GDP – The Nation’s Economic Hero

By the curious standard of the GDP, “the nation’s economic hero” is a terminal cancer patient who is going through a costly divorce. The happiest event is an earthquake or a hurricane. The most desirable habitat is a multibillion-dollar Superfund site. All these add to the GDP, because they cause money to change hands. It is as if a business kept a balance sheet by merely adding up all “transactions,” without distinguishing between income and expenses, or between assets and liabilities.

The strange fact that jumps out from Bennett’s grim inventory of crime, divorce, mass-media addiction, and the rest is that much of it actually adds to the GDP. Growth can be social decline by another name. Divorce, for example, adds a small fortune in lawyers’ bills, the need for second households, transportation and counseling for kids, and so on. Divorce lawyers alone take in probably several billion dollars a year, and possibly a good deal more. Divorce also provides a major boost for the real-estate industry. “Unfortunately, divorce is a big part of our business. It means one [home] to sell and sometimes two to buy,”a realtor in suburban Chicago told the Chicago Tribune. Similarly, crime has given rise to a burgeoning crime-prevention and security industry with revenues of more than $65 billion a year. The car-locking device called The Club adds some $100 million a year to the GDP all by itself, without counting knock-offs. Even a gruesome event like the Oklahoma City bombing becomes an economic uptick by the strange reckonings of the GDP. “Analysts expect the share prices [of firms making anti-crime equipment] to gain during the next several months,” The Wall Street Journal reported a short time after the bombing, “as safety concerns translate into more contracts.”   by:  Clifford Cobb, a policy analyst, is the author of Responsive Schools, Renewed Communities (1992).   Ted Halstead is the founder and executive director of Redefining Progress, a nonprofit public-policy organization in San Francisco.  Jonathan Rowe has been an editor at The Washington Monthly and a staff writer for The Christian Science Monitor.

That is the economy for us. Next time you read in the paper (or see a graph) how the GDP has increased, don’t get too enthusiastic too quickly. Consider why it increased. Is it an “asset” or a “liability”?  National Debt is seen, in part, in relationship to GDP. If GDP goes up, typically National Debt is allowed to move up as well.

US GDP growth rate

How can we influence national debt?

I missed two weeks of blogging, while on an RV trip to Long Beach and Yuma Arizona. During that time I was able to re-evaluate my goals using The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

Habit 1 is: to be pro-active. The problems, challenges, and opportunities fall into two circles, if you will: A circle of concern and a circle of influence. The circle of influence includes things like our health, children, problems at work. Those are what we can do something about. Other things we have very little control over, such as the weather, terrorism and the national debt. But National Debt is my topic!

Habit 2 is: “begin with the end in mind”. How do you envision the end? If I cannot influence the National Debt, then how do I envision the end? In my last blog, I challenged young people to look for options of paying for college. I envision the end as looking for ways to learn and share the mechanics of how National Debt works. In the process I find confidence and a sense of relaxation while the world is in turmoil. Learning about business cycles made me realize that I don’t have to become nervous when we get in a recession.

So, I may not be able to influence National Debt directly, nor do I envision the end of National Debt, but I can learn and share the mechanics of how National Debt works. I can envision that in the end my audience (you!) and I will understand it better and can explain how it fits in our society.

“Families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history.” (Nobody Understands Debt, Paul Krugman)


This graph shows how the National Debt was over 100% in the mid-forties as described by Paul Krugman.

So how do we get out of debt?  Should the USA do it again, as after WWII?

The Swabian Housewife

We are warned from time to time, that the US deficit is getting out of proportion. How long can it increase before the economy collapses? I don’t believe anyone knows, and Obama or any prior president, do not seem to be bothered. What do economists do to manage it? From the examples below you can see that we oversimplify this issue, but what then?


  1. The Swabian Housewife. “One should simply have asked the Swabian housewife,” said German Chancellor Angela Merkel after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. “She would have told us that you cannot live beyond your means.”
    1. This sensible-sounding logic currently underpins austerity. The problem is that it ignores the effect of the housewife’s thrift on total demand. If all households curbed their expenditures, total consumption would fall, and so, too, would demand for labor. If the housewife’s husband loses his job, the household will be worse off than before.
    2. The general case of this fallacy is the “fallacy of composition”: what makes sense for each household or company individually does not necessarily add up to the good of the whole. The particular case that John Maynard Keynes identified was the “paradox of thrift”: if everyone tries to save more in bad times, aggregate demand will fall, lowering total savings, because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth.
    3. If the government tries to cut its deficit, households and firms will have to tighten their purse strings, resulting in less total spending. As a result, however much the government cuts its spending, its deficit will barely shrink. And if all countries pursue austerity simultaneously, lower demand for each country’s goods will lead to lower domestic and foreign consumption, leaving all worse off.