Hence the
rise in the value of a painting is zero-sum for society.
can't
the same can't be said of the appreciation in any tangible asset, such as
real estate?
David
Yes.
The point is to differentiate a change in net worth due to appreciation from
a change of net worth due to saving
--- William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Economic income is consumption plus the change in net worth
Not in national income and product accounts.
Right. National income accounts track *accounting* income, not
*economic* income.
The economic meaning of income is the Haig-Simmons
1980s when the US economy looked poor
compared to (at least some of the) western European economies that national
savings rates were calculated without regard to homeowners' equity. Since,
as I understood it, (western) Europeans were much less likely to own homes
than are Americans, if you
In a message dated 8/12/02 2:42:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
William Dickens wrote:
Gale and Sabelhaus do not answer the question that you ask but they do
look at the question of whether savings rates are low if we define savings as
change in wealth rather than income minus
--- William Dickens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
look at the question of whether savings rates are low if we define savings
as change in wealth rather than income minus consumption.
Economic income is consumption plus the change in net worth (c.n.w.), so
Savings = income - consumption
Savings
You can check the article but that is my memory (I'm at home now and can't check the
article myself). When they added capital gains in real estate and equities to the flow
of savings to get change in wealth they got high savings rates. - - Bill
William T. Dickens
The Brookings Institution
1775
In a message dated 8/12/02 5:57:09 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One might also want a separate category of savings which excludes
non-reproducible assets such as paintings or land value, since, for example,
if the value of a painting rises, this is an increase in the net worth of the
owner,
