>It remains for us to explain why we'll get
>to 2.5, and why the arguments that we won't
>get there are wrong.
Seems to me the burden of proof is on someone forecasting a sharp departure from historical averages, not on those who argue that the future should be much like the past. (Don't tell Paul Davidson!) Even 2.5% is well below the average growth rate of the last 75 years.
Doug