The Paradox of Thrift: Spend or Save During a Recession?
The paradox of thrift can be shown graphically on a diagram of leakages and injections into the circular flow model of GDP. The paradox of thrift is also known as the paradox of saving. Less agreement can be claimed for the role played by the rate of interest on the volume of investment. Yet few there are who believe that in a period of investment stagnation an abundance of loanable funds at low rates of interest is alone adequate to produce a vigorous flow of real investment.
Riera-Crichton, Vegh, and Vuletin ( – Investment
Now we can see that an autonomous shift upward in saving to S1 + T causes not only a decrease in the level of income from Y0 to Y1, but also brings a decrease in the level of realised S + T. Thus, we have the result that an increased desire to save can lead ultimately to a fall in the actual level of S + T since the drop in income reduces planned investment. This paradox can be explained by analyzing the place, and impact, of increased savings in an economy.
Second Adventures in Economics – The Paradox of Thrift
px” alt=”paradox of thrift diagram”/>
https://www.1investing.in/ effective demand to aggregate employment and income. Now if an individual man’s income, the income of others fall. In the good old days thrift was always regarded as desirable from society’s point of view.
But with the paradox of thrift, the resulting increase in investment would not occur. This would be shown as a horizontal, not a downward sloping, investment curve. An upward shift in the savings curve, combined with no shift in the horizontal investment curve, would result in a decrease in real GDP. The paradox of thrift is a concept developed by legendary economist John Maynard Keynes.
(In recent days, adding or subtracting assets from the central bank’s balance sheet is also common.) In a recession, the central bank may try to lower interest rates to encourage businesses to borrow money and expand. Low interest rates also make riskier investments such as stocks, alternative investments, and lower-rated bonds look more attractive to savers, which encourages more economic activity. Since start of human civilisation, it was considered a virtue to keep consumption level at the minimum but the lasting effects and chain reactions of keeping consumption in check were not realised. People were taught that thrift or savings are good because a penny saved today will bring increased income.
In other words, consumers cut back while the Federal Reserve was encouraging them to spend. This is the paradox of thrift—also known as the paradox of savings—in a real-world scenario. The argument begins from the observation that in equilibrium, total income must equal total output. The personal savings rate increased to almost 30% in 2020.
The paradox of thrift was popularized by British economist John Maynard Keynes. For this purpose, leakages are considered to be savings, while injections are considered to be investment. We will come back to it when we talk about open economy macroeconomics, starting in lecture 11. A recession is said by some to occur when an economy has suffered two consecutive quarters of falling gross domestic product (GDP). But this isn’t an official definition because there are no quantifiable terms of a recession on record.
We endeavor to ensure that the information on this site is current and accurate but you should confirm any information with the product or service provider and read the information they can provide. SuperMoney.com is an independent, advertising-supported service. The owner of this website may be compensated in exchange for featured placement of certain sponsored products and services, or your clicking on links posted on this website.
When the economy is running hot, the central bank may try to slow things down and prevent inflation by raising interest rates. This encourages businesses to maintain operations rather paradox of thrift diagram than expand them, and it makes cautious consumers less likely to borrow money. Paradox of thrift refers to contrasting implications of savings to households and to economy as a whole.
A real-world example of the savings paradox was the case of 25- to 29-year-olds who moved in with their parents during the Great Recession. Their percentage increased from 14% in 2005 to 19% in 2011. The move helped families save money on rent and other expenses but it caused estimated damages to the economy of as much as $25 billion per year. The first conceptual description of the paradox of thrift may have been written in Bernard Mandeville’s The Fable of the Bees in 1714. Mandeville argued for increased expenditure rather than savings as the key to prosperity. Keynes credited Mandeville for the concept in his book The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money in 1936.
Thus consumption and savings (investment) are complimentary under such conditions. Some economists think that more savings is always good since that means more money for businesses to grow and create jobs. They believe the economy can fix itself without government help, balancing out without causing major issues. Normally, the investment (injections) curve would slope downward.
Adam Smith has stated that capitals are increased by parsimony, that every frugal man is a public benefactor, and that the increase of wealth depends upon the balance of produce above consumption. That these propositions are true to a great extent is perfectly unquestionable… But it is quite obvious that they are not true to an indefinite extent, and that the principles of saving, pushed to excess, would destroy the motive to production. If every person were satisfied with the simplest food, the poorest clothing, and the meanest houses, it is certain that no other sort of food, clothing, and lodging would be in existence. Following the pandemic, the jump in consumer spending (partly due to the increase in government spending) led to inflation. Monetary policy is tricky, and extreme situations like the financial crisis and the COVID-19 lockdown make it hard to execute perfectly.
Well, when lots of people shove their money under the mattress instead of spending it, businesses don’t sell as much. No sales mean no reason to make products or keep everyone working. If people lose their jobs or are scared they might, they hold onto their money even tighter. This turns into a kind of loop that can make things worse for everyone, even though saving money usually seems smart for families and individuals.
Now the rate of population growth must necessarily play an important role in determining the character of the output; in other words, the composition of the flow of final goods. Thus a rapidly growing population will demand a much larger per capita volume of new residential building construction than will a stationary population. A stationary population with its larger proportion of old people may perhaps demand more personal services; and the composition of consumer demand will have an important influence on the quantity of capital required. The demand for housing calls for large capital outlays, while the demand for personal services can be met without making large investment expenditures. It is therefore not unlikely that a shift from a rapidly growing population to a stationary or declining one may so alter the composition of the final flow of consumption goods that the ratio of capital to output as a whole will tend to decline.
The decision to increase savings is an individual decision, made on a microeconomic level. The individual can make a personal choice to increase savings. The resulting decrease in savings from the paradox of thrift is a macroeconomic result, the cumulative outcome of individual actions. Savings may decrease in the overall economy – for savers in general – not necessarily for any specific individual who chooses to increase savings. The paradox of thrift states that during a recession, an increase in planned savings (the marginal propensity to save increases) can cause actual savings and investment to decrease.