Much of the talk recently about economics has focused on how 2014 will be better than 2013. My last post was on exactly that, and I stand by it. When I woke up this morning, however, there were two significant changes that could mitigate some of that positive momentum.

2013 is over. There was a lot of good (have you looked at the stock market?) and a lot of bad (think Washington, DC). There were lots of highs—the stock market again—and lows, such as the EU’s decision to hit Cyprus depositors. Overall, it was a pretty typical year in many respects, although of course we get different highs and lows every year.

2014 will be different. 2013 started with angst and a broken budget; 2014 starts with a smoothly negotiated (if rather minimal) budget deal. 2013 started with worry about fiscal collapse and an exploding deficit; 2014 starts with the deficit projected to decline to below the growth rate of the economy. 2013 started with zero growth; 2014 starts with the most recent quarterly growth figures above 4 percent.

One of the drivers of the current recovery has been the housing market. After prices dropped significantly during the financial crisis, they have since largely recovered (per the chart below). They remain below the previous peaks, but that is not a bad thing.

I was reviewing the posts I made last December, and it occurred to me that many of the problems we were worrying about then have largely been solved, or at least are on their way there. I think we all have short memories and tend to look more at the now than at the recent past, so it’s worth highlighting some of the very real improvements that occurred in 2013.

The biggest relief, of course, was the successful passing of the date for the Mayan apocalypse. No doubt you were all as worried as I was about the impending end of the world, but, ultimately, my decision not to sell everything and head for the hills was vindicated. We are still here.

No, I have not seen the movie yet, although I hope to this week. I have, however, read the reviews, as well as an interview with the person at the center of the story, the perpetrator if you will. Sounds like quite a story.

I have always loved Christmas. But as I grew older, as much as I loved it, I think I lost much of the spirit. Now that I have a four-year-old son—who is wrestling with the stress of being good under the eye of the “Elf on the Shelf,” eying presents under the tree, and baking cookies with his mom—I find myself recovering much of what I had lost. This is wonderful, but, as a father, I also find myself reaching deeper into the meaning of the holiday.

The idea of sacrifice is at the heart of both Judaism and Christianity, and the notion of a father sacrificing his son is fundamental. Christmas itself, where the Christ child is born into the world, is the start of just that sacrifice. I literally cannot fathom making that kind of sacrifice—of giving up my son. At the same time, I understand just how much I would sacrifice for him.

After writing about how growth could slow going forward, based on my own analysis and supported by several even more pessimistic analysts, notably Jeremy Grantham and Professor Robert Gordon of Northwestern, I have been spending some time thinking about how the argument is wrong.

As I wind down into the Christmas week, I wanted to reflect on some of the things I’m grateful for.

Family Day

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

Accounting is commonly perceived as cut and dried. I once had dinner with an interior decorator, who, upon discovering I was in finance, said with some pity, “Well, you can still be creative, right?” My answer, of course, was that if we’re too creative, we go to jail. That pretty much ended the discussion (and got me in trouble on the way home).

My quip aside, accounting involves significant questions of judgment and adjustment. Take Enron, for example. The case was largely a matter of how the accountants reflected the business reality through the legal structure and financial statements. Although it was ultimately concluded that the statements didn’t reflect reality, both the internal financial managers and auditors agreed, at least initially, that the methods used were acceptable.