Where is the growth?

Again, productivity growth is fine.

Spoiler :


And really, thinking of long-term equilibrium, you're not going to convince multinational companies to bring overseas earnings disproportionately to the US, it makes more sense to invest proportionally to where you're making money.

Those earnings are mostly in the US now, in investments funds only formally owned by subsidiaries of the companies.
The US, sole issuer of the world's effective reserve currency, cannot have a shortage of financial capital. What may happen is that capital is not used for "real" investment" and is instead employed in purely financial speculation.
 
Those earnings are mostly in the US now, in investments funds only formally owned by subsidiaries of the companies.
The US, sole issuer of the world's effective reserve currency, cannot have a shortage of financial capital. What may happen is that capital is not used for "real" investment" and is instead employed in purely financial speculation.

For many American companies, the US hasn't contributed majority of earnings for quite some time.

Spoiler :
 
What is the gdp growth rate normalized against population? Or better yet normalized against working age population?

I can't help but feel like much of what we are seeing is just demographics.
 
Yeah I think as long as gdp/capita is rising at a steady rate concerns over non-normalized gdp growth are alarmism and bad numbers.
 
only one of them doesn't have a recession in the middle.
 
I was looking over GDP growth by year for the U.S. Since 1960...
no Democratic President has ever suffered a year of negative GDP growth
every Republican has had at least one year of negative GDP growth...except Nixon.
 
Easy to Google inflation-adjusted GDP per capita. Still trending pretty consistently upwards.

Explain, in words, how you benefited from "GDP growth per capita", capita in this case being your own head.
 
Is that notable? "Lower GDP growth than historical averages, if don't count any low numbers for the historical averages." is kind of a given.

It's notable if you think that recessions are pseudo-cyclical. So, a period including a recession is expected to have a lower growth rate.

It's ... I dunno ... akin to talking about a cool summer and then someone else point out three recent winters that had similar or cooler temperatures.
 
For many American companies, the US hasn't contributed majority of earnings for quite some time.

Apple moves all of its "overseas" profits to a US-domiciled investment vehicles.

Much ‘offshore’ income is actually already invested in the United States

To qualify as “offshore” for tax purposes, U.S. corporate money must be controlled by a foreign subsidiary, but it does not have to be invested abroad. In fact, for many corporations, these foreign profits already sit in Manhattan, in accounts in American banks. For example, as of last May, Apple had $102 billion in “permanently invested overseas” income not subject to the U.S. corporate tax. On Apple’s books, this untaxed profit is “offshore” because it is controlled by two Irish subsidiaries—even though these subsidiaries park their funds in bank accounts in New York. This $102 billion that has yet to be subject to U.S. taxation is already in the United States, not trapped in Ireland. Apple cannot use this money directly for American real estate acquisitions, dividends, share buybacks, or funding for operations in Cupertino, but the money is being loaned out in the American economy by American banks, funding American mortgages and small-business loans just like any other American deposit.

If bank accounts do not provide a high enough return, foreign subsidiaries of American corporations can use their unrepatriated income to purchase U.S. Treasury bonds or invest in the U.S. stock market, as long as the investments are in unrelated corporations. Apple can use unrepatriated profits to buy General Electric stock, and General Electric can buy Apple’s corporate bonds, all without “returning the money to the United States.”

That was from 2014, now Apple stashed most of its "overseas" money in a fund based in Iowa, I believe.
 
I wasn't talking about "overseas" profits in quotes.

Apple straight-up sells a majority of their physical goods outside of America.

You claimed, and I'll quote: "you're not going to convince multinational companies to bring overseas earnings disproportionately to the US". I told you that they are already doing that, have always been doing that. Not all earnings, some go to pay suppliers. But profits, sure they do.

I also very much suspect that most of their operating accounts are based on US banks.
 
Top Bottom