ECONOMIC GROWTH, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION, & BALANCE [View All]

[unlawflcombatnt]

ECONOMIC GROWTH, WEALTH DISTRIBUTION, & BALANCE

The benefits of hard work are often stressed in our society. Most agree that hard work and productivity should be rewarded. Those that are more successful usually receive larger rewards than those who are less successful. Successful businesses rightfully expect to be compensated for their success.

At some point, however, these rewards may become excessive, as well as counterproductive. If businesses are rewarded excessively, at the expense of labor & consumers, it will decrease their own ability to sell their products. If workers aren't compensated well enough, their ability to buy production is reduced. This reduces business profits, and reduces economic growth.

I believe that LABOR, plus the production tools built by CAPITAL, are the factors that produce wealth. The combination of labor and capital combines to increase the value of raw materials. They do this by creating something more valuable than the original raw materials. You might call this a "labor value-added" effect, or a "capital-labor value added" effect. Though LABOR is absolutely essential, it's wealth-producing capacity is severly reduced without sufficient CAPITAL investment, because of the production enhancers capital provides. But capital, without labor, has NO value. Furthermore, without demand for production, neither capital or labor will be used to create wealth. Capital won't be invested, if there's no potential profit. Workers won't be hired, if the product of their labor cannot be sold. Low consumer income, with low consumer spending, reduces the ability of capital to create profits. It reduces the ability to SELL finished products. Profits are made by SALE of goods, not production of goods. As such, low consumer income not only hurts consumers, it hurts the businesses who sell to consumers. INCREASING CONSUMER INCOME HELPS BUSINESS, as well as consumers.

The major functions of capital are to provide raw materials and to increase industrial CAPACITY. This increases potential ability to produce goods and create wealth. But there's a catch here. The actual production of goods and wealth requires UTILIZATION of this industrial capacity. No wealth is produced by industrial capacity that remains idle. And there is no benefit to increasing industrial capacity size when it is currently under-utilized. In the case of under-utilization, wealth will only be created by increasing current utilization RATE. Economists refer to this as CAPACITY UTILIZATION RATE (or industrial capacity utilization rate.)

Our current industrial capacity is UNDER-utilized. The utilization rate has dropped from 85% during the Clinton years to 79% at present. Increased investment to increase the size of this capacity is not beneficial. In contrast, increasing the utilization RATE would be very beneficial. What would increase the rate? You guessed it. Increased DEMAND for production. Demand that would be rise from increased consumer spending, resulting from increased consumer income. I can state this concept in 2 equations:
Reduced Capacity Utilization = Reduced Consumer DEMAND.
Increased Capacity Utilization = Increased Consumer DEMAND

For maximum economic growth, there needs to be a balance between the "means of production" and the "means of consumption." (This equates to Supply equaling Demand) Shifting the balance in either direction reduces economic growth, wealth production, and GDP. Excess production, when measured in terms of potential dollar-value, cannot be sold. As such, no profits can be made from it. In contrast, insufficient production in terms of quantity can be profitable. Prices can be raised to maximize profit from that limited production. Raising prices reduces the quantity demanded. This allows the supply to meet the demand. The reverse is only true in terms of quantity demand. Demand can be increased by reducing price, but the dollar-value of that demand does NOT change. The dollar-value of demand is limited by spendable consumer wealth. This is where the concepts of Micro Economics end, and Macro Economics take over. This is where AGGREGATE DEMAND comes into play.

Aggregate demand is absolutely limited by aggregate consumer wealth. The best way to increase aggregate consumer wealth is to balance the "means of production" with the "means of consumption." The capital invested needs to be no greater than that needed to meet production demand. In turn, production demand is created by the "means of consumption." If resources are un-balanced in favor of the "means of production," there will be insufficient demand to drive production. As a result, there will be less production, and less wealth produced. In contrast, greater wealth would have been produced if some of the investment capital had been re-directed towards consumer income. It would have increased demand, and driven production. Both consumers and business would have prospered. Economic "growth" would have increased. GDP would have increased.

If investment and consumer income are out of balance, correcting the imbalance increases economic growth, and improves our economy. If investment capital is excessive, diverting that excess into consumer income increases the benefit of the remaining capital.

Taxing the affluent more to improve this balance is not "socialistic." It's "capitalistic." Balancing the "means of production" with the "means of consumption" is not a "share-the-wealth" concept. It's an "increase-the-wealth" concept. Such "wealth redistribution" would increase "wealth production." It would increase industrial production and GDP. Again, insufficient consumer spending REDUCES GDP. It reduces wealth creation by labor and capital, by reducing the demand for its creation.

I don't claim that "demand" is everything. However, it is the biggest single factor affecting our economy. Consumer spending is the "dollar-value" measure of that demand. The consensus among economists is that 2/3 of economic activity is consumer spending. I've seen this statement at least 30 separate times. (I'm sure you've seen this statement as well.) So I'm going to assume this statement is true. From that I conclude that the most important factor in economic growth is consumer spending, or the "dollar-value" of consumer demand. Again, it's not the only factor, but it's the biggest factor.

I think the significance of DEMAND is under-emphasized in current economic commentary. That needs to change. This is not only about the subjective concept of "economic justice". It's also about "economic growth." It's my belief that some downward redistribution of wealth will help the economy. It will increase wealth production, because it will help balance the "means of production" with the "means of consumption." We would ALL benefit from a better balance of these factors, rich and poor alike.

The Bush Administration has done its level best to keep investment and consumption out of balance, thus TEMPORARILY allowing business to profit excessively from labor, despite the long term cost to ALL AMERICANS. Bush policies hurt ALL Americans in the long run.

The following is a link to a graph from "Briefing.com." It shows the relative levels of personal consumption expenditures and investment capital. See which way you think the "balance" is shifted at present.


unlawflcombatnt

EconomicPopulistCommentary

http://www.unlawflcombatnt.blogspot.com/

___________
Investment does NOT create jobs. It only "allows" for their creation. Increased Demand for goods creates jobs, because it necessitates hiring of workers to produce more goods. Investment "permits" job growth. Demand necessitates it.

Building a factory does NOT create jobs. Demand for production DOES create jobs. Goods are not produced if there is no demand for them. Without demand for goods, there is no demand for workers to produce them. Without demand, no amount of investment creates jobs.