CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research

Multimedia

En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press Capital Gains Are Causing Income to Exceed Output and Economists Are Surprised

Capital Gains Are Causing Income to Exceed Output and Economists Are Surprised

Print
Friday, 31 May 2013 16:41

Ok folks, this one is a little nerdy, but there are some important issues here. In the last year or so the Bureau of Economic Analysis' measure of national income growth has exceeded its measure of GDP growth. This has led some analysts to jump on the income numbers and say that the economy is actually growing somewhat more rapidly than the GDP measures that were routinely follow, which are measured on the output side.

Just to backtrack for a moment, in principle we should be able to measure GDP on either the income side or the output side and come up with the same number. The income side means that we add up all the incomes generated in production: wages, interest, profits, rents, etc. On the output side we would be measuring the value of all the goods and services produced over the course of a quarter or year. If we had perfect measurements of the economy then the two should end up being the same.

As a practical matter they never are the same. Most often the output side is somewhat higher (@ 0.5 percent) than the income side. The conventional wisdom is that income is more poorly measured because people have a reason to lie about their income (i.e. taxes). So economists have traditionally looked at the output side as the better measure of growth.

While the output side has historically shown a somewhat higher measure of GDP, there have been some exceptions to this, most notably in the late 1990s and the peak of the last business cycle. These were both periods in which there were large amounts of capital gains generated by bubbles in the stock market in the 1990s and housing market in the last decade.

While capital gains are not supposed to count as income for GDP purposes, it is almost certain that some do. (Short-term capital gains are taxed the same way as normal income, so there is no reason for people to distinguish between capital gains and normal income on tax forms.) Anyhow, if we hypothesize that some amount of capital gains end up being counted as normal income then any time we have more capital gains in the economy we would expect that the income side measure of GDP would rise relative to the output side measure.

David Rosnick and I tested this view a couple years back, measuring the extent to which the statistical discrepancy (the gap between the output measurement and income measurement of GDP) fluctuated in response to recent trends in capital gains. And, we got a very solid fit. So we were not surprised when the recent run-up in the stock market, coupled with a recovery in the housing market, caused income growth to again exceed output growth. But hey, there can be lots of good jobs struggling over this one.

Anyhow, this matters both for the answer to the question as to how fast the economy is growing, but also how we view savings. Savings are defined as the difference between income and consumption. If capital gains are showing up as income, then we are overstating income and therefore overstating savings. We think this was very likely the case at the peaks of both the stock and housing bubbles, which means that the consumption driven by these bubbles was even larger than the conventional data show.

 

Note: Typos corrected -- thanks Joe and Medgeek.

 

 

 

Comments (4)Add Comment
...
written by joe, June 01, 2013 7:09
"While capital gains are not supposed to count as income for GDP purposes, it is almost certain that some due."

some do rather than some due?
another typo
written by medgeek, June 01, 2013 8:34
...measure GDP on either income side or the output side...
Very Close to being correct.
written by JayR, June 01, 2013 12:36

"...recovery in the housing market..." It looks more like a new housing bubble then a recovery.

Dean's own analysis just a few paragraphs earlier, about some economic history, hints at this: "...historically...These were both periods in which there were large amounts of capital gains generated by bubbles in the stock market in the 1990s and housing market in the last decade...."
A rare case of Dean's disrespect for accounting identities
written by Coche, June 03, 2013 12:06
Dean loves to cite accounting identities. Here he may miss an important one.

Assuming for simplification that imports = exports (X=M), the output of an economy (GDP) is determined by the aggregated expenses of gov, corps and people (G+I+C).

As aggregated debts (GDD) typically increase with time, it follows that aggregated expenses are typically greater than aggregated revenues (GDR).

Hence GDP > GDR because GDP = GDR + GDD

This contributes to make that "Most often the output side is somewhat higher (@ 0.5 percent) than the income side".

To clear the situation, Dean should explain where debt fits into his beloved identities.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.

busy
 

CEPR.net
Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.

Archives