Income and Expenditure (was Re: Ayn Rand and the Elephants)

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.20.1130)]

I think I understand the problem now. The problem is in the reference of the
word "expenditure". When Bill Williams says:

Income and expenditures are equal by definition.

He is correct if the income he is talking about is the income for the
aggregate consumer (Ic) and the expenditure he is talking about is the
expenditure for the aggregate producer (Ep). It is not true if the income he
is talking about is the income for the aggregate consumer (Ic) and the
expenditure is the expenditure by the aggregate consumer (Ec).

Ic always equals Ep but Ic is generally greater than Ec.

This is also true for the definition of GDP posted by Bruce Gregory:

"Gross Domestic Product (GDP) may be thought of in two ways. First,
it is a measure of the total income of all individuals in the economy.
Second, it is a measure of the total value of expenditures on goods
and services in the economy. These two measures must be equal.

The aggregate producer has spent GDP amount to produce the goods and
services represented by GDP. That money went to the aggregate consumer as
income. So GDP = Ic = Ep. In general, however, GDP > Ec.

All of these facts are taken into account in the H. economicus model.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.20.1130)]

I think I understand the problem now. The problem is in the reference of

the

word "expenditure". When Bill Williams says:

> Income and expenditures are equal by definition.

He is correct if the income he is talking about is the income for the
aggregate consumer (Ic) and the expenditure he is talking about is the
expenditure for the aggregate producer (Ep). It is not true if the income

he

is talking about is the income for the aggregate consumer (Ic) and the
expenditure is the expenditure by the aggregate consumer (Ec).

Ic always equals Ep but Ic is generally greater than Ec.
>
All of these facts are taken into account in the H. economicus model.

Wrong again, for about the nth year in a row.

Strange as it may seem, _in the aggregate, Ic is equal to Ec. Rick,
you have yet to comprehend the logic of the agregate context. In
the aggregate, "Income is expenditure." And, conversely, "Expenditure
is Income."

We can continue the lesson, later. I'm going for a walk while it is still
light outside.

Bill Willams

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Marken" <marken@MINDREADINGS.COM>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 1:32 PM
Subject: Income and Expenditure (was Re: Ayn Rand and the Elephants)

[From Bill Williams 20 January 2004 7:00 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.01.20.1130)]

I think I understand the problem now. The problem is in the reference of

the

word "expenditure". When Bill Williams says:

> Income and expenditures are equal by definition.

He is correct if the income he is talking about is the income for the
aggregate consumer (Ic) and the expenditure he is talking about is the
expenditure for the aggregate producer (Ep). It is not true if the income

he

is talking about is the income for the aggregate consumer (Ic) and the
expenditure is the expenditure by the aggregate consumer (Ec).

I should have been more explicit. It would have been clearer if I had
said "Money Income is equal to money expenditure." Now Rick says,
that my assertion that "Income is expenditure" does not apply to the
following situation-- as Rick says,

It is not true [that income equals expenditure] if the income [Williams]
is talking about is the income for the aggregate consumer (Ic) and the
expenditure is the expenditure by the aggregate consumer (Ec).

However, as I pointed out in Boston a few years ago, in my attack on
Rick's presentation, it is of vital importance to avoid introducing
internal contradictions into economic argument. Because, if there are
internal contradictions at the foundations of the analysis, we can
expect to reach conclusions that depend upon arbitrary choices that
are made concerning how to interpreter the underlying contradiction.

Consider the example of the aggregate circular flow diagram in economics. .

                      ________<____(2)_____
                      > >
                     C P
                      > >
                      -----(1)---------->---------------

To start with say the rate of income is 100 units. In a simultaneous
analysis
the income is 100 units everywhere in the closed, circular flow loop. Now
the problem starts. Suppose the consumer attempts to save by reducing
expenditures relative to income. What will be the effect? An individual
consumer can, of course, choose to reduce expenditures out of a, more or
less, constant income. But, this is not true in the situation under
consideration
here. The analysis here is, as has been agreed by all parties, a
simultaneous
aggregate analysis. Consistent with this specification, there is in the
circuit
above no loop or time delay. If an expenditure is inserted into the loop
at
point one it will appear without any delay what-so -ever at two. It may be
helpful to think of the circular flow in terms of a perfect circle in which
the
rate of income is equal to the diameter of the circle. When income changes
in the context of a simultaneous analysis the circle either expands or
contracts-- never-the-less where ever the expenditure is inserted into the
flow the circle is maintained without distortion.-- by expanding or
contracting
everywhere-- simultaneously.

Suppose the producer in the figure above attempts to make a profit. An
attempt to reduce expenses below income will have the effect, not of
creating a difference between income and expenditure, but rather the
effect of reducing _both_ expenditure and income. And, reducing them
in such a way that they are always equal to each other. This what is meant
by a simultaneous analysis. The choice of a circle, and the distinction
between an aggregate consumer and an aggregate producer as context in
which to depict economic transactions may make it more difficult than is
genuinely necessary to understand what is involved. It is evident that many
economists don't genuinely understand is involved. They may use terms
such as "aggregate", and "simultaneous" without making an intellectual
commitment to a consistent adherence to the principles to which these
terms refer.

Rick's H. Economicus use of a controller to bring two parts of the wheel of
circulation into equation with each other displays a fundamental
misunderstanding of the principles involved in a simultaneous equation
model of transactions in the aggregate. In the aggregate sales equal
purchases. That isn't all one needs to know. However, violation of this
obvious equation is going to result in mischief-- which is what I said in
Boston, and also in St. Louis as well (if my memory is correct). Therefore,
as they said in L. Carrol's "The Hunting of the Snark" I've said it once,
I've said it twice, I've said it thrice-- Tis true."

Bill Williams

[Martin Taylor 2004.01.20.2300]

[From Bill Williams 20 January 2004 7:00 PM CST]
To start with say the rate of income is 100 units.

...

. The analysis here is, as has been agreed by all parties, a
simultaneous
aggregate analysis.

I'm having a problem understanding your discussion. Aren't these two
statements--income having a "rate" and analysis being
simultaneous--incompatible?

If in some way they aren't incompatible, how is it possible to get
any kind of dynamical analysis whatever out of a static base?

Sorry to be so dumb.

Martin

[Fromj Bill Powers (2004.01.21.0745 MST)]

Martin Taylor 2004.01.20.2300 --

, how is it possible to get any kind of dynamical analysis whatever
out of a static base?

I'm sure you know the answer to this, but I'll chime in anyhow.

What you call a "static base" is simply an algebraic analysis. Algebra
knows nothing about time; simultaneous algebraic equations are literally
simultaneous in that all relationships have to hold true at the same
instant. Clearly, then, algebraic equations can't handle any process that
actually takes time to occur, except perhaps to depict the final steady
state if one exists. Keynes tried to handle income, savings, and investment
using algebraic equations, and failed for that reason.

In order to handle processes that take place through time, it is necessary
to use time-dependent expressions, and that means differential equations.
Keynes made a stab at doing this by thinking in terms of accounting
periods. But this doesn't lead to a process-type or time-dependent picture
unless you make the accounting periods shorter and shorter until in the
limit they become zero. In other words, you have to make the transition
from algebra to the calculus.

The way I handled this was to introduce cumulative variables, known in
Vensim as "stocks" and in mathematics as time-integrals. I used a "Reserve"
(to avoid the red-flag word "savings") to indicate accumulations of money,
and "inVentory" to indicate accumulations of goods. Then, as in the post a
week or so ago, one can write the differential equations showing how different
"flow" variables (in Vensim terms) contribute to increases and decreases in
the "stock" variables. Income adds to the Reserve, whether earned or in the
form of distributed producer income, or monetary investments contributed to
a producer. Buying goods subtracts from the Reserve, as would paying
interest or repaying a loan or dropping your wallet into a storm sewer.
Producing goods adds to inventory, and using goods, having them
deteriorate, or selling them subtracts from the inventory. Contrary to
economic custom, I keep track of goods as objects rather than equivalent
monetary value -- one can always convert when necessary by referring to
price per good, summing over goods if different goods have different
prices, and over time as prices change.

Transactions create flows, if treated in terms of transactions per unit
time rather than as isolated events. If you buy at the rate of G goods per
day, for a period of dt days , then your inventory of goods increases at
the rate of G per day, and G*dt per iteration period. The "accounting
period" is dt, which may be 0.001 day. The same transaction rate reduces
your Reserve at the rate of G*P dollars per day, or G*P*dt dollars per
accounting period (P = price).

Now there is no conceptual problem with "instantaneous" movements of goods
and money around the circular flow. The cumulative variables or integrals
decouple the instantaneous changes. They also introduce instabilities that
the real system contains, which are dealt with in various ways (In
Econ004.pas, my first cut at a model, the system comes to equilibrium after
some interesting oscillations). And most of all, they allow simulations in
which all the variables change smoothly through time, which no algebraic
analysis can do.

So, that is my answer to your question, and I'm sure there is nothing new
to you in it.

Best,

Bill P.