August 28, 2006
$55 TRILLION PAUPERHOOD:
Net Worth--and the Dollar--Rise Again (Michael Mandel, 6/12/06, Business Week)
The amount of (pessimistic) nonsense that is written about the U.S. economy is truly extraordinary. The usual rap is that the U.S. is borrowing its way into oblivion--and eventually we are going to get our come-uppance when the dollar plunges and no one wants to lend to us anymore.But oblivion is looking pretty good these days. Despite all the pessimism and all the borrowing, the country's net worth continues to rise, according to the latest figures from the Federal Reserve!
[...]Let's look at a chart first. I calculate a concept that I call "real adjusted net worth per capita". That's equal to household net worth, minus government net debt, adjusted for inflation, and divided by the size of the population.
Here's what the chart looks like.
Real adjusted net worth per capita rose to $142,000 in the first quarter of 2006 (in 2000 dollars). That's up 6% over a year earlier, and higher than the previous peak.
You can see from the chart that there is a long-term upward trend, distorted by the late 1990s boom. So even with all of our borrowing, our net worth has been increasing.
U.S.: Why The Slowdown Won't Become A Slump: Household finances are strong and should continue to shore up demand (James C. Cooper, 6/26/06, Business Week)
Take a look at the Federal Reserve's latest data on the balance sheets of households and corporations. Over the past year household net worth, which is the net of all assets minus liabilities, increased by $4.9 trillion, to a record $53.8 trillion. The boost reflected more than just higher home prices, with gains in financial assets -- from bank deposits to stocks and bonds -- contributing the lion's share. Those increases are partly why household spending has been so resilient over the past year in the face of surging gasoline prices and rising interest rates.
Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity (STEVEN GREENHOUSE and DAVID LEONHARDT, 8/28/06, NY Times)
With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers. [...][H]ealth care is far more expensive than it was a decade ago, causing companies to spend more on benefits at the expense of wages. [...]
[P]olls show that Americans are less dissatisfied with the economy than they were in the early 1980’s or early 90’s. Rising house and stock values have lifted the net worth of many families over the last few years, and interest rates remain fairly low. [...]
Total employee compensation — wages plus benefits — has fared a little better. Its share was briefly lower than its current level of 56.1 percent in the mid-1990’s and otherwise has not been so low since 1966. [...]
Average family income, adjusted for inflation, has continued to advance at a good clip, a fact Mr. Bush has cited when speaking about the economy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0830/p02s02-usec.html>At last, buoyant economy lifts incomes: After dropping for five years, median income of US households rises 1.1 percent, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday. (Alexandra Marks, 8/30/06, The Christian Science Monitor)
The nation's real median income was up 1.1 percent from 2004 to 2005, reaching more than $46,000, the US Census Bureau reported Tuesday. That's about $500 more than last year.At the same time, the poverty rate has stabilized, after ticking upward for several years.
America: More Like Sweden Than You Thought (Tim Worstall, 28 Aug 2006, Tech Central Station)
One of the joys of my working life is that I get to read papers like "The State of Working America" from the Economic Policy Institute. [...]To start with, they make some adjustments to the usual measures of the income of a nation, the GDP, by adjusting for different price levels. This gives us the so called Purchasing Power Parity numbers (PPP) and the USA is set as being 100 on the scale. Only one of the advanced industrial nations has a greater income per capita, Norway, at 105. Given that Norway gets some 20% of its GDP from pumping oil and gas out from beneath the North Sea and is, thus, almost a petro-state, it would be fair to say that the USA is, in fact, the large country with the highest income per head in the world without depleting its natural capital. Good, so far something we knew already.
We're also told on page 6 that if we look at the average of the countries studied without the USA and compare that to the USA's performance, that income growth rates are higher in the USA. 1.8% to 1.9% in 1989-2000, and 1.1% to 1.3% in 2000-2004. So not only richer but getting even richer faster, as well.
Furthermore:
"The U.S. average from 2000 to 2005 was 1.7%, well above the OECD average of 0.7% in real compensation growth. Four countries fared better than the United States, most notably Norway with 2.3% growth. Note also that Germany had negative real compensation growth from 2000-05."
Things are actually looking pretty good for the US economy, then -- wealthier to start with, getting richer faster and productivity growth is also highest in the USA, meaning that this trend is only likely to continue. Looking at all of that it's really rather difficult to see that there's anything wrong with the way things are being managed (or not). [...]
In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden). Which is really a rather revealing number don't you think? All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing.
No matter how hard they try, the Times and Democrats aren't going to convince many folks they have it rough these days.
MORE:
Bubbling Crude? (Robert J. Samuelson, July 26, 2006, Newsweek)
Despite all the griping, gasoline is still affordable. Even at $3 a gallon, it costs Americans only about 4 percent of their disposable income, reports economist Nigel Gault of Global Insight. The same is true globally. At $70 a barrel, global crude sales would total about $2.2 trillion annually; that's still a tiny share of the $50 trillion world economy.
Setting aside how insignificant energy costs remain even before the bubble bursts, it's pretty amusing that the entire world economy doesn't generate as much wealth in a year as we have socked away.
Meanwhile, this is nearly dispositive, Catering to Ignorance (Russell Roberts, 8/28/06, Cafe Hayek)
Posted by Orrin Judd at August 28, 2006 1:11 PMYet, the rest of the world thinks we're the ones out of step. Go figure?
Posted by: erp at August 28, 2006 2:11 PMTo the rest of the world -- and many in this country -- the U.S. can't be a world economic leader when the party currently in power has control over the economy. So they ignore the question of what percentage of GDP the current debt is or where the safe financial haven is for all those foreign comanies buying up U.S. debt if they don't invest it here.
Posted by: John at August 28, 2006 2:22 PM"In the USA the poor get 39% of the US median income and in Finland (and Sweden) the poor get 38% of the US median income. It's not worth quibbling over 1% so let's take it as read that the poor in America have exactly the same standard of living as the poor in Finland (and Sweden.. All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing"
Wrong. The poor work less in Sweden and Finland than the poor here, thus the poor would still be receptive to the Democratic message of Socialism.
Posted by: h-man at August 28, 2006 3:21 PMIt's important to not overlook the economy's strength, but there are two important caveats.
1) Don't forget that similar rosy scenarios exist before every panic/crash/recession. Good news now does not mean tomorrow may be bad.
2) Let's not forget worrisome facts. People have too much consumer debt. Speculation has overpriced some assets. Families need two income earners. Predatory lending is on the rise. All of these undermine future growth.
Our goal should be to use the good time now to correct those things that are bad. But it looks like we're heading in the opposite direction.
We should never confuse paper profits with real assets.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at August 28, 2006 4:11 PMChris,
The MSM is sounding the Doom-And-Gloom message in sufficient tones for me, and everyone else, to avoid thinking everything is rosy.
Just wish that same MSM would have sounded the Cassandra trumpets around, say, 1999.
Posted by: Brad S at August 28, 2006 4:16 PMChjris:
That's quite wrong. Our consumer debt is trivial and merely a function of our exorbitant savings rates.
Posted by: oj at August 28, 2006 4:25 PMYep, gasoline prices dropped to $2.59 a gallon at the local convenience store. I feel wealthier already.
JP
Posted by: jefferson park at August 28, 2006 4:59 PMI saw $2.86 today in greater Chicagoland, that's what we paid in PA last month. That's the 3rd station I saw under $3 in the past week-10 days.
We're paying at least $3.09 - $3.45, but that's coming down now.
Ernesto fizzled.
Cheap fuel under $3 and they will feel richer.
Posted by: Sandy P at August 28, 2006 5:05 PMErnesto is fizzling directly over us as it moves northeast across Florida. When Charlie crossed our path similarly, we lost two enormous oak trees ($6,000 to take them down) and part of the front of our house ($$$ galore). The power was off for two weeks and the clean up took a couple more weeks.
We received $0.00 from our insurance company and the exact same amount from FEMA. Now that government agencies have become sensitized to the plight of hurricane victims, I wonder if we'll do better this time? Stay tuned for updates.
erp, Don't hold your breath. The government doesn't help those who help themselves. $2.67 in Sangamon County this afternoon.
Posted by: jdkelly at August 28, 2006 7:39 PMSeveral things about your analysis stick out. You've not factored in private and commercial overseas debt, or discounted US assets in foreign ownership.
Consider also that 7/8ths of US$s are in foreign hands and that oil may well be traded in euros in significant quantities in the near medium term.
There are several possible triggers for the collapse of the US$ and the longer the govt runs massive deficits those triggers are more likely to happen. Housing is but one possible of those triggers. If the $ collapses we are all in the poo.
To say the economy is on a knife edge is an understatement.
Posted by: justaguy at August 29, 2006 1:45 AMReal adjusted net worth per capita rose to $142,000 in the first quarter of 2006 (in 2000 dollars). That's up 6% over a year earlier, and higher than the previous peak.
Since the author of this is plainly illiterate, I wonder who takes his dictation? It should be plain that responding to a critique of distribution with an average is fundamentally worthless.
Posted by: jpe at August 29, 2006 8:26 AM