Home Page
Progressive News
Health Care & Wellness
Media & The Blogs
National Issues
Candidates & Causes
Poverty & Economics
Environment & Science
Education & Opportunity
Equality Rights & Issues
International Issues
Rants & Raves

About us
Who We Are
Community Guidelines
Getting Started
Formatting Tips
FAQ
Contact Us


New Blogroll coming soon

Progressive Issues for "more and BETTER" Democrats
"Health care is a fundamental right." (Ted Kennedy, 8/26/08)
* * * * * * *
Support Rescue/Rebuliding in Haiti
Red Cross | CARE | Doctors Without Borders
YELE | International Rescue Committee | Partners in Health


A Brawny Recovery Instead of Unsustainable Consumption-Led Growth

by: BruceMcF

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 12:45:21 PM EDT


(it's always midnight somewhere... - promoted by poligirl)


Burning the Midnight Oil for a Brawny Recovery

On Agent Orange, bonddad writes:

Among the most important of the rules Rosie laid down, in my opinion, is #12: Get the US consumer right and everything else will take care of itself.  The reason is fairly simple:  The U.S. consumer has the biggest balance sheet on the planet.  The U.S. consumer represents 70 percent of our GDP and about 18 percent of global GDP.

This is, however, following the entrenched habits of thought that got us into this mess in the first place. My reply, below the fold.

BruceMcF :: A Brawny Recovery Instead of Unsustainable Consumption-Led Growth
In a comment in reply, I write:
The problem with the 70% figure ...
... is that only a portion of that is free-standing spending, that is not financed out of income. Sustainable growth in aggregate demand occurs when there is a sustainable increase in spending that is not financed by income ... because the portion that is financed by income follows growth in incomes, it cannot lead growth in income.

If we are importing roughly 1/5 of our GDP, 15% of that consumption is imports and 55% is domestic.

If our income-expenditure multiplier is around 1.5, that implies about 2/3 leakages, 1/3 income financed consumption of domestic goods and services. So 55%-33%= about 22% debt-financed consumption of US goods and services that acts as a domestic growth driver. The rest of the 70% figure is domestic recirculation of income and income spill-over to the rest of the world.

Now, that is still a big chunk of change, and under Bushonomics, with the anti-export and anti-real-investment policies that were in place, was the main growth driver we were counting on.

However, it is clearly a growth driver that we can replace if we pursue an aggressive plan of government investment in energy efficiency and infrastructure in support of sustainable energy independence, combined with government policies that ensure ongoing growth in private investment in energy efficiency and production of energy for sustainable energy independence.

And unlike the growth regime founded on unsustainable increase in degree of leverage, its a growth regime founded on the real increase in both the quantity of domestic resources and the efficiency with which they are used.

Certainly, as our economy has evolved in the past three decades, debt-financed consumption has become the largest of the four sources of new injections into Aggregate Demand:

  • Government spending, which creates new fiat-currency
  • Real investment in new productive capacity, which is based on newly created credit-money
  • Debt-financed consumption, which is based on newly created credit-money
  • Exports, which is based on either kind of newly created money, depending on the source of the domestic currency flows into the foreign exchange market that were the ultimate source of the domestic currency paid for the exported products

The Brawny Recovery strategy shifts the focus, toward the transitional economy in which investment in the foundations of a sustainable economy are the source of new aggregate demand.

 

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Seed comment ... (3.00 / 2)
... here's hoping it will grow into discussion.

Support Lesbian creative works - 100% Yuri from ALC Publishing

That makes sense to me (3.00 / 1)
The problem with the 70% figure ...
... is that only a portion of that is free-standing spending, that is not financed out of income. Sustainable growth in aggregate demand occurs when there is a sustainable increase in spending that is not financed by income ... because the portion that is financed by income follows growth in incomes, it cannot lead growth in income.

And where does income come from? Domestic work from domestic goods an services produced in this country. If aggregate demand is increasing for these products, there is nor real sustainable growth, it would seem to me, unless it goes back to the source of the production in full or almost that or that there is a real multiplier and real demand so anyone with supply can make it in this country and not just Multinationals with GNP that doesn't really have any benefit in the long run for this country.

Which is why I have a problem with basing our growth on GNP instead of GDP(or what should count as GDP). Multinational balance sheets do not go to the origin country and the incomes derived from the executive son the board don't even pay U.S taxes a lot of the time because of the many loopholes thus showing why we don't have the highest corporate tax rate like some claim. Someone's income does not reach your shores and the demand = people buying domestic products that benefit a brawny recovery, here.

It seems to me, that we are treating the term Gross Domestic Product like a red headed step child when...

If we are importing roughly 1/5 of our GDP, 15% of that consumption is imports and 55% is domestic.

If our income-expenditure multiplier is around 1.5, that implies about 2/3 leakages, 1/3 income financed consumption of domestic goods and services. So 55%-33%= about 22% debt-financed consumption of US goods and services that acts as a domestic growth driver. The rest of the 70% figure is domestic recirculation of income and income spill-over to the rest of the world.

Maybe I don't have all the details right, but I will report back and correct what I got wrong; I think I get the jist of what you're saying though and I agree.



When I say importing 1/5 of our GDP ... (3.00 / 2)
... that is, GDP -> Income (Y) -> 1/5 Y spent on imports. That's called a "leakage" from the income/spending loop.

Support Lesbian creative works - 100% Yuri from ALC Publishing

[ Parent ]
I understand (3.00 / 1)
1/5 of our GDP x income spent on imports rather than exports. I didn't mean to literally imply that we were literally importing 1/5 of our GDP, but perhaps I sounded like it.



[ Parent ]
The exports are on the other side ... (3.00 / 2)
... the exports are included in Gross Domestic Product, together with consumption, investment (in productive capacity), and government spending.

Rather than try to track what part of each category is spending on domestic production, imports are subtracted from exports, so its total consumption spending, total government spending, total investment spending, and NET exports (that is, exports less imports).

So spending on imports us not included in GDP, its just a little round about how it deducted.

Support Lesbian creative works - 100% Yuri from ALC Publishing


[ Parent ]
That's right (3.00 / 2)
Also "Gross" means that depreciation of capital stock is not subtracted out of GDP. If net investment (which is gross investment minus depreciation) is substituted for gross investment in the equation above, then the formula for net domestic product is obtained.



[ Parent ]
Yes. If what we are looking at ... (3.00 / 2)
... is the level of economic activity, GDP is the core measure, imperfect as it is. If we are looking for some idea of standard of living or "economic welfare", we have to be very careful to NOT fall into the bad habit of some to just use GDP for that.

Support Lesbian creative works - 100% Yuri from ALC Publishing

[ Parent ]
Ewwww...we're polluting the planet on double-time (3.00 / 3)
we consume too much useless stuff.  

Abstinence programs breed hypocrites.

Renewable energy infrastructure is the right way to go (3.00 / 2)
we need to save the oil for agriculture and chemicals. Peak oil may well be already here.  

Abstinence programs breed hypocrites.

[ Parent ]
Quite ... we have exactly one more big growth ... (3.00 / 2)
... cycle left, if we invest in the infrastructure and equipment for a more sustainable economy.

Or else no big growth cycles left.

Those who figure "this goes on forever" don't understand the business about only being able to burn a particular barrel of oil once, no repeats.

Support Lesbian creative works - 100% Yuri from ALC Publishing


[ Parent ]
Front Page Feed:
Menu
New here?
Make a New Account

Have an account?
Log in:

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


A stirring tale of how progressives built America and lessons on creating the next Big Change Moment, from OpenLeft's Mike Lux.

"As inspiring as it is informative." -Arianna Huffington

"Mike is that rarest breed: a populist insider." -Wes Boyd

"Better than an OpenLeft flame war." -Chris Bowers

Search




Advanced Search
Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

Progressive Blue
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Since 02/29/2008
Powered by: SoapBlox