Is a general glut possible?


In macroeconomics, general glut refers to there is a supply excess in every industries. There is a long time jogging debate on the general glut from the later 18th century. Many economists try to figure out when there is an over-all glut the truth is. Normally, glut could be exhibited in a economic depression or tough economy with high unemployment rate and idle companies. However, Jean-Baptiste Say(1803) set up his theory "Law of marketplaces" which advocates that there surely is no standard glut. Say said products are paid for with products. Inside the other words, resource creates demand. Many traditional and neoclassical economists support Say's Laws. Say brought up his theory after commercial revolution. Under that background, Say's legislation might be right, because market was completely manipulated by suppliers. It means suppliers are consumers. Therefore, Say's regulation seems right. On the other hand, Say's Laws can be demonstrated with one simple example: if firms cannot sell goods, then goods prices will be reduced until consumers allow it. The sole problem is time. In the long run, Say's regulation seems right.

Ricardo (1851) expanded this notion to keeping and investment. If production produces more than one consumes, then your surplus is kept and, by definition of terms, spent. Nobody would produce more than ingestion needs if one does not have a want to either exchange it or invest it. Resource, therefore, is demand. This virtually all the Traditional economists held to be an irrefutable fact.

However, some economists denied Say's legislation concluding there's a basic glut in economy. Keynesian argues that some microeconomic-level activities can result in an over-all glut. Next, unnecessarily high unemployment rate is the evidence of an over-all glut. Austrian school economists dispute that misallocation of learning resource triggers the gneral glut. Some post-Keynesian economists think credit bubbles or speculative bubbles is the cause of standard glut.

In my estimation, general glut is available in the present day contemporary society. The severe worldwide monetary major depression in the 1930s and financial meltdown in 2007 prove that there is an over-all glut the truth is. Especially, the global financial crisis in 2007 makes me to believe that Keynesian is right and standard glut is possible.

It is controversial that administration should choose laissez-fair or Keynesian policy to leave finaical turmoil. From laissez-fair area, economists suggest administration should stimulate creation and this is the only path to control turmoil. On the other hand, Keynesian's supporters dispute that authorities should promote demand. Because they think insufficient aggregate damand causes the fiancial crisis.

Say's law

This part I will discuss Say's law greater detail and analyse why Say's laws is inconsistent with other economists's theories. Say is the first economists to advocate that the price of something is dominated by its supply and demand. Say(1803) founded "Law of markets" theory which argues that the full total supply in an economy can't ever land below or go beyond the amount of total demand. Therefore, there is no general glut in a current economic climate. Alternatively, Say argues that money is neutral.

Personally, I think Say's considered money's purpose is inconsistent with most economists quarrels. It is the one reason why his theory is inconsistent with most economists' theories. Say(1983) contended investor is considering other products, not money. He considers there is absolutely no reason to hoard money and money's purpose is buying other goods. On the other hand, I think many people are participating to hoard money for various reasons. For example, one's salary is 2000 dollars monthly, it is impossible for him to use 2000 dollars on a monthly basis. One can make a financial plan and save one small percentage in the lender purposely.

Many traditional and neoclassical theory helps Say's regulation. I browse the account like shoe-hat world or some a couple of things world in their articles. In the shoe-hat world, they exchange one good for another good. Corresponding with their explanations, there could be three possible circumstances in the boot hat world. I got this notion from a on-line article called " the general glut controversy". To begin with, shoes makers and hat manufacturers have enough amounts to satisfy all demand. Then, there is a overproduction of hats, indicating too great a demand for hats. Next, there may be way too many shoes in the market. However, there never be a overproduction of both goods. Because a shoes maker would not produce yet another if she or he didn't need more hats. On the other hand, there could be a glut for one good, but there might not be a general glut. It appears plausible that general glut does not are present. However, they overlooked a important stuff, of course, money.

In the existing society, we are not in the barter market. Money plays a important role in capitalize current economic climate. If i expose money in the two person economy, there is a little change. Mill, John Stuart (1844)argues that in the simple exchange economy, supply creats demand. However, when money is the exchange medium, people can hoard the sales revenue. Therefore, supply do not always create demand and standard confidence can change the total amount between source and demand.

Joseph Clark(2010) argues that there still can't be an over-all glut after we bring in money. He said there may be surplus in every goods in accordance with money. From your long term part, I think there is no standard glut, however, in the short term, definitely supply does not equal to demand anticipated to price is not versatile. It means there exists overproduction or underproduction. Say's legislation just messed up by the exchange medium, money.

Great melancholy and global financial crisis

It is important to go over the economic major depression in the 1930s and global financial crisis in 2007. From these two events, I solidly believe general glut is available. Many economists argued that federal government interventions is the key reason for financial meltdown. Robert ( 2009) asserts any particular one cause of financial meltdown is the unregulated financial market. Some analysts thought the main reason for financial meltdown is human's greed. Adrian(2008) concluded one cause of the problems is a change in the model of banking, blending credit with equity culture. Nevertheless, I believe basic glut is the primary reason. After doc. com bubble bursting, American federal decreased interest to prevent monetary tough economy. Between 2001 and 2004, interest rate even reached the lowest point of 50 years, 1%. I believe real estate glut is the fuse of the crisis. After real real estate bubble bursting, the overall glut emerged up. For instance, the Big three(GE, FORD, CLESLER) requested $50 billion to avoid bankruptcy and ensuing layoffs, then Congress exercised a 25$ billion loan. From a more widen scope, taking a look at the info from Wikipedia, the annulized rate of decline in GDP was 14. 4% in Germany, 15. 2% in Japan, 7. 4% in the united kingdom, 9. 8% in the Euro.

Looking at the unemployment rate of economical downturn in the 1930s: unemployment in america arose to 25% plus some other countries reached 33%(frank, 2007). If Say's legislation is right and basic glut is unseen, there is absolutely no unemployment. I am going to clarify why unemployment rate is related to Say's legislations and general glut in the next part. Say and other nineteenth-century economists argued that products will get buyers eventually if prices are sufficiently attractive. I admit this debate is right. If Airbus sells A380 as car's price, I think there is no overproduction problem for Airbus. I believe many theories are proven in a perfect and simple world. Actually many ideas cannot apply to actuality because of imperfect market system.

Some other theories

Keynes (1936) argued that unnecessarily high unemployment rate was the evidence of the overall glut. Aggregate demand for products is less than aggregate supply, creating economic downturn and loss of potential result. You will discover three important concepts in Keynes newspaper. The first one is propensity to take. The marginal propensity to consumer is the relative upsurge in personal consumption, that is included with a rise in disposable income. The marginal propensity is significantly less than one. Inside the other words, the real production level is lower than the full employment production level. Therefore, there is a distance between total income and total usage. This gap would not be eliminated which conflicts Say's legislations. Now, someone maybe ask if investments can close this gap. Many economists assume that saving is add up to investment. Keynes(1963) argues that investment cannot close this difference since there is no evidence exhibiting that investment is add up to keeping. Keynes contend that conserving depends upon the household's income level. It means one makes more and one will save you more. However, investments depends on the marginal efficiency of capital. Keynes thinks saving and investment are completely different terms and also have no autocorrelation.

Austrian institution economists claim that misallocation of source causes the melancholy, even standard glut. They also contend the major depression is an instrument to wipe out the excessive supply. (wiki)

Austrian school economists concentrate on the credit pattern when they see the business cycle. they think unhappiness is inescapable after credit bubble burst. Artificially low interest rate could lead speculative economic bubbles. Then, recession comes up to adjust the balance of keeping and investment(Thorsten Polleit, 2007). I believe Austrian college theory is similar to post-Ksynesian. They both think general glut cause as one spends more than one earns. Personally, I think greed is another way to interpret this problem.

some post-Keynesian economists think credit bubbles or speculative bubbles is the cause of general glut. From Irving Fishing˜ 1933˜ view, personal debt bubble busrting leads general glut. Matching to his credit debt deflation theory, some bad things occur after bubble bursting. To begin with, distress selling and credit debt liquidation lead contraction of the amount of money supply. Then, loss of asset value and fall season in organizations' profits. Soon after, unemployment rate increase leads pessimism. Finally, people will hoard money. Therefore, an over-all glut comes up because of the change from using more than one earns to spending less than one earns leads a sustained reduction in aggregate demand(wiki).

It is essential to speak about Marxian in the general glut argument. Marx(1864) contend that we now have two types of goods, one is capital goods like machines and another one is consumer goods that are not durable. Regarding to Marx, I think capitalist economy target is capital goods accumulation. On the other hand, firms goal is earnings maximum. Looking back to our simple fact, many developed countries companies are employing outsource strategy. These are achieving the maximum marginal revenue. So you will see more and more goods but unchanged demand electricity even lower. Therefore, standard glut is possible in the capitalist overall economy. Sismondi(1861) and Karl Marx have a same idea time lag in the merchandise transaction. I think this idea is available in the reality, for example, one produced a good and sell it. However, he'd hoard money for a while before he buy other goods with money he attained. Therefore, there is a break down in the exchange and overproduction crisis may appear.

Actually some economists oppose to Say's legislations before Keyne and Marx. Malthus(1820) argues that producers do not necessarily exchange their goods for other goods. Some goods are exchanged for labour. However, Say's laws does not concerns about occupation and unemployment. Therefore the entire goods can lose value due to unproductive labour, in the meantime, basic glut can are present.

From the amount of money part, Say and his followers think is completely neutral. However, Malthus(1820) contend that developer needs money not other goods. He think it is so abstract that people want goods and not money. I persist Malthus's thought is right. For example, I want to buy a residence or a luxury car, so I will to save lots of my money within five even a decade. Before I buy a house, money is preferable for me personally. Eventually, I say my saving is designed for goods, however, I do not immediately change goods after i get money. There's a gap, even for some time, this gap may cause an over-all glut.


I think it is impossible to avoid the crisis of general glut. Theoretically, standard glut is a problem of income distribution. Earnings is allocated to minority. This may leads social cost savings and investments too high as well as low use, hence the range of creation and use is asymmetry. Then, standard glut arises. Therefore, I support that federal should induce aggregate demand side to exist turmoil.

Then, I disagree Say's standpoint that supply creates demand. Just a simple example, companies always increase their investments when current economic climate is flourishing. They think you will see more demand in the foreseeable future, so they build more factories and purchase more raw materials beforehand. However, economic turmoil may be happen abruptly resulting in less usage. Therefore, there will be many idle factories and high unemployment rate as well as unsold goods. Under this problem, I can barely believe that resource creates demand. I believe general glut is present due to firms professionals overestimate the demand quantities and misjudge macroeconomic situation. I believe greedy heart is the key cause of overestimation and misjudgement. It is also the deep reason for the overall glut.

Many people controversy on the word "standard" and think there may be overproduction for one good or two goods or 1000 goods, however, no standard glut. I believe once money is accessible in our market as a exchange tool, there may be basic glut. Maybe money is not overproduction, but money is not good. There is no industry called money industry. On the other hand, I pretty sure government regulations would solve the overall glut issue. For instance, FED injected money resource after 2007 financial crisis. This issue is so profound and challenging. My article is not a statistics based paper, therefore i cannot provide enough data to verify my idea. Money is a critical varying in this debate. Some economists dispute that money is neutral and give so little importance to money. Actually money has a meaning of value store alternatively than exchange.

However, I still persist that standard glut is accessible in the short run and supply relatively create demand over time. in the other words, overproduction turmoil is the situation that company cannot sell their goods at in the meantime. Is it feasible? Clearly, the answer is yes. 1930 despair and 2007 financial meltdown tell us the answer is yes. However, market itself adjusts and heals general gluts turmoil eventually. I agree Keynes's critique of Say's regulation. But I am still perplexed his thought about conserving and investment. I really do not agree keeping rate will depend on income level alternatively than interest rate. For example, Chinese cutting down rate is higher than some american countries, however, Chinese income level is lower than traditional western countries. Personally, I believe interest has a strong relationship with saving.

Finally, if Say's law is acceptable, this means government should adopt laissez-fair insurance policies. However, I believe Keynesian is more rational and suitable than laissez-fair. Global financial meltdown and 30th great depression provide a strong evidence for this debate. I pretty sure market is rational, however, looking over one adjustable, of course, people. Individuals control the marketplace and price and I must say people are not rational sometimes.

However, there is absolutely no general glut in the barter current economic climate. In the other words, all goods are exchange for other goods. Plus, sellers buy other goods immediately after they sell goods. This situation seems so abstract and unrealistic. I cannot deny Say's law affect and implications. Say's legislation is a pillar of traditional economical theory. Understanding the interior implication of Say's legislation is important for government to regulate a crisis or avoid an emergency.

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)