# The multiplier fable

By Dr Frank Shostak

By popular thinking, the key driver of economic growth is increases in the total demand for goods and services. It is also held that the overall output increases by a multiple of the change in expenditure by government, consumers and businesses. The key in this way of thinking is that expenditure by one person becomes the income of another person.

An example will illustrate how an initial spending raises the overall output by the multiple of this spending. Let us assume that out of an additional dollar received individuals spend \$0.9 and save \$0.1. Also, let us assume that consumers have increased their expenditure by \$100 million. Because of this, retailers’ revenue rises by \$100 million. Retailers in response to the increase in their income consume 90 percent of the \$100 million, i.e., they raise expenditure on goods and services by \$90 million. The recipients of these \$90 million in turn spend 90 percent of the \$90 million, i.e., \$81 million. Then the recipients of the \$81 million spend 90 percent of this sum, which is \$72.9 million and so on.

At each stage in the spending chain, people spend 90 percent of the additional income they receive. This process eventually ends, so it is held, with total output higher by \$1 billion (10*\$100 million) than it was before consumers had increased their initial expenditure by \$100 million.

Observe that the more that is being spent from each dollar, the greater the multiplier is and therefore the impact of the initial spending on overall output will be larger. For instance, if people change their habits and spend 95 percent from each dollar the multiplier will become 20. Conversely, if they decide to spend only 80 percent and save 20 percent then the multiplier will be 5. All this means that the less that is being saved the larger is the impact of an increase in overall demand on overall output. Note that on this way of thinking an increase in savings weakens the pace of economic activity.

Is the multiplier a real thing?

Are increases in savings bad for the economy as the multiplier model indicates? Take for instance Bob the farmer who has produced twenty tomatoes and consumes five tomatoes. What is left at his disposal is fifteen saved tomatoes, which are his savings. With the help of the saved fifteen tomatoes, Bob can now secure various other goods. For instance, he secures one loaf of bread from John the baker by paying for the loaf of bread with five tomatoes. Bob also buys a pair of shoes from Paul the shoemaker by paying for the shoes with ten tomatoes. Note that savings at his disposal limit the amount of consumer goods that Bob can secure for himself. Bob’s purchasing power is constrained by the amount of savings i.e. tomatoes at his disposal, all other things being equal.

Note that it is saved final consumer goods, which sustain the baker, the farmer and the shoemaker, that makes it possible to keep the flow of production going. Now, the owners of final consumer goods, rather than exchanging them for other consumer goods, could decide to use them to secure better tools and machinery. With better tools and machinery, a greater output and a better quality of consumer goods can be produced some time in the future.

Observe that by exchanging a portion of their saved consumer goods for tools and machinery the owners of consumer goods are in fact transferring their savings to individuals that specialize in making these tools and machinery. Savings sustain these individuals whilst they are busy making these tools and machinery.

Once tools and machinery are built this permits an increase in the production of consumer goods. As the flow of production expands this permits more savings all other things being equal, which in turn permits a further increase in the production of tools and machinery. This in turn makes it possible to lift further the production of consumer goods. So contrary to popular thinking, more savings actually expands and not contracts the production flow of consumer goods.

Can an increase in the demand for consumer goods lead to an increase in the overall output by the multiple of the increase in demand? To be able to accommodate the increase in his demand for goods the baker must have means of payment i.e. bread to pay for goods and services that he desires. Note again that the baker secures five tomatoes by paying for them with a loaf of bread. Likewise, the shoemaker supports his demand for ten tomatoes with a pair of shoes. The tomato farmer supports his demand for bread and shoes with his saved fifteen tomatoes.

The baker’s increase in the production of bread permits him to increase demand for other goods. In this sense, the increase in the production of goods gives rise to demand for goods. Individuals are engaged in production in order to be able to exercise demand for goods to maintain their life and wellbeing.

Note that what enables the expansion in the supply of final consumer goods is the increase in capital goods or tools and machinery. Savings in turn permits the increase in the production of tools and machinery. We can thus infer that the increase in consumption must be in line with the increase in production.

From this, we can also deduce that consumption does not cause the production to increase by the multiple of the increase in consumption. The increase in production is in accordance with what the pool of savings permits and is not constrained by consumers’ demand as such. Production cannot expand without the support from the pool of savings i.e. something cannot emerge out of nothing.

Let us examine the effect of an increase in the government’s demand on an economy’s overall output. In an economy, which is comprised of a baker, a shoemaker and a tomato grower, another individual enters the scene. This individual is an enforcer who is exercising his demand for goods by means of force. Can such demand give rise to more output as the popular thinking has it? On the contrary, it will impoverish the producers.

The baker, the shoemaker, and the farmer will be forced to part with their product in an exchange for nothing and this in turn will weaken the flow of production of final consumer goods. Not only does the increase in government outlays not raise overall output by a positive multiple, but on the contrary, this leads to the weakening in the process of wealth generation in general. According to Mises,

…there is need to emphasize the truism that a government can spend or invest only what it takes away from its citizens and that its additional spending and investment curtails the citizens’ spending and investment to the full extent of its quantity.

Does the introduction of money make the multiplier possible?

The introduction of money does not alter our conclusions. Money only helps to facilitate trade among producers— it does not generate any real stuff.

When an individual increases his spending by \$100 all it means is that he has lowered his demand for money by \$100. The seller of goods has now acquired \$100, which he can employ when deemed necessary. We can also say that the seller’s demand for money has increased by \$100. Likewise, if the seller will now spend 90 percent of \$100 all that we will have here is a situation wherein his demand for money has fallen by \$90 whilst somebody else’s demand for money has now risen by \$90. In addition, within all other things being equal, if individuals have increased their expenditure on some goods then they will be forced to spend less on other goods.

This means that the overall spending in an economy remains unchanged. Only if the amount of money in the economy increases, all other things being equal, spending in money terms will follow suit. However, also in this case the increase is not because of some multiplier but because of the increase in money supply. The increase in monetary expenditure because of an increase in money supply cannot however produce the expansion in real output as the popular story has it.

All that it will generate is a reshuffling of the existent pool of savings. It will enrich the early receivers of the new money at the expense of last receivers or no receivers at all.

Summary and conclusion

By popular thinking, economic recessions are predominantly the result of insufficient demand. In this framework, an increase in demand not only lifts overall output but that output increases by a multiple of the initial increase in demand. Within this framework, something can be created out of nothing.

Written By
More from Dr Frank Shostak
###### The Fed and asset bubbles
According to the Financial Times from October 18th 2020, senior Federal Reserve...
Read More
0 replies on “The multiplier fable”