Year | GNP*| Growth RateThus we have an average real GNP growth rate for 1870–1900 of 4.08%. That is higher than the US average real GNP growth rate for 1950–1973 at 3.6%, but not that higher.
1869 | 78.2 |
1870 | $84.2 | 7.67%
1871 | $88.1 | 4.63%
1872 | $91.7 | 4.08%
1873 | $96.3 | 5.01%
1874 | $95.7 | -0.62%
1875 | $100.7 | 5.22%
1876 | $101.9 | 1.19%
1877 | $105.2 | 3.23%
1878 | $109.6 | 4.18%
1879 | $123.1 | 12.31%
1880 | $137.6 | 11.77%
1881 | $142.5 | 3.56%
1882 | $151.6 | 6.38%
1883 | $155.3 | 2.44%
1884 | $158.1 | 1.80%
1885 | $159.3 | 0.75%
1886 | $164.1 | 3.01%
1887 | $171.5 | 4.50%
1888 | $170.7 | -0.46%
1889 | $181.3 | 6.20%
1890 | $183.9 | 1.43%
1891 | $189.9 | 3.26%
1892 | $198.8 | 4.68%
1893 | $198.7 | -0.05%
1894 | $192.9 | -2.91%
1895 | $215.5 | 11.7%
1896 | $210.6 | -2.27
1897 | $227.8 | 8.16%
1898 | $233.2 | 2.37%
1899 | $260.3 | 11.6%
1900 | $265.4 | 1.95%
* Billions of 1982 dollars
Average real GNP growth rate, 1870–1900: 4.08%.
(Balke and Gordon 1989: 84).
The average rates per decade are as follows (I have included an additional measure for the 1870s):
Average real GNP growth rate, 1870–1879: 4.69%.According to Balke and Gordon’s figures, the average rate per decade declined in the 1880s, which was the worst. The 1890s were the second worst for real GNP growh. The US average real GNP growth rate for 1950–1973 was in fact virtually the same as the decade rates for 1890s, higher than the 1880s, and lower than the 1870s.
Average real GNP growth rate, 1871–1880: 5.10%
Average real GNP growth rate, 1881–1890: 2.96%.
Average real GNP growth rate, 1891–1900: 3.85%.
As I have pointed out before, if we look at the average real GDP growth rates estimates across the whole OECD for 1950–1973 we find a better rate than the US rate of 4.08% for 1870–1900:
1700–1820 – 0.2%BIBLIOGRAPHY
1820–1913 – 1.2%
1919–1940 – 1.9%
1950–1973 – 4.9%
1973–1990 – 2.5%
(Davidson 1999: 22).
Balke, N. S., and R. J. Gordon, 1989. “The Estimation of Prewar Gross National Product: Methodology and New Evidence,” Journal of Political Economy 97.1: 38–92.
Davidson, P. 1999. “Global Employment and Open Economy Macroeconomics,” in J. Deprez and J. T. Harvey (eds), Foundations of International Economics: Post-Keynesian Perspectives, Routledge, London and New York. 9–34.
Lord keynes, I am in class right now reading on my phone. Will try and get back to you as soon ad I can.
ReplyDeleteLord Keynes : What are your views about the book Failure of New Economics by Hazlitt. Click on this link: http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf
ReplyDeleteDo post your analysis about this. Am urging because many Austrians are using this book to reject the entire General Theory by Keynes!
NOTE : Am not a Libertarian.
You might want to put some colons in that data/make it into a table. It's a bit tricky to decipher.
ReplyDeleteAnon:
ReplyDeleteThis is all you need to know about Hazlitt
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/07/can-one-respect-henry-hazlitt.html
If you want to do a comparison, you're probably better off with something closer to an IRR calc than a straight average. Have you tried that?
ReplyDeleteUnlearningecon:
ReplyDelete"This is all you need to know about Hazlitt"
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/07/can-one-respect-henry-hazlitt.html
That dude is utterly ignorant.
"Keynes’ qualitifications are obviously getting at imperfections of competition. For example, if the firm is a monopolist in the product market, the wage, when the firm is in equilibrium, is equal to the marginal value product of labor, not the value of the marginal product of labor."
LOLWUT
There is not a single correct statement in that paragraph.