tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post7631520878024936741..comments2024-03-28T04:29:22.717+00:00Comments on mainly macro: The UK feel good factorMainly Macrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09984575852247982901noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-9471273513712825742014-11-28T20:55:12.992+00:002014-11-28T20:55:12.992+00:00Shouldn't one also look at how the growth dist...Shouldn't one also look at how the growth distributed *between people*? If for example 1% of people are appropriating 100% (or more) of the growth, you wouldn't expect people to feel better off even if the economy had doubled in size.Mark Wainwrightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-36916727194064947752014-11-23T13:24:06.867+00:002014-11-23T13:24:06.867+00:00«for comparing countries, GDP/capita should be the...«for comparing countries, GDP/capita should be the standard instead of GDP»<br /><br />A mostly "sell-side" economist, Noah Smith, points out here that GDP itself matters as to capacity for war:<br /><br />http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-19/gdp-counts-in-war-and-peace<br /><br />and implicitly for other matters of heft in real-politik.<br /><br />But I find that somewhat misleading, because there is a much better "sell-side" reason why GDP rather than GDP/capita (or per adult etc.) features prominently in public discourse.<br /><br />Most business and economic news and analysis are from the point of view of *investors*, and GDP growth, not so much GDP/capita growth, drives the valuations of stocks and other assets.<br /><br />Indeed a good argument could be made that a decrease in GDP/capita together with an increase with total GDP would push up stock and asset prices more than if both grew together: that decreasing GDP/capita means lower wages, while increasing total GDP means a bigger market and more workers, both resulting in higher rents and profits and thus higher asset prices.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-27572509257008038912014-11-23T13:14:35.231+00:002014-11-23T13:14:35.231+00:00«While the level of GDP in the second quarter of 2...«While the level of GDP in the second quarter of 2014 was well past its 2007 peak, the level of GDP per head was below that peak. GDP per head is a much better measure of how prosperous each individual person in the UK feels. »<br /><br />I was impressed by the suggestion In a paper I recently read on economic performance of the UK between 1997-2010 that looking at GDP per adult is an even better measure of the fortunes of people in the economy.<br /><br />I would think that GDP per non-retired adult or even just GDP per prime working-age person 25-55 adult might be also a good metric.<br /><br />In the UK it would also give a better hint on the contribution of immigrants and illegal/unregistered immigrants in particular.<br />Blissexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-87617188468765171052014-11-21T13:07:48.048+00:002014-11-21T13:07:48.048+00:00for comparing countries, GDP/capita should be the ...for comparing countries, GDP/capita should be the standard instead of GDPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-62414897867389852672014-11-21T09:26:22.378+00:002014-11-21T09:26:22.378+00:00BTW, regarding falling real incomes: whatever the ...BTW, regarding falling real incomes: whatever the economic theology, fact is the recessions in the mid-1970s, early 1980s and early 1990s were caused by central banks fighting inflation (see interest rates.) Real male median incomes took a big hit each time. (One uses male incomes because the labor demographics don't change over time.)<br /><br />We now see real median incomes taking another big hit because of the 2008 economic collapse and resulting Great Recession. <br /><br />So the immoral of the disinflation story: big recessions will significantly lower inflation and real incomes whether it's the central bank's intention/desire or not. <br /><br />From 1947 to 1973, US real male median incomes (age 25-34) grew at 2.9% annually to a height of $47.3k in 2013 dollars. They are now $34.2k, or lower than they were in 1961.<br /><br />Of course this time-travelling income regression does not take personal and government debts with it, which are at very high levels and increasing. Eventually people will have to stop borrowing and start paying down debt. This deleveraging shock will cause another recession and a deeper hit to real incomes in a downward spiral. <br /><br />So it looks like the monetarist ideologues have created an inflation-busting Frankenstein that is lumbering amok. Wonder how long it will take them to figure it out? Ron Wallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08120060083437508997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-76728316716914761412014-11-21T07:30:22.345+00:002014-11-21T07:30:22.345+00:00It doesn't make any sense to put GDP on a line...It doesn't make any sense to put GDP on a linear scale. The market system is founded on GDP growth. So the only way to show how the economy is growing is with a logarithmic vertical axis against a trend line. <br /><br />The lackluster 3.2% growth the UK will have in 2014 will recover GDP that was LOST since 2008. But it doesn't show how far behind the country has fallen with its boneheaded "expansionary austerity." <br /><br />BTW, the UK has the most ridiculous idea of democracy in the developed world. (Canada comes in a close second.) It's absolutely senseless to award absolute corrupt power to a leader on 36% of the vote. Strong leadership makes bad leadership far worse. That's why real democracy is preferable where an actual majority of voters is represented in government (as opposed to an arbitrary minority.)Ron Wallerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08120060083437508997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-77211940267902332332014-11-20T14:04:51.447+00:002014-11-20T14:04:51.447+00:00I dislike flat charts because they hide so much of...I dislike flat charts because they hide so much of the action. Perhaps your second chart could have been expanded by comparing all four components on a relative basis, starting at 100 so the scale could have been squashed to magnify the variations. I have the feeling there is something interesting buried in there...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-90197946412181378952014-11-20T13:54:18.637+00:002014-11-20T13:54:18.637+00:00Hi Simon
Entirely off topic but….
I think there ...Hi Simon<br /><br />Entirely off topic but….<br /><br />I think there should be a campaign to flatten the Laffer curve and you’re the man to lead it.<br /><br />It would seek international cooperation to limit tax avoidance and tax competition, particularly for rich people and in/between rich countries. <br /><br />What do you reckon? Can we count on you?<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Seb<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2546602206734889307.post-43649810885224976812014-11-20T13:53:23.930+00:002014-11-20T13:53:23.930+00:00I will expect to see this data discussed by journa...I will expect to see this data discussed by journalists in the upcoming election campaign. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com