Neoliberalism and the U.S. Economic Expansion of the '90s

Monthly Review

Volumn 54, Issue 11, 2003, Pages 15-33

  Kotz, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345757508     PISSN: 00270520     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14452/mr-054-11-2003-04_2     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. See Robert Pollin, "Anatomy of Clintonomics," New Left Review, May/June 2000, 17-46.
2. The remaining three components - residential investment, increases in inventories, and the difference between exports and imports - play some role in economic growth but are much smaller than the three demand components cited above.
3. The profit rate figures are for the rate of profit on net worth, after taxes, for the non-financial corporate business sector, calculated from data from the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds Accounts, Tables B.102 and F. 102, 2001.
4. Declining taxation on capital contributed about 40 percent as much to the rise in the rate of profit as did the decline in the real wage in the face of rising labor productivity.
5. The peculiarities of the method used by the Government's Bureau of Economic Analysis to compute the price index for computers may substantially overstate the growth rate of "real" (inflation-corrected) IT investment. The current dollar figures for IT investment show an annual increase of 9.6 percent per year in 1991-1995 and 12.2 percent in 1995-2000. The pattern is the same but the growth rates appear less stratospheric by this measure.
6. To be comparable to stock price changes, the GDP growth rates in figure 1 are not corrected for inflation. Hence, they differ from the GDP growth rates shown in tables 1 and 2.
7. Flow of Funds Accounts, 9/18/01, Table L.213, line 19.
8. Foreign purchases of U.S. securities other than Treasury securities rose from $130.2 billion in 1996 to $197.9 billion in 1997, an increase of 52 percent, while U.S. purchases of foreign securities fell by $30.8 billion between 1996 and 1997, a decline of 21 percent (U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, Table 1, December 12, 2001).
9. Federal Reserve System, Flow of Funds Accounts, Table L.213, September 18, 2001.
10. Federal Reserve System, Flow of Funds Accounts, Table B.100, December 5, 2002.
11. See the Review of the Month in Monthly Review, May 2000, 1-11.
12. The inflow of capital was both a contributing cause of the bubble, and also a result of the bubble. It is part of the nature of a speculative bubble that all the sources of investment that propel it are also drawn to it by the previous bubble growth.
13. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data, Table 1, December 12, 2001.
14. Economic Report of the President, 2002, Table B-47, 376.
15. The figure cited is for the trade-weighted average of a broad group of U.S. trading partners' currencies (Economic Report of the President, 2001, p. 400).
16. Federal Reserve Statistical Release G.17, "Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization," January 17, 2003.