One of the advantages of a slow summer season is that we can spend some time on topics that are important but not urgent. Demography is a great example. It determines most of the context in which the economy operates, but its trends play out over years and decades. Like the weather, demographic trends are just there, and we have to adjust to them.

Simply looking at the U.S. population distribution can give us some insight into what will happen over the next 20 years or so, as well as what’s happening right now.

As I wrote in my last post, oil prices have stayed lower for longer than many would have expected, and we may see prices drift lower still as supply continues to outpace demand.

Some of the effects of lower prices are obvious, but others aren’t. Let's take a look at who stands to benefit from continued low prices—and who may not fare so well. 

As I write, the financial markets are dropping on fears that the situation in Ukraine is about to escalate. This doesn’t come as a surprise, and, frankly, it’s not very interesting from an economic point of view.

More striking is that oil prices have continued to decline despite this turmoil and everything else that’s happening around the world, particularly in Gaza and Iraq. Down more than 2 percent this morning, crude prices are at monthly and quarterly lows, and they're getting very close to annual lows as well.

Yesterday, we talked about how the U.S. government deficit, while improving, is still way too high, posing serious problems for the future. Today, I want to touch on two other problems that you might think have been solved—but haven’t.

Part of the return to normal for the economy and the financial markets has been a decline in interest—or at least media coverage—of the national deficit and debt.

Though understandable, this is a mistake, as the deficit and debt remain a serious problem for the country in the medium to long term.

Following up on yesterday’s post, I want to look at two areas of the investment world that have a lot to say about how we invest our money—and how we make our profits.

One of the keys to business success is sustainable advantage, often referred to as a competitive “moat.” In short, if you have something your competitors can’t duplicate, you can charge for it and make money.

The idea typically centers on things that protect products. Think of patents, or the kind of ecosystem of software, hardware, and content that Apple, Amazon, and Google are building, at a cost of billions of dollars.

Yesterday, I wrote that banks starting to lend again is a plus for the economy. Today, I want to take a closer look at a key assumption underlying that statement.

Much of modern society revolves around consumption, and there's nothing wrong with that—if it’s affordable. If not, we find ourselves in 2009 again.

The real question here is what affordable means. In fact, this is the question at the core of saving, investing, retiring, and pretty much everything else I write about here. 

The headlines today are all about the deal between Bank of America and the government. After months of negotiation, the bank will pay about $17 billion to resolve allegations that it didn’t follow the rules for residential mortgages before the financial crisis. 

No company likes to pay out billions of dollars, and BofA had a good case that it didn’t do nearly as much wrong as the government claimed. (Many of the allegations involved actions committed by companies that the bank acquired at the government’s urging during the crisis.) Nonetheless, the BofA deal should be a good thing for the bank—and the rest of America.

Learn why I told CNBC Worldwide Exchange that I think the Fed's tapering of its bond-buying program is a good thing for the financial sector in an interview today, August 7.