Page 1
Page 1 of 28
Will you be better off in four years?
Predicting the Breakeven Point for
A US Government Budget Surplus
§ 1. Summary
Will you (we) be better off in four years than you are today? This is the question
before Americans as the US Presidential election is approaching and the country
faces both high unemployment and unprecedented levels of debt/annual deficits.
It is shown here that the breakeven point for producing a budget surplus can be
determined easily by preparing a graph of Surplus (or Deficits) versus the Receipts.
A review of the Surplus-Receipts-Outlays (S, R, O) data for the US Government,
for all the years going back to 1901, shows that there were brief periods (1901-
1916, 1924-1929, 1976-1979, 1992-2000) when the receipts R increased and the
deficits decreased and also turned into a surplus in some cases (most recently in the
Clinton years), following an amazingly simple linear relationship. In other words,
the linear law y = hx + c = h(x – x0) describes the mathematical relation between
the receipts x and the surplus (or deficit) y. The breakeven, or cut-off, point, when
the surplus or deficit is exactly zero, is, therefore, given by x = x0 = - c/h.
The numerical values of h and c, for the different time periods (when the linear
relations were observed) can be calculated and the change in the cut-off receipts x0
can be determined as a function of time.
Page 2
Page 2 of 28
Table of Contents
§
No.
Topic Page
No.
1. Summary 1
2. Introduction 3
3. Surplus-Receipts Diagram 1976-1984 8
4. Surplus-Receipts Diagram 1960-2001 10
5. Brief Discussion 14
6. Some Quotes to Ponder 17
7. List of References 19
8. Appendix I: Bibliography of Related Articles 21
Page 3
Page 3 of 28
§ 2. Introduction
The question on my mind today is not “Are you better off than you were four years
ago?”, as posed by then candidate Ronald Reagan, in his concluding remarks of the
1980 Presidential debates. This shook the nation and devastated the incumbent
Carter and launched the Reagan revolution. Rather, the question that lurks in my
mind and, I suspect, in the minds of many others, is “Will you be better off in
four years than you are today?” (see also Robert Samuelson, click here).
It is not the past or even the present that matters. It is the future that matters.
After the near total financial meltdown experienced by the US in 2008, and the
bank bailouts, and the auto bailouts, a trillion dollars is now truly beginning to
sound like pocket change! The total US national debt crossed the $16T ($16
trillion) mark on August 31, 2012, just as the 2012 fall US Presidential campaign
was kicking into high gear. This also got me thinking once again about the national
debt and annual budget deficit and the utter hopelessness one feels about what lies
ahead after the votes are indeed cast on November 6, 2012.
The national debt crossed the $1T (one trillion) mark between FY1981 and
FY1982 and has now experienced eight doublings, or two quadruplings, in just a
little under 31 years (the fiscal year ends on Sep 30, 2012). The annual Outlays (O)
of the US government crossed the $1T mark, for the first time, in 1987 and the
annual receipts (R) crossed the $1T mark in 1990. During all this time, the annual
deficits and the debt just kept on piling higher and deeper. Now even the annual
deficits, yes, just the annual deficits, have also crossed the $1T mark since 2009.
The deficit was $1.413 T in 2009 and decreased slightly $1.293 T in 2010 and to
$1.299 T in 2011. All the figures given here can all be found in the Historical
Tables attached to the Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the US Government (click here,
then on Section 1 to go to Table 1.1 for the receipts, outlays and deficits data and
then on Section 7 for the national debt data), see also Ref. [1].
During the recently concluded Democratic National Convention, former President
Clinton made the following remarks about his years in office, when he was
Page 4
Page 4 of 28
speaking to the delegates from his home state of Arkansas, the day before his
speech nominating the incumbent President Obama for re-election, see Ref.[2].
“Then I served for eight years, and we kept bringing the deficit down. We had four
surplus budgets in a row. Then what happened? We put them [Republicans] back
in – or rather the Supreme Court did - …… We had a projected surplus of $5.7
trillion and turned it into a projected debt of $5.8 trillion.”
I did not hear the Clinton DNC speeches but read about them the next day and the
above got me thinking. If the annual deficits slowly turned into a surplus, there
must be a breakeven point at which the government receipts are just equal to the
outlays. A deficit will result if receipts are lower the outlays and will decrease as
the receipts increase. A surplus will then be produced when receipts exceed the
outlays. In other words,
Surplus = Receipts – Outlays Or, S = R – O …………(1)
Equation 1 is the basic equation that describes the financial performance of the
government. The implications of this equation have been discussed in recent
articles available at this website, see Refs. [3-6], see also related articles on the US
national debt Refs. [7-10]. Equation 1is exactly analogous to the equations 2 and 3
below which describe the financial performance of a company and the performance
of a heat engine, such as the engines used in a modern automobile, locomotive, an
aircraft, or a rocket engine.
Profits = Revenues – Costs Or, P = R – C …………(2)
Work = Heat In – Heat Out Or, W = Q1 – Q2 …………(3)
Unlike the financial data for a company, where only P and R values are available
(“costs” are often not stated), or the performance data for a heat engine, where only
the work W, or the “horsepower” delivered is stated, all the three quantities that
enter into the performance equation, S, R, O, for each year, going back to 1901, are
available for a critical study of the “Government Engine” is working. Quite
amazingly, for the Clinton years, graph of surplus S versus receipts R is a near
PERFECT straight line, see Figure 1. As the receipts x increase the deficits
Page 5
Page 5 of 28
(negative surplus) y decrease, exactly as mentioned by Clinton to the Arkansas
delegation, and then move into the positive territory when the receipts exceed the
minimum value x0. The numerical values of the slope h and the intercept c in the
equation of this straight line, y = hx + c = h(x – x0), can be determined using linear
regression analysis. Thus, we find that y = 0.5845x – 945.04 with a linear
regression coefficient r2 = 0.998. Recall that for a PERFECT positive correlation,
when all the data point lie EXACTLY on the straight line, r2 = +1.000.
Figure 1: The US last enjoyed a budget surplus, for four consecutive years, under
President Clinton. As the government receipts increased during the Clinton years,
surpluses also increased, following a simple linear law as shown here. Deficits
disappeared when receipts exceeded the cut-off level x0 = - c/h = $1616.93 billion.
The linear Surplus-Receipts relation deduced for the Clinton years can therefore
be used with a great deal of confidence to estimate the cut-off, or minimum,
revenue x0 = -c/h, at which Receipts = Outlays, or Surplus = 0, exactly. The cut-off
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Receipts, x [$, billions]
Su
rplu
s,
y [
$,
bil
lio
ns
]
Clinton years y = hx + c = h(x – x0) = 0.5845x – 945.04
= 0.5845 (x – 1616.93)
r2 = 0.998
x0
1994
2000
2001
Page 6
Page 6 of 28
minimum equals $ 1616.93 billion or $1.6T (1.6 trillion) which is very nearly
equal to 10% of the US national debt as of August 31, 2012.
The government’s receipts for 2010 and 2011 were $2.163 T and $2.303 T,
respectively. Yet, instead of a surplus, as implied by linear extrapolation, deficits
in excess of a trillion dollars were observed. The deficit for 2010 was $1.293 T and
for 2011 it was $1.299T. This clearly means that the “ costs” for the government’s
operations, the minimum receipts needed x0, has increased between 2000 and 2011.
Although the receipts R have increased, the outlays O have increased even more.
Do we have a spending problem, as President Reagan said famously, i.e., are
outlays out of control? Or, do we have a revenue problem, i.e., insufficient
receipts? This is the question that has dominated the political discourse on
this topic ever since President Reagan said,
“We do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. We don’t
have a trillion dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough. We have a
trillion dollar debt because we spend too much.”
- President Reagan, on March 28, 1982, addressing the National
Association of Realtors in Washington (click here and here).
Going back to Figure 1, we notice that the receipts dropped, even during the
Clinton years, between 2000 and 2001. This trend has continued since then as can
be seen from Figure 2 in Ref. [4] and the fuller discussion offered in Ref.[5].
The main purpose here is to show how the cut-off receipts x0 (the minimum
receipts or the maximum outlays to produce a surplus), has changed as a function to
time to rise to the level of $1616.93 billion observed in the Clinton years.
The review of all of the (S, R, O) data, from 1901 to 2011, indicates that a budget
surplus was produced for only 30 of the 111 years for which data is available; see
Table 1 in Ref.[3]. And, following the definition of the thermal efficiency η of a
heat engine, which is defined as the ratio η = W/Q1, we can define the efficiency E
of the “Government Engine” as the ratio E = S/R. The efficiency E varies widely
with a low value of 0.33% in 1960 and the highest value of 28.8% in 1927. For the
Page 7
Page 7 of 28
Clinton years, the efficiency varied between 4% in 1998 to a maximum of 11.7%
in 2000. More interestingly, the Surplus-Receipts (S-R) diagrams show the same
linear trend that we observe in Figure 1, but only for brief periods. As receipts
increase deficits decrease and turn into surplus.
Figure 2: The Surplus (Deficits)-Receipts diagram for four consecutive fiscal years
1976-1979 (Ford-Carter terms). Although no surplus was reported, the trend of
decreasing deficits (mathematically equivalent to increasing surpluses) is obvious.
Extrapolating the straight line joining the data for 1976 and 1979 suggests that
further increases in the receipts should produce a surplus when the receipts exceed
the cut-off, or minimum value of x0 = $667.2 billion.
We observe this, for example, during the early years 1901-1916, which cover the
period from the McKinley presidency to the first term of the Wilson presidency,
see Ref. [5]. Also, of interest is the linear trend observed from 1976-1979, see
Figure 2 which will serve as the starting point for our discussion. The graphical
representation of the (S, R, O) data in the Figures 1 and 2 reveals that the estimated
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Receipts, x [$, billions]
Su
rplu
s,
y [
$,
bil
lio
ns
]
1976
1979
y = 0.1997x – 133.3 = 0.2 (x – 667.2)
x0
Page 8
Page 8 of 28
cut-off receipts x0 was $667.2 billion based on the US economy in 1976-1979 but
was up to $1616.93 billion in the 1994-2000 period.
We will now consider how this transition occurred using the S-R diagrams.
§ 3. The Surplus-Receipts Diagram for 1976-1984
The Surplus-Receipts data for the years 1960-1984 is plotted in Figure 3. The
earlier years are included to gain a bit of a historical perspective, which starts here
with the beginning of the Kennedy presidency in 1961 and the now well-known
Figure 3: The Surplus (Deficits)-Receipts Diagram for the years 1960-1984.
Between 1976-1979, we observe deficits decreasing with increasing receipts, as in
the Clinton first term, following a nice linear relation. The straight line labeled A
joins the data for 1976 and1979 and will serve of the reference for our discussion.
-450.000
-400.000
-350.000
-300.000
-250.000
-200.000
-150.000
-100.000
-50.000
0.000
50.000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Receipts, x [$, billions]
Su
rplu
s,
y [
$,
bil
lio
ns
]
A A0
B
C
Page 9
Page 9 of 28
Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts which are now widely believed to have invigorated the
economy (at least this is the opinion of those who believe in the benefits of such
tax cuts, see Refs. [11-22]). The straight line labeled A is our reference, and joins
the data for 1976 and1979, as in Figure 2.
Notice that the (S, R) data starts deviating from line A after 1979. Also, the data
for prior years is deviating from another line labeled A0 and approaches the line A.
What we witness here is like a transition between the parallels A0, A, and B.
Line A0 : y = 0.222x – 64.6 = 0.22 (x – 290.85) joining 1971 to 1974
Line A: y = 0.1997x – 133.3 = 0.20 (x – 667.2) joining 1976 and 1979
Line B: y = 0.229x – 345.3 = 0.23 (x - 1508.5) joining 1983 and 1987
Line C: y = 0.232x – 382.7 = 0.23 (x – 1648.8) joining 1985 and 1989
The equations of these lines were deduced from the actual (S, R) data. The Lines B
and C are indeed PERFECT parallels with identical slopes. The slopes of the other
lines differ only in the second decimal place. We see, therefore, a movement of the
data, or a cascading of the surplus, to lower and lower values (deficits increasing)
along these parallels even as the receipts increased year after year. More
importantly, this means that the cut-off revenue x0 varies as a function of time and
is NOT a constant. This is a complex system whose behavior we are trying to
understand using the simplest of all possible mathematical models.
Gerald Ford (seen receiving a kiss from his wife,
Betty) was the 40th vice president (1973-1974),
serving under President Richard Nixon. He was
appointed to the office after Agnew’s
resignation, the first person to be named vice
president under terms of the 25th Amendment.
Ford’s name at birth was Leslie King Jr. His
parents separated and he later took the name
of his mother’s second husband, although he
was never formally adopted.
http://img3.catalog.photos.msn.com/Image.aspx?uuid=5bcd672c-c35f-47e6-86e4-
1985453c4a96&w=628&h=498&so=2
Page 10
Page 10 of 28
Figure 4: An expanded S-R diagram for the years 1960-1974 (Kennedy-Johnson to
Nixon-Ford) years.
Deficits also turned into a surplus moving along the line labeled B0, Figure 4, with
the equation y =0.119x – 19.02 – 0.12 (x -159.67), joining the 1962 and 1969 data
points. This is not a movement along parallels but the trend of “cascading” down to
higher deficit levels is similar. The solid blue dots are the cut-off receipts.
§ 4. The Surplus-Receipts Diagram for 1960-2001
The movement along parallels that is evident in Figure 3 (see also Figure 5 which
includes the data for subsequent years, through 2001) also has another and more
interesting implication and seems to provide empirical evidence for what might be
called the “economic” work function. This is analogous to the “work function” W
introduced in physics by Einstein, in 1905, to explain the puzzling (and equal
complex) phenomenon called photoelectricity. This has been discussed in Refs.[3-
-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00
Receipts, x [$, billions]
Su
rplu
s,
y [
$,
bil
lio
ns
]
A0
x0
x0
y = 0.222x – 64.6 = 0.22 (x – 290.85)
B0
1967
1968
1969
1962
1960
Page 11
Page 11 of 28
6] and the reader is referred to those articles. It is sufficient to note here that
Einstein’s photoelectric law, K = E – W = hf – W, is also a linear law which can be
written as y = hx + c = h(x – x0) where x is the frequency f, h the Planck constant
and hx = E the energy of a photon, y = K is the energy of the electron (produced
when light shines on the surface of a metal, light being a stream of photons all
having the energy hx), c is the negative of the work function W and x0 = -c/h = f0
= W/h is the cut-off frequency, the minimum frequency above which electrons are
produced (or a minimum photon energy W = hx0 = hf0 that must be exceeded).
Figure 5: The Surplus (Deficits)-Receipts Diagram for the years 1960-2001. Here
we consider the data going beyond 1984 all the way through the Clinton years. The
same three lines A, B, C are included here as in Figure 3.
Money in economics can be treated just like energy in physics (and vice versa) and
the above means that the US economy, at different times, is behaving like light
shining on different metals with different values of the work function W. Each
metal is different and has very different number of electrons in what is called the
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Receipts, x [$, billions]
Su
rplu
s,
y [
$,
bil
lio
ns
]
A
C
B
1985 1989
1981
1992
2000
2001
Page 12
Page 12 of 28
valence shell. (We are using the simple model of the atom with a nucleus and
electrons in orbit in different “shells”, the outermost being the “valence” shell.)
How electrons are bound to the metal is therefore different and this changes the
work function W. The K-f graph for the photoelectric effect is a series of parallels
each having the slope h equal to the Planck constant and an intercept c = - W on
the y-axis and an intercept x = x0 = f0 on the x-axis.
It appears that we are witnessing similar changes here – the economic environment
is like the complex environment in which electrons exist in a metal. As it changes,
the economic work function changes and the system cascades down the parallels
until it meets another. The data for 1983 and 1984 indeed fall on or close to
parallel line B with the data for the intervening years representing a “transition”.
We also see the same type of a transition between the lines A0 and A. Recall that
the line A0 joins the data for 1971 and 1974. If the US economy had continued
along this line a surplus would have reported once the receipts exceeded the cut-off
x0 = $291 billion. The receipts for 1976, $298.060, were slightly in excess of this
cut-off. Alas, no surplus was observed! The explanation lies in the fact that the
“economic” work function had changed, i.e., x0 (the cut-off revenue) had increased
due to the changed economic environment.
Considering Figure 5, we see the data for 1983 and 1984 on the parallel B and the
data for 1985 and 1989 on the parallel C. Between 1981 and 1982, the national
debt crossed the trillion dollar, and so it is that President Reagan said on March 28,
1982, see Refs.[14-16], “We don’t have a trillion dollar debt because we haven’t
taxed enough. We have a trillion dollar debt because we are spending too much.”
Then, in 1989-1990, the annual receipts crossed the $1T mark, and now the annual
deficits have also crossed the $1T mark (in 2009).
It is also of interest to note that the cut-off revenue x0 deduced from the 1985 to
1989 data, the equation for Line C, equals $1648.8 billion. If the (S, R) data had
continued along line C, a surplus would be observed only when receipts exceeded
$1.65 trillion. In other words, the seeds for the debt-deficits problems that we are
witnessing today were sown a long time ago. (We can appreciate this further, from
the discussion to follow.)
Page 13
Page 13 of 28
Instead of moving up the parallel C, the (S, R) data kept cascading down further
until we see a dramatic change in the slope starting with FY 1992. (One could
readily visualize straight lines with a negative connecting the data for the transition
years.) This marks the second half of the senior Bush term and the trend of both
increasing receipts with decreasing deficits continued through 2000. The slope of
the S-R line changed from a negative value to a positive value (see Figure 2 in Ref.
[3]) and a surplus was reported when the receipts exceeded $1616.93 billion.
Figure 6: The regression line for the Clinton years (1994-2000, labeled CL) is
added here. Because of the steeper positive slope h = 0.5845, this Clinton line
intersects the parallels A, B, C and crosses the x-axis (zero surplus or deficit) at a
point between the cut-off revenues deduced from lines B and C.
Quite interestingly, as illustrated graphically in Figure 6, the cut-off value observed
during the Clinton years ($1616.94 billion), when a surplus was finally reported,
falls between the cut-off values of $1508.5 billion and $1648.8 billion deduced by
extrapolation of the lines B and C.
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Receipts, x [$, billions]
Su
rplu
s,
y [
$,
bil
lio
ns
]
y= hx + c = h(x – x0) = 0.5845x – 945.04
= 0.5845 (x – 1616.93) r2 = 0.998
CL
Page 14
Page 14 of 28
This is further proof of the observation made earlier that the “seeds of the
current debt-deficit problem that we are facing today were sown a long time
ago”. The following observations provide further confirmation.
1. As deficits changed to surplus, the (S, R) data following the Clinton line CL
rises to a peak value just shy of the extrapolation of line A, deduced from the
1971 and 1974 data (the Nixon years).
2. When the deficits were decreasing the (S, R) data fall on or close to the lines
B and C deduced from the 1980s data (Reagan-senior Bush).
3. When the receipts fell between 2000 and 2001 and the surplus decreased, the
(S, R) data again lies close the extrapolation suggested by Line B.
§ 5. Brief Discussion
The brief review of the (S, R, O) data, from 1960-2011, presented here (following
up on discussions in Refs.[3-6]), shows that the Clinton-years trend, of decreasing
deficits which turn into a surplus as receipts increase, has also been in earlier
periods but only briefly, example 1976-1979. Sometimes this is observed with data
for nonconsecutive years, although in chronological order (example the line B0 of
Figure 4, for 1962-1969, with 1967 and 1968 data falling below the line). The
implications of the remarkably linear Surplus-Receipts line, labeled as the Clinton
line (CL) was discussed earlier, Ref.[3], using the simple breakeven model for the
profitability of a company. We will consider this again here, to clarify the
implications of this linear trend further.
If we consider the operation of a company, with a profit motive, making and
selling N units of some products, all of the revenues of the company, “pN”, do not
appear as profits. Some of it must be given up, in the form of fixed costs, say “a”,
and the variable costs, say “bN”, associated with the operation of the company. It
is readily shown that the revenues x and the profits y, in this scenario, are related
by the linear law, y = hx + c = h(x – x0) where x0 = -c/h = ap/(p –b). The detailed
steps of the derivation may be found in Ref. [3]. Here “a” is the fixed cost, “b” the
unit variable cost, and “p” the unit price. A profit will appear only if the fixed cost
Page 15
Page 15 of 28
“a” is exceeded. Even after the fixed costs are exceeded, only the portion (pN –
bN) of the additional revenues will appear as profits because of the variable costs.
Hence, profits appears at the breakeven x0 = ap/(p – b) > a. The intercept c = -a.
This is the intercept made on the y-axis (not of current interest). It is the intercept
made with the x-axis (the breakeven value x0) which is of interest to us here.
Fixed cost = a = -c, intercept on y-axis
Breakeven x0 = ap/(p –b) = a /[1 – (b/p)] = a/h > a since h < 1
Likewise, as government’s receipts increase, we expect the surplus to increase.
However, not all of the receipts will appear as a surplus. Some of the receipts must
be given up to meet the outlays, which are analogous to the costs of operation for a
company. The breakeven, or cut-off, receipts x0, also equals the maximum outlays
at any point in time. This cut-off receipts x0 has been going up consistently since
1901. For example, the breakeven estimated from the 1976-1979 data, when
deficits were being reported, was $667.2 billion. No surplus, however, appeared
when the receipts exceeded this level by 1985. A surplus was finally observed only
during the Clinton years. Deficits have reappeared since then. The transition to
higher and higher breakeven levels is illustrated here using the simple Surplus
(Deficits)-Receipts diagrams.
The “budget cuts” must first focus on the outlays that exceed the maximum x0,
just as we must distinguish between the bare minimum necessities of life and the
luxuries of life. This is the significant difference of the implications of the
constants “a” and “b” in the breakeven analysis for a simple company. Both are
related to costs, but in a very different manner.
To increase one’s savings (akin to the goal of producing a surplus) one has to focus
first on reducing the luxuries. One cannot focus on cutting the bare minimum
necessities that affect one’s standard of living. This would be like the misguided
focus on reducing the fixed cost “a” for a company, whereas a struggling company
must first focus its attention on reducing the unit variable cost “b”. The second step
would be to focus on reducing the fixed cost “a”. The same applies to the problem
improving the efficiency of the government by addressing the contentious,
divisive, but necessary, problem of budget cuts.
Page 16
Page 16 of 28
The focus on cost-cutting by several global companies, with a focus on reducing
the head count/labor costs appears to be an example of focus on “a” as opposed to
“b” and this has, probably, led to the long term decline of many companies and
also the overall decline of the US economy. The Einstein and Henry Ford quotes
that follow are noteworthy in this context. The Reagan quote is also noteworthy
and serves as a reminder that government does have a role to play, especially in
times of a severe crisis; see also Greer, Ref.[18].
In summary, the linear law y = hx + c = h(x – x0) provides a simple and consistent
explanation for some of the key characteristics of the S-R diagrams used here to
analyze the Surplus-Receipts data. The intercept x0 = -c/h has the characteristics of
the “breakeven costs”, or the cut-off photon energy in Einstein’s photoelectric law.
The nonzero intercept c in the linear law can thus be treated as the “economic”
work function. The changes in this economic work function, as a function of time,
have been discussed here and can be used as a tool to learn how to “design” a
budget that will yield a surplus year after year.
To use the analogy of heat engines, many companies, and the economy, today are
operating “erratically” like the old Newcomen steam engines, before James Watt
began his studies that led to a permanent improvement in the performance of steam
engines. Furthermore, as shown in the companion article (Ref.[3]) a review of all
the (S, R, O) data going back to 1901 shows that the “Government Engine”,
although working erratically, does have the potential to operating with an
efficiency E = S/R in the range of 20% to 30%, which is comparable to the thermal
efficiency of modern, finely tuned, engines. Typically, only a third of the heat
energy released by burning of the fuel in the engine appears as useful work.
Likewise, the government economists and political leaders, from the President
down, who are in charge of formulating the annual budget, must learn to focus on
understanding how to make the “Government Engine” work in a consistent
manner, to launch a new era of “financial efficiency” in government.
Page 17
Page 17 of 28
Some Quotes to Ponder in the Modern Context
If two factories produce the same sort of
goods, other things being equal, that
factory will be able to produce them more
cheaply which employs fewer workmen -
i.e., makes the individual worker work as
long and as hard as human nature
permits. From this it follows inevitably
that, with methods of production as they
are today, only a portion of the available
labor can be used. While unreasonable
demands are made on this portion, the
remainder is automatically excluded from
the process of production. This leads to a
fall in sales and profits. Businesses go
smash, which further increases unemployment and diminishes confidence in
industrial concerns and therewith public participation in the mediating banks;
finally the banks become insolvent through the sudden withdrawal of accounts and
the wheels of industry therewith come to a complete standstill.
(Albert Einstein, 1934)Source: Albert Einstein, Quotes on Government, Politics,
and Economics http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Albert-Einstein-Quotes.htm
Photo: http://www.theargonauts.com/images/quotes/albert-einstein-bicycle-
quote.jpg
My comments: Einstein describes here perfectly how we (especially in the US) got
into the mess that we are in today, with high unemployment. Businesses cannot
create jobs unless there is a demand for their goods and services. This means the
large majority (read the middle class and the poor) must have money to spend to
buy these goods and services. So, we are in a Catch-22 situation. Businesses,
focused on cutting costs, especially labor costs, have done what Einstein says here,
“the remainder is automatically excluded”. This situation can only be corrected
by Government stepping in; see also Refs. [12,18].
Page 18
Page 18 of 28
“The Federal Government should only do what the people cannot do for
themselves or through their locally elected leaders.”
- President Ronald Reagan, Address Before a Joint Session of the Alabama State
Legislature in Montgomery, March 15, 1982.
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/838536/posts See under
Government.
“Nearly everything in this country is too
high priced. The only thing that should be
high priced in this country is the man that
works. Wages must not come down, they
must not even stay on their present level;
they must go up. And even that is not
sufficient of itself -- we must see to it that
the increased wages are not taken away
from the people by increased prices that do
not represent increased values.”
Henry Ford, New York Times, November
22, 1929 (5.0% unemployment)
Source: http://www.friesian.com/sayslaw.htm
Photo: http://s1.aecdn.com/images/news/legacy-of-the-ford-model-t-100-years-
after-1380_2.jpg
It is often overlooked that, going beyond the well-known innovations in
automobile manufacturing that he introduced, Henry Ford did FOUR remarkable
things: a) increased the wages of his employees, b) increased the demand for his
Model T c) decreased prices and d) increased the revenues and the profits of Ford
Motor Company.
“I am convinced that the larger incomes of the country would actually yield more
revenue to the government if the basis of taxation were scientifically revised
downward.”
President Calvin Coolidge, State of the Union message, December 3, 1924.
Page 19
Page 19 of 28
§ 7. List of References
1. Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the US Government,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
2. Bill Clinton Speech at the Democratic National Convention: GOP ‘Built’
the National Debt, Amanda Terkel, [email protected] , Sep 4, 2012,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist.pdf
3. The Efficiency of Government Compared to the Thermal Efficiency of a
Heat Engine, Sep 18, 2012, http://www.scribd.com/doc/106220758/The-
Efficency-of-Government-Compared-to-Thermal-Efficiency-of-a-Heat-Engine
4. The Amazing US Government Surplus (Deficits)-Receipts Relation during
the Clinton Presidency, http://www.scribd.com/doc/105821230/The-Amazing-
US-Government-Receipts-Surplus-Relation-during-the-Clinton-Presidency,
Published Sep 13, 2012.
5. A Brief Review of the Historical US Government Receipts-Surplus (Deficit)
Relation, http://www.scribd.com/doc/106003088/A-Brief-Review-of-the-
Historical-US-Government-Surplus-Receipts-Relation , Published Sep 15,
2012.
6. The Clinton Budget Surpluses, http://www.scribd.com/doc/105819500/The-
Clinton-Budget-Surpluses-Treating-Government-like-a-Business, Published
Sep 13, 2012 , Google financial data for early years may be found in Table 2.
7. From Debt-free to $16T: Lessons to be learned, Sep 11, 2012, scribd.com,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105651734/From-Debt-Free-to-16T-Lessons-to-be-
learned
8. The US National Debt Growth Rate: The Clinton-Bush-Obama
Transitions, Sep 6, 2012. www.scribd.com <
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105058946/The-US-National-Debt-Growth-Rate-
The-Clinton-Bush-Obama-Transition >
9. The Rate of Growth of the National Debt: The Obama versus Bush years,
Sep 4, 2012. www.scribd.com < http://www.scribd.com/doc/104803209/The-
Rate-of-Growth-of-the-National-Debt-The-Obama-versus-the-Bush-years >
10. Is Taxing the Rich an Option for Budget Deficit Reduction?, Sep 2, 2012.
www.scribd.com < http://www.scribd.com/doc/104661297/Is-Taxing-the-Rich-
an-Option-for-Budget-Deficit-Reduction
Page 20
Page 20 of 28
11. Two of the All-Time Greatest Successes in Cutting Taxes and Spending, by
Jim Powell, forbes.com, August 10, 2011
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/08/10/two-of-the-all-time-greatest-
successes-in-cutting-taxes-and-spending/
12. Econ 101: How do Tax Cuts Work? By Gary Wolfram, Nov 11, 2006,
mrc.org, http://www.mrc.org/node/29589
13. Success of Tax Cuts, By John R. Hendrickson, Oct 2006, insideronline.org,
http://www.insideronline.org/archives/2007/winter/chap7.pdf
14. Contemporary Quotes on Are Tax Cuts Good for the Economy? Intellectual
takout.org, http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/content/contemporary-quotes-
are-tax-cuts-good-economy
15. Quotes – Ronal Reagan, March 28, 1982 fightthebias.com
http://www.fightthebias.com/quotes/ronald_reagan.htm
16. It’s Not a Revenue Problem, it’s a Spending Problem, Tracing the history of
a GOP talking point, David Weigel, April 18, 2011, slate.com,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/04/its_not_a_rev
enue_problem_its_a_spending_problem.html
17. GOP on Message, Revenue Not the Problem, Spending Is, foxnews.com,
Nov 7, 2010, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/07/gop-message-
revenue-problem-spending/
18. The Biggest Engine of Economic Growth?, By Colin Greer, newwf.org,
March 19, 2012, http://newwf.org/blog/2012-03-19-the-biggest-engine-of-
economic-growth
19. Laffer Curve, http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.asp
20. Arthur Laffer’s Ant-Stimulus Curve Ball is a Foul, David Futrelle, August
9, 2012, business.time.com, http://business.time.com/2012/08/09/arthur-laffers-
anti-stimulus-curve-ball-is-a-foul/
21. The Laffer Curve in the 1980s, by Mark J. Perry, mjperry.blogspot.com, Jan
26, 2008, http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/laffer-curve-in-1980s.html
22. The Laffer Curve, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
23. Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, Wikipedia article,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Con
stitution http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/16th-amendment.html
24. Woodrow Wilson, Congress and the Income Tax, March 16, 2004,
wilsoncenter.org http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACF18.pdf
Page 21
Page 21 of 28
25. The Effect of Hikes and Cuts in the Tax Rates on Government Receipts in
the Wilson-Harding-Coolidge terms, To be Published.
26. The Question Is: Will we be better off in four years?, Robert Samuelson,
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/09/10/the-question-is-
will-we-be-better-off-in-four-years.html
***********************************************************
§ 8. Appendix I
Bibliography of Related Articles
Posted at this website Since Facebook IPO on May 18, 2012
The first article listed below discusses a little known mathematical property of a
straight line. Figures 1 to 3 in this article provide the philosophical basis for
considering the significance of a nonzero intercept c as it applies to many problems
in the real world. We make observations (x and y values of interest to us) to deduce
y/x, usually called “rates”, “ratios”, or percentages.
1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/102000311/A-Little-Known-Mathematical-
Property-of-a-Straight-Line-Strange-but-true-there-is-one Published August 4,
2012.
Financial data (Profits-Revenues) analysis and Generalization of Planck’s law
beyond physics.
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95906902/Simple-Mathematical-Laws-Govern-
Corporate-Financial-Behavior-A-Brief-Compilation-of-Profits-Revenues-
Data Current article with all others above cited for completeness, Published
June 4, 2012 with several revisions incorporating more examples.
3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94647467/Three-Types-of-Companies-From-
Quantum-Physics-to-Economics Basic discussion of three types of
companies, Published May 24, 2012. Examples of Google, Facebook,
ExxonMobil, Best Buy, Ford, Universal Insurance Holdings
Page 22
Page 22 of 28
4. http://www.scribd.com/doc/96228131/The-Perfect-Apple-How-it-can-be-
destroyed Detailed discussion of Apple Inc. data. Published June 7, 2012.
5. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95140101/Ford-Motor-Company-Data-Reveals-
Mount-Profit Ford Motor Company graph illustrating pronounced maximum
point, Published May 29, 2012.
6. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95329905/Planck-s-Blackbody-Radiation-Law-
Rederived-for-more-General-Case Generalization of Planck’s law,
Published May 30, 2012.
7. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94325593/The-Future-of-Facebook-I Facebook
and Google data are compared here. Published May 21, 2012.
8. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94103265/The-FaceBook-Future Published May
19, 2012 (the day after IPO launch on Friday May 18, 2012).
9. http://www.scribd.com/doc/95728457/What-is-Entropy Discussion of the
meaning of entropy (using example given by Boltzmann in 1877, later also
used by Planck to develop quantum physics in 1900). The example here shows
the concepts of entropy S and energy U (and the derivative T = dU/dS) can be
extended beyond physics with energy = money, or any property of interest.
Published June 3, 2012.
10. The Future of Southwest Airlines, Completed June 14, 2012 (to be
published). http://www.scribd.com/doc/102835946/The-Future-for-Southwest-
Airlines-The-Unknown-Story-of-Rising-Costs-and-the-Maximum-Point-on-
Profits-Revenues-Curve Published August 14, 2012.
11. The Air Tran Story: An Important Link to the Future of Southwest Airlines,
Completed June 27, 2012 (to be published).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102832984/The-Air-Tran-Story-The-Merger-and-
Maximum-Point-on-Profits-Revenues-Graph Published August 14, 2012.
12. Annie’s Inc. A Single-Product Company Analyzed using a New
Methodology, http://www.scribd.com/doc/98652561/Annie-s-Inc-A-Single-
Product-Company-Analyzed-Using-a-New-Methodology Published June 29,
2012
Page 23
Page 23 of 28
13. Google Inc. A Lovable One-Trick Pony Another Single-product Company
Analyzed using the New Methodology.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/98825141/Google-A-Lovable-One-Trick-Pony-
Another-Single-Product-Company-Analyzed-Using-the-New-Methodology,
Published July 1, 2012.
14. GT Advanced Technologies, Inc. Analysis of Recent Financial Data,
Completed on July 4, 2012. (To be published).
15. Disappearing Brands: Research in Motion Limited. An Interesting type of
Maximum Point on the Profits-Revenues Graph
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99181402/Research-in-Motion-RIM-Limited-Will-
Disappear-in-2013 Published July 5, 2012.
16. Kia Motor Company: A Disappearing Brand
http://www.scribd.com/doc/99333764/Kia-Motor-Company-A-Disppearing-
Brand, Published July 6, 2012.
17. The Perfect Apple-II: Taking A Second Bite: A Simple Methodology for
Revenues Predictions (Completed July 8, 2012, To be Published)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/101503988/The-Perfect-Apple-II, Published
July 30, 2012.
18. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101062823/A-Fresh-Look-at-Microsoft-After-its-
Historic-Quarterly-Loss Microsoft after the quarterly loss, Published July 25,
2012.
19. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101518117/A-Second-Look-at-Microsoft-After-the-
Historic-Quarterly-Loss , Published July 30, 2012.
20. http://www.scribd.com/doc/103265909/A-Brief-Analysis-of-Groupon-s-Profits-
Revenues-Data Published August 19, 2012.
21. http://www.scribd.com/doc/103027366/Groupon-Analysis-of-Profits-
Revenues-Data-and-its-Business-Model Published August 16, 2012. More
detailed analysis including discussion of the idea of a work function.
22. http://www.scribd.com/doc/103369016/Analysis-of-Zynga-s-Profits-Revenues-
Data-Maximum-point-on-the-profits-revenues-curve Published August 20,
2012.
Page 24
Page 24 of 28
General Motors Financial Data
23. http://www.scribd.com/doc/103600274/The-New-GM-A-Brief-Analysis-of-the-
Profits-Revenues-Data-through-1Q2011, Published May 9, 2011 and again on
August 22, 2012, Discussion of the new GM data from 1Q2010 to 1Q2011.
24. http://www.scribd.com/doc/103607023/Why-Can-t-General-Motors-be-more-
like-Microsoft-The-new-GM-may-just-be Published August 22, 2012.
25. http://www.scribd.com/doc/103938349/GM-Before-the-Bankruptcy-Maximum-
Point-on-Profits-Revenue-Graph GM Before the Bankruptcy: Maximum
point on the profits-revenues graph, Published August 25, 2012.
******************************************************************
The Unemployment Problem: Evidence for a Universal value of h in the
unemployment law.
26. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100984613/Further-Empirical-Evidence-for-the-
Universal-Constant-h-and-the-Economic-Work-Function-Analysis-of-
Historical-Unemployment-data-for-Japan-1953-2011 Single universal value of
h for US, Canada and Japan in the unemployment law y = hx + c, Published
July 24, 2012.
27. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100939758/An-Economy-Under-Stress-
Preliminary-Analysis-of-Historical-Unemployment-Data-for-Japan, Published
July 24, 2012.
28. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100910302/Further-Evidence-for-a-Universal-
Constant-h-and-the-Economic-Work-Function-Analysis-of-US-1941-2011-and-
Canadian-1976-2011-Unemployment-Data Published July 24, 2012.
29. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100720086/A-Second-Look-at-Australian-2012-
Unemployment-Data, Published July 22, 2012.
30. http://www.scribd.com/doc/100500017/A-First-Look-at-Australian-
Unemployment-Statistics-A-New-Methodology-for-Analyzing-Unemployment-
Data , Published July 19, 2012.
31. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99857981/The-Highest-US-Unemployment-Rates-
Obama-years-compared-with-historic-highs-in-Unemployment-levels ,
Published July 12, 2012.
32. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99647215/The-US-Unemployment-Rate-What-
happened-in-the-Obama-years , Published July 10, 2012.
****************************************************************
Page 25
Page 25 of 28
Traffic-fatality and Teen pregnancy problem
33. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101982715/Does-Speed-Kill-Forgotten-US-
Highway-Deaths-in-1950s-and-1960s Published August 4, 2012.
34. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101983375/Effect-of-Speed-Limits-on-Fatalities-
Texas-Proofing-of-Vehciles Published August 4, 2012.
35. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101828233/The-US-Teenage-Pregnancy-Rates-1
Published August 2, 2012.
36. http://www.scribd.com/doc/102384514/A-Second-Look-at-the-US-Teenage-
Pregnancy-Rates-Evidence-for-a-Predominant-Natural-Law Published August
8, 2012.
Government and National Debt
37. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104663110/The-United-States-Postal-Service-A-
Test-Case-to-Understand-the-US-Government-Inefficiencies-and-Budget-Cuts-
Ahead United States Postal Service: A Test case for government inefficiencies,
Published Sep 2, 2012.
38. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104833993/Are-You-Better-Off-Than-You-Were-
Four-Years-Ago Published Sep 4, 2012. Briefly highlights the slowing down
the debt growth rate as we cross the $16 T mark. The national debt could have
been as high as $19.5T on August 30, 2012 if the high rate at the end of the
Bush presidency had continued.
39. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104803209/The-Rate-of-Growth-of-the-National-
Debt-The-Obama-versus-the-Bush-years Published Sep 3, 2012. The
importance of the debt growth rate h = dD/dt, as opposed to the debt level D, is
emphasized. The significance of the debt growth rate does not seem to have
been recognized, at least in the popular discussion.
40. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104677653/The-US-National-Debt-Brief-History-
Good-News-The-Rate-of-Growth-of-the-Debt-is-Slowing-Down , Published
Sep 1, 2012. Brief summary of the historical debt data starting with President
George Washington with attention being drawn to the recent slowing down of
the debt growth rate. The importance of the debt growth rate, as opposed to debt
levels, does not seem to have been recognized, at least in the popular
discussion.
Page 26
Page 26 of 28
41. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104659108/The-US-National-Debt-and-the-Long-
Term, first published on June 17, 2011, and republished Sep 1, 2012.
42. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104659448/The-US-National-Debt-Retirement-
Program, first published on June 23, 2011, before the debt default crisis which
led to lowering of the US rating, republished Sep 1, 2012.
43. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104662291/A-Radical-Proposal-to-Permanently-
Reduce-the-Unemployment-Rate, first published on October 13, 2011,
republished Sep 1, 2012.
44. http://www.scribd.com/doc/104661297/Is-Taxing-the-Rich-an-Option-for-
Budget-Deficit-Reduction, first published on July 3, 2011, republished Sep 1,
2012.
Page 27
Page 27 of 28
About the author
V. Laxmanan, Sc. D.
Email: [email protected]
The author obtained his Bachelor’s degree (B. E.) in Mechanical Engineering from
the University of Poona and his Master’s degree (M. E.), also in Mechanical
Engineering, from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, followed by a
Master’s (S. M.) and Doctoral (Sc. D.) degrees in Materials Engineering from the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA. He then spent his
entire professional career at leading US research institutions (MIT, Allied
Chemical Corporate R & D, now part of Honeywell, NASA, Case Western Reserve
University (CWRU), and General Motors Research and Development Center in
Warren, MI). He holds four patents in materials processing, has co-authored two
books and published several scientific papers in leading peer-reviewed
international journals. His expertise includes developing simple mathematical
models to explain the behavior of complex systems.
While at NASA and CWRU, he was responsible for developing material processing
experiments to be performed aboard the space shuttle and developed a simple
mathematical model to explain the growth Christmas-tree, or snowflake, like
structures (called dendrites) widely observed in many types of liquid-to-solid phase
transformations (e.g., freezing of all commercial metals and alloys, freezing of
water, and, yes, production of snowflakes!). This led to a simple model to explain
the growth of dendritic structures in both the ground-based experiments and in the
space shuttle experiments.
More recently, he has been interested in the analysis of the large volumes of data
from financial and economic systems and has developed what may be called the
Quantum Business Model (QBM). This extends (to financial and economic
systems) the mathematical arguments used by Max Planck to develop quantum
physics using the analogy Energy = Money, i.e., energy in physics is like money in
economics. Einstein applied Planck’s ideas to describe the photoelectric effect (by
treating light as being composed of particles called photons, each with the fixed
quantum of energy conceived by Planck). The mathematical law deduced by
Page 28
Page 28 of 28
Planck, referred to here as the generalized power-exponential law, might actually
have many applications far beyond blackbody radiation studies where it was first
conceived.
Einstein’s photoelectric law is a simple linear law, as we see here, and was
deduced from Planck’s non-linear law for describing blackbody radiation. It
appears that financial and economic systems can be modeled using a similar
approach. Finance, business, economics and management sciences now essentially
seem to operate like astronomy and physics before the advent of Kepler and
Newton.
Cover page of AirTran 2000 Annual