ВУЗ:
Составители:
Рубрика:
GDP measures production, not exchange. If economists, policymakers, and news commentators kept this
simple truth in mind, much confusion over the interpretation of economic statistics might be avoided. Many
proposals to cut taxes, for example, are aimed at "stimulating consumer spending", which is expected to cause
an increase in GDP. But consumer spending is a use of GDP, not production. A rise in consumer demand could
simply crowd out investment, not raise GDP.
Unfortunately, the GDP data are usually presented in a format that emphasizes exchange (the use of GDP)
rather than production (the source of GDP). GDP is represented as the sum of consumer spending, housing and
business investment, net exports, and government purchases. Behind this accounting facade lurks the truth:
GDP is generated by individual labor combined with proprietors’ and business capital, raw materials, energy,
and technology in a myriad of different industries. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (the agency within the
Department of Commerce that is responsible for GDP statistics) does show these relationships in the input-
output tables and in the GDP-by-industry data tables (now produced annually). But most economists and the
press focus on the uses of GDP rather than these presentations of GDP as production.
For better or worse, the different formats do influence how people think about the sources of economic
growth. Which, for example, is more of a driving force in the economy – retail sales or growth in the labor
force? Are inventory levels a key factor at turning points in the business cycle, or is prospective return on in-
vestment the key? Does higher government spending increase GDP, or do lower marginal tax rates? Are higher
net exports a positive or a negative factor? In answering these questions, Keynesians usually emphasize the first
choice while supply-siders place more weight on the second.
In the short run, in business cycles the Keynesian emphasis on demand is relevant and alluring. But heavy-
handed reliance on "demand management" policies can distort market prices, generate major inefficiencies, and
destroy production incentives. India since its independence and Peru in the eighties are classic examples of the
destruction that demand management can cause. Other less developed countries like South Korea, Mexico, and
Argentina have shifted from an emphasis on government spending and demand management to freeing up mar-
kets, privatizing assets, and generally enhancing incentives to work and invest. Rapid growth of GDP has re-
sulted.
In the United States the debate over the sources of economic growth can be informed by GDP statistics.
Take three examples over the past decade. First, there has been a lot of handwringing over the supposed decline
in U.S. manufacturing. Based on declining employment in manufacturing, many commentators asserted
throughout the eighties that the United States was "deindustrializing". It certainly is true that employment in
manufacturing fell from a peak of 21 million workers in 1979 to 19 million by 1990. But the GDP data show
that the production of goods in the United States was rising rapidly after the 1982 recession and, by 1989, hit a
ten-year high as a share of total GDP. The decline in manufacturing employment was more than offset by surg-
ing productivity. The rebuilding of U.S. manufacturing in the eighties occurred at the same time that many poli-
ticians and some economists were convinced we had given up our competitive position in world markets. A
cursory glance at the GDP production data would have revealed the error.
Second, many people have viewed the rise in imports in the eighties with similar alarm. I believe that fear
is groundless and is based on accounting rather than economics. With all other components of GDP held con-
stant, a one-dollar increase in imports necessarily means a one-dollar drop in GDP. But – and this is something
that simple accounting cannot tell us but that economics does – all other things are not equal. Rapid growth in
GDP is generally associated with a large rise in imports. The reason is that high demand for foreign products
coupled with high rates of return on domestic investment tends to pull foreign investment into a country and
increase imports. The eighties were no exception: imports and the trade deficit surged concurrently with fast
growth in GDP. Despite the lack of historical support for the proposition that imports reduce GDP, and despite
strong opposition from economists stretching back to Adam Smith, protectionist trade policies were advocated
and to some degree implemented in the eighties to "solve" the "problem". A closer look at the correlations be-
tween GDP and imports might have dispelled some of the mercantilist myths that protectionists raised.
Third, there is the controversy over the cause of the federal budget deficit. In the eighties, when the budget
deficit ballooned to over $200 billion, a prolonged debate ensued over whether the rise in the deficit was caused
by spending growth or tax cuts. One way to cut through the haze of numbers and get at the simple truth is to
look at total federal receipts and outlays as shares of GDP. Federal tax receipts as a share of GDP did dip from
a high of 21 per cent in 1981 to 19 per cent in the mideighties, but they have since climbed back to about 20 per
cent. With current tax receipts now high as a share of GDP, it is clear that major tax "cuts" have not occurred
and that higher government spending is largely responsible for the budget deficit.
So-called real GDP is real only in the economist's sense that it is adjusted for inflation. The government
computes real GDP for, say, 1991 by valuing production in 1991 at the relative prices that existed in a "base
Страницы
- « первая
- ‹ предыдущая
- …
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- …
- следующая ›
- последняя »
