In the previous post, we saw how, under restrictive assumptions, r < g means that capital cannot self-perpetuate. Holders of wealth— in the aggregate— must save more than capital income provides or the wealth-income ratio \beta will fall.
Unfortunately, the assumptions behind this conclusion are surely overly restrictive. In particular, we should at the very least investigate the dynamics when there are long-run capital gains. When there are no miscellaneous volume adjustments,
\beta_t=\frac{1+q_t}{1+g_t}\left(1+g^{ws}_t\right)\beta_{t-1}
where q is the rate of inflation-adjusted capital gains, and g^{ws} is the pure rate of growth of wealth due to saving (that is, g^{ws}={S}/{W}– the savings-wealth ratio. We may rewrite the evolution of \beta as
\beta_t=\frac{1+q_t}{1+g_t}\left(\beta_{t-1}+s_{t-1}\right)
and therefore
\left(\beta_t-\bar{\beta}_t\right)=\frac{1+q_t}{1+g_t}\left(\beta_{t-1}-\bar{\beta}_t\right)
where
\bar{\beta}_t=\frac{1+q_t}{g_t-q_t}s_{t-1}
Thus, so long as g>q— the rate of capital gains is less than the growth rate of net income— then \beta tends toward a finite ratio. However, if q>g, then \beta grows without bound. The rate at which wealth appreciates may become more critical to the dynamics than the interest and dividends it may provide.
No comments:
Post a Comment