Showing posts with label r>g. Show all posts
Showing posts with label r>g. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Why Specifying r, g Makes No Sense Whatsoever — Brian Romanchuk

I ran across yet another article discussing how the r>gcondition constrains fiscal policy. (For those who are not big fans of this stuff, that means that the long-term average real rate of interest is greater than the long-term real GDP growth rate.) I explain in this short post why any analysis that is premised on these concepts makes no sense....
Bond Economics
Why Specifying r, g Makes No Sense Whatsoever
Brian Romanchuk

Friday, February 2, 2018

Rishabh Kumar — Not just r > g but r + q >> g: Piketty meets Ricardo in the long run of Indian history

Many assets have the potential to become valuable without actual accumulation. Writing in the initial stages of capitalism, Ricardo recognized the unusual position which landlords occupy: they control a non-reproducible asset, which generates rents under expanded capital accumulation. These rents extract away from surplus value and get capitalized into higher land prices. His vision was partially invalidated by gains in agrarian productivity but the history of wealth-income ratios testifies to the strength of the underlying principle. A monopolization of resources has the potential to drive up the magnitude of wealth as much as the accumulation process (if not more) – think of real estate prices in Manhattan, San Francisco, London, Shanghai, Mumbai and Bangalore. For any rate of capital gains (1+q) on existing assets, if q > g then wealth rises relative to income due to the divergence of asset prices and consumer price inflation. This inequality (q > g) is critical to deciphering large swings in wealth-income ratios. Over the long run, capitalists may steadily accumulate reproducible capital but in the medium run there can be strong redistributions of wealth towards the rentier class....
Echoes Michael Hudson's conclusion:
Conclusion
The rise of wealth is not simply a matter of accumulation but the designation of control under the institution of private property. Whether for the production of agricultural commodities or the provision of housing services, gaining property rights to land can redistribute wealth very rapidly. Demographic dividends and urbanization create tremendous pressure on space and have the potential to rapidly drive up wealth-income ratios. These effects can be very strong when growth creates competition for such limited assets or when lack of growth empowers those who already possess them. For example, even in rich countries like the UK and the US, modern trends seem to be a capital gains phenomena related to real estate. The demand for such an important property right residing with rentiers is as much a driver of wealth today as the steady accumulation of capital by capitalists. Today both capital and land values are rising faster than national income. As long as such private wealth grows faster than income, workers will remain excluded from any notion of shared prosperity. This is one of the reasons why Smith, Ricardo, Malthus and Marx spoke about class dynamics in rigorous terms. Much may still be learned from taking these classical political economists seriously.
Developing Economics — A Critical Perspective On Development Economics
Rishabh Kumar | Assistant Professor of Economics at California State University. @Kumar_EconIneq.

Monday, January 1, 2018

Oscar Jorda — The rate of return on everything

Important.
The rate of return on capital plays a pivotal role in shaping current macroeconomic debates. This column presents findings from a new dataset covering returns of major asset classes in the advanced economies over the last 150 years. The data offer new insights on several long-standing puzzles in economics, and uncover new relationships that seem at odds with some fundamental economic tenets.
VOX - CEPR's Policy Portal
The rate of return on everything
Òscar Jordà, Katharina Knoll, Dmitry Kuvshinov, Moritz Schularick, Alan Taylor 02 January 2018

Here is the link to the paper if you wish to pursue it further.

Here is the open-source database.

JORDÀ-SCHULARICK-TAYLOR MACROHISTORY DATABASE

See also
Economists have provided detailed analyses of the economic basis of international currency status, but they have paid less attention to the geopolitical underpinnings. This column sheds light on the geopolitical premium enjoyed by the US thanks to its security alliances and ‘dollar diplomacy’.
Mars or Mercury? The geopolitics of international currency choice
Barry Eichengreen, Arnaud Mehl, Livia Chiţu

Related

Counterpunch
The Petro-Yuan Bombshell
Pepe Escobar

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Sandwichman — Inequality and Sabotage: Piketty, Veblen and Kalecki (for anne at Economist's View)


Veblen and Kalecki explain Piketty a century ago (Veblen) and a half century ago (Kalecki). Great quotes.

EconoSpeak
Inequality and Sabotage: Piketty, Veblen and Kalecki (for anne at Economist's View)
Sandwichman

For some reason, the page is now not available. Here are the quotes.

UPDATE: link is now working. I'll leave the quotes up anyway.

Veblen in The Engineers and the Price System:
The mechanical industry of the new order is inordinately productive. So the rate and volume of output have to be regulated with a view to what the traffic will bear — that is to say,what will yield the largest net return in terms of price to the business men who manage the country's industrial system. Otherwise there will be “overproduction,” business depression, and consequent hard times all around. Overproduction means production in excess of what the market will carry off at a sufficiently profitable price. So it appears that the continued prosperity of the country from day to day hangs on a “conscientious withdrawal of efficiency” by the business men who control the country's industrial output. They control it all for their own use, of course, and their own use means always a profitable price. In any community that is organized on the price system, with investment and business enterprise, habitual unemployment of the available industrial plant and workmen, in whole or in part, appears to be the indispensable condition without which tolerable conditions of life cannot be maintained. That is to say, in no such community can the industrial system be allowed to work at full capacity for any appreciable interval of time, on pain of business stagnation and consequent privation for all classes and conditions of men. The requirements of profitable business will not tolerate it. So the rate and volume of output must be adjusted to the needs of the market, not to the working capacity of the available resources, equipment and man power, nor to the community's need of consumable goods. Therefore there must always be a certain variable margin of unemployment of plant and man power. Rate and volume of output can, of course, not be adjusted by exceeding the productive capacity of the industrial system. So it has to be regulated by keeping short of maximum production by more or less as the condition of the market may require. It is always a question of more or less unemployment of plant and man power, and a shrewd moderation in the unemployment of these available resources, a “conscientious withdrawal of efficiency,” therefore, is the beginning of wisdom in all sound workday business enterprise that has to do with industry. [emphasis added]

********
Should the business men in charge, by any chance aberration, stray from this straight and narrow path of business integrity, and allow the community's needs unduly to influence their management of the community's industry, they would presently find themselves discredited and would probably face insolvency. Their only salvation is a conscientious withdrawal of efficiency.
Kalecki in "The Political Aspects of Full Employment":
Clearly, higher output and employment benefit not only workers but entrepreneurs as well, because the latter's profits rise. And the policy of full employment outlined above does not encroach upon profits because it does not involve any additional taxation. The entrepreneurs in the slump are longing for a boom; why do they not gladly accept the synthetic boom which the government is able to offer them?
****************
Under a laissez-faire system the level of employment depends to a great extent on the so-called state of confidence. If this deteriorates, private investment declines, which results in a fall of output and employment (both directly and through the secondary effect of the fall in incomes upon consumption and investment). This gives the capitalists a powerful indirect control over government policy: everything which may shake the state of confidence must be carefully avoided because it would cause an economic crisis. But once the government learns the trick of increasing employment by its own purchases, this powerful controlling device loses its effectiveness. Hence budget deficits necessary to carry out government intervention must be regarded as perilous. The social function of the doctrine of 'sound finance' is to make the level of employment dependent on the state of confidence.