Jump to Navigation
Home

Main menu

  • Home
  • News
  • Markets Map
  • Sentiments
  • Topics
  • Data
  • Comments
  • Images
  • Blog
  • About

Secondary menu

  • Latest News
  • Top Rated
  • Most Popular
  • Archive
  • Discussions
  • Pacts that delay sale of generics in jeopardy
  • Strike ballot withdrawn over 02 redundancies
  • Indian rupee weakens by 59 paise vs dollar
  • When Margin Debt Goes Over 2.25% Of GDP, The Stock Market...
  • ETFs For The Third Scenario
  • Obama, Putin agree to ‘push’ for peace talks in war-torn...
  • G-8 to focus on African kidnaps, tax on final day
  • Govt eyes narrow political window for unpopular gas price...
  • ECB rates becoming more effective again: Draghi
  • In Brief: FMG; Bondholders; Road to York; Bond Dickinson

    The investment slump

    Wed, 05/25/2011 - 09:28 EDT - Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Comments

    Capital spending has fallen to a record low as a share of GDP. Today’s figures (pdf) show that in Q1 business investment in current prices accounted for 7.9% of GDP - its lowest proportion since records began.OK, in part this is good news - it reflects the fact that the relative price of capital goods has fallen.But this is only part of the story. The volume of capital spending, as a share of GDP, is now close to its lowest since the mid-90s. Businv This matters because capital spending is not only a cause of future GDP growth, but a symptom of it; one reason why firms don’t invest is that they don’t anticipate much future demand growth.But why are firms not investing? Three reasons strike me as only a fraction of the story.“The recession created spare capacity, and this means firms don’t need to invest.” No doubt, this is true for some firms. But if there were general spare capacity, inflation should be lower than it is, at least if you believe conventional output gap stories. “Banks are starving firms of funds.” However, in recent years firms, in aggregate, have not even been investing their retained profits. If firms aren’t even spending internal funds, a lack of access to external ones is not the whole problem.“Osborne’s fiscal squeeze is having conventional Keynesian effects.” Again, partly true, but investment was weak, especially in current prices, even before the recession.I’d suggest two other possibilities.One is that rebalancing is - so far at least - is having asymmetric effects. Companies serving consumers and government know that demand will shift away from them and so are cutting capital spending. But firms in export and investment sectors aren’t yet confident enough to invest. As a result, we’re seeing investment in service sectors fall by more than investment in manufacturing is rising.Secondly, there is still - as Ben Bernanke said back in 2005 - a “death of domestic investment opportunities” in western economies. Quite why this should be so is not clear. Possible explanations include: a slowdown in the rate of technical progress; an inability to profit from what technical progress there is; and the migration of low wage-dependent business to the far east.  Two things, though, are clear. First, we know now that demand for investment good is price-inelastic. Lows prices of goods themselves, and low risk-free interest rates, are not enough to get firms spending.Secondly, neither investors nor government nor the general public seem to be prepared for a world of few investment opportunities and weak growth. * That spike in the chart is a statistical blip caused by a change in the way investment in the nuclear industry was measured.

    • Original article
    • Login or register to post comments
     

    Related

    • Capitalists on strike

      The most significant fact in today’s national accounts numbers is not the trivial downward revision to GDP growth. It is instead the fact that the UK’s fundamental economic problem - capitalists’ reluctance to invest - is as acute as ever.

    • Doubts about wage-led growth

      Today’s GDP figures suggest that even one of the left’s better economic ideas might not be effective.

    • Are falling prices good news?

      INFLATION, we're led to believe from an early age, is bad. And sometimes it is. Reckless monetary expansion when an economy is close to potential simply leads to accelerating price increases which can cause anything from moderate economic pain to total economic disaster. But it is widely accepted that a low and stable rate of inflation is a good thing, both because it provides a cushion against deflation in the face of a recession and because it facilitates real wage adjustments in the presence of downward nominal wage rigidities.

    • What is real spending?

      The fuss over Gordon Brown misleading the Chilcot enquiry about real increases in MoD spending shows, yet again, how shallow our political debate is - because there are some tricky issues here.

    • Bosses & profits

      Do bosses increase profits? The justification for the mega-million salaries is that they do. But at an aggregate level, this is not obvious. To see what I mean, start from the basic national accounts identity that GDP equals consumer spending (C), investment (I), government spending (G), plus net trade (X-M), and also equals wages (W), profits (P) and taxes (T). Rearranging gives us: P = (C - W) + I + (G - T) + (X - M).  

    • Monetary Policy and Asset Prices

      (cc photo by Jeff Kubina)

    • Demand or productivity?

      Duncan worries that economists might be “misdiagnosing a serious demand problem as a productivity problem.” It could be, he says - endorsing Bill Martin's view (pdf) - that productivity growth has been weak recent

    • Monopoly Capital redux

      Is it time for a revival of interest in Baran and Sweezy’s Monopoly Capital? I ask because it’s possible that the lasting effect of the credit crisis will be to leave us with an economy rather like they described it in 1966. They claimed that the economy was increasingly dominated by giant monopolistic corporations. Such a system, they said:

    • Are Unemployment Statistics Meaningless? Are Spillover Effects Zero?

      Casey Mulligan rebuts my post asserting slack in the economy by posing the scenario "Construction Workers Teaching Kindergarten". He writes: Econbrowser now claims* that the stimulus bill can be effective, because unemployment rates are high (whatever that means) in health care and education.

    Latest

    Forgemasters launches multi-million pound research programme
    Forgemasters launches multi-million pound...
    In Brief: FMG; Bondholders; Road to York; Bond Dickinson
    In Brief: FMG; Bondholders; Road to York; Bond...

    User login

    • Create new account
    • Request new password
    • Click on the icon to sign in with your social network login or enter your Bullfax.com login

    Our Blog

    • Oil Prices, India’s Inflation, Panama Canal and Bank Lending in Our News for Today 06/14/2013
    • SoftBank: Sprint to the finish
    • Royal Bank of Scotland, World Bank, European Stocks and Apple in Our Daily Round-Up for 06/13/2013

    Markets Map

    Markets Map

    Follow Us

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS
    S&P 500: 1639.04 0.75% FTSE: 6321.37 -0.14% Nikk.: 13007.28 -0.2% DAX: 8178.43 -0.46% HSI: 21158.27 -0.32% FX: EUR/GBP: 1.1746 USD/EUR: 1.3343 JPY/USD: 94.955 Commodities: Gold: 1379.40

    Bullfax.com - Market News & Analysis 2008-2011
    Contact Us | About Us | Terms & Conditions

    Follow Us on Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus and RSS LinkedIn Facebook Twitter Google Plus RSS .

    Secondary menu

    • Latest News
    • Top Rated
    • Most Popular
    • Archive
    • Discussions