Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
The ECB has the following numbers for the Eurozone on its web site
  • 1) Population growth .6%, so he was probably speaking about the EU, where .3% sounds reasonable
  • 2) M3 growth (June) 9.5%, this is clearly not a credit crunch of which first signs can be seen in the US
  • 3) CA balance -0.68%, so this is reasonable close to balanced trade. While the US still has to do something about its CA deficit. A rapid increase in savings rate could lead to more trouble in the short term in the US.
  • 4) full public gross deficit -2.2%, this is not good, but it is reasonable to assume that the US deficit is quite a bit bigger. Unfortunately it is very difficult to get similar numbers for the US.
  • 5) full public debt 67.1%, again it is difficult to find numbers with similar meaning for the US, but I expect numbers roughly in the same dimension. States seem to have little debt, but the community debt is as well a trillion dollar market, adding to the ~5.4 trillion federal debt.

Points 3+4+5 tell me, that the US doing better so far is not a good hint, they will doing better in the future. There fiscal capabilities to boost economic growth with public debt is soon exhausted. To keep interests low, the US needs financing by the peg countries, which will make a bail out of F&F inevitable, no matter what it costs.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers
by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Tue Aug 26th, 2008 at 04:27:29 PM EST
The US economy will never go down, as they would wag the dog?!
by das monde on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 01:17:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A rapid increase in savings rate could lead to more trouble in the short term in the US.

A rapid increase in savings rate would indicate an increase in some combination of investment, net exports, or net private wealth creation through government deficit spending.

... but how could it cause problems? ... the increase in aggregate saving cannot occur unless the increase in incomes from which to save occurs first.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 01:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To the first: Why?

I mean you are right, that an increase in the savings rate has something to do with net exports and investement, as the saving has to be put somewhere. But savings is the trigger, the thing which people decide to do. Investment isn't too strongly dependent on local savings rates. If you want to borrow money for an investment and nobody in your country saves, you may import the money from another country where people do save.

And given that, there is no reason, why the output should not go down, when people start to save more money. There will be less demand for foreign financing of US investment, but when they buy less domestic products, the producers will produce less. If in the US something similar happens as in Germany from 2003 - 2005 I would call it trouble in the short term.

Of course in the long term that is the right thing to do, still.

To the second, this is clearly wrong.
You can increase your savings rate without higher income, when you stop buying stuff you formely bought regularly. This is what must happen in the US. People there (aggregated, just to mention, that nobody complains he didn't) have lived quite a lot beyong their means. The time of recognizing this is close, either somewhat voluntarily now, or forced in a few years.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:03:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are not two distinct decisions ... one to spend out of income and a second to save out of income. There is only the one decision ... whether or not to spend out of income. The sum total of disposable income not spent is the sum total of income saved.

The fiction of the independent power of "savings" is very useful for justifying policies in favor of the wealthy, but not very useful for actually following what is going on with an economy.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 04:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There are not two distinct decisions ...
Where have I claimed this?
Sure there is only one decision. But no private preson makes the decision to make an CA surplus. Your first and this comment don't frame the issue in the same way. If you had set, people decide to spend less, instead of what I said, people save more, then this would be the same. And pointing excatly to the reason, why in the short term a problem occurs: because suddenly people spend less.

I don't see really the point you want to make.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

by Martin (weiser.mensch(at)googlemail.com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but framing it as "if people should save more ..." supports the neoclassical model in which fundamentals establish the equilibrium level of output and a "saving" decision plays an active role in setting the interest rate.

The next round effect of the decision is the loss of spending, both in terms of a reduction in exogenously financed consumer spending and a reduction in the propensity to consume out of income. So the consequential dimension of the decision is the decision to cut back on spending.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 05:35:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series