David Shemano wrote:
Isn't it Keynesian dogma that the problem with the rich is that they save and do not consume (relative to the non-rich), and that the government can goose the economy by redistributing wealth from the rich (the savers) to the non-rich (the spenders)? How do Keynesians explain data like this -- the national savings rate actually drops when the rich increase their wealth?
There are a lot of problems with the study you're reacting to. It takes no account of the increase in debt, which has depressed the savings rate. It uses income quintiles, even though wealth isn't perfectly correlated with income and even though it's only the top couple of percent of the (wealth) distribution that holds most of the stock (making quintiles too broad a measure). I've queried the authors about this, and their responses aren't terribly impressive. But a footnote at the beginning said it was written under the inspiration of Alan Greenspan, so it must be right.
Doug
- BLS Daily Report, (continued)
- BLS Daily Report, Richardson_D Thu 24 May 2001, 15:04 GMT
- BLS Daily Report, Richardson_D Fri 25 May 2001, 13:44 GMT
- Mark Weisbrot on Cheney's entropy plan, Ian Murray Tue 22 May 2001, 15:38 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: Keynesian economics 101, Jim Devine Tue 22 May 2001, 14:16 GMT
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: Keynesian economics 101, Doug Henwood Tue 22 May 2001, 14:18 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: Keynesian economics 101, Doug Henwood Tue 22 May 2001, 14:30 GMT
- RE: Re: RE: Re: Keynesian economics 101, Max Sawicky Tue 22 May 2001, 15:07 GMT
- Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Keynesian economics 101, Doug Henwood Tue 22 May 2001, 15:17 GMT
- RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Keynesian economics 101, Max Sawicky Tue 22 May 2001, 15:41 GMT