A curve is a shape. There goes the saying if you can't shape in you gotta ship out. In economics, that curve is not as simple as how the idiom is being spelled or even pronounced.
Such a noun is a living thing or non-living thing as far as grammar is taken into account negating the effects of dialect should the word is spoken especially by the non-native speakers.
The core issue here is how the shape can play a pivotal role in stimulating economic growth in the way laissez-faire lead economy is obliged to fit in. The contrast is of course another shape in which the world economy in the future is expected to be dictated by that particular super power and hence its curve edge.
Competition is very stiff no matter how hard the economists form a regulatory framework to counter the bubble effects arising therefrom. The curve is always discriminatory and yet does not necessarily reach the targeted index as found in Body Mass Index (B.M.I) for those who are non-economists so to speak.
This analogy is not to be taken as giving a misleading question about how the shape of banking inclusion in the near future is to take place, but rather should be taken as an answer on how to say that an investment is not reaching its targeted NPV or IRR and/or desired positive returns especially when inflation is also discounted at the rate of no return.
I try to be cynical at this juncture instead of critical. Ask yourself, what is actually the most suitable handphone model and brand that can quench your thirst should the pricing in CPI does not include such gadgets.
Nobody ever tries to sip mobile phones soups or casings soups to summarise the above curve, ostensibly.