“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“Unintended Consequences should be read by anyone who takes for granted the superiority of progressive taxation and has not thought carefully about the trade-offs involved.” - The New Republic
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“Unintended Consequences represents the most cogent and persuasive analysis of the Financial Crisis to date.” - Andrei Shleifer, 1999 John Bates Clark Medal Winner
“Unintended Consequences provides a provocative interpretation of the causes of the global financial crisis and the policies needed to return to rapid growth. Whether you agree or not, this analysis is well worth reading.” - Nouriel Roubini, New York University; Chairman, Roubini Global Economics
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Bullipe Chintha, Ravi Jagannathan and Sri SridharNational Bureau of Economic Research
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
During 2003-19, the mean EBIT margin of US public companies increased by 11.5% vs. 1984-2002, driven by a 47.4% increase in foreign profitability for S&P 500 firms, while domestic profitability remained flat.
We find that the overall profitability of US firms as measured by the ratio of aggregate Earnings Before Interest and Taxes to aggregate Sales (EBIT Margin, EBITM), increased significantly following increased globalization heralded by China’s entry into WTO in December 2001. We find that the increase in EBITM is driven primarily by the increased foreign profitability of S&P 500 firms, which are larger and spend significantly more on R&D than firms not in S&P 500 index (ex-S&P 500) and have greater intangible intensity than ex-S&P 500 firms. Even among S&P 500 firms, those firms that had higher intangible intensities as measured by higher R&D/Sales and Intangible Assets/Sales ratios had higher increases in their foreign profitability. Neither S&P 500 nor ex-S&P 500 firms experienced any increase in their domestic EBITM following increased globalization, consistent with increased import competition. In the aggregate, the average annual profitability of US public firms in 2003-2019 increased by 11.5% of 1984-2002 profitability. This increase was primarily driven by foreign profitability increasing by 47.4% for firms in the S&P 500 index, which are larger and have more intangible assets created by R&D and SG&A expenditures.
Corporate Profits in the Aftermath of COVID-19— New @federalreserve research demonstrates elevated corporate profit margins during the pandemic period were a function of government spending and lower…
US net investment has declined from its 1950-80 average of 10% of GDP to 5%. @TimothyTTaylor argues that the cause is increased investment in information technology that depreciates more quickly than plant and equipment.
Gross investment has typically been 20-25% of GDP over time, although in recent years it’s been closer to the lower end of that range. From the 1950s up into the 1980s, net investment was (very roughly) 10% of GDP. Thus, it was plausible to say that in a typical year, a little more than half of gross investment went to replace capital that was wearing out, and a little less than half of gross investment was actually new, net investment growing the capital stock. But in the last decade or so, gross investment has been about 20% of GDP, and net investment has fallen to about 5% of GDP. In other words, gross investment as a share of GDP has fallen a bit, but not too much. The real change is that about three-quarters of investment is now going to replace capital that has worn out, so net investment is much lower.
Related Articles:
Capital Allocation— .@mjmauboussin shows capital expenditures net of depreciation as a percentage of sales peaked in 1988 at 6.9%. Over the past decade it has averaged 1.8% and…