- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Wealth-to-GDP Ratios in the U.S. Since 1945
Posted on 6/21/12 at 11:59 pm
Posted on 6/21/12 at 11:59 pm
Am I the only person alive who makes a big deal out of this? I never hear it mentioned, but it seems logical to me that there is a limit to how much net wealth savers can amass in a developed economy--especially one that is 77% based on services.
I mean, there is a limited amount of paper wealth you can save up in your bank in order to pay for haircuts and tax lawyers and restaurant service and stuff, right? And if millions of retirees have all this saved wealth, the amount of services they can get from a slower-growing labor force has to shrink, right?
Most people view savings/investment as a driver of economic growth, but isn't it also true that too many savers results in an unbalanced, top-heavy wealth structure where too much paper wealth is chasing too few goods and services? It seems as though either (A) inflation has to erode the amount of services that can be bought, or (B) the market value of paper wealth has to plummet until the wealth-to-income ratio comes back to within historical norms. I think we're seeing the effects of (B).
I think that the explosive growth of defined-benefit pension and health care schemes of the 1960s & 1970s are responsible for a lot of this (along with demographic changes from the sexual revoluton, i.e. an aging populace), although increasing capital inflows from third world countries into the U.S. probably has a lot to do with it as well.
From the Federal Reserve's " Flow of Funds" reports, which go back to 1945, the original ratio from that year was 3.18, which was quite low. From there, it went as high as 3.60 in 1949, back down to 3.25 in 1953, back up to 3.71 in 1961, all the way down to 3.04 in 1974 (as wealth shifted from the U.S. to OPEC), back up to 3.72 in 1991, and then down to 3.60 by 1994. All of this, from 1945 to 1994, was within a range from 3.04 to 3.72, with a historical average of 3.41 for the 41 years from 1945-85, and a historical average of 3.45 for the 50 years from 1945-94.
Then the WTO came into operation in 1994, and looked what has happened since:
Net Wealth in the U.S.
(Year, Net Wealth at end of year, Nominal GDP, Wealth-to-GDP Ratio)
(GDP & wealth figures given in trillions of USD)
1994, 25.54, 7.09, 3.60
1995, 28.21, 7.41, 3.80
1996, 30.10, 7.84, 3.84
1997, 33.96, 8.33, 4.08
1998, 37.91, 8.79, 4.31
1999, 43.02, 9.35, 4.60
2000, 43.28, 9.95, 4.35
2001, 43.13, 10.29, 4.19
2002, 42.10, 10.64, 3.96
2003, 48.02, 11.14, 4.31
2004, 54.96, 11.85, 4.64
2005, 61.22, 12.62, 4.85
2006, 65.65, 13.38, 4.91
2007, 66.17, 14.03, 4.72
2008, 53.55, 14.29, 3.75
2009, 55.59, 13.94, 3.99
2010, 59.16, 14.53, 4.07
2011, 60.04, 15.09, 3.98
NOTE: The only years since 1945 in which nominal wealth decreased were 2001, 2002, & 2008.
CONCLUSION: I'd say that net wealth has another ~15% drop coming at some point if my theory about the wealth-to-GDP ratio being unbalanced is true.
I mean, there is a limited amount of paper wealth you can save up in your bank in order to pay for haircuts and tax lawyers and restaurant service and stuff, right? And if millions of retirees have all this saved wealth, the amount of services they can get from a slower-growing labor force has to shrink, right?
Most people view savings/investment as a driver of economic growth, but isn't it also true that too many savers results in an unbalanced, top-heavy wealth structure where too much paper wealth is chasing too few goods and services? It seems as though either (A) inflation has to erode the amount of services that can be bought, or (B) the market value of paper wealth has to plummet until the wealth-to-income ratio comes back to within historical norms. I think we're seeing the effects of (B).
I think that the explosive growth of defined-benefit pension and health care schemes of the 1960s & 1970s are responsible for a lot of this (along with demographic changes from the sexual revoluton, i.e. an aging populace), although increasing capital inflows from third world countries into the U.S. probably has a lot to do with it as well.
From the Federal Reserve's " Flow of Funds" reports, which go back to 1945, the original ratio from that year was 3.18, which was quite low. From there, it went as high as 3.60 in 1949, back down to 3.25 in 1953, back up to 3.71 in 1961, all the way down to 3.04 in 1974 (as wealth shifted from the U.S. to OPEC), back up to 3.72 in 1991, and then down to 3.60 by 1994. All of this, from 1945 to 1994, was within a range from 3.04 to 3.72, with a historical average of 3.41 for the 41 years from 1945-85, and a historical average of 3.45 for the 50 years from 1945-94.
Then the WTO came into operation in 1994, and looked what has happened since:
Net Wealth in the U.S.
(Year, Net Wealth at end of year, Nominal GDP, Wealth-to-GDP Ratio)
(GDP & wealth figures given in trillions of USD)
1994, 25.54, 7.09, 3.60
1995, 28.21, 7.41, 3.80
1996, 30.10, 7.84, 3.84
1997, 33.96, 8.33, 4.08
1998, 37.91, 8.79, 4.31
1999, 43.02, 9.35, 4.60
2000, 43.28, 9.95, 4.35
2001, 43.13, 10.29, 4.19
2002, 42.10, 10.64, 3.96
2003, 48.02, 11.14, 4.31
2004, 54.96, 11.85, 4.64
2005, 61.22, 12.62, 4.85
2006, 65.65, 13.38, 4.91
2007, 66.17, 14.03, 4.72
2008, 53.55, 14.29, 3.75
2009, 55.59, 13.94, 3.99
2010, 59.16, 14.53, 4.07
2011, 60.04, 15.09, 3.98
NOTE: The only years since 1945 in which nominal wealth decreased were 2001, 2002, & 2008.
CONCLUSION: I'd say that net wealth has another ~15% drop coming at some point if my theory about the wealth-to-GDP ratio being unbalanced is true.
Posted on 6/22/12 at 2:10 pm to Doc Fenton
And it drops 50% when you die
Posted on 6/22/12 at 2:40 pm to TigerTailsSoup
quote:
And it drops 50% when you die
If you're referring to etate taxes, currently the first $5mm is excluded and then the max rate is 35% after that.
As someone who recently dealt with the estate of a relative, this one fell below the taxable threshold and zero taxes were taken.
Posted on 6/22/12 at 4:16 pm to Doc Fenton
Interesting approach. Is the national debt included in "Net Wealth at end of year"?
And yeah, I think the best we can hope for is to hold fairly steady with average wealth while the developing world plays catch up.
And yeah, I think the best we can hope for is to hold fairly steady with average wealth while the developing world plays catch up.
Posted on 6/22/12 at 4:29 pm to Tigris
quote:
Is the national debt included in "Net Wealth at end of year"?
It's officially listed as net worth for "Households and Nonprofit Organizations."
I suppose you could take away a fraction of GDP as public debt, since individuals will presumably have to pay this eventually, but I think it makes more sense to list it as is.
The main point is that true national wealth must come from productivity and population growth. A lot of the private wealth amassed in the U.S. since 1994 has come from unbalanced flows of foreign investment that has made assets appear to be worth more than real GDP would seem to indicate would be reasonable. This in turn, has actually caused massive misallocations of resources that has stunted GDP growth. In truth, if things were more balanced, the U.S. arguably "should" have more wealth right now.
Posted on 6/23/12 at 1:05 am to Doc Fenton
quote:
(A) inflation has to erode the amount of services that can be bought,
This is already the case from my perspective. Other tha home values which are recovering, everything else seems to be more expensive.
Posted on 6/23/12 at 3:05 pm to davesdawgs
For (A) I sort of had 1970s style inflation in mind.
Anyhoo, I stumbled across this--extremely dubious-- national wealth list on Wikipedia, and according to it ... we poor.
Per Capita Wealth by Country
Switzerland -- $648,200
Australia -- $381,277
Japan -- $275,377
France -- $259,886
Germany -- $220,474
Singapore -- $195,490
United States -- $184,000
Taiwan -- $183,794
United Kingdom -- $182,825
Canada -- $173,913
South Korea -- $127,263
Russia -- $38,709
Anyhoo, I stumbled across this--extremely dubious-- national wealth list on Wikipedia, and according to it ... we poor.
Per Capita Wealth by Country
Switzerland -- $648,200
Australia -- $381,277
Japan -- $275,377
France -- $259,886
Germany -- $220,474
Singapore -- $195,490
United States -- $184,000
Taiwan -- $183,794
United Kingdom -- $182,825
Canada -- $173,913
South Korea -- $127,263
Russia -- $38,709
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News