Thursday, May 30, 2019

The very definition of excessive finance

"Financial Sectors" as a percent of "All Sectors" (Debt Securities and Loans; Liability, Level) Logged Values:

Graph #1

I added trend lines by eye, in Excel. As I am not an economist it is perfectly okay to do that.

Were I to put dates on it, 'twould be as follows:
  • Trend 1:  Q4 1951 - Q4 1974
  • Trend 2:  Q4 1976 - Q4 2002
  • Trend 3:  Q4 2002 - Q2 2009
  • Trend 4:  Q2 2011 - Q4 2018
Q4 2018 is end-of-data.

Using Excel's "Size and Position" option to examine the trend lines -- as I said: I'm not an economist, so it's okay -- turns up the following:


The graph of those slope values shows downward progress:

Graph #2
but that was obvious from the start. Looking at the numbers, though, I can say that the Trend 2 growth rate is only about 72% of the Trend 1 growth rate. And it's all downhill from there. (I didn't check this but I'm pretty sure I'd get the same 72% number if I looked at the values in a more respectable manner.)

So what can we conclude from this? I'm thinkin: Excessive finance doesn't just drag down the economy. It even drags down finance.

There's a lesson in that, I think.

1 comment:

The Arthurian said...

Also I would suggest (i.e., insist) that finance became by definition "excessive" as of Q4 1974 or (probably) before.

If we wanted to put limits on the size of finance or the degree of inequality, for example, we'd want to return to values that existed in 1974 or before.

Before: Because by 1974 it was already too late.