policies create. Without significant changes (and not the kind that progressive
politicians endorse), the growth that we need will be very elusive. Think Europe.
We are one recession away from a fiscal nightmare. Lacking growth, government debt will
explode. Pensions and insurance companies will be deeply underwater. In the wake of the next
recession, income and employment will be hit even harder than during this last anemic recovery.
We can avoid that fate by taking the kind of steps John Cochrane outlines in his article. I would go
further and say that we need to adopt budget and tax policies in the cooperative spirit of the
Clinton/Gingrich era. I urge you again to read Cochrane's ideas and do whatever you can,
politically or otherwise, to make some of them happen. As JC Penney once said, Growth is never
by mere chance. It is the result of forces working together.
Newport Beach, New York, and an SIC Conference Update
Ill be heading out at the end of month to Rob Arnotts fabulous advisory council meetings, this
time at Pelican Hill in Newport Beach. Those of you who know Rob and Research Affiliates know
that his conference is a tad more academic than most, but he combines the intellectual heavy lifting
with a fabulous food and party experience. Its kind of like Adult Nerd Heaven. Then the
following week Ill be in New York, speaking and attending a conference.
For those who want to attend my annual Strategic Investment Conference this May 2427 in

Page 8

Dallas, I hope you have registered. The conference is sold out, and we are creating a waiting list.
We are trying to figure out how to accommodate more people but will not do so if we cannot make
sure that the total experience for those already registered will be up to the standards we always
strive for.
That said, if you want to attend, I suggest you go to the Strategic Investment Conference website
and register to have your name put on the waiting list. I can almost guarantee that if we do find a
way to accommodate a few more folks, those seats will almost immediately disappear, too. Those
who wanted to wait to the last month to register are going to be disappointed. I wont even tease
you with the fabulous new speakers that we are seemingly adding every week. It just keeps getting
better and better. And since I cant take everybody to Austin for the amazing local music scene, we
are working on bringing Austin music to Dallas. Its going to be fun! Just a little Texas ambience
for yall.
Chicago was a whirlwind of meetings and good food. I was there with my associate Shannon
Staton, and it happened to be her birthday. Along with some friends, we went to a restaurant that
she wanted to try called The Girl and the Goat. It is quite famous locally and was evidently started
by a lady who won a chef competition on TV. I should probably pay more attention, because the
food was fabulous. Thanks to Brian Lockhart and Geoff Eliason for being wonderful hosts and
introducing us to so many excellent new friends in Chicago.
In less than two weeks we are going to find out if the Republican Party is truly on its way to a
brokered convention. I wrote a few weeks ago about what a brokered convention would look like,
from the point of view of someone who has managed and been involved in floor fights at political
conventions that are much larger than the GOP national convention. The vast majority of people
have no idea just how truly wide open such a situation is. If I were responsible for running the
upcoming Republican convention, I would be terrified at the prospect. National conventions are
supposed to be coronations where everyone comes together, holds hands, and presents the party
and the candidate to the nation. Conventions arent occasions when you want to air the family
laundry on national TV to a world that simply wont get the dynamics. I guess you could say the
upside is that the media will be obsessed with every little twist and turn from individual delegates
for three months leading up to the convention and will likely run 24-hour coverage during the
convention. Then again, touting that upside might be reaching too hard for the silver lining in what
could be a really dark cloud. It will be truly fascinating if the question of a brokered convention
comes down to the final state convention in California. Just saying
Your hoping that somebody will figure out the growth thing analyst,
John Mauldin

Page 9

Share Your Thoughts on This Article
Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints | Previous Article

Thoughts From the Frontline is a free weekly economic e-letter by best-selling author and renowned financial expert,
John Mauldin. You can learn more and get your free subscription by visiting http://www.mauldineconomics.com.
Please write to subscribers@mauldineconomics.com to inform us of any reproductions, including when and where
copy will be reproduced. You must keep the letter intact, from introduction to disclaimers. If you would like to quote
brief portions only, please reference http://www.mauldineconomics.com.
To subscribe to John Mauldin's e-letter, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/subscribe/
To change your email address, please click here: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/change-address
If you would ALSO like changes applied to the Mauldin Circle e-letter, please include your old and new email address
along with a note requesting the change for both e-letters and send your request to compliance@2000wave.com.
To unsubscribe, please refer to the bottom of the email.
Thoughts From the Frontline and JohnMauldin.com is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the
opinions of John Mauldin and those that he interviews. Any views expressed are provided for information purposes
only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest and is not in any
way a testimony of, or associated with, Mauldin's other firms. John Mauldin is the Chairman of Mauldin Economics,
LLC. He also is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm
registered with multiple states, President and registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS)
member FINRA, SIPC. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA)
registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB) and NFA Member. Millennium Wave Investments is a
dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged and is
intended only for the individual or entity named above and does not constitute an offer for or advice about any
alternative investment product. Such advice can only be made when accompanied by a prospectus or similar offering
document. Past performance is not indicative of future performance. Please make sure to review important
disclosures at the end of each article. Mauldin companies may have a marketing relationship with products and
services mentioned in this letter for a fee.
Note: Joining the Mauldin Circle is not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin
and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for investors who have registered with Millennium Wave
Investments and its partners at www.MauldinCircle.com or directly related websites. The Mauldin Circle may send out
material that is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Mauldin Circle are not to send this letter to
anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their
personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an
investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium
Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO)
and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium
Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting
on and marketing of private and non-private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris
Investments; Capital Management Group; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Fynn Capital; Nicola Wealth Management;
and Plexus Asset Management. Investment offerings recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to
these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed
herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an
endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking
any advisor's services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective
disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they
recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee
arrangements.
PAST RESULTS ARE NOT INDICATIVE OF FUTURE RESULTS. THERE IS RISK OF LOSS AS WELL AS THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR GAIN WHEN INVESTING IN MANAGED FUNDS. WHEN CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE

Page 10

INVESTMENTS, INCLUDING HEDGE FUNDS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER VARIOUS RISKS INCLUDING THE
FACT THAT SOME PRODUCTS: OFTEN ENGAGE IN LEVERAGING AND OTHER SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT
PRACTICES THAT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF INVESTMENT LOSS, CAN BE ILLIQUID, ARE NOT REQUIRED
TO PROVIDE PERIODIC PRICING OR VALUATION INFORMATION TO INVESTORS, MAY INVOLVE COMPLEX
TAX STRUCTURES AND DELAYS IN DISTRIBUTING IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION, ARE NOT SUBJECT TO
THE SAME REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AS MUTUAL FUNDS, OFTEN CHARGE HIGH FEES, AND IN MANY
CASES THE UNDERLYING INVESTMENTS ARE NOT TRANSPARENT AND ARE KNOWN ONLY TO THE
INVESTMENT MANAGER. Alternative investment performance can be volatile. An investor could lose all or a
substantial amount of his or her investment. Often, alternative investment fund and account managers have total
trading authority over their funds or accounts; the use of a single advisor applying generally similar trading programs
could mean lack of diversification and, consequently, higher risk. There is often no secondary market for an investor's
interest in alternative investments, and none is expected to develop.
All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Opinions expressed in
these reports may change without prior notice. John Mauldin and/or the staffs may or may not have investments in
any funds cited above as well as economic interest. John Mauldin can be reached at 800-829-7273.

Page 11

Growth Is The Answer To Everything

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growth Is The Answer To Everything

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growth Is The Answer To Everything

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growth Is the Answer to Everything

By John Mauldin | March 7, 2016

Growth is never by mere chance. It is the result of forces working together.

so it isnt just growth by inflation.

point to exceptions, but were looking at the aggregate here.

Share Your Thoughts on This Article

Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints | Previous Article

You might also like