The Weiner Component #94 – Consumption Equals Production

Comparison of real GDP using BEA Deflator vs r...

Comparison of real GDP using BEA Deflator vs real GDP using Money Supply (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Much has been stated and written during the 20th Century about the production of goods, about how production brings about the consumption of a particular product, there are theories about how a finished good will find its own market.

How valid are these beliefs? If the product or products are highly desired as those produced by a company like Apple then the theory would seem to be valid. Apple, while not a monopoly, produces unique items. But if the product is an automobile like a Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen, or Honda then the theory is limited. First off there are a number of national and international companies competing for the sale of their product. Automobiles are expensive items. Only a certain number is needed on the market or can be afforded; and these can be new or used. If a seemingly endless amount are produced by the assorted companies then at some point the price will decrease and will continue to do so until the cost of producing the vehicle could be greater than the price for which it can be sold. What we have here is a question of demand and supply, not a theory of production; and even that is an anomaly because supply is engendered by demand.

The term supply and demand is actually the opposite of what it should be: Demand determines Supply. An entrepreneur will produce and market virtually any product from which he can make a profit. He is, after all, in the business of making money; profit is his major goal as an entrepreneur.

It would seem that the ability to purchase, having the funds to pay for goods and services, determines the extent of the production of wealth. After all free access of money determines the production of all goods and services.

In the period leading up to the Housing Bubble of 2008 a goodly percentage of homeowners used their homes as bank accounts, freely remortgaging again and again, in order to acquire whatever they wanted. There was essentially full employment and everyone was doing well, that is both consumers and producers. When the bubble exploded, because of the abuse of the banks, and housing values collapsed like lead weights many consumers were suddenly left underwater, owing more on their homes than they were worth. Consumption of both goods and services came to screeching halt and the economy tanked. There was suddenly massive unemployment. Generally outside of absolute necessities the public could not afford to consume and we were headed for a massive depression which the federal government was able to forestall by massive loans to some industries.

What happened here was that consumption of goods and services stopped when the money supply dried-up. It was the massive sudden termination of consumption that brought about the extent of the crash. Limited consumption had engendered what was largely the end of a production boom and unemployment suddenly became massive.

What suddenly happened in the economy was that consumption determined production. The ability of people to freely spend money had suddenly ended and unemployment almost instantly rose to phenomenal heights. The same people who could no longer spend were those who mainly suffered from the lack of spending. An interesting note of irony!

Money, currency was and is a tool issued by the government of the nation. It has no intrinsic value and can be freely issued by the central government. All that is required for an additional release of this paper is for the government to print it and issue it.

The problem is that if too much of this paper is released into the general society, if the people have more currency than the amount of goods and services that can be produced then the cost of the materials that can be produced within the society will be bid up and mad inflation can be the result. If, on the other hand there is too little money in circulation the public will be limited in what they can buy and a recession and large-scale unemployment will result. The government, in issuing currency has to keep a constant balance between these two positions.

The basic problem or problems here is that the government has to keep a balance and distribute this money, the national income, on the widest possible level throughout the society for maximum demand.

The principle here is that Demand Equals Production. And for maximum demand to occur the money, the national income, must be distributed throughout the entire society.

Unfortunately what is currently happening is the opposite of what should be occurring. Since 2009 a greater and greater share of the national income is and has been moving up to the upper twenty percent of the society. They are currently earning far more than they can possibly spend and their surplus funds in the millions are being stored while the bottom twenty percent is getting less and less of the national income, and the middle class is, in most cases, just barely maintaining itself or just about shrinking in size. There has been a redistribution of income continually going on.

In order for the economy to grow and for everyone to reach a level of prosperity the federal government has to take control of the national income and widen its distribution to include the entire economy. One way this can be done is through tax and entitlement policies. Another way would be by fiscal policies, Congress passing legislation to upgrade the infrastructure of the United States and bring it into the 21st Century. Of course a combination of the two would be even more effective.

The 2014 Midterm Election will give the country an opportunity to decide in what direction it wants to go for the next two years: with the Republicans toward continued gridlock or with the Democrats attempting to move toward fiscal policy, possible tax reform, and toward full employment.

The Republican conservatives who represent the well-to-do CEOs and successful entrepreneurs are generally representing congressional gridlock. They don’t want any changes in the economic system. But if they were to look closely at the system they would discover that their economic base is slowly shrinking. As more and more people are slowly being forced from the middle class to the lower class their ability to consume goods and services is slowly also shrinking. As the percentage of the poor goes from 20% to 22% to 25% to 30% their shrinking incomes will be able to buy less of the goods and services this society is capable of producing and the GDP will decrease at a greater rate than these people’s incomes. The profits possible will also shrink and so will the incomes of the upper 20%.

In essence these people are contributing millions of dollars in political elections to support an economic system that in the long run will significantly reduce their profits and shrink the GDP.

If they were to reverse their positions and support the Democratic positions of fiscal spending and reform of the tax system then they would be engendering a phenomenal growth in the GDP which, in turn, would massively increase their profits and incomes. By fairly paying taxes and encouraging the Federal Government to bring the infrastructure up to standards in the 21st Century the upper 20th percent could multitudinously increase their profits and income far beyond what they would be paying in increased taxes.

It’s a wonderful piece of irony, having the upper echelon of our society fighting tooth-and-nail against their own long-term economic interests.

English: Changes in US Money supply based on F...

English: Changes in US Money supply based on Federal Reserve historical data. Source code is in File:Components of US Money supply.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)






The Weiner Component #54 – The History & Use of Money

Money cash

Over most of human history money, gold coins, have been an object of value that have been exchanged for either goods or services of equal value.  This changed in 1933 when money became essentially a paper note with symbolic intrinsic value, which was still used for the exchange of goods and services.  Finally in 1969 the last vestige of theoretical gold was removed from paper money and all coins became copper sandwiches where before they had contained silver.  Since that time there has been nothing behind the dollar except the word of the United States Government.

Economics exists on two levels: one, which affects everybody, is Microeconomics, and the other, which effects only the Federal Government, is Macroeconomics.  Microeconomics deals with individuals and family incomes and budgets; with any entity that lives on a fixed specific income, be it taxes, rents, dividends, or earnings.  Macroeconomics deals with the government adjusting and fine-tuning the entire economy of the nation.  It has to do with adjusting the money supply, interest rates, and the functioning of the nation.

Money, the amount of money one has or earns, determines where that individual fits in the general society.  If one has an adequate amount with which to live then it is not overly important; but if one never has quite enough, then its lack supplies an endless pressure on an individual and his family’s life.  Unfortunately the majority of the population does not ever have quite enough.

What is the problem with having enough money?  Better yet, what is money?  What is it really worth?  Why is money unequally distributed among the population?

Historically, during ancient times, precious metals like gold and silver were exchanged for goods.  This was done in addition to barter.  The metal would be weighed and the weight would determine the value.  Probably the Phoenicians, who traded along the Mediterranean Sea, began this practice well over two thousand years ago.  They traded value for value.

At some point in history, again probably by the Phoenicians, money was invented.  A set amount of gold or silver was stamped with some image, usually a ruler of some dominion.  The coins were uniform, always having the same weight, thus being of a constant value.  This eliminated using scales for the exchange of goods and services.  It made doing business easier.  The basic concept remained the same, trading something of value for a metal of equal value.

The invention of coins, as less valuable metals were gradually used, allowed over time for an end of barter and an extension of the exchange of goods and services for money, which could be traded at any times for other goods and services in virtually any region or state.

How long did it take for this system to become established throughout the ancient world?  Probably it took at least hundreds of years for it to become common practice.

What developed was a system of exchanging goods and or services for an equal value in metals (coins, money).  Once this was established business could occur anywhere.

Probably from its inception or shortly thereafter there were never enough coins to handle the amount of business possible.  This kept the value of the metal high and allowed for slow economic growth.

The Roman Emperor, Nero, from what we know, was the first or at least one of the first rulers to “water the money;” that is, to add a less expensive metal to the molten gold from which the coins were cast.  The process increased the amount of money the state could spend but I also resulted in a continuous inflation during his reign by lowering the value of the coins.

With the exception of the 16th Century, when Spain looted the New World and brought seemingly endless shiploads of gold to Europe that were immediately turned in currency (gold coins). This brought about a period of inflation that lasted about ninety years.  During this period wages stayed the same but the value of the money continually decreased.  It was a time of rapacious inflation

Outside of this period there has always been a shortage of gold in relationship to the amount of trade (business) that could be done.  Also By the 16th Century Letters of Credit were developed in Europe by banking houses, which made the transfer of money in large amounts fairly simple.  In fact, the Hanseatic League and the Renaissance banking houses created a form of checking.  In essence modern capitalism began here.

In order to stretch the needed money supply and increase their profits banking houses issued paper money that, presumably, could be turned into gold (coins) at any time.  Of course, if any negative rumor occurred, and all the depositors brought their paper money in to exchange it for gold there would be a run on the bank.  The bank would run out of gold, the balance of the paper would become worthless, and the bank would become bankrupt.  These periods brought about the business cycle, periods of prosperity and depression within the respective nations.  Modern capitalism thus came into existence.

The Great Depressions of 1929 and 2008 were results of this type of action.  The great banking houses of the United States brought them both about.  Prior to 1929 the banks lent endless amounts of money to people with which to buy stock.  The margin rate was 10%.  For every dime the citizen invested he could buy one dollar’s worth of stock.  This drove the price of stocks through the ceilings, creating multi-billions of dollars.  With the competition to get rich quickly stock prices continually rose until they reached a point in 1929 when this whole house of cards collapsed and the investors and the banks went bankrupt within a relatively short period of time.  The nation teetered on the point of economic collapse until 1933 when Roosevelt became president.  He was able to bring about partial recovery until 1939 when World War II broke out.  The war ended the Great Depression in 1939 in the United States since there were endless orders for war supplies and food production coming into the U.S.

What Roosevelt did in1933 was to double the money supply by collecting all gold coins and issuing paper in their place.  He also doubled the value of gold from $16 an ounce to $32 dollars an ounce, thereby doubling the money supply and giving the government the ability to spend billions in economic recovery.

But, if we go by the value of the Stock Market, it was not enough.  The value of the Stock Market went from 86 billion dollars to 16 billion dollars.  Roosevelt needed to increase the value of gold to 64 dollars an ounce to match the amount of money that existed in circulation before the 1929 Crash.  This he could not do.

With the Real Estate Debacle, which occurred late in 2008 the situation was similar.  The banks over a thirty-some year period had discovered that they could bundle mortgages into massive packages and sell them as hedge funds, supposedly as safe interest paying investments to innumerable investors.  What the banks did was to issue the mortgages, sell them off in bundles, get their original investments back, and then process the funds for fees on several levels.  In essence they controlled the mortgages without having any money invested in them.  This was continued until the banks were issuing loans based upon 125% of the appraised value of the real estate.  This process continued over three decades until the bubble burst and property values dropped like lead weights from tall buildings, leaving many of the homeowners underwater, owing more on the property than it was suddenly worth.  Both Presidents Bush and Obama pumped money into the banks, bailing them out before the entire financial structure of the United States collapsed.

In both the above cases the banks were motivated by intense greed, endless profits, exploiting the system to become super-rich.  In 2008 the bankers were earning in the multi-millions as their compensation packages, and those below them were not far behind them earning lesser million in fees.  The real estate industry was going berserk with the multitude of fees they were earning.  Many homeowners were happily using their real estate as bank accounts and industry was prospering.  It was a happy “twilight state” that lasted until the bubble burst and the economy tanked.  Then if not for the steps taken by the Obama Administration, the entire nation would have collapsed.

The major historic problem still exists, even though the government prints and issues money as needed, there is not enough money in circulation to allow for all the exchange of goods and services needed within the society.  Can this problem be rectified?  The answer is easily by the Federal Government using both fiscal and monetary Policy.

The major problem here as far as the overall population is concerned is that most people still think of money in terms of gold.  With Macroeconomics it is a tool that the government uses to enhance productivity.  In itself money has no real value except that assigned to it by the government as a token of exchange.  The Federal Government can issue as much as it feels is needed.  The only limitation on this is inflation.  If there is too much money in circulation, more money that goods and services needed then we could have a rabid inflation.  This and this only would limit the amount of currency that the government can circulate.  Money is not gold and should not be treated as such.  This behavior can limit productivity and bring about a continuing recession as it has since the end of 2008.

Unfortunately the Tea Party Republican controlled House of Representatives has not only not used fiscal policy but has also seriously restrained Federal spending, exacerbating the problem of unemployment.  We are still in a recession with a seven plus percent level of unemployment.  This could easily be rectified if the Federal Government could take proper action.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #53 – My Book: Economics in the 21st Century

Forex Money for Exchange in Currency Bank

If you have enjoyed and/or found my articles useful there is a book that I have written that deals with all these subjects in much greater detail and depth.  It’s called Economics in the 21st Century.  The work was published in 2012 in Kindle and can be downloaded on either a Kindle or any computer for a small fee.  You go to, scroll to Kindle and follow the instructions for locating and downloading the book.

The work begins by examining the Real Estate Fiasco of 2008, its origins in the 1970s, its successful growth and insane collapse toward the end of 2008, thirty-eight years later.  It provides an analysis of what brought about the 2008 economic boom and crash, the results and scenarios for change.

The book looks at popular but misguided economic (values) beliefs and common misperceptions that arise from them.  It shows how Microeconomics – the so-called common sense economics – that deals with business functionality, local and state taxes, and household budgets is now perversely interpreted and used as the basis for entire societies to operate; that is the governments of the United States and Europe.  It explores how Macroeconomics, the way that nations should operate, has been overlooked and usually ignored.  The fact that governments largely control their money supply (the amount of money in circulation) because they can print currency as needed.  This look at economics from an historical perspective provides a broader and deeper comprehension of today’s crisis and gives possible scenarios for the future of this century.

The study examines the current economic ongoing recession in the United States, minutely investigates the 2008 Real Estate Debacle from its beginnings, tracing it from the 1970s to the present.  The work concludes that the monetary increases over the years were necessary for a growing economy but utilized faulty means for the needed monetary increases.

The book’s underlying premise is that the prosperity of the nation is based upon the amount of money in circulation and its distribution among the general population.  The bundling and sale of mortgages from the 1970s on massively increased the amount of currency in circulation without causing any real inflation.  The Real Estate Debacle at the end of 2008 significantly reduced that amount.  People had been using their homes as bank accounts, many constantly refinancing them.  With the sudden decrease in property values the country fell into a recession that could have easily become a depression far worse than 1929.  We should note that the bottom twenty percent of the population did not share in this prosperity.  They were renters and had no houses to use as bank accounts.

In 2008, when Barak Obama was elected President of the United States, he got in on a campaign that stressed “Change.”  But the economy had been so damaged by prior Administrations that most of the first two years were spent in recovery and in passing the Affordable Health Care Bill.  In the 2010 Midterm Election the Republicans were able to take control of a number of states.  Because it was a census year they gerrymandered those states in their favor.  Having also taken control of the House of Representatives they were able to maintain that control for two more years, even though the popular vote favored the Democrats by 1.4 million votes.  From 2011 on they passed no legislation that would favor any additional employment.  Actually they further exacerbated the problem of unemployment in the nation by shrinking necessary government employment and further limiting the money supply in circulation.  What has kept this country economically afloat has been the creative Monetary Policy of the Federal Reserve, adding 85 billion dollars to the economy every single month.  This has countered the restrictive actions of Congress but has not been enough to bring about full recovery.  We still have slightly over seven percent unemployment.

Historically the work examines other economic crises and their causes, particularly the Great Depression of 1929.  It shows how the National Cash Flow, the amount of money in circulation in the nation determines the level of prosperity or hardship in the country.  International trade and money are handled from totally different viewpoints than those traditionally taught and/or widely believed.  The reality of the National Debt is questioned and explored in terms of private and public debt.  Public Debt is held directly by the Federal Government and its agencies.  Private Debt is that held by outside entities such as individuals, companies, foreign nations such as China and Japan.

Can the Federal Government, which owns fifty percent or more of its own debt, owe itself?  The contradictions in our economic system are examined.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #12 – Money Makes The World Go Round


In the Broadway musical “Cabaret” there is a song that the Master of Ceremonies sings called, “Money Makes The World Go Round.”  The musical number emphasizes the importance of money in pre-Nazi Germany.  Did it really?  Is this concept true?

When World War Two broke out in 1939 the European nations at first paid for their purchases from the United States in paper currency, then in gold bullion.  After the Allied nations had run out of money the Roosevelt Administration came up with the idea of “Lend Lease,” which actually was a way of freely supplying these nations with war materials.  Where did the U.S. get the money to pay for these goods and services?  They printed it.  The effect was to get the country out of the last dregs of the Great Depression and help stop the Nazi advance.  After December 1941 the U.S. became directly involved in W.W.II and “Lend Lease” continued.  We became the “Arsenal of Democracy,” supplying the needs of all the nations fighting Germany, Japan, and Italy.  How did the U.S. pay for this?  Simple.  They printed the money.

Did the European and Asian nations we helped ever pay us back for the value of the goods they had gotten from us in the war?  The answer, of course, is not in money but in helping to defeat the Axis Powers.

What was the result of W.W.II?  The U.S. and all the nations involved emerged after the war as more prosperous than they had been before the fighting.

Could the war have been avoided?  The answer is, yes; if the nations involved had been able to accept the reality of the money supply.

From 1933 on, first the United States and then gradually the rest of the industrial nations took gold out of their money while maintaining the fiction that there was a gold supply behind the dollar, pound, lira, or whatever.  In 1933, the Roosevelt Administration collected all the gold coins from its citizens.  This had been the money supply up to that point; they melted it down into large blocks and buried it in places like Fort Knox.  Gold certificates were issued which, supposedly, maintained the value of the money.  This was a fiction.  There was no way anyone could get gold for his money.  We were, on a practical basis, off the gold standard.  The United States doubled its money supply by raising the value of gold from $16 dollars an ounce to $32 an ounce.  Among other things this paid for Roosevelt’s New Deal.  It helped lessen the ordeals of the Great Depression but did not end its effects in the U.S. where the money supply had dropped to less than one fifth of where it had been before the crash.  The effects of W.W.II brought the money supply well beyond where it had ever been before the Great Depression.  There had never been enough gold available to maintain that level of the money supply.  The Federal Government was then on a paper economy, with the paper being freely issued.

After W.W.II the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the GI Bill, sending a whole generation of veterans either to college or funding them in new business areas.  A few years later the Secretary of State came out with the European Recovery Act, The Marshall Plan, which helped war torn nations recover from the effects of W.W.II.  We spent 71/2 billion dollars on that.  It was a checkbook to these nations that allowed them to spend the money mostly in the United States buying the goods and materials they needed to recover from the war.  Where did all this money come from?  Obviously the government printed and issued it.

President Ronald Reagan, who believed that the Soviet Union was better armed than the United States and started a massive arms build-up in the U.S., which included, among many other things, his “Star Wars” program, where we would be able to shoot and explode oncoming missiles from outer space, raised the debt ceiling eleven times during his two administrations.  He even threatened to veto every bill coming out of Congress if they did not pass bills raising the debt limits.  Of course we can always congratulate Reagan on his adeptness in bankrupting the Soviet Union when they tried to keep up with us in the armaments race.

Again, where did all this money come from?  It simply came into existence when Congress passed its continual new debt ceilings, which were then signed by the president into law.

How did we pay for all these jumps in funding?  The economies grew and they just became part of the natural flow of money through the economy, the jumps in money were absorbed by the economic growth and rising standards of living within the society.  In essence we grew out of our debt and it became non-noticeable.

Toward the end of 2008 there was an economic implosion of the money supply in most of the industrial nations.  This began in the United States with the Real Estate Crash that threatened to totally decimate the money supply within the nation.  Virtually all the major banks were on the point of collapse.  If they had been allowed to crash then the money supply within the country would have been reduced to a slow dribble.  There would have been a resulting depression that would have made the one in 1929 look like a weekend disruption.  Unemployment would have probably dropped to at least fifty percent; every industry would have been affected; the amount of business failures would have been unimaginable.  The entire economy would have come to a halt.

Presidents Bush and later President Obama poured multibillions of dollars into the banks and the economy.  The depression was averted; the rapid falling rate of unemployment was gradually reversed and slowly rose from that point on.  It has remained high but is still slowly contracting.  Will the country eventually be able to create enough jobs to satisfy everyone who wants to work?  An interesting question!  Only the future will determine an answer to that question.

If we go back to the title of this article we can ask, does money make the world go round?  And obviously since it is the means of exchange the answer is, yes.

What does this mean?  In order to live in our sophisticated societies we must have a mean of exchange for the goods and services we need and desire.  And that is money.  It is in the form of a different currency for each individual nation.  It is printed on paper and has no real intrinsic value except that attributed to it by the government of each particular nation and what it can be traded for in other nations.

Gold and silver coins could be used as an international means of exchange; but they are both too expensive and there certainly are not enough of either metal to supply the exchange needs of all the nations on this planet.  Consequently every nation is stuck with paper currency, which has no real value except that assigned to it.

Money then is the tool that allows for all exchanges of goods and services.  It is issued in each nation by the government of that particular country.  The amount in immediate circulation is determined by various forces within each society, which in most cases do not really work together.  These are the central government, the financial institutions, people, companies, and institutions using credit.  In the United States it was the banks issuing credit based upon real estate until 2008 that allowed for a phenomenal expansion of the national money supply.

The point here is that it was “bank created valueless money” that allowed for industrial expansion in that nation for over thirty years.  Money is “the tail that waves the dog.”  The overall public sees it as being the true object of value.  Wealth, in reality is the goods and services produced; money allows them to be exchanged from producers to consumers.

In essence money does make the world go round.  Its shortage in a society causes recession, unemployment, and hard times for the bulk of the population.  The market for goods and services disappears because people cannot afford to buy what they need and want.  An excess of it in circulation brings about rapid inflation because not enough goods and services can be produced to equal the money supply.  Again intense human hardship will occur as prices soar and currency rapidly decreases in value.

What is the answer to these problems?  There has to be a more realistic distribution of the money supply and the government has to have much more control of the amount of money, at any one time, in circulation.

Another important factor to consider is that the amount of goods and services produced is dependent upon them being consumed, used.  Consumption of goods and services are as important as the production of those items.  In order to have and maintain full employment and full production people must have enough money to buy and consume those goods and services produced.

This can be engendered in either of two ways.

(1) An inordinately fair system of taxation that allows for a fair distribution of the national income without any privileged groups within the society.

(2) By developing both a negative income tax and an honest graduated income tax the Federal Government would set a minimum level of income for every man, woman, and child within the country.  If the person or family unit did not earn that amount then it would be supplied by the Federal Government.  Income taxes would begin at a reasonable level above that amount for everyone on a graduated level with the percentage of the tax rising as individual incomes rise.

This process would most fairly distribute the national income and allow for the highest level of productivity and consumption.  It would also benefit every segment of society by enlarging the Gross Domestic Product to its possible maximum for each fiscal year.  The upper one percent would earn, even with this system of taxation, greater profits than they are currently since the GDP would be considerably larger.  There would be no poverty or homelessness in the nation.  Everyone would have a better attitude toward themselves and everyone else.  The National Debt would shrink and eventually disappear.  Priorities could be aimed toward scientific research and clean energy.  Everyone would be secure and be able to make real choices for themselves.  That would be both real freedom and a decent minimum standard of living for everyone in the nation..

And best of all the Federal Government would control the money supply, which makes the world go round.  It could keep it going at a successful rate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #1- Economics in the 21st Century

English: money Português: dinero Deutsch: Geldberg

Imagine a gigantic pot filled with money, sixteen to seventeen trillion dollars. This is the Gross National Product (GNP); the value of all the goods and services produced in the United States during one twelve month period (a fiscal year).

It is a finite amount that allows all the people in the country to function, to supply themselves with their basic needs and beyond. No matter how large or inconceivable the amount is it is still limited and must be utilized by all the people of the nation.

There are, according to the census of 2010, 308.7 million people in the United States. By the end of 2011 the Census Bureau estimated the count to be about 320 million; and if we add an additional 11 million for 2012 to this number, that brings the total population of the United States to approximately 331 million. If we divide the population into the GDP for 2012 the number we arrive at is about forty-eight thousand dollars per person, which would make the average for a family of four a little under two hundred thousand dollars a year, if we were dealing with per capita income.

This, of course, does not occur; the money distribution is far more unequal. People are paid according to their occupation. The CEO of a large successful corporation like British Petroleum or the Ford Automobile Company would be making well over a million dollars a month while someone with a minimum wage job would be bringing home $7.25 cents an hour, $58 a day, $290 a week, $1,160 a month, and $13,920 a year. That is before any taxes are taken out of his earnings.

The point, here, is that the GDP is fixed; no matter how large it is the amount is set, finite. If more money is taken out by the upper percentage of the population there is less available for the middle and lower segments of society. The result is as the base shrinks those people can afford less and less. In the long run this also hurts the upper echelon of society because it shrinks the potential of the money in circulation. They, in turn, will earn less than they could if there were a wider and fairer distribution of the national income. The upper percentage of the nation, both individual and corporations in their greed to lower their taxes and lessen or eradicate government control over their practices are actually working against themselves, and, in the case of the large corporations, against the welfare of their stockholders.

A fairer distribution of the wealth produced in the

U.S would jump the GDP to a much higher level and insure greater profits for the corporations and the upper percentage of the population as well as a much greater prosperity and productivity for the people of the nation.

Enhanced by Zemanta