Is credit Growth the key to US economic expansion in the 1990s than much proclaimed productivty?
Analysis:
STEP1:Take a look at the data at Federal Reserve historical data on consumer credit. The raw data shows over a 90% growth in credit during the '90s. When one adjusts these values for Department of Labor historical statistics of the Consumer Price Index, one finds that total consumer credit has grown by 70%.
STEP2:An adjustment needs to be made for growth in real per capita earnings since as real income grows so does the capacity to carry credit. When using that data to adjust the consumer credit values, in the last decade there has been a 30% increase in real individual income for the nation (non-government). Scaling the 70% personal total credit growth against the income growth yields a net 30% growth in real consumer credit carried.
STEP3:
...how much has individual credit really been growing?...Personal credit amounts are currently about $6k/person according to the aforementioned Federal Reserve data. The average household (2.6 people, $55k/year income ... historical data from the Census Bureau household income tables) carries ~ 16 k$ in credit. This is a credit/income ratio of ~ 0.3. Applying this factor to the previously determined 30% credit growth/decade (or ~ 3% growth/year) by straight multiplication, then only about 1%/year would be attributable to credit growth IF the multiplier factor were only equal to 1.
STEP4:GDP in the US has grown by about 31% in the last decade (see The Bureau of Economic Analysis' historical data on GDP ), or about 3%/year. Depending upon the multiplier factor, you can see that credit probably makes up a substantial fraction of the GDP growth just by itself.
There is at least one more important factor in the the GDP that we can adjust for in this simplified analysis: population growth in the work force. Between Jan 1, 1990 and Jan 1, 2000, the US population grew from 248 million to 275 million .... (source data Census Bureau's population statistics ) or about 10%. Assuming the workforce proportion is similar, the GDP adjustment per capita yields a growth rate of about 2%/year.
...What does this all mean?...
Conclusion 1: if the per capita GDP growth rate is ~2%/year, then credit growth--which is an absolute minimum of 1%/year and probably higher--makes up the bulk of the US economic growth in the 1990s.
...but what about productivity?...
Isn't productivity the source of the economic expansion? Productivity gains between 1990-2000 were about 25% ( Bureau of Labor Standards Productivity Statistics ) and outstripped per-capita CPI-adjusted GDP gains which were about 18%. If GDP gains had exceeded productivity gains, then the increase in credit is a consequence, all else equal. But with the percentages reversed, productivity does not appear to yield as much "gain" (to use an engineering term) on economic growth as one would hope to see.
IT WOULD BE QUITE INTERESTING TO DO A KIND OF COUNTER ANALYSIS JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DSICOVERING THE REAL CAUSE OF THIS ECONOMIC GROWTH WITNESSED BY US IN LAST DECADE.
WOULD REALLY LOVE TO SEE PRO-PRODCTIVITY-TRUMPING PERSON TO DO A COUNTER ARGUMENT BASED ON HARD DATA AND FACTS, RATHER THAN THEORETICAL PRODUCTIVITY ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!
ANY ONE UP FOR THIS CHALLENGE???????
No comments:
Post a Comment