Economy
See other Economy Articles
Title: Is The U.S. Economy Really Growing? (No)
Source:
realinvestmentadvice
URL Source: http://realinvestmentadvice.com/is-the-u-s-economy-really-growing/
Published: Mar 17, 2018
Author: Peter Cook
Post Date: 2018-03-17 21:49:33 by Hondo68
Keywords: John Maynard Keynes, debt/GDP ratio, will only get worse
Views: 8885
Comments: 58
Most people are aware that GDP growth has been lower than expected in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 (GFC). For example, real GDP growth for the past decade has been closer to 1.5% than the 3% experienced in the 50 years prior to 2008. As a result of the combination of slow economic growth and deficit spending, most people are also aware that the debt/GDP ratio has been rising. However, what most people don’t know is that, over the past ten years, the dollar amount of cumulative government deficit spending exceeded the dollar amount of GDP growth. Put another way, in the absence of deficit spending, GDP growth would have been less than zero for the past decade. Could that be true? Let’s begin with a shocking chart that confirms the statements above, and begins to answer the question. The black line shows the difference between quarterly GDP growth and the quarterly increase in Treasury debt outstanding (TDO). When the black line is above zero (red dotted line), the dollar amount is GDP is growing faster than the increase in TDO. From 1971 to 2008, the amount of GDP typically grew at a faster rate than the increase in TDO, which is why the black line is generally above the red dotted line. Chart 1 During the 1971-2008 period, inflation, budget deficits, and trade deficits varied widely, meaning that the relationship between GDP growth and TDO was stable even in the face of changes in other economic variables. Regardless of those changing economic variables, the US economy tended to grow at a pace faster than TDO for four decades. The only interruptions to the pattern occurred during recessions of the early 1980s, early 1990s, and early 2000s when GDP fell while budget deficits did not. The pattern of GDP growth exceeding TDO changed after 2008, which is why the black line is consistently below the red dotted line after 2008. A change in a previously-stable relationship is known as a “regime change.” Focusing first on 2008-2012, the increase in TDO far exceeded GDP growth, due to an unprecedented amount of deficit spending compared to historical norms. Focusing next on 2013-2017, the blue line has been closer to the red dotted line, meaning that the dollar amount of GDP growth was roughly equal to TDO. If the pattern of the past was in effect, the black line should have been far above the red dotted line for most of the entire period of 2009-2017, because it would be expected that a recovering economy would have produced an excess of GDP growth over TDO. But that didn’t happen. This article will not speculate on why there was a regime change. Instead, this article is focused strictly on identifying that a regime change occurred, and that few people recognize the importance of the regime change, which is probably why it persists. Taking a quick detour into the simple math of GDP accounting, the level of GDP is calculated by adding up all forms of spending: GDP = C + I + G + X In the equation above, C is consumer spending; I is investment spending by corporations; G is government spending; and X is net exports (because the US has become such a heavy net importer, X has been a subtraction from GDP since 2000). For context, at the end of 2017, the level of US GDP was $19.74 trillion, per the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Of that $19.74 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated that the US government spent $3.98 trillion, all of which counts toward GDP. In 2017 the government borrowed $516 billion, meaning that the government spent more than it received via taxes and other sources. The main insight in understanding how the government calculates GDP is that all government spending counts as a positive for GDP, regardless of whether that spending is financed by tax collections or issuing debt. Because deficit spending is additive in the calculation of GDP, it makes sense to compare the amount of deficit spending to the amount of GDP growth produced each year. The first four columns in the table below show the annual GDP, the annual dollar change of GDP, the total amount of Treasury debt outstanding (TDO) and the annual dollar change of TDO. Comparing the second and fourth columns, it is easy to see that the annual increases in TDO regularly exceed the increases in GDP. Chart 2 The final column to the right shows the increase in TDO as a percentage of the annual change in GDP growth. When the ratio is greater than 100%, the increase in TDO is responsible for more than 100% of annual GDP growth. Reinforcing the message of Chart 1, the annual increase in TDO exceeded annual GDP growth in each of the years from 2008-2016. The only year in which annual GDP growth was greater than the increase in TDO was in 2017, possibly due to the debt ceiling caps, which have now been lifted. The cumulative figures are even more disturbing. From 2008-2017, GDP grew by $5.051 trillion, from $14.55 trillion to $19.74 trillion. During that same period, the increase in TDO totaled $11.26 trillion. In other words, for each dollar of deficit spending, the economy grew by less than 50 cents. Or, put another way, had the federal government not borrowed and spent the $11.263 trillion, GDP today would be significantly smaller than it is. It is possible to transform Chart 1, which shows annual changes in TDO and GDP from 1970-2017, into Chart 3 below, which shows the cumulative difference between the growth of TDO and GDP over the entire period from 1970-2017. The graph below clearly shows the abrupt regime change that occurred in the aftermath of the GFC. A period in which growth in GDP growth exceeded increases in TDO has been replaced by a period in which increases in TDO exceeded GDP growth. Chart 3 Unfortunately, extending the analysis forward tells us the problem will only get worse. Chart 4 Over the entire period from 2008 to 2021, the increase in TDO will exceed GDP growth by $7.531 trillion ($15.843 trillion of TDO compared to $8.312 trillion of GDP growth). While most people would accept that deficit spending is required for short periods to offset economic disturbances, even John Maynard Keynes wouldn’t expect it to become the norm. Nor would he expect that a dollar of deficit spending would produce less than a dollar of GDP growth. The purpose of this article is to clarify the changing relationship between the dollar amounts of GDP growth and budget deficits, which are funded by TDO. If indeed GDP growth has become reliant on budget deficits post-2008, there are many implications for investment policies across all asset classes. For example, might poor organic growth in the private sector explain the unexpectedly-low inflation environment and historically-low capital investment? If so, what are the implications for stocks and bonds? Also, government policy should acknowledge the regime change and adapt policies accordingly. If massive deficit spending is required to produce a “positive” sign for GDP growth, is it possible that the private sector of the economy is not growing but shrinking? Is the private sector’s health now completely reliant on continued government deficits? If so, is there a limit to the government’s ability to run deficits by issuing bonds? If a dollar of increase in debt leads to less than a dollar of GDP growth, should the US continue to borrow? Should the Fed raise rates because of increased fiscal stimulus if the link between deficit spending, GDP growth, and inflation has experienced a regime change? Can any economic theory explain what is going on? These questions will be addressed in upcoming articles. 
Investment and Policy Implications
Conclusions
(4 images)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
And in other news, the chocolate ration has been increased from 45 to 28 grams per week. Citizens take note.
Lol Sky is falling! It’s funny how people bitch when someone is actually trying to fix the economy with out breaking the economy, it’s okay to keep pushing progressive programs but the moment someone starts cutting it’s either not enough or to much!
You can't fix the economy without breaking the economy. If you want to fix these ratios, first you have to turn off the tap on borrowing, which might mean firing some loafers, it might mean lowering welfare spending or at least the growth in it. It would certainly mean becoming realistic about the level of taxes. It is wonderful to corrolate GDP with borrowing and find out your growth is illusonary. Next you need to look at the relationship between employment and debt, borrowing money to pay for jobs isn't healthy, so you actually have to take the military/industrial complex off the government teat, oops there goes those employment statistics again
Why not, if that dollar of deficit spending went towards some stupid social welfare program?
This will lead to more socialism which means more social welfare, more borrowing and more government control and less rights. All one really has to do is stop growth of government and private sector will explode in growth. Its really that simple. Once the private sector is exploding start removing bad government sectors equal to the growth in the private sector or just under that growth to keep the momentum going. As for the military complex we need it to be the best in the world and twice that of the next country. Its one of the few obligations or jobs the federal government has. I would rather see the social net totally gone before the military complex torn down. The only people I see wanting our military complex destroyed are our enemies socialist/communist actors.
Most of all it would mean giving up the American Empire, bringing the forces home, and slashing the size of the military by about 70%. With nuclear weapons we would be just as secure in an absolute sense, but we would have a lot less influence in the world. That's the price. Military spending is the biggest discretionary piece of the budget. If you cut social security and medicare and medicaid and food stamps, you will see a precipitous drop in life expectancy, and a tremendous rise in poverty, without assistance to ameliorate it. And that will result in a political movement that will reverse the slashes. There is no comparable political force to uphold the American Empire other than nationalism. In other words, the Empire is optional, politically, but social security and welfare are not. If we want to break the iron logic of the economics of the article, we have to give up the notion of being a hegemonic superpower. We cannot afford that without impoverishing our people to Soviet levels, unless we maintain the Empire but take on ever-increasing, spiraling debt. Eventually that breaks the system, and if you wait until then - as the Soviets did - you end up losing the Empire (as they did) AND suffering starvation and a brutal shortening of life expectancy (by 20 years or more), which they also did. We are walking down the very same path that the Soviet Union did, to the very same end. We were richer to start and so outlasted them, but now we're a victim of our own success. We cannot afford to hold onto all of the power we gained when the USSR fell apart. We either voluntarily surrender it and come home to cut costs - like the British did when they surrendered their Empire. OR we refuse to give up anything, and end up broke and broken, like France or the USSR. There is no scenario by which we get to keep all of the power, the huge military, the world empire AND don't go broke. It's one or the other. Few people on the Right believe that. And nobody on the Left will permit cuts in social spending down to third world levels to maintain the Empire. Therefore it looks like we're doomed to the toilet. Which is too bad. It's all foreseeable.
It is not a realistic objective. You cannot have Depression-era levels of poverty in America without the political pendulum swinging the other way to stop it unless you essentially erase the Constitution in order to maintain a military empire. And then you kill innovation and the ability of the economy to grow. We turn into the USSR or North Korea, and we eventually go broke and starve trying to maintain a military empire. A democratic constitutional republic cannot choose guns over butter, because the people vote. At best you have to give them guns AND butter, which is what we do now. And we're going broke. We're going to need less guns in the future to keep up the butter. Nukes give you national security on the cheap, so that's where our eggs should be.
seems to me you already exceed that expectation and you have fuelled an arms race by doing so. You don't need to destroy your military to restrict spending. Noone matches your fleet of aircraft carriers, why do you need more? Noone matches your air force why do you need more? Having huge resources hasn't won any wars lately
Remember, Hillary says it takes a village to raise children. Is sure as hell does with 50 % of kids being born out of wedlock or being abandoned at some point in their life! The government has to raise the kids while their parents fuck around.
Having huge resources hasn't won any wars lately We had PC leaders. Now we have a real man.
Hillary in jail yet? Nyuck, Nyuck. https://www.google.com/search? q=trump+trillion+dollar+infrastructure
a man whose claim to fame is to say "you're fired" on TV, a man who has been bankrupt so many times it is unbelievable. What you have is the cheat in chief
He was bankrupt so many times huh. I think you've been smoking some Australian crack. Which years was Trump bankruppt? He wasn't. Now the question is if you are ignorant or lying. I'll go with ignorant. I mean how much can an Aussie really know about America.
come on don't give me that, how many of his front companies have filed for bankruptcy? but Trump walks away with the tax deductions. You would be surprised what we know, we are keen observers of the madness over there and even have a TV program devoted to political analysis of america and PBS airs on aussie TV. Not only that, your movie and TV industry oversells our market, so we are up to here in american documentaries. You see you don't live behind some wall, unlike China we have access to your media, and as the biggest circus in town, it is all out there. You may know nothing about us, but as a close ally we need to know what you are up to
Trump had many businesses. Some went bankrupt. It happens when the economy goes south. He was never bankrupt though. That is why even though you say you know all about us, you cannot come up with the years trump was bankrupt.
True in a sense. The Clinton-Bush-0bama model for the US economy was to suffocate it, over-regulate it, then KNEECAP IT. While helping China to crater American manufacturing. The biggest American "industries" to grow: US Mint INK and Printing Press parts and labor. AND surveillance industries and services. Now that Trump's policies are in the process of re-calibrating the fake and dying US economy of the last 25 years and being implemented, all that's required is PATIENCE. This is in short-supply or non-existent from the perpetually oblivious, ALL Dem-Commies and Globalist Whiners. Trump is ordering the smoking funny-money presses slowed down. And now we must wait a few more minutes for the effects of massive de-regulation; exploding American business expansion, investment,and confidence to be built and kicked in; playing-field-leveling tariffs on Slave Labor Nations to take effect; and "Most Favored Nation" to be designated as....THE USA. (How novel.)
If that's truly your "assessment" of President Donald Trump, I apologize for taking you seriously on ANY level of rational thought or a student of political analysis.
So you expect Trump to snap his fingers and indict/arrest people AS he's been defending himself from the continued Deep State onslaught and domestic sedition, treason and mutiny? You DO realized the players and process are rigged, right? And Trump has had to battle his own Party, right? I don't know why I even bother any more...
The best defense is a good offense. What party is that? The one of with the royal tailors who wove the emperor his fancy new un(D)erwear? I believe he believed that "now we don't care, right?": "right?" Nope - that was the WRONG answer; and his actions (or the lack thereof) reflect what he said. So yeah, I don't expect anything from POodleTUS (D)onald other than to keep feeding the sheeple herd what they want to hear while being led along the path to the next Military Industrial exercise in regime change for Oligarchic- kleptocratic fun and profit.
YOU: The best defense is a good offense. Yeah, cuz it's a fair fight. And the MSM is only exposing Trump's corruption, sedition, and sabotage of the US Constitution. OH WAIT. Anyway, Trump has all this idle time on his hands. Sorta like Custer on top of the hill at Little Big Horn. RIGHT?? Btw, I'm not real good at interpreting OTHERS' photoshop and insider jokes/memes. Can you articulate your position/explanation in words, please? Apparently you want to turn back the clock. many people evolve and CHANGE on issues in life as they grow to learn the truth. Now how back do you want to go in history to "indict" Trump as a fake Republican? Which "Republican is the "real" representation of the Party? Is it the McConnell-John McCain wing? Or the Tea Party/ Conservative Caucus? Which one do YOU support? (if at all?) Do you understand what's been going on in the GOPe and RNC? Do you realize that neither supported Trump over Hillary? REMINDERS: Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat? A divorcee just like Trump. And before Saul was Paul -- one of the greatest of all Apostles -- we was a murderer of Christians, right? Another question YOU need to ask yourself: WHY do BOTH Democrats and GOP leadership (as well as 95% of the media) hate Donald Trump so fervently? And why on earth do you and others believe Trump can just wave a Magic Wand like a Pharaoh by official edict declare, "SO LET IT SHALL WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE." He's not 0bama. (And as McConnell and Ryan both supported 0bama's EOs, they would oppose Trump's.) Do you understand how legislation works? Bush got a pass on all his "conservative" awesomeness for 8 years. Not gonna make the same mistake this time. Burn me once shame on you - burn me twice shame on who? Dubya Bush?? You mean Bubba's "brother"? The guy who hangs out with the 0bamas, whose family admits they didn't vote for Trump? Are you really going there?
indeed you should
OUCH...
Was there for 8 years. Won't make that mistake again. Emperor (D)onald is wobbling down the street in his un(D)erwear.
Session refuses to deal with her. It’s one of the reasons Trump is irritated at session. Deep state has deep roots. Have you know any one person do as much damage as trump to the deep state? This is just his first year! I’m more impressed with trump everyday.
Roots that were supposed to be... "Gone in the first hour" https://youtu.be/zb6-xz-geH4? t=10m27s His entire campaign was dramatic talking point buzzwords and bullshyte the pink haired poodles at Cambridge Analicktics pulled out of the arse of Social Media - and crafted into an image corresponding to what that data told him how to look cool for the demographic he was targeting. Took 8 years of BS from BuSh to figure out the same thing.
You nuts? BTW Trump has done more in 1 year than all the good both bush's did in 12 years. You are being grifted by the powers that be to dump Trump so they can have a pure socialist in there. Watch what you ask for because you may just get it. This crap of all my way politics or nothing is getting old. Buck up! This is the best we could begin to ask for and get. MSM has been revealed to show who they really are. "We" always knew there were fractions in the MSM that got to promote what they wanted but Trump has shown the whole America who they really are. Trump has even outed his own party members. Now its up to everyone to do their part of knocking out the bad plays one by one. BTW You have to stop the train before you can turn it around. One election will not stop the train but at least we have someone applying the breaks since President Reagan and before him was President Eisenhower. So in my whole life time we have had only 2 none socialist running the show!
yada yada. And the chocolate ration has been raised from 45 to 28. Ask his FORMER economic adviser what he thinks of (D)onnys super duper tariff plan. FAIL.
Ask his FORMER economic adviser what he thinks of (D)onnys super duper tariff plan. FAIL. The same idiots that would rather crash the ecomny to save the rich? Please for the average person he has been a blessing!!!!!!!!!!! I have more work than I can deal with. Last year I started turning down work for the first time in 20 years! Yes Im freaking happy and so are those in the middle class with me. BTW Tariffs are probably what he is using to renegotiate crappy one-side trade deals the rich put forth to kill the middle class.
Whose going to end up paying the tariff, super genius?
When you have an income tax and one sided free trade the work gets screwed. So the real question is why would you have an income base system with no tariffs?
"work" that all out with (D)rumpf's fanbase of union thugs did ya? Please tell the class(es) how collectivized "labor" was responsible for off shoring much of manufacturing in the first place?
Not a union man and never have been but they are Americans who pay taxes. Why not address the problem with one sided trade and income tax based system?
Trade is one sided today because manufacturing in the USA became too expensive. Organized, Marxist, "workers" - were significantly responsible for that. "FROM EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR ABILITY - TO EACH ACCORDING TO THEIR NEED" Tariffs are just another feeble mechanism for "achieving" that under the collectivized authority of the tyrannical, foam finger waving, majority.
No one side trade is because a bunch of rich fat cats figured out they could make a killing using cheap slave labor from foreign lands. Then when American workers took the financial hit and adapted to this the rich fat cats brought in cheap labor from foreign lands to work as slaves here to kill the American workers. Tariffs are the only means one has to deal with one side so called free trade agreements while having an income tax based system. Do you even grasp why you can not have income tax base system and free trade??? Get rid of the income tax base system or live with tariffs!
Haven't heard of any auto "worker" union strikes lately. Gee wonder why.
DOn't care. Like I said not a union guy and never have been. What I am is an American. What I do know is one sided free trade with an income tax base system will only destroy America. This is evident. Is you blind hate for Unions(which I despise too) so great you are willing to destroy America all together? I hate communist/Socialist. Its not fair in anyway to the American worker to be hammered by high taxes both local, state and federal then have foreign products shipped in and sold who pay zero tax while everything the American work produces is taxed at nearly 50%. Its a receipt for disaster that we cannot recover from. How about address this the real issue?
Uhuh. That would the "Low Information" feature of the Poodle Herd at work. Good luck with that bait and switch thing. Oops!
Why do you run from the question? If you think tariffs are bad(which they really are for long term use) then why have double whammy of income tax based system and so called free trade at the same time? All it will do is make foreign products much cheaper to the point where it puts American business out of business. So American workers are supporting foreign products by paying their tax burden too! Why is this a hard subject to grasp?
This may come as a shock to you - but we had an income tax before organized labor and the leftist EPA drove manufacturing off shore. Tell me about your "double whammy" when a $500 cell phone costs $2000 - or isn't available at all.
Comments (41 - 58) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: VxH (#1)
#3. To: Justified (#2)
It’s funny how people bitch when someone is actually trying to fix the economy with out breaking the economy
#4. To: hondo68 (#0)
Nor would he expect that a dollar of deficit spending would produce less than a dollar of GDP growth.
#5. To: paraclete (#3)
You can't fix the economy without breaking the economy.
#6. To: paraclete (#3)
You can't fix the economy without breaking the economy. If you want to fix these ratios, first you have to turn off the tap on borrowing, which might mean firing some loafers, it might mean lowering welfare spending or at least the growth in it. It would certainly mean becoming realistic about the level of taxes.
#7. To: Justified (#5)
I would rather see the social net totally gone before the military complex torn down.
#8. To: Justified (#5)
As for the military complex we need it to be the best in the world and twice that of the next country
#9. To: Justified (#5)
(Edited)
This will lead to more socialism which means more social welfare
#10. To: paraclete (#8)
You don't need to destroy your military to restrict spending. Noone matches your fleet of aircraft carriers, why do you need more? Noone matches your air force why do you need more?
#11. To: Justified (#2)
It’s funny
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
Now we have a real man.
#13. To: paraclete (#12)
a man whose claim to fame is to say "you're fired" on TV, a man who has been bankrupt so many times it is unbelievable.
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: paraclete (#14)
come on don't give me that, how many of his front companies have filed for bankruptcy? but Trump walks away with the tax deductions.
#16. To: paraclete (#8)
Noone matches your fleet of aircraft carriers, why do you need more? Noone matches your air force why do you need more?
#17. To: paraclete (#3)
You can't fix the economy without breaking the economy.
#18. To: paraclete (#12)
a man whose claim to fame is to say "you're fired" on TV, a man who has been bankrupt so many times it is unbelievable. What you have is the cheat in chief
#19. To: VxH (#11)
#20. To: Liberator (#19)
(Edited)
AS he's been defending himself
and Trump has had to battle his own Party, right?
Bush got a pass on all his "conservative" awesomeness for 8 years.
Not gonna make the same mistake this time.
Burn me once shame on you - burn me twice shame on who?
#21. To: VxH (#20)
(ME): "So you expect Trump to snap his fingers and indict/arrest people AS he's been defending himself from the continued Deep State onslaught and domestic sedition, treason and mutiny?"
#22. To: Liberator (#18)
I apologize
#23. To: paraclete (#22)
#24. To: Liberator (#21)
Are you really going there?
#25. To: VxH (#11)
#26. To: Justified (#25)
Deep state has deep roots.
I hate to be the messenger - but folks are going to have to wake up to the fact we got grifted.
Burn us once shame on them, burn us twice shame on who?
#27. To: VxH (#26)
#28. To: Justified (#27)
BTW Trump has done more in 1 year than all the good both bush's did in 12 years.
#29. To: VxH (#28)
yada yada. And the chocolate ration has been raised from 45 to 28.
#30. To: Justified (#29)
#31. To: VxH (#30)
#32. To: Justified (#31)
the work gets screwed.
#33. To: VxH (#32)
#34. To: Justified (#33)
#35. To: VxH (#34)
Trade is one sided today because manufacturing in the USA became too expensive.
#36. To: Justified (#35)
#37. To: VxH (#36)
Haven't heard of any auto "worker" union strikes lately. Gee wonder why.
#38. To: Justified (#37)
DOn't care
#39. To: VxH (#38)
#40. To: Justified (#39)
"Dow closes at 2018 low as trade worries rise"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-set-for-triple-digit-drop-as-trade-war- fears-trigger-global-rout-2018-03-23
{ golf clap }
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]