Government Borrowing and the Growth of Money Income

2019 ◽  
pp. 51-71
Author(s):  
Evan F. M. Durbin
Keyword(s):  
Kyklos ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
William R. Allen
Keyword(s):  

1977 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-79
Author(s):  
J. Wilson Mixon ◽  
Leila J. Pratt ◽  
Myles S. Wallace

2010 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Burtless ◽  
Pavel Svaton

Cash income offers an incomplete picture of the resources available to finance household consumption. Most American families are covered by an insurance plan that pays for some or all of the health care they consume. Only a comparatively small percentage of families pays for the full cost of this insurance out of their cash incomes. As health care has claimed a growing share of consumption, the percentage of care that is financed out of household incomes has declined. Because health care consumption is more important for some groups in the population than others, the growth in spending and changes in the payment system for medical care have reduced the value of standard income measures for assessing relative incomes of the rich and poor and the young and old. More than a seventh of total personal consumption now consists of health care that is purchased with government insurance and employer contributions to employee health plans. This paper combines health care spending and insurance reimbursement data in the Medical Expenditure Panel Study and money income and health coverage data in the Current Population Survey to assess the impact of health insurance on the distribution of income. Our estimates imply that gross money income significantly understates the resources available to finance household purchases. The estimates imply that a more complete measure of resources would show less inequality than the income measures that are currently used. The addition of estimates of the value of health insurance to countable incomes reduces measured inequality in the population and the income gap between young and old. If the analysis were extended over a longer period, it would show a sizeable impact of insurance on inequality trends in the United States.


1989 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
James H. Stock ◽  
Mark W. Watson
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Werner Sombart ◽  
C. T. Husbands
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-151
Author(s):  
Maria N. Ivanova

This paper analyzes key aspects of Marx’s theory of money in order to reassert its continued relevance for understanding monetary developments in contemporary capitalism. Unlike theorists who become preoccupied with particular functions and forms of money, Marx develops a comprehensive concept of money integrating its various functions and emphasizing the socio-economic basis of its existence. Money performs different functions including a measure of value, a means of purchase/exchange, a means of payment, and a means of hoarding, which are independent of money’s concrete forms. The functions of money as a means of purchase and means of payment relate to each other as money (income) and credit (money), which are fundamentally different. The quantity and availability of credit (money) may be influenced by the activities of the central bank and the private banking system. Credit (money), however, can only become money (income) if and when it enters the domain of social production as an embodiment of the value of social labor and social purchasing power. This inextricable link between money and social production sets natural limits to the ability of monetary policy to influence both monetary and non-monetary developments in contemporary capitalism. An analysis grounded in Marx’s theory of money can provide insights into a range of contemporary monetary phenomena including hoarding, the rush to liquidity during financial crises, the scramble for government debt as a source of ultimate liquidity, and the limits to conventional and unconventional monetary policy. JEL Classification: E4, E5, B51, E6


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document