<table border="0">
<colgroup width="800">
</colgroup>
<tr>
<td>
Oldy hatte letztens mal ein paar Charts aus dieser Seite hereingestellt. Habe noch mal ein bißchen gestöbert. Vielleicht ganz interessant.
<hr noshade style="width:600px; color:blue; height:2px; text-align:left; border:1px solid blue;">
<font size=4>"Freie" Marktwirtschaft</font>
The total economy is made up of 2 basic components: that portion dependent upon federal, state & local government spending (called the government sector), and that part remaining - - called the private sector (the part not dependent upon government spending, and from which growth of national productivity, savings and real incomes depend).
The following chart shows a 71 year history of the trends of these components.
As the government spending sector has grown faster than the economy, the relative share remaining to the private sector has been steadily eroded - - and, America is a much more socialistic, government-spending-dependent nation than ever before.
Look carefully at this chart. Its quite easy to understand. It tells a powerful story.
![[image]]([/img] The left chart shows combined government (federal + state & local) spending (the red rising line) has grown faster than the total economy, from 12% consumption of national income to 39% today. This means government now dominates/controls about 3.5 times more of the total economic pie than before. Had government grown at the same rate as the economy, that red line would have been flat - - not rising 3.5 times faster than growth of the total economy. <br />
<br />
As a result, the residual share of the economy left to the pure Private Sector (the declining blue line) has been squeezed down and down - from an 88% share of the economy to a 61% share. The capacity of the private sector to produce living standard growth has been diminished over time due to government growing faster than the total economy. Had the private sector share of the economy remained constant in its percentage of the economy, that blue line would have stayed flat - - not dropping. <br />
<br />
This move is grossly contrary to the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson:"Government that governs least governs best." <br />
<br />
Look at the red spending line at the left side of the chart. Note the spending jump in the early 1930s, from a 12% share of the economy to a 22% level which was caused by the New Deal social programs. To help provide some perspective, note the chart includes a parallel black dash line called"22% Target" - - so one can follow how much more spending ratios changed from that 'New Deal' jump. <br />
<br />
From the chart for the early 1940s one can see the jump in spending ratios as about 33% of the economy was transferred from the private sector to government World War II spending activities. (at the time of WWII it was lucky for us that the private sector at the time was about 78% of the economic pie, thereby providing the surge capacity for the shift of the private sector to war-time production). Following WW II, the chart shows our leaders returned government spending & private sector ratios to their pre-war levels - to the '22% Target' level. <br />
<br />
But, since then our nation accelerated along a socialization path mostly pushed by the socialization leap called the 'Great Society' social program of the late 1960s, doubling the government spending ratio to the 39% ratio level, and thereby reducing the private sector an additional 18 points by today. <br />
<br />
Following a multi-year decline of 1.5 points 1980-88, the spending ratio jumped about 3 points from 1988 to 1995. Much of the slight 'drop' in the spending ratio during the past several years is a result of changes in measurement criteria for calculating national income and inflation, which overstates national income and therefore understates the spending ratio compared to the past. <br />
<br />
Based on historic precedence, the chart suggests government spending share of the economy should be lowered from the current level of 39% of national income- - first to the 30% ratio achieved prior to the early 1960s - - and then, to the 20% ratio achieved before and after WW II. <br />
<br />
How can the two lines on the above chart be reversed - - by getting the government spending share going down, and the private sector share moving upward? Or, is there anyone who believes government spending should grow to a higher ratio of our economy to benefit our next generation? <br />
<br />
<br />
Did America's founding fathers intend such dominance by government in our economy? <br />
I thought they intended small government.<br />
The Trust in Government Report and the Voting-Turnout Report show citizen trust plummeted as government expanded spending & power. <br />
<br />
<hr noshade style="width:600px; color:blue; height:2px; text-align:left; border:1px solid blue;"><br />
<br />
<b><font size=4>PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH RATES - - 50 year down-trend<br />
</b></font><br />
<br />
[img]) The left chart shows the annual change in business sector productivity measured over the past 50 years.
It proves that the claims of great US productivity growth are a myth.
This data represents the yearly percentage change in output per hour of all persons in the business sector. The declining dashed red line is the trend line. (data source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (Econ. Report to Congress 2/01, table B-50, year to 1st half 2001 added).
From the left side of the chart (1951) to today it can be seen productivity rates have followed a declining trend. (the red line)
In the 1950's and early 1960's rates oscillated in the 3-4%.
Thereafter productivity rates became more and more erratic with wider and wider swings as the averages trended down toward the 1.5% growth rate level.
In the 1990s, annualized productivity growth rates averaged just 1.5%, despite the reported so-called economic boom in that decade. That is way below the 1950s and 60s.
The apparent up-tick in 1996-99 was suspect, as discussed below. Early returns for 2001 again show lower productivity, now below the long-term downward trend line.
Caution: its a bit disconcerting to note that during the late 1990s, the peak of a long economic expansion, such failed to produce productivity rates any where near the much, much higher ratios of the late 1950s and 1960s when family incomes were moving up quite rapidly - - even after using new (more favorable) data measurement criteria in the past several years (see below).
About the past several years, one writer reported:"If the US enjoys higher"productivity" why has the trade deficit doubled during the last two years? In an economy that is mostly based on"services", how can higher"productivity" generate the funds that will be needed to repay the debts, which financed a trade deficit that consists mostly of"goods"? Will 10 million Japanese and 20 million Chinese come every year to tour the US? How can competitiveness rise as the result of higher"productivity" if at the same time the trade deficit doubles - - and private sector debt ratios soar to new records? What competitiveness? Of burger flippers, Internet service providers and Wall Street paper creation?"
NOTE
The above chart also shows that as productivity rates fell for the past 2 ½ decades, and became very erratic compared to the past, and as rates fell below the 2% range, it is MOST interesting that this is the same period when real (inflation-adjusted) median family incomes ceased to grow at rates compared to the past, as reported in the Grandfather Family Income Report
- - and the same period when our balance of trade turned increasingly negative, causing us to become the largest debtor nation on earth - as shown in the Trade Report - - and our education quality/spending productivity turned negative, as seen in the Education Report - - and our combined private and government national debt ratios soared per the Debt Report - - as our social spending ratios soared, per the Federal Spending Report..
"A revolution in productivity has not occurred and is unlikely to occur in the near future despite increased spending on computers and corporate downsizing," William Wascher, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, to the National Assoc. of Business Economists 11/96.
</td>
</tr></table>
<center>
<HR>
</center> |
Thread-Ansicht
Mix-Ansicht
Reihenfolge
Thread gesperrt
