Jim O'Connor on expansiveness

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Tue Mar 30 13:30:56 PST 1999


Barbara Laurence wrote:


>It would be interesting to see what percent of increments to GDP over these
>years is accounted for by investment and government spending -- taxes.

Funny you should mention it...

SHARE OF GROWTH BY SECTOR, U.S. EXPANSIONS

nominal real

----------------------------- -------------------------------------

C I G X C I G X residual

49Q4-53Q2 45.3% 19.7% 38.7% -3.7% 36.0% 16.8% 63.4% -5.1% 11.1% 54Q2-57Q3 55.9% 24.8% 15.2% 4.1% 67.4% 21.8% 0.3% 2.2% -8.3% 58Q2-60Q2 58.6% 30.5% 9.0% 1.9% 55.0% 26.3% 12.1% 0.4% -6.2% 61Q1-69Q4 60.4% 17.3% 23.3% -0.9% 64.4% 17.6% 21.3% -5.0% -1.6% 70Q4-73Q4 56.2% 28.4% 14.3% 1.1% 58.8% 35.0% -3.2% 2.7% -6.6% 75Q1-80Q1 62.9% 24.2% 17.3% -4.3% 59.7% 29.4% 8.1% -1.5% -4.3% 80Q3-81Q3 50.1% 37.8% 15.6% -3.5% 31.6% 70.2% 4.8% -14.6% -8.1% 82Q4-90Q3 69.7% 13.5% 18.8% -2.0% 66.9% 17.7% 17.8% -2.9% -0.5% 91Q1-98Q4 70.5% 23.6% 10.2% -4.3% 70.8% 39.4% 3.0% -13.9% -0.7%

Where C=consumption, I=investment, G=government consumption and investment (excludes transfer payments), and X=net exports (exports less imports). With the chain deflator method, and unlike the old implicit deflator method, components of real GDP don't add to real GDP; the difference is the residual, shown in the final column.

BizWeak loves to tout the growth in real investment - 39.4% of the total growth in this cycle. But this high number is the result of the extreme decline in the price of computers and related equipment; a flat level of nominal spending would actually translate into an increase in real spending. The nominal investment figures are less impressive, and the consumption share of growth in this cycle, both nominal and real, is the highest on record.

Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list