By John Tamny on 4.11.07 @ 12:07AM
It can hardly be said that avid consumption drives economic growth.
A recent article in the Wall Street Journal asked if
the subprime industry pulls back, will it be harder for the former
beneficiaries of its loans "to buy cars, shop at the mall and dine
out?" According to the article's authors, the spending driven by
cheap money "has helped to fuel the U.S. economy's growth." In
correlating consumption with economic growth, the authors
simplified the supposed economic stimulus that results from
consumption.
What the authors forget is that simple transfers of wealth don't
constitute growth and wealth creation. Money made available for
loans is the direct result of the abstinence of someone else;
meaning there's no net growth or spending when it comes to
consumption aided by easy lending practices.
The other mistake they make is in viewing consumption from a
macro rather than micro standpoint. Shops jammed with buyers might
at first glance seem a good thing, but would our economy be better
off if as individuals we spent all of our income rather than saving
it? That an individual's economic situation would be made
precarious if he or she acted as a prodigal makes plain that
consumption is hardly the driver of growth that is assumed by most
journalists. If I buy a movie ticket the actor is better off, but
I'm $10 poorer.
Since human wants are unlimited, heavy consumption itself is
never hard to generate. It can, however, be indicative of economic
troubles. Indeed, England was hardly the picture of economic health
in the late '70s, but with capital gains rates of 98% and a
currency in freefall, there was no incentive to save. The streets
of London were full of Rolls Royces, but the economy was doing very
poorly. During the same period in the U.S., so great was
consumption that President Carter actually made speeches suggesting
Americans should consume less. With taxes high and the dollar
progressively weaker, there was very little interest in heeding his
words. Last summer, in the rush to beat an August 21 deadline that
would devalue the Zimbabwean dollar by 60 percent, according to a
Reuters article, citizens there were "scooping up luxury cars,
livestock and other items."
What's missed when consumption is concentrated on to the
exclusion of saving, is that the latter does not mean money is
annihilated altogether. Instead, when we abstain from spending and
save, the extra capital available gives either additional
employment to new kinds of labor, or additional remuneration to
workers; both accruing to consumption. As 19th century political
economist John Stuart Mill once wrote, "the limit of wealth is
never a deficiency of consumers, but of producers and productive
power." Looked at from a micro perspective, while the purchase of
an expensive dinner makes the restaurant commensurately wealthier
and the consumer less so, the purchase of a mutual fund serves as a
form of capital for new innovation all the while enriching the
buyer.
Amidst worries among media members and mainstream economists
that tighter credit will somehow crash the economy, Americans
should be micro in their perspective. If all of us purchased meals,
clothing and luxury items while piling on debt to the exclusion of
our financial well-being, our own financial situations would
deteriorate, as would the health of the U.S. economy. While we
produce in order to consume, the ways in which we spend our money
are not created equal. It is through access to capital that we
enrich ourselves; meaning widespread consumption would materialize
in truly tight money that would show up in the form of lower-paying
job and underfunded business start-ups, along with lower
productivity.
As the Journal article noted, "So far, there are only
tentative signs that tighter credit conditions in the subprime
mortgage market are spreading to the broader credit market."
Assuming a future contraction in subprime lending, the risk to our
economy is not a slowdown in consumer spending by the riskiest
borrowers, but a slowdown in credit made available to tomorrow's
entrepreneurs. Capital is wasted when it is lent out for simple
consumption, so any market measures that lead to more rational
lending will add to, rather than subtract from, economic
growth.
topics:
Taxes, Business