PDA

View Full Version : The Economic Statistic US Elites Keep ‘Hush-Hush’



mamboni
17th June 2011, 06:06 AM
Excerpted from http://english.alrroya.com/content/economic-statistic-us-elites-keep-%E2%80%98hush-hush%E2%80%99:



The Economic Statistic US Elites Keep ‘Hush-Hush’


Monday, 6 June 2011 at 12:40, By Ron Robins, Founder & Analyst - Investing for the Soul






http://english.alrroya.com/files/imagecache/detail_page/rbimages/1307349553320690000.jpg
It is a simple statistic that continues to warn of huge economic problems ahead for the US. Some economists call it the ‘marginal productivity of debt (MPD).’ It relates the change in the level of all debt (consumer, corporate, government etc.) in a country to the change in its gross domestic product (GDP). However, due to the message it is delivering, most US economists employed in financial institutions, governments and private industry, as well as financiers and politicians, want to ignore it.

And for the US economy and government finances, the MPD (and related variants of it) is continuing to indicate extremely difficult economic times ahead.

................

One fascinating way of looking at the declining MPD of US government debt has just been presented by Rob Arnott on May 9, 2011, in his post, Does Unreal GDP Drive Our Policy Choices? What Mr. Arnott does is to subtract out the change in debt growth from GDP, and refers to this statistic as ‘Structural GDP.’ He finds that, “the real per capita Structural GDP, after subtracting the growth in public debt, remains 10 per cent below the 2007 peak, and is down 5 per cent in the past decade. Net of deficit spending, our prosperity is nearly unchanged from 1998, 13 years ago.”

In its effort to counter the significant economic difficulties since 2008, the US government has added, or will have added, around $4 trillion in deficits (financed by new debt) in its three fiscal years 2009, 2010 and 2011. Yet, all this massive government deficit spending has failed to really ignite economic growth. Most likely this is because of the enormous dead weight of unproductive and onerous private sector debt, particularly that of consumer debt. Hence, real US GDP will have increased probably less than $1.5trn during these years. Including some further economic benefit in the years thereafter, a total GDP benefit of only about $2trn is probable.

So, $4trn borrowed for $2trn in GDP gains. Thus, in very rough round numbers, each new one dollar of US government debt might only produce $0.50 in new economic activity and probably only about $0.08 in new federal tax revenue. (Federal tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is around 15 per cent.) Therefore, the economic marginal return for each new dollar of US government debt is possibly around -50 per cent! If you loaned someone $10 million and they gave you back $5m, you would not be happy!

Hence, it might not be long before those holding or buying US government bonds perceive the reality that the US government, and US economy, are losing massively on government borrowings. This will result in much, much higher US government bond yields and interest costs. Most importantly, it may make the rollover of US debt and new debt issuance incredibly difficult unless either US taxes rise stratospherically to cover the deficits, and/or the US Federal Reserve money printing goes into hyper-drive to purchase the debt the markets will not buy. (Of course US banks, pension funds etc., could also be forced to buy them.)

Horn
17th June 2011, 06:53 AM
The current massive & gross Pseudo Public/Private malignancy sectors in the economy simply won't give way to be charted in any reasonably understandable form.

Even if economist were armed with diamond laser cutting tools.

palani
17th June 2011, 07:04 AM
The economy belongs to the government.

Simple exercise ...

1. If you live in a city find the city budget and number of people served and divide to get a cost per person for city govt.
2. Find the county budget and number of people served and divide to get a cost per person for county govt.
3. Find the state budget and number of people served and divide to get a cost per person for state govt.
4. Find the federal budget and number of people served and divide to get a cost per person for federal govt.

Now add the four figures together and (for a family of four) multiply x 4. You will arrive at a figure between $50,000 and $60,000 for total cost of government for a family of four annually. On an average basis I doubt if a family of four makes more than $30,000 meaning that government is subsidizing half of the families in the U.S. (aka welfare).

Book
17th June 2011, 09:21 AM
http://images.politico.com/global/news/100513_tarp_reuters_218.jpg

Kinda ends the old "slow death" or "fast crash" debate.

They are kicking the can down the road until one day soon we wake up to martial law and/or World War Three as they sail away on their private yachts.

mamboni
17th June 2011, 10:10 AM
We'll have to wait and see how the US resolves it debt and insolvency issues. It's now common knowledge that the USA is bankrupt. But the population has not made the mental leap to the implications of this. I expect the debt limit will be raised out of necessity and the nation will muddle through for a few months using some combination of monetization, budgetary austerity and debt defaults. It will buy some time as we inch ever closer to the edge of the fiscal abyss. There will be a day of financial and economic reckoning - it is inescapable. I don't think we can manage our way out of this mess - it's too far gone.

Libertytree
17th June 2011, 10:36 AM
For some reason my gut tells me it's sooner rather than later. I've never felt this anxious about it all, even though I knew we would hit this point at some time it seems to be escalating quickly.

gunDriller
17th June 2011, 01:43 PM
the one econ-stat that i think would be useful is a count of things as opposed to $.

how many gallons of gas, boxes of cereal, boxes of macaroni & cheese - whatever - were shipped or consumed or delivered.

REAL stuff.

not denominated in US $. it's like having a mathematical variable to represent quicksand, or random-ness - it has a meaning that is always changing. and, most of the time, going Dooooooooooooown.