Sectoral balances – Part 1
Sectoral balances – Part 2 – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory
2012/10/19
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21389Sectoral balances – Part 2
Sectoral balances – Part 3 – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory
2012/10/26
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21467Sectoral balances – Part 3
☆
Chapter 6 Sectoral Accounting
In Chapter 5 the national accounting framework was outlined out in some detail. The framework provides a means for measuring the economic activity in an economy over a period of time and allows us to consider the sources of expenditure that drive national income and output. In this chapter we consider economic activity from a different perspective.
To start the discussion, recall the distinction between stocks and flows. In a monetary economy, flows of expenditures measured in terms of dollars spent over a period involve transactions between sectors in the economy, which also have logical stock counterparts. There are two related frameworks that economists use to account for these transactions.
The national accounting framework and the so-called flow-of-funds accounts are two different, but related ways of considering national economic activity.
An early exponent of the flow-of-funds approach, Lawrence Ritter wrote in 1963 that:
[Full reference: Ritter, L.W. (1963) ‘An Exposition of the Structure of the Flow-of-Funds Accounts’, The Journal of Finance, 18(2), May, 219-230]The flow of funds is a system of social accounting in which (a) the economy is divided into a number of sectors and (b) a “sources- and-uses-of-funds statement” is constructed for each sector. When all these sector sources-and-uses-of-funds statements are placed side by side, we obtain (c) the flow-of-funds matrix for the economy as a whole. That is the sum and substance of the matter.
The flow-of-funds accounts allow us to link a sector’s balance sheet (statements about stocks of financial and real net wealth) to income statements (statements about flows) in a consistent fashion. That is flows feed stocks and the flow-of-funds accounts ensure that all of the monetary transactions are correctly accounted for.
Flow-of-funds and sectoral balances – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32396Flow-of-funds and sectoral balances – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32396Flow-of-funds and sectoral balances
I have noted some misperceptions about the derivation, meaning and application of the so-called sectoral balances framework that is used in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) to help explicate the relationship between the government and the non-government sectors. Some of this confusion appears to be the product of a deeper misunderstanding of the difference between stocks and flows and relationships between flows in economics. Those who conclude that this framework is really just an accounting structure are incorrect. Equally, those who conclude that the accounting relationships that are part of the sectoral balances framework are matters of interpretation are also incorrect. It should be clear that the sectoral balances framework combines accounting structures, which are derived from the national accounts framework used by statisticians to measure economic activity, and theoretical propositions, which seek to explain relationships between variables within the accounting structures. In other words, we need to understand both the accounting aspects that are true by definition as well as the underlying theoretical structures which drive the balances.
One reader suggested that a Jeremy Corbyn adviser had largely dismissed the sectoral balances framework as having any economic content as evidenced by this Tweet (October 29, 2015):
I was also referred to a recent blog written by the senior economist at the British TUC – Fiscal fallacies (2): accounting identities and the case for government loan-expenditures – which appears to entertain the view that the sectoral balances framework provides a “case for expansionary policy”.
Both these inputs are unhelpful.
Background to the flow-of-funds approach
The sectoral balances framework is intrinsically linked to the flow of funds analysis. An early exponent of the flow-of-funds approach, Lawrence Ritter wrote in 1963 that:
[Full reference: Ritter, L.W. (1963) ‘An Exposition of the Structure of the Flow-of-Funds Accounts’, The Journal of Finance, 18(2), May, 219-230]The flow of funds is a system of social accounting in which (a) the economy is divided into a number of sectors and (b) a “sources- and-uses-of-funds statement” is constructed for each sector. When all these sector sources-and-uses-of-funds statements are placed side by side, we obtain (c) the flow-of-funds matrix for the economy as a whole. That is the sum and substance of the matter.
The flow-of-funds accounts allow us to link a sector’s balance sheet (statements about stocks of financial and real net wealth) to income statements (statements about flows) in a consistent fashion. That is flows feed stocks and the flow-of-funds accounts ensure that all of the monetary transactions are correctly accounted for.
This approach underpinned the work of the so-called New Cambridge approach who were part of the Cambridge Economic Policy Group at the University of Cambridge in the early 1970s. Key members of this group were Martin Fetherston, Wynne Godley and Francis Cripps, who were from a Keynesian persuasion but departed from the usual Keynesian thinking when it came to balance of payments issues. I will leave that discussion for another day.
While the sectoral balances approach had been understood much earlier (for example, by Nicolas Kaldor and others), it became popularised by the New Cambridge macroeconomics analysis which introduced the concept of the net acquisition of financial assets of the private sector (NAFA) into the forefront of its Keynesian income-expenditure model.
Like Lawrence Ritter, the Cambridge economists considered it interesting to trace the flow of funds between the different sectors of the economy, which they divided into three sectors:
1. The government sector – which comprised all levels of government and their agencies.
2. The private domestic sector – which comprised households and firms ( including banks).
3. The external sector – which comprised all non-residents (private households, firms and governments).
From an Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) perspective (2) and (3) comprise the non-government sector.
After all the transactions have flowed in any given period, any one of these sectors could record a financial deficit or surplus. A financial deficit (surplus) is defined as a state where total income is less (more) than the sector’s spending.
So for the private domestic sector, it is in financial surplus (deficit) when its disposable income exceeds (is less than) its spending on consumption goods and/or investment goods.
The external sector is in surplus (deficit) when total export revenue is greater than (less than) the payments for imports. The external balance includes the so-called net primary and secondary income flows that accrue to residents as a consequence of interest and dividends received on overseas ownership (offset by similar payments to foreigners).
While the trade balance refers to the difference between export and import revenue on goods and services, the external sector balance overall is equivalent to the Current Account balance that includes the net income flows.
The government sector deficit (surplus) arises when total government expenditure is greater than (less than) total tax and other revenue.
The interpretation of these balances in the New Cambridge approach, is that when a particular sector has a financial surplus (that is, its income exceeds its expenditure) it is able to add to its net financial assets through additional purchases of new assets or reducing its existing debt obligations.
MMT adopts the same interpretation although when applied to the government sector to conclusion is somewhat meaningless other than in a purely accounting sense.
The New Cambridge expression for the private sector NAFA(p) is:
(1) NAFA(p) = Yd – (C + I)
where Yd is total disposable income of the private domestic sector, which is total national income (Y) minus total taxes net of transfers (T); C is total consumption expenditure and I is total capital expenditure including unintended inventory accumulation (investment) of the private domestic sector.
Expression (1) is defined in terms of dollar flows of income and spending.
From a stock prospective, NAFA(p) is also measured by the difference between the stock of net financial assets at time t and the stock at time t-1, where t-1 is some earlier period (t is just a time indicator, so t is now and t-1 might be last year).
Importantly, transactions within the private domestic sector do not alter the net financial position of the sector overall. For example, if a bank creates a loan for one of its customers then its assets rise but on the other side, the liabilities of the customer increases by an equal amount – leaving no change in the net position of the sector.
The only way the private domestic sector can increase its net financial assets is through transactions with the government or external sector – for example, by acquiring a government bond or buying a foreign government bond (or a foreign corporate bond).
Note, if we aggregate the non-government sector then we get the standard MMT result that financial transactions within the non-government sector do not alter the net financial position of that sector. Only financial exchanges between the government and non-government sector can be a source of increased net financial assets in the non-government sector.
Once we understand the interlinked nature of the three sectors then it is a simple step to realise that if one sector has improved its net acquisition of financial assets, that is, achieved a financial surplus, at least one other sector must have reduced its net financial assets or run a financial deficit.
The flow-of-funds framework allows us to understand that the funds a particular sector receives during a period from current receipts, borrowing, selling financial assets, and running down cash balances have to be equal to the total of its current expenditures, capital expenditures, debt repayments, lending, and accumulation of cash balances.
The approach clearly allows us to trace the uses and sources of funds for each sector.
It should be emphasised that the flow-of-funds approach is based on accounting principles rather than being a behavioural (theoretical) framework for understanding how the flows occur. Relatedly, there are no insights into the adjustment processes that govern the change in net financial assets in each sector.
That is not to be taken as a criticism of the approach – it is merely an observation. It also doesn’t reduce the utility and insights that the approach provides. Often economists like to denigrate analyses that manipulate accounting identities as if they are too low brow. But any approach is valuable if it provides useful ways of thinking.
The Sectoral Balances approach
The Sectoral Balances perspective of the National Accounts also brings the uses and sources of national income together.
The most basic macroeconomics rule is that one person’s spending is another person’s income. At the sectoral level the same proposition holds. Another way of stating this rule is that the use of income by one person will become the source of income for another person or persons. Similarly, at the sectoral level.
The National Accounts divided the national economy into different expenditure categories – consumption by persons/households; investment by private business firms; spending by the government; exports to and imports from the foreign sector.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics publication – Australian System of National Accounts: Concepts, Sources and Methods, 2014 – provides an excellent source for understanding the background concepts that are used to derive the sectoral balances framework.
From this framework, economists derived what is called the basic income-expenditure model in macroeconomics to explain the theory of income determination that forms the core of the so-called Keynesian approach.
The income-expenditure model is a combination of accounting identities drawn from the national accounting framework and behavioural theories about how flows of expenditure by households, firms, governments, and foreigners combine to generate sales, which in turn, motivates output and income generation.
Remember, that an expenditure flow is measured as a certain quantity of dollars that is spent per unit of time. So for example, in the June-quarter 2015, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that household consumption in Australia was $220,913 millions in real, seasonally-adjusted terms.
Conversely, a stock is measured at a point in time and is the product of prior, relevant flows. For example, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that total employment in Australia in October 2015 was 11,838.2 thousand. The flows that generated this stock of employment were all the movements of workers between the different labour force categories: employment, unemployment, and not in the labour force.
A flow is like a stream of water measured as litres per second (for example) whereas a stock is like a reservoir level measured at some point in time.
So the way that MMT uses the sectoral balances approach has to be understood not only in terms of the accounting structure that underpins the flow of funds but also in terms of the theoretical conjectures that link the variables within the financial balances and provide some guidance about the way in which the balances adjust once disturbed by external factors.
The accounting aspects that underpin the income-expenditure model draw on different ways of thinking about the national accounts.
First, we can measure the sources of spending that flow into the economy over a given period. Economists use the shorthand expression:
(2) GDP ≡ C + I + G + (X – M)
which says that total national income (GDP) is the sum of total final household consumption spending (C), total private investment including inventory accumulation (I), total government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).
Note the use of the mathematical symbol ≡ which denotes an Identity which is true by definition and the “equivalence … does not depend on the particular values of the variables”.
We often replace it with an equals sign (=) but we always know that this National Accounts Identity is an accounting statement which must always be true.
As it stands, the National Accounting Identity is not a theory. We will come back to that point presently.
Introducing theoretical conjecture allows us to introduce causality and develop an explanation of how expenditure drives income generation. The central role played by the principal of effective demand provides the causal link between expenditure and income.
It tells us that total income in the economy per period will be exactly equal to total spending from all sources but also the process involved that bring that equality into line.
We also have to acknowledge that financial balances of the sectors are impacted by net government taxes (T) which includes all taxes and transfer and interest payments (the latter are not counted independently in the expenditure Expression (2)).
Further, as noted above the trade account is only one aspect of the financial flows between the domestic economy and the external sector. we have to include net external income flows (FNI).
Adding in the net external income flows (FNI) to Expression (2) for GDP we get the familiar gross national product or gross national income measure (GNP):
(3) GNP = C + I + G + (X – M) + FNI
At this stage, we could get quite complicated and consider things like retained earnings in corporations and the like, but here we assume that all income generated ultimately comes back to households (after all the distributions are made).
To render this approach into the sectoral balances form, we subtract total taxes and transfers (T) from both sides of Expression (3) to get:
(4) GNP – T = C + I + G + (X – M) + FNI – T
Now we can collect the terms by arranging them according to the three sectoral balances:
(5) (GNP – C – T) – I = (G – T) + (X – M + FNI)
The the terms in Expression (5) are relatively easy to understand now. The term (GNP – C – T) represents total income less the amount consumed less the amount paid to government in taxes (taking into account transfers coming the other way).
In other words, it represents private domestic saving.
The left-hand side of Equation (3), (GNP – C – T) – I, thus is the overall saving of the private domestic sector, which is distinct from total household saving denoted by the term (GNP – C – T).
In other words, the left-hand side of Equation (3) is the private domestic financial balance and if it is positive then the sector is spending less than its total income and if it is negative the sector is spending more than it total income.
The term (G – T) is The government financial balance and is in deficit if government spending (G) is greater than government tax revenue (T), and in surplus if the balance is negative.
Finally, the other right-hand side term (X – M + FNI) is the external financial balance, commonly known as the current account balance (CAD). It is in surplus if positive and deficit if negative.
In English we could say that:
The private financial balance equals the sum of the government financial balance plus the current account balance.
Note that by re-arranging Expression (5) we get the familiar sectoral balances equation:
(6) (S – I) – (G – T) – CAD = 0
Following our earlier discussion of the flow-of-fund approach made popular by the New Cambridge economists, we can re-write Expression (6) in this way:
(7) (S – I) = (G – T) + CAD
which the New Cambridge economists interpreted as meaning that government sector deficits (G – T > 0) and current account surpluses (CAD > 0) generate national income and net financial assets for the private domestic sector.
Conversely, government surpluses (G – T < 0) and current account deficits (CAD < 0) reduce national income and undermine the capacity of the private domestic sector to add financial assets.
Expression (7) can also be written as:
(8) [(S – I) – CAD] = (G – T)
where the term on the left-hand side [(S – I) – CAD] is the non-government sector financial balance and is of equal and opposite sign to the government financial balance.
This is the familiar MMT statement that a government sector deficit (surplus) is equal dollar-for-dollar to the non-government sector surplus (deficit).
In summary, our interpretation of the sectoral financial balances is as follows:
1. (S – I) is the private domestic financial balance or the NAFA of the private domestic sector. If it is in surplus, then that sector is lending funds to the other sectors. If it is in deficit, then the private domestic sector is borrowing from the other sectors or running down its net financial position in other ways (such as liquidating past wealth accumulation).
2. (G – T) is the government sector financial balance. If it is in surplus then the government sector is spending less than it is taking out of the economy in taxation and undermining the capacity of the two other sectors to accumulate net financial assets and vice versa.
3. CAD is the external sector financial balance. If it is in deficit then the national economy is borrowing from abroad or running down its net financial position in other ways and foreigners are accumulating financial asset claims and vice versa.
These are accounting statements. So in one sense, the claim that the sectoral balances is about accounting is factual. But of course it also is a highly limited conclusion.
At this stage, we know nothing about the state of the economy that would be associated with bringing these balances into line, nor do we know anything about where the economy has been and where it might be heading.
Further, we don’t know what motivates each of the financial balances accounted for.
At this point, to give traction to analysis we need to add theory. As noted above, once theoretical conjectures are included in the framework then we can start to explore causality, adjustment, and understand the state of the economy more fully, including the policy options that might drive the economy to where we want it to go.
The theoretical dimension of the sectoral balances framework takes this well beyond the accounting.
So the income-expenditure model is a theoretical structure that conjectures that changes in these financial balances are driven by national income flows, which in turn, are driven by changing expenditure flows.
For example, there are various theories of household consumption expenditure but all of them suggest that consumption is determined positively by changes in disposable income. The response of consumption to a change in income is called the Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC). It is normally hypothesised that the MPC will be less than one, so that the residual of disposable income not consumed will be positive. That constitutes saving.
So the private domestic financial balance (S – I) will increase, other things equal, when national income rises.
Similarly, taxation revenue (net of transfers) is considered to be a positive function of national income. So, other things equal, the government financial balance (G – T) falls when national income rises, and vice versa.
Imports are also considered to be a positive function of national income – so when national income rises we buy more locally- produced goods and more imported goods. So the external balance falls when national income rises, and vice versa, other things equal.
We could add more complex theoretical propositions to explain private domestic investment, exports, government spending, and net foreign income transfers. And indeed, larger macroeconomic models do just that.
But the point is that these theoretical conjectures allow us to hypothesise what will happen to the financial balances if there is an external event that leads to income changes.
For example, we might assume the government decides that the level of income is too low because spending is too low relative to full capacity spending and as a result unemployment is too high.
It introduces a discretionary increase in the deficit such that G – T rises. This stimulates national income via the expenditure multiplier process which increases disposable income, consumption expenditure, and household saving. It also stimulates increased import expenditure.
If nothing else changes, Private domestic net financial asset acquisition will increase and the external deficit will increase somewhat. The relationship between the sectoral balances will be maintained but national income will be higher and the net financial assets in the non-government sector will have changed.
More complex theoretical reasoning is obviously possible.
The accounting structures that underpin the sectoral balances framework allows to check logic. For example, if a politician says that the government and non-government should simultaneously reduce their net indebtedness (increase their net wealth) (assuming neo-liberal public debt issuance strategies) then we know that is not possible. We don’t have to resort to theory to make those sort of conclusions.
But the accounting structures do not allow us to determine the validity of a political statement that says that austerity will stimulate growth. At that point we need theory and we can use the sectoral balances framework to draw inferences about which sectors will respond in which way when austerity is imposed.
Conclusion
The sectoral balances framework and the closely related flow-of-funds approach is an extremely useful analytical tool, which is very much underused by economists.
In one sense it is pure accounting. That provides useful insights in its own right. But to really use it as an engine for understanding and analysis we need to marry in theoretical conjectures that allow us comprehend how the balances respond to income shifts and how they correspond to different states of the economy.
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2015 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.
Sectoral balances – Part 1
I am now using Friday’s blog space to provide draft versions of the Modern Monetary Theory textbook that I am writing with my colleague and friend Randy Wray. We expect to complete the text by the end of this year. Comments are always welcome. Remember this is a textbook aimed at undergraduate students and so the writing will be different from my usual blog free-for-all. Note also that the text I post is just the work I am doing by way of the first draft so the material posted will not represent the complete text. Further it will change once the two of us have edited it.
Chapter 6 Sectoral Accounting
In Chapter 5 the national accounting framework was outlined out in some detail. The framework provides a means for measuring the economic activity in an economy over a period of time and allows us to consider the sources of expenditure that drive national income and output. In this chapter we consider economic activity from a different perspective.
To start the discussion, recall the distinction between stocks and flows. In a monetary economy, flows of expenditures measured in terms of dollars spent over a period involve transactions between sectors in the economy, which also have logical stock counterparts. There are two related frameworks that economists use to account for these transactions.
The national accounting framework and the so-called flow-of-funds accounts are two different, but related ways of considering national economic activity.
[NOTE: SOME MORE BACKGROUND HERE TO COME – DETAILING HOW JOINING THESE FRAMEWORKS ALLOWS US TO EXPLICITLY UNDERSTAND THE MONETARY SIDE OF THE ECONOMY]An early exponent of the flow-of-funds approach, Lawrence Ritter wrote in 1963 that:
[Full reference: Ritter, L.W. (1963) ‘An Exposition of the Structure of the Flow-of-Funds Accounts’, The Journal of Finance, 18(2), May, 219-230]The flow of funds is a system of social accounting in which (a) the economy is divided into a number of sectors and (b) a “sources- and-uses-of-funds statement” is constructed for each sector. When all these sector sources-and-uses-of-funds statements are placed side by side, we obtain (c) the flow-of-funds matrix for the economy as a whole. That is the sum and substance of the matter.
The flow-of-funds accounts allow us to link a sector’s balance sheet (statements about stocks of financial and real net wealth) to income statements (statements about flows) in a consistent fashion. That is flows feed stocks and the flow-of-funds accounts ensure that all of the monetary transactions are correctly accounted for.
Following Ritter, we can present a very simple “generalised balance sheet”, which would apply to any sector, as being depicted in the following T-account, Figure 6.1
Several points are worth noting. Real assets are treated differently to financial assets because they only appear on the balance sheet of the owner.
Liabilities are different because their existence as debt (to some other sector) means they will be matched by a financial asset on at least one other balance sheet.
Financial assets denote monetary amounts owing to that sector, which by the same logic as before means that there will be a matching liability on at least one other balance sheet within the system.
When we consider the monetary system as a whole, we conclude that financial assets and financial liabilities net to zero – that is, the total value of the financial assets equals the total value of outstanding liabilities.
The accounting also tells us that for the overall economy, net worth equals to monetary value of the real assets in the economy
Figure 6.1 A stylised sectoral balance sheet
The balance sheet depicts stocks but we can easily see how they might provide us with information about flows, in the way the national accounts does. A stock is measured at point in time (say, the end of the year) whereas flows measure monetary transactions over a period (say, a year).
If we examine the difference between a balance sheet compiled at, say December 31, 2011, and a balance sheet compiled at December 31, 2012, we will be able to represent the information in the balance sheet about assets, liabilities and net worth as flow data.
Consider Figure 6.2 (where the Δ symbol refers to changes over the period concerned). Now the entries in the T-account denote uses and sources of funds (that is, flows) over the period of interest. There are two components. One relates to financial assets and the other real assets and net worth.
A given sector (for example, household, firm, government) can obtain funds by increasing their liabilities by borrowing and incurring debt (ΔL). They can apply those funds to accumulating more financial assets (ΔFA) or building cash balances (ΔM)
If we wanted to complicate matters we could decompose – ΔFA, ΔM) and ΔL – further, by recognising that a given sector can also sell existing financial assets or run down cash balances to obtain new funds. Similarly, it might use funds to reduce liabilities (run down debts). So the entries in Figure 6.2 are to be considered net transactions.
Figure 6.2 A uses-and-sources-of-funds statement
The second source and use of funds for a sector relates to changes in Real assets (ΔRA) and the change in Net worth (ΔNW) over a given period.
In the National Accounts framework we considered the division between the Capital Account and the Current Account, where the former related to investment in productive capacity and the latter refered to recurrent spending and income. The Capital Account measured transactions, which change the real assets held and the net worth of the economy.
What do we mean by a change in real assets? In the National Accounts, we considered gross capital formation or investment, which is defined as expenditure on productive capital goods (for example, plant and equipment, factories etc). This is a use of funds by firms in the current period. In Chapter 12, we consider the difference between gross and net investment when we discuss the concept of depreciation. For now though we abstract from that real world complexity.
Finally, we consider the change in net worth for a sector in a given period is the residual after all the uses and sources of funds have been accounted for. From an accounting perspective, net worth is equal to the difference between total assets and total liabilities.
It follows that a change in net worth over the period of interest is equal to the difference between the change in total assets and the change in total liabilities.
If total assets increase by more (decrease by less) than total liabilities increase (decrease) then the net worth of the sector has risen.
Another way of thinking about the change in net worth, which is a flow of funds, is to link it to the National Accounts concept of saving.
In the National Accounts framework, we consider household saving, for example, to be the difference between consumption (a use) and disposable income (a source). This concept generalises (with caution) to the statement that the surplus of a sector is the difference between its current revenue and its current expenditure.
What happens to the flow of surplus funds? If the current flow of income is greater than the current expenditure, then at the end of the period, the sector would have accumulated an increased stock of total net assets – either by increasing the actual assets held and/or reducing liabilities owed.
The surplus between current income and current expenditure has to be matched $-for-$ by an increase in the stock of total net assets. We have already discussed total net assets above but in different terms.
We defined the change in net worth over a period as the difference between the change in total assets and the change in total liabilities. That difference is exactly equal to the surplus between current income and current expenditure.
Thus, from an accounting perspective, we can consider saving to be the change in net worth over a period.
Figure 6.2, however, only implicitly includes the the current account transactions – the flow of current income and expenditure – inasmuch as we have defined the change in net worth (ΔNW) to be the difference between the two current flows.
The simplicity of Figure 6.2, however, makes clear an essential insight – if a sector is running a deficit (that is, it is spending more than it is earning or in the parlance used above, it is investing more than it is saving) then it must obtain the deficit funds from its available sources:
- Increased borrowing
- Running down cash balances
- Selling existing financial assets
Conversely, a sector that it running a surplus (that is, it is spending less than it is earning or in the parlance used above, it is investing less than it is saving) must be using the surplus funds to:
- Repay debt
- Build up cash balances
- Increase its financial assets (increasing lending)
We also have to be cautious in our terminology when considering the different sectors. If we are considering the household sector, then it is clear that if they spend less than their income and thus save they are deferring current consumption in the hope that they will be able to command greater consumption in a future period.
The increase in their net worth provides for increased future consumption for the household.
Similarly, for a business firm, if they are spending less than they are earning, we consider them to be retaining earnings which is a source of funds to the firm in the future.
We consider the private domestic sector as a whole (the sum of the households and firms) to be saving overall, if total investment by firms is less than total saving by households. From the National Accounts, we consider that households save and firms invest.
However, in the case of the government sector such terminology would be misleading. If the government spends less than they take out of the non-government sector in the form of taxation we say they are running a budget surplus. A budget deficit occurs when their spending is greater than their taxation revenue.
But a budget surplus does not increase the capacity of the government to spend in the future, in the same way that a surplus (saving) increases the capacity of a household to spend in the future.
As we saw in Chapter 3, a sovereign, currency-issuing government faces no intrinsic financial constraints, and can, at any time, purchase whatever is for sale in the currency it issues. It capacity to do so is not influenced by its past spending and revenue patterns.
Figure 6.3 provides the most comprehensive framework for analysing the flow-of-funds because it brings together the current transactions (income and expenditure), the financial transactions, and the capital transactions that we have dealt with earlier. The capital and financial transactions are captured in changes to the balance sheet (Figure 6.1)
Figure 6.3 A complete sector uses-and-sources-of-funds statement
The transactions above the dotted line comprise the income statement and record current expenditure (uses) and current revenue (sources). The balancing item above the dotted line is the change in net worth (ΔNW) or “saving”.
The changes in the balance sheet are shown below the dotted line and the balancing item is once again, the change in net worth (ΔNW).
You can see that we could cancel out the change in net worth (ΔNW), which is the balancing item in both the income statement and the change in the balance sheet. This would leave is with the accounting statement that that sources of funds to a sector through current income and borrowing must as a matter of accounting be used – for current expenditures, investment, lending, and/or building up cash balances.
Conclusion
Next week I will complete this chapter by bringing the T-account framework and the NIPA sectoral balances approach together – you can see I have already been doing that today by considering flows as uses and sources.
Then I will introduce more advanced material – suitable for the intermediate macroeconomics students – which will derive a stock-flow consistent framework based on the transactions matrix approach.
Saturday Quiz
The Saturday Quiz will be back again tomorrow. It will be of an appropriate order of difficulty (-:
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21287
部門別収支 - パート1
billFriday、2012年10月12日
私は今、金曜日のブログスペースを使って、同僚や友人のRandy Wrayと書いている現代通貨理論の教科書のドラフト版を提供しています。私たちは今年の終わりまでにこのテキストを完成させる予定です。コメントはいつでも大歓迎です。これは学部生を対象とした教科書なので、執筆は私のいつものブログとは違ったものになるでしょう。また、私が投稿したテキストは最初のドラフトとして私が行っている作業であり、投稿された資料は完全なテキストを表すものではありません。さらに私たち二人がそれを編集したらそれは変わります。
第6章セクター別会計
第5章では、国内会計の枠組みがある程度詳細に概説された。この枠組みは、ある期間にわたる経済の経済活動を測定するための手段を提供し、国民の収入と産出を推進する支出の原因を検討することを可能にします。この章では、経済活動を異なる観点から考察します。
議論を始めるために、株式とフローの違いを思い出してください。通貨経済では、ある期間に費やされたドルの観点から測定された支出の流れは、経済のセクター間の取引を含みます。経済学者がこれらの取引を説明するために使用する2つの関連フレームワークがあります。
国内会計の枠組みといわゆる資金の流れの会計は、2つの異なる、しかし全国経済活動を考慮する関連した方法です。
[注：今後のいくつかの背景 - これらのフレームワークをどのように結合するかを詳細に説明することで、米国が経済の正当な側面を明確に理解できるようにする]
資金の流れのアプローチの初期の解説者であるLawrence Ritterは、1963年に次のように書いています。
資金の流れは、（a）経済がいくつかの部門に分割され、（b）各部門について「資金の源泉と使用の声明」が作成される社会会計のシステムです。これらの部門別の出資元および使用方法の声明を並べて表示すると、（c）経済全体の資金の流れの行列が得られます。それが問題の合計と内容です。
［全参考文献：Ｒｉｔｔｅｒ、Ｌ。 （1963）「資金の流れの口座の構造の博覧会」、財政のジャーナル、18（2）、5月、219-230]
資金の流れの勘定科目は、私たちがセクターの貸借対照表（財務および実質純資産の株式に関する声明）を損益計算書（フローに関する声明）に一貫した方法でリンクすることを可能にします。つまり、フローは在庫をフィードし、資金のフロー勘定はすべての金銭取引が正しく会計処理されるようにします。
Ritterに続いて、以下のT勘定に示されるように、非常に単純な「一般化貸借対照表」を提示することができます。
いくつかの点は注目に値します。実資産は、所有者の貸借対照表にのみ表示されるため、金融資産とは異なる方法で処理されます。
負債が（他の分野への）負債として存在するということは、少なくとも1つの他の貸借対照表の金融資産と一致することを意味するため、負債は異なります。
金融資産はそのセクターに起因する金額を表します。これは、以前と同じ論理によって、システム内の少なくとも1つの他の貸借対照表に対応する負債があることを意味します。
金融システム全体を考えると、金融資産と金融負債はゼロになる、つまり金融資産の合計金額が未払債務の合計金額に等しいと結論付けます。
会計はまた、経済全体について、純資産は経済における実物資産の金銭的価値に等しいことを示しています。
図6.1様式化された部門別バランスシート
貸借対照表には株式が表示されますが、国民経済計算と同様に、それらがどのようにフローに関する情報を提供してくれるのかが簡単にわかります。在庫は特定の時点（年末など）で測定されますが、フローは一定期間（1年など）にわたる通貨取引を測定します。
2011年12月31日に作成された貸借対照表と、2012年12月31日に作成された貸借対照表との差異を調べると、資産、負債および純資産に関する貸借対照表の情報をフローとして表すことができます。データ。
図6.2を検討してください（ここで、Δ記号は関係する期間にわたる変化を表します）。 これで、Tアカウントのエントリは、関心のある期間にわたる資金の使用と供給元（つまりフロー）を表します。 2つの要素があります。 一つは金融資産に関するもので、もう一つは実物資産と純資産に関するものです。
特定のセクター（家計、企業、政府など）は、借金をして借金をすることで負債を増やすことで資金を調達できます（ΔL）。 彼らはより多くの金融資産の蓄積（ΔFA）または現金残高の構築（ΔM）にそれらの資金を適用することができます
さらに、特定のセクターが既存の金融資産を売却したり、新しい残高を得るために現金残高を減らしたりできることを認識することで、分解可能な事項（ΔFA、ΔM）およびΔLを複雑にしたい場合。 同様に、それは負債を減らすために資金を使うかもしれません（借金を減らす）。 そのため、図6.2のエントリは純取引と見なされます。
新しい資産を得るために、金融資産または現金残高を減らします。同様に、それは負債を減らすために資金を使うかもしれません（借金を減らす）。そのため、図6.2のエントリは純取引と見なされます。
図6.2資金使途声明書
セクターのための資金の第2の源と使用は、与えられた期間にわたる実物資産の変化（ΔRA）と純資産の変化（ΔNW）に関連しています。
国民経済計算の枠組みでは、資本勘定と当座預金の間の分割を考慮しました。前者は生産能力への投資に関連し、後者は経常支出と所得に関連していました。資本勘定は取引を測定し、それが保有する実物資産と経済の純資産を変えます。
実物資産の変化とはどういう意味ですか？国民経済計算では、総資本形成または投資を考慮しました。これは、生産的資本財に対する支出と定義されています（たとえば、プラントと設備、工場など）。これは当期の企業による資金の使用です。第12章では、減価償却の概念について説明するときに、総投資と純投資の違いを検討します。今のところ私たちはその現実世界の複雑さから抜粋します。
最後に、ある期間におけるあるセクターの純資産の変動は、すべての用途と資金の源泉が計上された後の残余であると考えます。会計の観点からは、純資産は総資産と総負債の差に等しい。
つまり、利息期間における純資産の変動は、資産合計の変動と負債合計の変動との差に等しいということになります。
総資産が負債総額の増加（減少）よりも増加（減少）する場合、そのセクターの純資産は上昇しています。
資金の流れである純資産の変化について考えるもう一つの方法は、それを国民経済計算の貯蓄という概念に結び付けることです。
国民経済計算の枠組みでは、たとえば家計貯蓄は、消費（用途）と可処分所得（出所）の差と考えています。この概念は、セクターの余剰が現在の収入と現在の支出の差であるというステートメントに（注意して）一般化します。
余剰資金の流れはどうなりますか？現在の収入の流れが現在の支出を上回っている場合、期間の終わりに、セクターは、保有する実際の資産を増やすことおよび/または負う負債を減らすことによって、純資産合計の増加した在庫を累積していたでしょう。
当期利益と当期支出との間の剰余金は、純資産総額のストックの増加により、対ドルで一致させる必要があります。純資産合計については上記で説明しましたが、異なる用語で説明しました。
一定期間にわたる純資産の変動を、資産合計の変動と負債合計の変動の差と定義した。その差は、現在の所得と現在の支出との間の剰余に正確に等しい。
したがって、会計の観点からは、貯蓄はある期間にわたる純資産の変化であると考えることができます。
ただし、純資産の変動（ΔNW）を2つの経常収支の差と定義しているため、図6.2には経常収支の取引 - 当期の収支の流れ - が暗黙のうちに含まれています。
しかし、図6.2の単純さは本質的な洞察を明らかにします - セクターが赤字を走っているならば（すなわち、それが収入を上回っているか上の用語で使われているのなら）それは利用可能な情報源から赤字資金を得なければならない：
借入金の増加
現金残高の減少
既存の金融資産の売却
逆に、それが黒字を実行している（つまり、それが稼いでいるよりも少ない支出である、または上で使用されている用語では、節約しているよりも少ない投資である）セクターは、余剰資金を使用しなければなりません。
借金を返済する
現金残高を増やす
金融資産を増やします（貸付を増やします）。
また、さまざまな分野を検討する際には、専門用語に注意する必要があります。私たちが家計部門を考えているのであれば、彼らが彼らの収入よりも少なく費やして節約すれば、彼らが将来のより大きな消費を命じることができることを期待して現在の消費を延期していることは明らかです。
彼らの純資産の増加は世帯のための増加した将来の消費に備える。
同様に、事業会社にとって、彼らが稼いでいるよりも少ない支出であるならば、私たちは彼らが将来会社への資金の源である収益を保持していると考えます。
企業による総投資が世帯による総貯蓄よりも少ない場合、国内の民間部門全体（家計と企業の合計）が全体的に貯蓄していると考える。国民経済計算から、家計は貯蓄し、企業は投資すると考えています。
しかし、政府部門の場合、そのような用語は誤解を招くでしょう。政府が支出よりも支出が少ない場合
課税の形での非政府部門のうち、我々は彼らが予算黒字を実行していると言う。彼らの支出が彼らの課税収入よりも大きいときに予算の赤字が発生します。
しかし、余剰（貯蓄）が将来の世帯の支出能力を増加させるのと同じように、予算の黒字が将来の政府の支出能力を増加させることはない。
第3章で見たように、主権の通貨発行政府は本質的な財政上の制約に直面せず、いつでも、発行する通貨で売られるものは何でも購入することができます。その能力は、過去の支出や収益のパターンに左右されません。
図6.3は、資金の流れを分析するための最も包括的な枠組みを示しています。これは、現在の取引（収支）、金融取引、および以前に処理した資本取引をまとめるためです。資本取引と金融取引は、貸借対照表への変更として記録されます（図6.1）。
図6.3完全な部門の使用および資金源の声明
[#6:100に対応]
点線より上の取引は、損益計算書を構成し、現在の支出（用途）と現在の収益（出所）を記録します。点線より上のバランス項目は、純資産の変化（ΔNW）または「節約」です。
貸借対照表の変動は点線の下に表示され、貸借対照表の項目はまたもや純資産の変動（ΔNW）です。
損益計算書と貸借対照表の両方の変動項目である純資産の変動（ΔNW）を相殺することができることがわかります。これは、経常収支、投資、貸付、および/または現金残高の積み上げのために、経常利益および借入を通じた部門への資金の出所を会計の問題として使用しなければならないという会計報告と一緒に残されるでしょう。
結論
来週は、Tアカウントの枠組みとNIPAの部門別収支アプローチを組み合わせることでこの章を完成させます。フローを用途とソースとして考えることで、今日すでにこれを行っていることがわかります。
それから、私は、中級マクロ経済学の学生に適した、より先進的な資料を紹介します。それは、取引マトリックスアプローチに基づいた株価整合性のあるフレームワークを導きます。
サタデークイズ
サタデークイズは明日また戻ってきます。それは難易度の適切な程度でしょう（ - ：
今日はこれで十分です！
（c）Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell。全著作権所有。
Sectoral balances – Part 2 – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory
2012/10/19
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21389Sectoral balances – Part 2
I am now using Friday’s blog space to provide draft versions of the Modern Monetary Theory textbook that I am writing with my colleague and friend Randy Wray. We expect to complete the text by the end of this year. Comments are always welcome. Remember this is a textbook aimed at undergraduate students and so the writing will be different from my usual blog free-for-all. Note also that the text I post is just the work I am doing by way of the first draft so the material posted will not represent the complete text. Further it will change once the two of us have edited it.
Please refresh your memory of last week’s blog – Sectoral balances – Part 1 – as this section of Chapter 6 builds directly on it.
The Flow of Funds Matrix
The T-accounts tracing the sectoral sources and uses of funds can be summarised for all sectors in the economy by the Flow-of-Funds Transactions Matrix, a stylised version of which is shown in Figure 6.4.
The overriding accounting rule that governs the presentation of the Flow-of-Funds Accounts is that for the economy as a whole and for each sector in the economy the total sources of funds must be equal to the total uses of funds. Remember that sources of funds provided by the various sectors in the economy are used by those sectors.
Figure 6.4 (taken from Ritter, 1963) shows three sectors and the total economy. At the most aggregate level, the three sectors could be the private domestic sector, the government sector and the external sector.
Figure 6.4 A stylised three-sector Flow-of-Funds Matrix
For each period being accounted for, the statistician would record the flows on funds that related to each of the row categories in the matrix. Most importantly, we have learned that for every deficit sector, which saves less than it invests, there has to be offsetting surpluses in at least one other sector.
Lawrence S. Ritter (1963) called the Economy-wide Flow-of-Funds Matrix
… an interlocking self-contained system … [which] … shows, for a specified time period, the balanced sources-and-uses-of-funds statements for each sector, the interrelations among the sectors, and the aggregate totals of saving, investment, lending, hoarding, and borrowing for the economy as a whole. Any one sector may invest more or less than it saves, or borrow more or less than it lends. However, for the economy as a whole, saving must necessarily equal investment, and borrowing must equal lending plus hoarding.
Thus a deficit sector, which saves less than it invests, must be offset by at lease one other surplus sector to net the flows to zero.
What are the practical uses of presenting economic data in this way?
Various uses can be made of the information provided in the Flow-of-Funds Accounts.
The Flow-of-Funds Accounts provide information of all financial flows within the economy on a sector-by-sector basis. They allow researchers and policy makers to understand how funds flow from one sector (say the household sector) through the banking system and onto final uses by, for example, forms engaged in productive investment.
They also allow researchers and policy makers to monitor major economic trends such as the changing indebtedness of the sectors included and the sources of funding for the respective sectors. For example, an understanding of the Flow-of-Funds Accounts would have provided insights into the growing indebtedness of the private sector prior the Global Financial Crisis and perhaps, alerted policy makers to the unsustainability of these trends.
Economic researchers also use the Flow-of-Funds accounts to study saving patterns in the economy. The Accounts can tell us where the saving of a sector are being deployed – which financial and real assets. They also allow us to understand patterns of gross capital formation.
Economic researchers also use the Flow-of-Funds accounts to examine the dynamics of such concepts as household wealth. We can learn how household balances sheets change over time and how that wealth is composed. For example, one of the hallmarks of the period leading up to the Global Financial Crisis in many countries was the shift in household wealth to riskier categories, such as share holdings sourced from margin loans. The shift in importance in overall wealth from the more secure homemortgages to more riskier sources of wealth was significant because it exposed the economies to an increased risk of financial instability.
Finally, central banks use the Flow-of-Funds accounts to help them estimate the sensitivity of the economy to changes in the availability of credit.
Flows of Funds in reality
Every 3 months (March, June, September and December), the US Federal Reserve Bank publishes the – Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States. The latest issue (at the time of writing was published on – September 20, 2012.
While the official data presentation is much more complex than our simplified matrix, the Flow-of-Funds accounts presented by the US Federal Reserve remain faithful to the conceptual structure set out in this Chapter.
[SECTION HERE ON ANALYSING AN ACTUAL TABLE – MAPPING THE CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES IN TO THOSE USED BY THE FEDERAL RESERVE – ESPECIALLY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND FLOW TABLES THEY PRODUCE]Further reading:
You might like to read this research paper from the US Federal Reserve Bank – Teplin, A.M. and Tyler, A.M. (2001) ‘The U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts and Their Uses’, Federal Reserve Bulletin, July, 431-441 – DOWNLOAD.
Flow-of-Funds Accounts and the National Accounts
The Flow-of-Funds Accounts complement the National Accounts and the Balance of Payments Accounts, which are produced by national statistical agencies on a regular basis as a way of measuring economic activity in total and across the broad economic sectors.
We will consider the Balance of Payments Accounts in Chapter 15.
There are important differences between the Flow-of-Funds accounts and the National Accounts, which can be summarised as:
- The National Accounts contain no data pertaining to financial transactions – borrowing, lending or changes in cash balances. Only non-financial transactions are measured. The Flow-of-Funds accounts fill that void.
- The National Accounts focus on the current flows of final expenditure, output and income. As we saw in Chapter 5, transactions that involve so-called double counting are eliminate intermediate transactions. The Flow-of-Funds accounts allow us to trace transactions involving assets that have been created in past periods.
- The structure of the National Accounts is such that consumer durable expenditure is included under current expenditure when conceptually it should be considered investment activity. In the Flow-of-Funds accounts all sectors can invest and save.
The Sectoral Balances view of the National Accounts
The flow-of-funds framework allows us to understand that the funds a particular sector receives during a period from current receipts, borrowing, selling financial assets, and running down cash balances have to be equal to the total of its current expenditures, capital expenditures, debt repayments, lending, and accumulation of cash balances.
The flow-of-funds matrix clearly allows us to trace the uses and sources of funds for each sector.
A related approach, which also brings the uses and sources of national income together, is the sectoral balances perspective of the national accounts.
The most basic macroeconomics rule is that one person’s spending is another person’s income. At the sectoral level the same proposition holds. Another way of stating this rule is that the use of income by one person will become the source of income for another person or persons. Similarly, at the sectoral level.
In Chapter 5, we saw that the National Accounts divided the national economy into different expenditure categories – consumption by persons/households; investment by private business firms; spending by the government; exports to and imports from the foreign sector.
We can view that division in two ways:
1. From the perspective of the sources of total spending. So consumption (C), investment (I), government spending (G), exports (X) minus imports (M). In Chapters 7 and 8 we will develop theoretical models of each of these components. But for now we simply take them as given and understand them to be parts of the defined national accounts of a nation.
The various types of spending when summed equal aggregate demand. Aggregate demand, in turn, generates a response by producers (private and public) in the form of production, which, in turn, generates flows of income to suppliers of inputs into production (wages, profits). The sum of those flows equals national income.
2. The second perspective thus focuses on the uses of the income produced in response to the spending sources. At the aggregate level, national income can be used to consume, save or pay taxes.
[NOTE HERE ABOUT THE DISTRIBUTION OF NATIONAL INCOME DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL – SO “COMPANIES”, ULTIMATELY, DON’T EXIST]We can express these two perspectives in shorthand in this way. From the perspective of the sources of national income we can write out the expenditure side of the national accounts as:
(6.1) GDP = C + I + G + (X – M)
that is, total national income (GDP) is the sum of total final consumption spending (C), total private investment (I), total government spending (G) and net exports (X – M).
Total national income (GDP) can be used for:
(6.2) GDP = C + S + T
which says that GDP ultimately comes back to households (after all the distributions are made) who use it to fund consumption (C), saving (S) or to pay taxes owing to the government (T).
You will see that these two perspectives are of the same outcome – national income. Remember the flow of spending (source) has to equal the flow of income in each period (which is used in some way).
To show this we write:
(6.3) C + I + G + (X – M) = GDP = C + S + T
If we simplify this – remembering the tools we developed in Chapter 4 Methods, Tools and Techniques – by cancelling out common terms on both sides of the equation (in this case, C) and re-arranging the terms within the rules that govern equations (what you do to one side of the equals sign you have to do to the other side), we can express the sources and uses of income flows on a sector by sector basis.
We saw this was possible when we constructed the Flow-of-Funds matrix earlier in the Chapter.
Thus:
(6.3a) I + G + (X – M) = S + T
The three sectors captured by the national accounts at this level of aggregation are the government sector (G, T), the private domestic sector (S, I) and the external sector (X, M). We can collect the individual terms in Equation (6.3) for the three sectors in a number of ways, depending what interpretation we wish to derive.
Here is the first way of re-arranging Equation (6.3a):
(6.4) (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0
Each of the terms on the left-hand side of the equals sign represent the balance between spending (sources) and income (uses) for each sector. The net result of the two flows is the balance flowing in that sector over the period that the national accounts are expressed for.
Equation (6.4) is therefore called the sectoral balances view of the national accounts.
The sectoral balances derived are:
- The private domestic balance (I – S) is positive (deficit) if the private domestic sector is spending more than it is earning; and negative (surplus) if the sector is spending less than it is earning overall.
- The Budget Deficit (G – T) is positive (deficit) if the government is spending more than it is taking out of the economy in taxation; and negative (surplus) if the government is not adding as much spending to offset the taxes it is taken out of the economy.
- The External balance (X – M) is positive (surplus) if the nation is generating export income in excess of the spending that is lost to the domestic economy through import spending; and negative (deficit) if the import spending is larger than the flow of income coming in through exports.
This way of expressing the sectoral balances makes it easy to understand that the sum of the balances for each sector must necessarily sum to zero. The sources of income must be exactly equal to the uses. That doesn’t mean that each sector has to be in balance at all times and in the real world that is almost never the case.
What it means that the surpluses and deficits have to cancel out when we consider the economy as a whole.
Another way of re-arranging Equation (6.3a) is as follows:
(6.5) (G – T) = (S – I) – (X – M)
The same conclusion applies – the left hand side balance (the Budget Balance) has to equal the sum of the two right hand balances. Note the private sector balance is written differently this time as a result of the way we re-arranged the terms. But it still depicts the balance between spending and income for that sector overall. It just means that a positive balance will be a surplus (spending less than income) and vice versa.
This representation of the sectoral balances allows us to highlight another feature of the macroeconomy. The two balances on the right-hand side represent the non-government sector – the sum of the private domestic sector and the external sector.
Thus Equation (6.5) can be interpreted as saying, that at all times:
- A government deficit (G > T) has to equal to a non-government sector surplus – (S – I) – (X – M) < 0, and
- A government surplus (G < T) has to equal to a non-government sector deficit - (S - I) - (X - M) > 0.
These are accounting statements. In Chapters 7 and 8, we will develop theories and conceptual understandings that allow us to explain the underlying macroeconomic processes that are involved that render the individual balances consistent with the accounting.
Note in policy discussions, the balances are usually expressed as a per cent of GDP but that doesn’t alter the accounting rules that they sum to zero, it just means the balance to GDP ratios sum to zero.
How can we use the sectoral balances framework?
Figure 6.5 shows the quarterly movement in the sectoral balances for the US from the March-quarter 1955 to the December-quarter 2011 for the Private domestic sector (S – I) and the Government sector (G – T).
The movements in the Private Domestic Balance and the Government Budget Balance are closely aligned until the early 1980s. Thus, we can see that when the Private domestic sector is in surplus overall there is an almost equal government deficit and when the private sector moves into deficit overall, the government budget moves in to surplus.
After the 1980s, the two balances diverged in magnitude although they still moved in sympathy with each other – that is, the direction of movement and the turning points remain closely aligned across time.
The movements in Figure 6.5 cannot tell us about causality – that is, which balance might be driving the other. We need to add theory and an evidence base to our analysis before we can make definitive statements about the direction of causality. In some cases, historical and contextual study will reveal that the changes in the government balance (driven by discretionary changes in government fiscal policy) have led to changes in the private domestic balance. At other times, the causality will be in reverse. And in some periods, the causality will be bi-directional – that is, the behaviour of both sectors is influential for the outcomes revealed by both.
Figure 6.5 Sectoral Balances, Private Domestic and Government Sectors, United States, 1955Q1 to 2011Q4
Source: DOCUMENT SOURCE
Why do you think the gap between the two balances widened since the 1980s? The answer to the question is revealed by studying Figure 6.6, which adds the external balance (X – M) to the graph.
Up until the 1980s, the external balance was close to zero, which meant that exports minus imports (adjusting for net income transfers) were balanced. After the 1980s, the US economy began to import more than it exported and the external balance moved into deficit. The increasing (and variable) gap between the private domestic balance and the government balance since that time reflects the growing (and variable) external balance.
In Chapter 18 Policy Debates we will consider some of the competing views among economists of these movements.
Figure 6.6 Sectoral Balances, Private Domestic, Government and External Sectors, United States, 1955Q1 to 2011Q4
Source: DOCUMENT SOURCE
A simple application
As a reaction to the Global Financial Crisis, many governments have begun to impose fiscal austerity on their economies in the mistaken belief that rising budget deficits represent the source of the crisis. We will consider the GFC and its aftermath from the perspective of policy choices in Chapter 18 Policy Debates.
But for now we can express the desire for austerity in terms of the government introducing discretionary spending cuts and/or tax rate increases aimed at reducing the size of the government balance (G – T).
For example, the National Accounts data provided by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis allows us to calculate the sectoral balances for the US economy. In the fourth-quarter 2011, for example, the private domestic sector balance was in surplus of 5.9 per cent of GDP. The External Balance was in deficit of 2.7 per cent of GDP and the Government Budget Balance was in deficit of 8.6 per cent of GDP (these numbers are rounded up).
You can see that they satisfy Equation (6.5), (G – T) = (S – I) – (X – M):
(G – T) = (S – I) – (X – M)
8.6 = 5.9 – (-2.7)
If we round these balances into whole numbers to make it a little easier to work with we might assume that the budget deficit is 8 per cent of GDP, the private domestic balance is 6 per cent of GDP and the external deficit is 2 per cent of GDP.
Now imagine the government desires to reduce its budget deficit to 2 per cent of GDP in the coming year and embarks on a stringent campaign to cut government spending.
If it achieved that aim and the external deficit was, for argument sake, unchanged, then the private domestic sector surplus would disappear. The reason, which will be explained in detail in Chapters 7 and 9, is that the large cuts in government spending (a source of national income) would lead to large reductions in real GDP and national income, which in, turn would cut disposable income and reduce the capacity of the private domestic sector to save.
We will learn that the situation would be more complicated than that in the real world because the reduction in economic activity brought about by the fiscal austerity would also reduce government tax revenue and imports. Further, the lower consumer spending associated with the fall in disposable income would also likely feed into reductions in private investment.
It is thus difficult to isolate one component in a sectoral balance and assume it will impact in a predictable way on another component in another balance. We will learn in Chapters 7 and 8, that individual balances are all connected causally via changes in national income and to make predictions about the way in which the balances will move and resolve we need to have theories about what generates these national income changes.
But from an accounting perspective if the external balance is zero, then the private domestic balance will be the exact opposite in sign and equal in magnitude to the budget balance. We can tell many narratives about different combinations of these balances.
A graphical framework for understanding the sectoral balances
[NOTE THIS SECTION WILL DEVELOP AND UTILISE THE THREE SECTOR GRAPHICAL FRAMEWORK SUMMARISED BY THE FOLLOWING FIGURE – WILL BE IMPROVED UPON VISUALLY NEXT WEEK]Figure 6.7 A Graphical Sectoral Balances Framework
Source: DOCUMENT SOURCE
The flow of funds and modern monetary macroeconomics
In the last section, we built a simple accounting framework for tracing the flow-of-funds within the economy which provided an additional perspective to the way in which the National Accounting framework presents the relationships between the main spending aggregates.
The A Flow-of-funds approach to the analysis of monetary transactions provided a basis for understanding the relationship between the flows of expenditure by the different sectors and how they could impact on measured stocks of financial and real wealth in the economy held by these sectors.
In Chapter 3 Government and Money, we distinguished between vertical transactions between the government sector and the non-government sector and horizontal transactions within the non-government sector.
In this section, we demonstrate how a flow-of-funds approach to the analysis of monetary transactions highlights both the importance of the distinction between and vertical and horizontal transactions and the fundamental accounting nature of the so-called government budget constraint (GBC) identity.
This section will provide you with the categorical understanding that that the GBC is an ex post accounting identity rather than an ex ante financial constraint. That means that while the GBC is true by accounting definitions and will hold if we measure the components at any point in time, it has no meaning if we want to think of it as a constraining financial rule that governments must adhere to when they are planning expenditure.
When they do spend, the GBC will “add up” consistently but that is a fairly unimportant insight.
What the flow-of-funds approach can also demonstrate is the proposition that if the sovereign government runs cumulative budget surpluses which destroy net financial assets held by the non-government sector, then the latter must accumulate equal deficits in the form of increasing indebtedness. While the concept of sustainability has little meaning in the case of a government deficit – that is, there is no question that the government can run whatever deficit is required, given the state of overall spending in the economy, continuous non-government deficits are unsustainable because the capacity to pay the increasing levels of debt is, at some point, exhausted.
That is a fundamental difference between the currency-issuer (government sector) and the currency-user (non-government sector), which underpins many interesting insights in modern macroeconomics.
The flow-of-funds framework developed in the last section leads logically to what is termed as the current transactions matrix, which is depicted in Figure X.X.
The columns denote the sectors that we are dividing the economy up into. We could construct the matrix just for government and non-government, but this would negate an depiction of the horizontal relationships between various sub-sectors of the non-government sector (for example, households, firms, banks).
The rows of the matrix depict flows of expenditure (consumption, investment, government) and incomes derived from the supply of inputs to the production process (wages, taxes, interest, dividends)
[MORE TO COME ON THIS TOPIC SOON]Conclusion
NEXT WEEK I PLAN TO TIDY THIS CHAPTER UP AND MOVE ON TO CHAPTER 10 WHICH CONSIDERS INTRODUCTORY ISSUE PERTAINING TO LABOUR MARKETS – CONCEPTS, MEASUREMENT, ETC.
Saturday Quiz
The Saturday Quiz will be back again tomorrow. It will be of an appropriate order of difficulty (-:
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.
部門別収支 - 第2部 - ビル・ミッチェル - 現代通貨理論
2012/10/19
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21389
部門別収支 - パート2
billFriday、2012年10月19日
私は今、金曜日のブログスペースを使って、同僚や友人のRandy Wrayと書いている現代通貨理論の教科書のドラフト版を提供しています。私たちは今年の終わりまでにこのテキストを完成させる予定です。コメントはいつでも大歓迎です。これは学部生を対象とした教科書なので、執筆は私のいつものブログとは違ったものになるでしょう。また、私が投稿したテキストは最初のドラフトとして私が行っている作業であり、投稿された資料は完全なテキストを表すものではありません。さらに私たち二人がそれを編集したらそれは変わります。
第6章のこのセクションは直接その上に構築されているので、先週のブログ - 部門別残高 - パート1 - についてのあなたの記憶をリフレッシュしてください。
資金マトリックスの流れ
部門別の資金源と資金の使用を追跡するT勘定は、資金の流れ取引マトリックスによって経済のすべての部門について要約することができます。その様式化されたバージョンを図6.4に示します。
資金の流れ勘定の表示を支配する最も重要な会計規則は、経済全体として、そして経済の各部門にとって、資金の総供給源は資金の総使用量と等しくなければならないということです。経済の様々な部門によって提供された資金の供給源がそれらの部門によって使われていることを思い出してください。
図6.4（1963年、Ritterより）は3つのセクターと総経済を示しています。最も集約的なレベルでは、3つのセクターは、国内の民間セクター、政府のセクターおよび外部のセクターになります。
図6.4様式化された3セクターの資金の流れのマトリックス
[#6:101]
会計処理されている期間ごとに、統計学者は、マトリックス内の各行カテゴリに関連する資金にフローを記録します。最も重要なことは、投資額よりも節約できるすべての赤字部門について、少なくとも1つの他の部門の黒字を相殺する必要があるということです。
Lawrence S. Ritter（1963）は、経済全体の資金の流れのマトリックスを呼んだ。
…連動した自己完結型システム…特定の期間について、各セクターのバランスのとれた資金源と使用の声明、セクター間の相互関係、そして貯蓄、投資の総計を示す経済全体のための、融資、買いだめ、そして借り入れ。どのセクターでも、節約した額よりも多かれ少なかれ投資したり、貸し出した金額よりも多かれ少なかれ借りることができます。しかし、経済全体としては、貯蓄は必然的に投資と等しくなければならず、借り入れは融資と買いだめと等しくなければなりません。
したがって、投資額よりも節約できる赤字部門は、フローをゼロにするために、少なくとももう1つの余剰部門によって相殺されなければなりません。
このように経済データを提示することの実際的な用途は何ですか？
資金の流れの勘定科目に記載されている情報をさまざまに使用することができます。
資金の流れ勘定科目は、セクター別に経済内のすべての金融の流れに関する情報を提供します。研究者や政策立案者は、例えば生産的投資に従事している形で、資金が1つの部門（家計部門など）から銀行システムを通って最終用途にどのように流れるかを理解することができます。
それらはまた、研究者や政策立案者が、含まれている分野の変動する債務やそれぞれの分野の資金源などの主要な経済動向を監視することを可能にします。例えば、資金の流れの勘定を理解することは、世界的な金融危機以前の民間部門の負債の増大に対する洞察を提供し、おそらくこれらの傾向の持続不可能性について政策立案者に警告したであろう。
経済研究者はまた、Flow-of-Funds口座を使用して経済の貯蓄パターンを研究しています。口座は、セクターの節約がどこに展開されているのかを教えてくれます - どの金融資産と実資産。また、総資本形成のパターンを理解することもできます。
経済研究者はまた、家計資産などの概念の動態を調べるために、資金の流れのアカウントを使用します。世帯のバランスシートが時間とともにどのように変化するのか、そしてその資産がどのように構成されているのかを学ぶことができます。例えば、多くの国で世界金融危機に至るまでの期間の顕著な特徴の1つは、マージン・ローンから調達された株式保有など、家計資産がよりリスクの高いカテゴリーにシフトしたことです。全体的な資産の重要性が、より安全な住宅ローンからよりリスクの高い資産へと移行したことは、経済を不安定な金融リスクにさらすことになったため、重要でした。
最後に、中央銀行は、Flow-of-Funds口座を使用して、信用の利用可能性の変化に対する経済の感応度を見積もることができます。
実際の資金の流れ
3ヶ月（3月、6月、9月、12月）ごとに、米国連邦準備銀行は、 - 米国の資金勘定の流れを公表しています。最新号（執筆時点で - に掲載されました -
2012年9月20日
公式のデータ表示は、単純化されたマトリックスよりもはるかに複雑ですが、米国連邦準備制度理事会によって提示された資金の流れの説明は、この章で説明されている概念構造に忠実なままです。
[実際のテーブルの分析に関するセクションはこちら - 連邦準備制度で使用される概念カテゴリーのマッピング - 特にバランスシートとフローテーブルでのそれらの作成]
参考文献：
あなたは、米国連邦準備銀行 - Teplin、AMからこの研究論文を読むのを好むかもしれません。とタイラー、Ａ。 （2001）「米国の資金勘定の流れとその利用」、連邦準備理事会、7月、431-441 - ダウンロード。
資金の流れのアカウントと国民経済計算
資金の流れ勘定は国民経済計算と国際収支勘定を補完します。国民経済計算機関は定期的に経済活動全体を測定する方法として、そして幅広い経済分野にわたって測定します。
第15章で国際収支勘定を考慮します。
Flow-of-Funds口座と国民口座の間には重要な違いがあります。
国民経済計算には、金融取引、すなわち借入、貸与、または現金残高の変動に関するデータは含まれていません。非金融取引のみが測定されます。資金の流れの勘定はその空白を埋めます。
国民経済計算では、現在の最終支出、生産量、収入の流れに注目しています。第5章で見たように、いわゆる二重計算を含む取引は中間取引を排除します。資金の流れの勘定科目は、過去の期間に作られた資産を含む取引を追跡することを可能にします。
国民経済計算の構造は、概念的にそれが投資活動と見なされるべきである場合、消費者耐久消費が現在の支出に含まれるようなものである。資金の流れのアカウントでは、すべての部門が投資し、節約することができます。
国民経済計算のセクター別残高ビュー
資金の流れの枠組みにより、特定のセクターが現在の収入、借入、金融資産の売却、および現金残高の減少から一定期間に受け取る資金は、現在の支出、資本支出の合計と等しくなければならないことがわかります。 、借金の返済、貸付、および現金残高の累積。
資金の流れのマトリックスは明らかに私達が各部門の資金の用途と資金源を追跡することを可能にします。
関連するアプローチは、国民所得の用途と源泉も一緒にしていますが、国民経済計算の部門別収支の見通しです。
最も基本的なマクロ経済学の原則は、ある人の支出は別の人の収入であるということです。部門別レベルでも同じ命題が成り立つ。この規則を述べるもう一つの方法は、一人の人による収入の使用が他の人の収入源になるということです。同様に、部門レベルで。
第5章では、国民経済計算が国民経済をさまざまな支出カテゴリーに分類したことを示しました。民間企業による投資政府による支出外国部門への輸出入
その区分を2つの方法で見ることができます。
総支出の源泉の観点から。消費（C）、投資（I）、政府支出（G）、輸出（X）マイナス輸入（M）です。第7章と第8章では、これらの各要素の理論モデルを作成します。しかし今のところ私達は与えられたようにそれらを単に取り、それらが国民の定義された国民経済計算の一部であると理解しています。
合計した場合のさまざまなタイプの支出は、総需要に等しくなります。次に、総需要は生産という形で生産者（民間および公共）による反応を生み出し、それが生産への投入物の供給者への収入の流れ（賃金、利益）を生み出します。これらの流れの合計は国民所得に等しい。
第二の視点は、支出源に応じて生み出された収入の用途に焦点を当てている。総計では、国民所得は税金の消費、節約、または支払いに使用できます。
[個人所得の国民所得の分布についての注意 - これは「会社」、最終的には、存在しない]
このようにして、これら二つの見方を簡単に表現することができます。国民所得の源泉の観点から、国民経済計算の支出面を次のように書き表すことができます。
（６．１）ＧＤＰ ＝ Ｃ ＋ Ｉ ＋ Ｇ ＋（Ｘ − Ｍ）
つまり、国民総所得（GDP）は、最終消費支出（C）、民間投資総額（I）、政府支出総額（G）、純輸出（X - M）の合計です。
総国民所得（GDP）は、次の目的で使用できます。
（6.2）GDP = C + S + T
つまり、GDPは、最終的には消費（C）、貯蓄（S）、または政府による税金の支払い（T）に使用する世帯に分配されます（すべての分配が行われた後）。
あなたはこれら二つの見方が同じ結果 - 国民所得であることを見るでしょう。支出の流れ（出所）はthと等しくなければならない
各期間の収入の流れ（これは何らかの方法で使用されます）。
これを示すために、
（６．３）Ｃ ＋ Ｉ ＋ Ｇ ＋（Ｘ − Ｍ）＝ ＧＤＰ ＝ Ｃ ＋ Ｓ ＋ Ｔ
これを単純化するならば - 式の両側の共通項（この場合はC）を取り消して式を支配する規則の中で項を再配置することによって、第4章メソッド、ツールおよびテクニックで開発したツールを思い出して（等号の一方の側にあなたがもう一方の側にしなければならないことをするならば、我々は部門ごとの収入フローの源と用途を部門ごとに表すことができます。
この章の前半で資金の流れの行列を作成したときに、これが可能であることがわかりました。
したがって：
（6.3a）I + G +（X - M）= S + T
このレベルの総計で国民経済計算によって捉えられた3つのセクターは、政府セクター（G、T）、民間国内セクター（S、I）、および外部セクター（X、M）です。どのような解釈を導き出したいかに応じて、3つのセクターについて式（6.3）の個々の項をさまざまな方法で収集できます。
これが式（6.3a）を並べ替える最初の方法です。
（6.4）（I - S）+（G - T）+（X - M）= 0
等号の左側にある各用語は、各セクターの支出（ソース）と収入（用途）のバランスを表します。 2つのフローの正味の結果は、国民経済計算が表現されている期間にわたってその部門を流れるバランスです。
したがって、式（6.4）は国民経済計算の部門別収支見解と呼ばれる。
派生する部門別残高は次のとおりです。
民間の国内部門が収入以上の支出をしている場合、民間の国内収支（I - S）はプラス（赤字）です。セクターが全体の収入よりも支出が少ない場合はマイナス（黒字）。
政府が課税のために経済から抜け出すよりも多く支出している場合、予算不足額（G - T）はプラス（赤字）です。政府が税金を相殺するためにそれほど多くの支出を追加していないのであれば、それは経済から除外されている。
国が輸入支出によって国内経済に失われる支出を超える輸出収入を生み出している場合、対外収支（X - M）はプラス（黒字）である。輸入支出が輸出を通じて入ってくる所得の流れより大きければマイナス（赤字）。
部門別収支を表現するこの方法は、各部門の収支の合計が必ずゼロになるようにしなければならないことを理解しやすくします。収入源は用途と正確に等しくなければなりません。それは、各部門が常に均衡を保っていなければならないということではなく、現実の世界でもそうであるということではありません。
経済全体を考えると、黒字と赤字が相殺されなければならないということです。
式（６．３ａ）を並べ替える別の方法は以下の通りである。
（６．５）（Ｇ − Ｔ）＝（Ｓ − Ｉ） - （Ｘ − Ｍ）
同じ結論が当てはまります - 左側の残高（予算残高）は、2つの右側の残高の合計に等しくなければなりません。民間部門の残高は今回我々が条件を変更した方法の結果として異なって書かれていることに注意してください。しかしそれでも、そのセクター全体の支出と収入のバランスを示しています。それはプラスの収支が黒字になる（収入よりも支出が少ない）ことを意味し、逆もまた同じです。
部門別収支のこの表現は、マクロ経済の別の特徴を強調することを可能にします。右側の2つの残高は、非政府部門（国内の民間部門と外部部門の合計）を表しています。
したがって、式（6.5）は、常に次のように言っていると解釈できます。
政府の赤字（G> T）は、非政府部門の黒字 - （S - I） - （X - M）<0に等しい必要があります。
政府の黒字（G <T）は、非政府部門の赤字 - （S - I） - （X - M）> 0に等しい必要があります。
これらは会計報告です。第7章と第8章では、個々の残高を会計と一致させるために含まれる根本的なマクロ経済プロセスを説明することを可能にする理論と概念的理解を発展させます。
政策協議では、残高は通常GDPのパーセントとして表現されますが、それはそれらがゼロになるという会計規則を変更するものではなく、単にGDPに対するバランスの比率がゼロになることを意味します。
セクター別バランスの枠組みをどのように使用できますか。
図6.5は、国内の民間部門（S - I）と政府部門（G - T）の1955年3月四半期から2011年12月四半期までの米国の部門別収支の四半期ごとの推移を示しています。
私的国内収支と政府予算収支の動きは、1980年代初頭まで緊密に調整されています。このように、国内の民間部門が全体的に黒字になると、政府の財政赤字はほぼ等しくなり、民間部門が全体的に赤字になると、政府の予算は黒字に転じます。
1980年代以降、2つの天秤は大きさが異なっていましたが、相変わらず同調して動いていました。
主に時間をかけて密接に整列しました。
図6.5の動きは因果関係について私たちに言うことはできません - つまり、どのバランスが他を推進しているのかもしれません。因果関係の方向性について明確な声明を出す前に、私たちは分析に理論と証拠基盤を追加する必要があります。場合によっては、歴史的および文脈的研究により、政府の財政収支の変化（政府の財政政策の裁量的な変化による）が、民間の国内収支の変化につながったことが明らかになるだろう。他の時に、因果関係は逆になるでしょう。そしていくつかの期間では、因果関係は双方向になります - つまり、両方の部門の行動は両方によって明らかにされた結果に影響を及ぼします。
図6.5部門別収支、民間の国内および政府部門、アメリカ合衆国、1955Q1から2011Q4
出典：ドキュメントソース
2つの残高の間のギャップが1980年代以降拡大したと思うのはなぜですか。この質問に対する答えは、図6.6を検討することで明らかになります。図6.6は、グラフに外部収支（X - M）を追加したものです。
1980年代までは、対外収支はゼロに近づいていました。つまり、輸出から輸入を差し引いたもの（純利益の振替を調整したもの）は均衡していました。 1980年代以降、アメリカ経済は輸出以上に輸入を開始し、対外収支は赤字に転じました。それ以来、民間の国内収支と政府収支との間の（そして変動する）格差の拡大は、（そして変動する）対外収支の拡大を反映している。
第18章政策論争では、これらの動きについて経済学者の間で競合する見解のいくつかを検討します。
図6.6部門別収支、国内、政府および外部の民間部門、米国、1955年第1四半期から2011年第4四半期
出典：ドキュメントソース
簡単なアプリケーション
世界的な金融危機への対応として、多くの政府は、財政赤字の増加が危機の原因であると誤解して、経済に緊縮財政を課し始めています。 GFCとその余波については、第18章「政策論争」の政策選択の観点から検討します。
しかし今のところ、政府が政府の収支の規模を縮小することを目的とした裁量的な支出削減や税率引き上げを導入するという観点から緊縮財政への欲求を表明することができる。
たとえば、米国経済分析局が提供する国民経済計算データを使用すると、米国経済の部門別残高を計算できます。例えば、2011年第4四半期には、国内民間部門の残高はGDPの5.9％を超えていました。対外収支はGDPの2.7％の赤字であり、政府予算収支はGDPの8.6％の赤字であった（これらの数値は切り上げられる）。
式（6.5）、（G - T）=（S - I） - （X - M）を満たすことがわかります。
（Ｇ − Ｔ）＝（Ｓ − Ｉ） - （Ｘ − Ｍ）
8.6 = 5.9 - （-2.7）
予算の赤字はGDPの8％、国内の民間収支はGDPの6％、対外赤字はGDPの2％であると仮定して、これらの残高を整数に丸めると、作業が少し簡単になります。 GDP
今、政府が来年度の財政赤字をGDPの2％にまで減らし、政府支出を削減するための厳しいキャンペーンに乗り出すことを望んでいると想像してみてください。
それがその目的を達成し、対外赤字が（議論のために）変わらなかったとすれば、民間の国内部門の黒字は消滅するだろう。その理由は、第7章と第9章で詳細に説明されるが、政府支出の大幅な削減（国民所得の源泉）は実質GDPと国民所得の大幅な減少につながり、ひいては可処分所得が減少するからである。そして、国内の民間部門の節約能力を減らす。
財政緊縮によってもたらされる経済活動の減少は政府の税収と輸入も減少させるため、現実の世界よりも状況が複雑になることを学びます。さらに、可処分所得の減少に伴う個人消費の減少も民間投資の減少につながる可能性があります。
したがって、部門別のバランスから1つの構成要素を分離し、それが別のバランスの別の構成要素に予測可能な方法で影響を与えると想定することは困難です。第7章と第8章では、個々の残高はすべて国民所得の変化を介して因果的に結びついており、そのバランスがどのように変化し、解決するかについて予測を行うために、これらの国民所得の変化を生み出すものについて理論を持つ必要があります。
しかし、会計の観点から見れば、対外収支がゼロであれば、国内民間収支は符号が正反対になり、大きさは予算収支と等しくなります。私たちはこれらのバランスのさまざまな組み合わせについて多くの物語を語ることができます。
部門別バランスを理解するためのグラフィカルフレームワーク
[このセクションは、次の図で要約されている3つのセクターのグラフィックフレームワークを開発して利用することになるでしょう。 - 視覚的に次の週に改善されるでしょう]
図6.7グラフィカルセクター
l残高フレームワーク
出典：ドキュメントソース
[注：次のセクションは、テキストブックで定義されることになる中間の順序になると思われる上級者向けの資料です。それが同情的にそれを主張するならばそれは序論の学生に説明されるかもしれません。
資金の流れと現代の金融マクロ経済学
最後の節では、国民経済計算の枠組みが主要支出総計間の関係をどのように提示するかについてのさらなる見通しを提供する、経済内の資金の流れを追跡するための単純な会計枠組みを構築した。
金銭取引の分析への資金の流れのアプローチは、異なる部門による支出の流れとそれらがそれらの部門によって保有されている経済の金融と実質資産の測定された株にどのように影響できるかの間の関係を理解するための基礎を提供しました。
第3章「政府と貨幣」では、政府部門と非政府部門の間の垂直的取引と非政府部門内の水平的取引とを区別した。
このセクションでは、金融取引の分析に対する資金の流れのアプローチが、垂直取引と水平取引の区別の重要性と、いわゆる政府予算制約（GBC）アイデンティティの基本的な会計の性質の両方を強調する方法を示します。 。
このセクションでは、GBCが事前の財務上の制約ではなく事後的な会計上のアイデンティティであるというカテゴリー的な理解を得ます。つまり、GBCは会計上の定義では真実であり、いつでも構成要素を測定しても成り立ちますが、計画時に厳守しなければならない制約的な財務規則として考えても意味がありません。支出。
彼らが支出するとき、GBCは一貫して「合算」しますが、それはかなり重要でない洞察です。
資金の流れのアプローチが示すことができることはまた、ソブリン政府が非政府部門によって保有される純金融資産を破壊する累積予算黒字を実行するならば、後者は増加する負債の形で等しい赤字を累積しなければならないという提案です。持続可能性の概念は、政府の赤字の場合にはほとんど意味がありませんが、経済全体の支出状況を考えると、政府がどのような赤字でも実行できることは疑いの余地はありません。増加するレベルの債務を支払う能力が、ある時点で、使い果たされているからです。
それが通貨発行者（政府部門）と通貨利用者（非政府部門）との間の根本的な違いであり、現代のマクロ経済学における多くの興味深い洞察を支えています。
前のセクションで開発された資金の流れの枠組みは、論理的には図X.Xに示されている現在の取引マトリックスと呼ばれるものにつながります。
列は、経済を分割している分野を示しています。政府と非政府のためだけにマトリックスを構築することもできますが、これは非政府部門のさまざまなサブセクター（家計、企業、銀行など）間の水平方向の関係の描写を否定するでしょう。
マトリックスの行は、支出の流れ（消費、投資、政府）および生産プロセスへの投入物の供給から得られる収入（賃金、税金、利子、配当）を示しています。
[この話題でもうすぐ出る]
結論
次の週に、この章を整理し、第10章に入って、どのような市場に出回っているのかを考えてみましょう - コンセプト、測定など。
サタデークイズ
サタデークイズは明日また戻ってきます。それは難易度の適切な程度でしょう（ - ：
今日はこれで十分です！
（c）Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell。全著作権所有。
Sectoral balances – Part 3 – Bill Mitchell – Modern Monetary Theory
2012/10/26
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21467Sectoral balances – Part 3
I am now using Friday’s blog space to provide draft versions of the Modern Monetary Theory textbook that I am writing with my colleague and friend Randy Wray. We expect to complete the text by the end of this year. Comments are always welcome. Remember this is a textbook aimed at undergraduate students and so the writing will be different from my usual blog free-for-all. Note also that the text I post is just the work I am doing by way of the first draft so the material posted will not represent the complete text. Further it will change once the two of us have edited it.
This is the third part in Chapter 6 on Flow-of-Funds and Sectoral Balances. The first two installments were:
This blog builds directly onto Part 2.
A graphical framework for understanding the sectoral balances
[NOTE: While the textbook exposition of this framework will be somewhat different in terms of the graphics used, the lack of space limitations here allow me to build the diagram sequentially. The actual explanation in the textbook will be very similar though].From Equation (6.4) we learned that the sum of the sectoral balances is zero as a matter of accounting – so (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0. Imagine that we construct an axis defining four quadrants. Figure 6.7 depicts the Budget balance on the vertical axis and the external balance on the horizontal axis.
So all points above zero on the vertical axis represent a budget surplus (G < T) and all points below zero on the vertical axis denote budget deficits (G > T).
Similarly, all points to the right of the zero line on the horizontal axis denote external surpluses (X > M) and all points to the left of zero on the horizontal axis represent external deficits (X < M). Clearly, the origin of the axis denotes a position where all balances are equal to zero. From the insight gained from Equation (6.4), we also know that when the Private Domestic Balance is zero (S = I), then the Budget deficit (surplus) has to equal the External deficit (surplus). From Figure 6.7, the diagonal 450 line thus shows all combinations of budget and external balances where the Private Domestic Balance is zero (S = I). We will refer to this as the SI line.
Figure 6.7 A Graphical Sectoral Balances Framework
Source: DOCUMENT SOURCE
We can use that knowledge to determine the segments of the diagram where the Private Domestic Balance is in surplus (S > I) and in deficit (S < I). To make it easier, we can express the Sectoral Balances Equation (6.4) in a different way: (6.6) (S - I) = (G - T) + (X - M) Equation (6.6) is just another way of expressing the accounting rule but in this case isolates the Private Domestic Balance on the left-hand side. Consider the red dotted-line A0B0 in Figure 6.7a, which cuts the horizontal axis where the External deficit is 2 per cent of GDP. All points on that line segment correspond to a Budget deficit of less than 2 per cent of GDP or a Budget surplus depending on which side of the horizontal axis we are considering.
The Private sector is in balance only at Point B0 where the budget deficit equals the external deficit. So all points along A0B0 correspond to Private Domestic deficits (S < I). Now consider the green dotted-line A1B1, which cuts the horizontal axis where the External surplus is 2 per cent of GDP. All points on that line segment correspond to a Budget surplus of less than 2 per cent of GDP or a Budget deficit depending on which side of the horizontal axis we are considering.
The Private sector is in balance only at Point A1 where the budget surplus equals the external surplus. So all points along A1B1 correspond to Private Domestic surpluses (S > I).
Now consider the blue dotted-line A1A2. At Point A1, the Private sector is in balance because the budget surplus equals the external surplus.
Moving along A1A2 we encounter points where the external balance is less than the budget surplus and thus have to correspond to a Private Domestic deficit (S < I). Similarly, along B0B2, we move from a Private sector balance at B0, to points where the external deficit is less than the budget deficit, which means the Private Domestic balance will be in surplus (S > I).
Figure 6.7a – Deriving the Private domestic sector balances
We can thus generalise this knowledge and conclude that all points above the 450 line on either side of the vertical axis correspond to Private Domestic sector deficits and all points below the 450 line on either side of the vertical axis correspond to Private Domestic sector surpluses.
Figure 6.7b renders this conclusion graphically.
Figure 6.7b Private domestic surpluses and deficits
This graphical framework thus allows us to examine the implications of different policy options.
For a sovereign, currency-issuing government any point in the four-quadrants is permissible. With private sector spending and saving decisions combining with the flows of income arising from trade with the external sector driving national income, the government sector can allow its balance to adjust to whatever magnitude is required to maintain full employment and price stability.
For example, if the external account was in deficit and the private sector was saving overall, then the drain on aggregate demand would require the government to run a deficit of sufficient size to ensure total spending was sufficient to absorb the real productive capacity available in the economy.
Alternatively, the external sector might be in surplus which would add to aggregate demand while the private sector might spending more than it is earning, that is, in deficit overall. In these situations the government would have to ensure it ran a surplus of sufficient size to ensure the economy did not overheat and exhaust its productive capacity.
The strong economy would be associated with robust tax revenue growth, which would help the government achieve its surplus. But discretionary adjustments in spending and taxation rates might also be required.
But while any point would be permissible, we know that the private sector cannot sustain deficits permanently. This is because the flows of spending which deliver deficits have to be funded. As we learned in the earlier section of this Chapter when we considered the flow of funds, private deficits ultimately manifest in an increasing stock of debt being held on the private sector’s balance sheet.
This process of debt accumulation is finite in capacity because at some point the susceptibility of the balance sheet to cyclical movements (for example, rising unemployment) rises and the risk of default increases. In some historical instances, this process has collapsed after serious debt defaults occurred (for example, in the early months of the Global Financial Crisis in 2007-08). In other times, the private sector starts to reduce the precariousness of its balance sheet by reducing spending and increasing saving in order to bring the debt levels it is carrying down to more sustainable levels.
In the long-term, the only sustainable position is for the private domestic sector to be in surplus. An economy can absorb deviations around that position but only for short-periods.
[NOTE: The following reflects the analysis presented by Avraham Baranes and Stephanie Kelton University – Bird Brains:From Austerity to Prosperity A Guided Tour Through the Deficit Aviary – at the 11th International Post Keynesian Conference Kansas City, September 2012]Figure 6.8 shows what we might define as the sustainable space available to governments that issue their own currency.
Figure 6.8 Sustainable space for sovereign governments
Now imagine that the government is forced to operate under a fiscal rule that bans budget deficits greater than 3 per cent of GDP as shown by the red line in Figure 6.9. In Chapter 18 we will consider the so-called Eurozone crisis. We will learn that the formation of the common monetary union introduced just such a fiscal rule under its Stability and Growth Pact. The aim was to restrict the capacity of each member state to run deficits.
While our discussion in Chapter 18 will embrace the wider political economic debates about the imposition of that fiscal rule, for now, consider what it means for both permissible and sustainable spaces available to a macroeconomic policy maker.
Clearly any point above the 3 per cent of GDP budget deficit rule is permissible. However, using the same logic as before, the sustainable space requires that the private domestic sector be in surplus overall, even though short-term deviations from this status can occur from time to time.
Figure 6.9 shows the sustainable space for such an economy (the combination of red and blue areas). The blue-shaded areas shows the sustainable space available to policy makers in nations that run external surpluses. The red-shaded areas shows the sustainable space available to policy makers in nations that run external deficits.
Thus the policy space that governments have to operate within when fiscal rules are imposed is very limited relative to the options available to a sovereign, currency-issuing government, which operates without any direct quantitative restrictions on the deficits they can run.
Figure 6.9 Sustainable space for governments constrained by fiscal rules
Why is this important? A rule-free government can always utilise the available space to ensure aggregate demand is sufficient to maintain full employment and price stability.
By definition, not every nation can run an external surplus because a surplus has to be matched by a deficit or deficits in other nations. While the external surplus nations have more policy flexibility when operating under a fiscal rule, of the type shown in Figure 6.9, it still remains that the allowable budget deficits may be in sufficient to maintain sufficient aggregate demand necessary to sustain full employment.
The policy inflexibility facing nations which run external deficits and simultaneously have to operate under fiscal rules as shown in Figure 6.9 become even more restrictive. When such an economy experiences a negative economic shock which leads the private sector to seek to reduce its spending and target sectoral surpluses, the extent to which the budget deficit can move to absorb the loss of overall aggregate demand is very limited.
It is highly likely that such an economy will experience enduring recessions as a result of the artificial fiscal rules (restrictions) that are placed on the government.
The sustainable goal for a government should be to maintain full employment and price stability and allow its budget balance to adjust accordingly to ensure aggregate demand is consistent with that goals. A sovereign, currency-issuing government can always meet those goals if it chooses.
However, the imposition of fiscal rules restricts the government from achieving these goals and makes the budget deficit the goal rather than the more significant macroeconomic goals of full employment and price stability.
The lesson is that the government should never specifically target any particular budget outcome, but, rather, should target employment growth and price level stability.
Conclusion
Next week I will move on to the Chapter on Trade (I think).
Saturday Quiz
The Saturday Quiz will be back again tomorrow. It will be of an appropriate order of difficulty (-:
That is enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.
部門別収支 - 第3部 - ビル・ミッチェル - 現代通貨理論
2012/10/26
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=21467
部門別収支 - パート3
billFriday、2012年10月26日
私は今、金曜日のブログスペースを使って、同僚や友人のRandy Wrayと書いている現代通貨理論の教科書のドラフト版を提供しています。私たちは今年の終わりまでにこのテキストを完成させる予定です。コメントはいつでも大歓迎です。これは学部生を対象とした教科書なので、執筆は私のいつものブログとは違ったものになるでしょう。また、私が投稿したテキストは最初のドラフトとして私が行っている作業であり、投稿された資料は完全なテキストを表すものではありません。さらに私たち二人がそれを編集したらそれは変わります。
これは、資金の流れと部門別収支に関する第6章の第3部です。最初の2回は、
部門別収支 - パート1
部門別収支 - パート2
このブログは、第2回に直接基づいています。
部門別バランスを理解するためのグラフィカルフレームワーク
[注：このフレームワークの教科書の解説は、使用されるグラフィックの観点からは多少異なりますが、ここではスペースの制限がないため、順次図を作成することができます。教科書の実際の説明は非常に似ているでしょう]。
式（6.4）から、部門別残高の合計は会計の問題としてゼロであることがわかりました。つまり、（I - S）+（G - T）+（X - M）= 0です。 4象限図6.7は、縦軸に予算残高、横軸に外部収支を示しています。
したがって、縦軸のゼロより上のすべての点は予算超過（G <T）を表し、縦軸のゼロより下のすべての点は予算赤字（G> T）を表します。
同様に、横軸のゼロ線の右側の点はすべて外部剰余を表し（X> M）、横軸のゼロの左側の点はすべて外部赤字（X <M）を表します。明らかに、軸の原点はすべての残高がゼロに等しい位置を示します。式（6.4）から得られた洞察から、私用国内収支がゼロの場合（S = I）、予算赤字（黒字）は対外赤字（黒字）に等しくなければならないこともわかります。図6.7から、対角線450の線は、このように、私用国内収支がゼロ（S = 1）である場合の予算収支と外部収支のすべての組み合わせを示しています。これをSIラインと呼びます。
図6.7グラフィカル部門別収支フレームワーク
出典：ドキュメントソース
私たちはその知識を使って、私用国内収支が黒字（S> I）と赤字（S <I）にある図のセグメントを決定することができます。簡単にするために、部門別均衡方程式（6.4）を別の方法で表現することができます。（6.6）（S - I）=（G - T）+（X - M）方程式（6.6）は、別の表現方法です。会計規則ではあるが、この場合は左側の私的国内収支を分離している。図6.7aの赤い点線A0B0を考えてみましょう。これは、対外赤字がGDPの2％であるところの横軸を切ります。その線分上のすべての点は、横軸のどちら側を考慮しているかに応じて、GDPの2％未満の予算赤字または予算黒字に対応します。
民間部門は、財政赤字が対外赤字に等しいポイントB0でのみ均衡している。それでA0B0に沿ったすべての点は私的国内赤字に対応する（S <I）。今度は、緑の点線A1B1を考えてみましょう。これは、対外黒字がGDPの2パーセントになる横軸を切断しています。その線分上のすべての点は、横軸のどちら側を考慮しているかに応じて、GDPの2％未満の予算黒字または予算赤字に対応します。
民間部門は、予算の黒字が対外黒字に等しいポイントA1でのみ均衡している。それでA1B1に沿ったすべての点は私的国内余剰に対応する（S> I）。
今度は青い点線A1A2を考えてみましょう。ポイントA1では、予算余剰が対外余剰に等しいため、民間部門は均衡している。
A1A2に沿って移動すると、対外収支が予算の剰余金よりも少なく、したがって国内の民間赤字に対応しなければならない点に遭遇する（S <I）。同様に、B0B2に沿って、B0の民間部門収支から対外収支赤字が予算収支赤字を下回るポイントに移ります。つまり、民間国内収支は黒字になるということです（S> I）。
図6.7a - 民間国内部門の収支の導出
したがって、この知識を一般化し、縦軸の両側の450行より上のすべての点が民間の国内部門の赤字に対応し、縦軸の両側の450行より下のすべての点が民間の国内部門の黒字に対応すると結論できます。
図6.7bはこの結論をグラフィカルに表現しています。
図6.7b国内の民間黒字と赤字
したがって、このグラフィカルフレームワークによって、さまざまなポリシーオプションの影響を調べることができます。
主権者のために、cur
4分の1四分の一の通貨発行政府は許される。民間部門の支出と貯蓄の決定が、国民所得を牽引する対外部門との貿易から生じる収入の流れと相まって、完全な雇用と物価の安定を維持するために必要な規模に政府部門のバランスを調整させることができます。
例えば、対外収支が赤字で民間部門が全体的に貯蓄している場合、総需要の枯渇は政府に十分な規模の赤字を実行させ、総支出が国内の実質生産能力を吸収するのに十分であることを保証する経済。
あるいは、外部部門が黒字となり、総需要を増加させる一方で、民間部門は、それが稼いでいる以上に支出する、つまり全体的に赤字になる可能性があります。このような状況では、政府は、経済が過熱して生産能力を使い尽くさないようにするために、政府が十分な規模の黒字を確保しなければならないでしょう。
力強い経済は堅調な税収の増加と関連しており、それは政府がその黒字を達成するのを助けるだろう。しかし、支出と課税率の裁量的な調整も必要かもしれません。
しかし、どのような点でも許容されますが、民間部門は赤字を恒久的に維持することはできません。これは、赤字を生み出す支出の流れに資金を供給する必要があるためです。この章の前のセクションで資金の流れを検討したときに学んだように、民間赤字は、最終的には民間部門のバランスシートに保有されている負債の増加を示しています。
ある時点でバランスシートの循環的な動き（例えば失業率の上昇）に対する感受性が高まり、債務不履行のリスクが高まるため、この債務蓄積のプロセスは有限のキャパシティである。いくつかの歴史的な例では、深刻な債務不履行が発生した後にこのプロセスは崩壊しました（例えば、2007 - 08年の世界金融危機の初期の数ヶ月）。他の時代には、民間部門は支出を減らし、貯蓄を増やすことでバランスシートの不安定さを軽減し始め、それが引き受けている債務水準をより持続可能な水準に引き下げます。
長期的に見て、唯一の持続可能な立場は、民間の国内部門が黒字になることです。経済はその立場からの逸脱を吸収することができますが、それは短期間に限られます。
[注：以下は、Avraham BaranesとStephanie Kelton大学 - 鳥の脳：緊縮性から繁栄まで - 第11回国際ポストケインジアン会議カンザスシティ、2012年9月に行われた分析を反映しています]
図6.8は、自国通貨を発行する政府が利用可能な持続可能な空間として定義できるものを示しています。
図6.8主権政府のための持続可能な空間
図6.9の赤い線で示すように、政府が財政赤字をGDPの3％以上に抑えることを禁じる財政ルールの下で政府が強制されることを想像してください。第18章では、いわゆるユーロ圏危機について考察します。我々は、共通通貨同盟の形成がその安定性と成長協定の下でまさにそのような財政規則を導入したことを学ぶであろう。その目的は、各加盟国が赤字を実行する能力を制限することでした。
第18章での我々の議論はその財政規則の押し付けについてのより広い政治的経済論争を受け入れるでしょうが、今のところ、それがマクロ経済政策立案者に利用可能な許容可能で持続可能なスペースの両方にとってどういう意味か考えてください。
明らかに、GDP予算赤字ルールの3％を超えるあらゆる点が許容されます。しかしながら、以前と同じ論理を用いて、持続可能な空間は、たとえこの状態からの短期間の逸脱が時々起こることができるとしても、民間の国内部門が全体的に黒字であることを要求する。
図6.9は、そのような経済の持続可能な空間（赤と青の領域の組み合わせ）を示しています。青い影付きの領域は、対外黒字を出している国の政策決定者が利用できる持続可能なスペースを示しています。赤の領域は、対外赤字を抱えている国々で政策決定者が利用できる持続可能な空間を示しています。
したがって、財政規則が課されるときに政府が行動しなければならない政策空間は、彼らが実行することができる赤字に対する直接的な量的制限なしに行動するソブリン通貨発行政府に利用可能な選択肢に比べて非常に限られている。
図6.9財政ルールによって制約された政府のための持続可能な空間
何でこれが大切ですか？規則のない政府は、利用可能なスペースを常に利用して、総需要が完全な雇用と価格の安定性を維持するのに十分であることを確認できます。
定義上、黒字は他の国々の赤字と一致する必要があるため、すべての国が対外黒字を実行できるわけではありません。図6.9に示されているタイプの財政ルールのもとで活動する場合、対外余剰国はより柔軟な政策柔軟性を持つが、それでもなお残る。
許容予算の赤字は、完全雇用を維持するのに必要な十分な総需要を維持するのに十分である可能性があること。
図6.9に示すように、対外赤字が発生し、同時に財政ルールの下で活動しなければならない国が直面する政策の柔軟性の欠如は、さらに厳しくなります。そのような経済が、民間部門が支出の削減と部門別黒字の目標化を目指すようなマイナスの経済的ショックを受けた場合、全体的な総需要の損失を吸収するために財政赤字が移動できる範囲は非常に限られている。
そのような経済は、政府に課せられた人為的な財政規則（制限）の結果として、永続する不況を経験する可能性が高いです。
政府の持続可能な目標は、完全な雇用と物価の安定を維持し、それに従って予算のバランスを調整して総需要がその目標と一致するようにすることです。ソブリン通貨発行国政府は、選択すれば常にこれらの目標を達成できます。
しかし、財政規則を課すことは、政府がこれらの目標を達成することを制限し、完全な雇用と物価の安定というより重要なマクロ経済目標ではなく、予算の不足を目標とする。
教訓は、政府が特定の予算結果を具体的に目標とすべきではなく、むしろ雇用の伸びと物価水準の安定を目標とすべきであるということです。
結論
来週は貿易に関する章に移ります（私は思います）。
サタデークイズ
サタデークイズは明日また戻ってきます。それは難易度の適切な程度でしょう（ - ：
今日はこれで十分です！
（c）Copyright 2012 Bill Mitchell。全著作権所有。
以下参考、
☆☆
EXTERNAL ECONOMY CONSIDERATIONS – PART 3
Flow-of-funds and sectoral balances
2015
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32396
Flow-of-funds and sectoral balances – Bill Mitchell – Modern ...
bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32396
An early exponent of the flow-of-funds approach, .... Adding in the net external income flows (FNI) to ...
6.2 A graphical sectoral balances framework
Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ ／
（Ｇ－Ｔ）＜０ ／Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ
｜ ／ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ
｜ ／ ｂａｌａｎｃｅ
｜ ／ （Ｓ＝Ｉ）
｜ ／
｜ ／
｜ ／
｜ ／
Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ ｜ ／ Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ
ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜／ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ
ーーーーーーーーーーーーＸーーーーーーーーーーーーー
ＣＡＢ＜０ ／｜ ＣＡＢ＞０
／ ｜
／ ｜
／ ｜
／ ｜
／ ｜
／ ｜
／ ｜
／ Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ
／ （Ｇ－Ｔ）＞０
6.3 Private domestic surpluses and deficit
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
｜ Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ ／｜
｜ （Ｇ－Ｔ）＜０ ／Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ
｜ ｜ ／ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ
｜ Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ ｜ ／ ｂａｌａｎｃｅ
｜ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ ｜ ／ （Ｓ＝Ｉ）
｜ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜ ／ ｜
｜ （Ｓ－Ｉ）＜０ ｜ ／ ｜
｜ ｜ ／ ｜
｜ ｜ ／ ｜
Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ ｜ ／ Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ
ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜／ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ
｜ーーーーーーーーーーーＸーーーーーーーーーーー｜
ＣＡＢ＜０ ／｜ ＣＡＢ＞０
｜ ／ ｜ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ （Ｓ－Ｉ）＞０ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ ｜
｜ ／ Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜
｜ ／ （Ｇ－Ｔ）＞０ ｜
｜／＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
｜赤字 Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ ／｜
｜ （Ｇ－Ｔ）＜０ ／Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ
｜ ｜ ／ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ
｜ Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ ／ ｂａｌａｎｃｅ
｜ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ ／ （Ｓ＝Ｉ）
｜ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ／ ｜
｜ （Ｓ－Ｉ）＜０ ／ ｜
｜ ｜ ／ ｜
｜ ｜ ／ ｜
Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ ｜ ／ Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ
ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜／ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ
｜ーーーーーーーーーーーＸーーーーーーーーーーー｜
（Ｘ－Ｍ）＜０ ／｜ （Ｘ－Ｍ）＞０
｜ ／ ｜ ｜
｜ ／ Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ ｜
｜ ／ ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ ｜
｜ ／ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ ｜
｜ ／ （Ｓ－Ｉ）＞０ ｜
｜ ／ ｜ ｜
｜ ／ Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜
｜ ／ （Ｇ－Ｔ）＞０ 黒字｜
｜／＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿｜
Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ ／｜
（Ｇ－Ｔ）＜０ ／ ｜Ｐｒｉｖａｔｅ
｜ ／ ｜ｄｏｍｅｓｔｉｃ
｜ ／ ｜ｂａｌａｎｃｅ
｜ ／ ｜ （Ｓ＝Ｉ）
｜ ／ ｜
｜ ／ ｜
｜ ／ ｜
｜ ／ ｜
Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ ｜ ／ ｜ Ｅｘｔｅｒｎａｌ
ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ ｜／ ｜ ｓｕｒｐｌｕｓ
ーーーーーーーーーーーーＸーーーーーーーーーーー＋ーー
（Ｘ－Ｍ＋ＦＮＩ）＜０／｜ ｜（Ｘ－Ｍ＋ＦＮＩ）＞０
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ ｜ ｜
／ーーーーーーーーーー＋ーーーーーーーーーーー┛
Ｆｉｓｃａｌ ｄｅｆｉｃｉｔ
（Ｇ－Ｔ）＞０
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿