I’m reprising a previous (and longer) post here in hopefully simplified and clarified form, for a discussion I’m in the midst of.
“Saving” and “Savings” seem like simple concepts, but they’re not. They have many different meanings, and writers’ different usages and definitions (often implicit or even unconscious) make coherent understanding and discussion impossible — even, often, in writings by those who have otherwise clear understandings of the workings of financial systems.
I’m going to talk about a particular meaning of Saving here: Personal Saving (by households) as defined in the NIPAs. Quite simply, it’s household income minus spending on newly produced goods and services. (It doesn’t include so-called spending to buy already-existing assets like deeds, stocks, bonds, or collectibles like art.) It’s a very different measure from household-sector Gross or Net Saving, which I won’t describe here.
Now think this through with me:
Your employer has $100K in its bank account. You have zero.
Your employer transfers $100K from its bank account to yours to pay you for work. You’ve saved (in the Personal Saving sense).
But is there more Savings in the banks? Obviously not.
Now you buy $100K in goods from your employer, transferring the money from your account to its. You’ve dissaved (spent).
Is there more or less Savings in the banks? Obviously not.
Now say instead that, being frugal, you only transfer $75K to your employer for goods. You’ve “saved” $25K. That’s “Personal Saving” in the NIPAs.
Is there more or less Savings in the banks compared to the first scenario? Obviously not.
When households save money, that (non-)act doesn’t add to the stock of monetary savings (the mythical stock of “loanable funds”).
Thinking about the accounting entries may help explain this. “Saving” is a flow, as opposed to a stock. Every accounting measure must be one or the other. (A flow is measured over a period; a stock is measured at a particular moment.) Saving is an accounting “flow” in that sense, but it doesn’t represent an actual transfer of funds from one account to another. It’s an accounting residual of two sets of actual transfers: income minus expenditures. You could say it’s nothing more than an artificial accounting construct — though a useful one for thinking about balance sheets and flow-of-funds and income statements.
The very essence of Personal Saving, its sine qua non, is that it’s not a transfer of funds between accounts. It’s leaving your money sitting where it is, instead of spending it by transferring it to others. It’s not-spending. (Your transfers between your checking and brokerage account, or your portfolio rebalancing, notwithstanding.)
Since Personal Saving doesn’t transfer anything anywhere, it can’t increase the stock variable, Savings.
What does cause Savings to increase? Spending.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Comments
40 responses to “Again: Saving Does Not Increase Savings”
Wouldn’t the money multiplier mean that overall savings in the economy has gone up from the bank lending against your deposits?
“I’m going to talk about a particular meaning of Saving here: Personal Saving (by households) as defined in the NIPAs. Quite simply, it’s household income minus spending on newly produced goods and services.”
SR,
That’s not accurate because the standard definition is disposable income minus consumption.
So you could spend all your income on buying a new house (newly produced good) but that doesn’t mean your saving is zero.
In paragraph 2 you mutter about the use of ill-defined terms.
Then, under the heading “Now think this through with me” you equate money in a bank account with “Savings”. I note that the particular bank accounts that you describe are quite clearly transaction accounts, which means that your undefined term “Savings” does not apply to those accounts.
Then you write:
““Saving†is a flow, as opposed to a stock… But it doesn’t represent an actual flow, or transfer between accounts. It’s a residual of two actual flows…”
The word FLOW as in “stock versus flow” refers to a change (and STOCK refers to the accumulation of changes). The word FLOW as in “stock and flow” has nothing to do with “transfer between accounts”.
If it helps, think of the act of saving as a purposeful transfer from your transaction account to your savings account. Now you have a “transfer between accounts”. And clearly, then, there is flow in both of the meanings that you conflate.
But even if you keep all your money in just one account, if you always withdraw less than you deposit, then your minimum balance will be increasing. Those increases are your FLOW of saving into Savings — even if the saving does not “flow” into some other account.
“The very essence of Personal Saving, its sine qua non, is that it’s not a flow. It’s leaving your money sitting where it is, instead of spending it by transferring it to others. It’s not-spending.”
Keynes said it was more useful to think in terms of spending or not spending, than in terms of spending or saving. I like that. And I think you are trying to say the same thing Keynes said. But you do it by relying on “different usages and definitions” of terms while at the same time rejecting the use of such ill-defined terms, and by calling your stuff “simplified and clarified”.
You do a disservice to your readers.
@The Arthurian
Before I reply, I think we can discuss better if you tell me your definition of Savings. What measure would you look at in the NIPAs, FOFAs, or IMAs to see if Savings have increased or decreased?
Your “think through” sequence involves only matched pairs of saving and dissaving, at best. It illustrates nothing truthful or untruthful about macro saving, which requires the creation of an equivalent level of investment. That must be present as a reference in any illustration of the concept of macro saving. It is secondary to illustrate the possibility of micro saving and dissaving that net to zero macro saving.
That investment prerequisite is why macro saving always adds to stock, in both its real investment prerequisite and any financial mirror image of that. For example, a new investment funded by a new bank loan will create new deposits in the amount of the investment, and those deposits represent the financial stock result of a flow of income to the factors of production for the investment.
Saving IS a flow. Its a flow because its a subset of income. And income is a flow.
Please cease and desist with your objections to accounting realities – and come home to papa truth immediately.
🙂
I’m trying to make this basic household monetary identity work:
Income – Expenditures = Saving = Change in Net Worth/”Savings”
Problem: most changes in net worth are the result of revaluation of assets, not Income (as defined in the NIPAs) minus expenditures. (Graph on request.)
So for that basic identity to balance, Income must include revaluations — cap gains/losses (realized or not is immaterial here):
Income = Labor Income + Capital Income (dividends, interest, rent) +/- Revaluation of Assets
Using the NIPA definition of Income:
Income = Labor Income + Capital Income (dividends, interest, rent)
That basic identity doesn’t balance.
This of course because the NIPAs, being a pure income statement, don’t include a balance sheet, so can’t include a revaluation account, so their definition of Income can’t include revaluation.
Yes, you could suss this out using the NIPAs with the FOFAs. But the whole point of the Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts is that they integrate them for you. You don’t have to be an accounting savant to understand it.
In the SNAs/IMAs, the NIPA’s Income measure is clearly labeled “Primary Incomes” (i.e. not including cap gains).
And since the SNAs/IMAs have a balance sheet and a revaluation account, you can easily adduce an additional measure that has been widely bruited and has a long literature, often called Comprehensive Income (i.e. including cap gains). cf for instance Haig-Simon Income — constructed for taxation rather than macro accounting purposes, but closely related to this.
This labeled measure does not appear in national accounts. That does not make it a wacky measure.
I’m finally clarifying: I really don’t want to change any definitions. I want to: 1. make existing definitions/labels more clear and precise (e.g. Primary Income), and 2. I’d like to add a couple of labeled measures: let’s call them Comprehensive Income and its necessary accompaniment, Comprehensive Saving. Because that gives you:
NetWorth/Savings1 + Comprehensive Saving = NetWorth/Savings2
Which is immediately intuitively comprehensible by mere mortals.
These two measures could be included in the IMAs. Perhaps just as addenda, but perhaps usefully in a more structural way.
Is Primary Income or Comprehensive Income a superior measure? Is Primary Saving or Comprehensive Saving a superior measure?
Neither. Of course. They’re different ways of perceiving and understanding the economy.
I’m sayin’: If I’d seen those additional measures I think I would have saved years of confusion.
I also think that wide use of those measures in economic discussions would have valuable rhetorical, normative, and political effects. “Capital gains are not income” is a politically pernicious statement, in my opinion — a statement that can be blamed for a great deal of bad economic policy.
>which requires the creation of an equivalent level of investment
Totally agree. The capital creation (in the NIPAs, investment) is the thing. Along with 1. new debt issuance that monetizes net new capital, and 2. the market revaluing claims on existing-but-now-more-valuable capital, that’s where new net worth/savings come from.
Distinguishing between the accounting measure and the economic mechanism(s).
What that mechanism is not: households saving more (Net Saving, Personal Saving, money saving), causes more real capital to be created.
The imagined mechanism for that to happen is the loanable funds model — there are more “savings”/loanable funds, so lower interest rates, so…
Which just ain’t how it works. I’m pushing back against that.
“I’m trying to make this basic household monetary identity work:
Income – Expenditures = Saving = Change in Net Worth/â€Savingsâ€
Problem: most changes in net worth are the result of revaluation of assets, not Income (as defined in the NIPAs) minus expenditures. (Graph on request.)”
It really won’t work that way Steve.
A rough analogy. In physics, we have Newton’s Laws and Aristotelian laws. That objects come to rest generally doesn’t mean we have to adopt Aristotle and throw away Newton.
Also are you sure that your changes in net worth thing is universal and not peculiar to the United States.
The reason saving is defined the way it is is because it is internally consistent and sound. Your definition wouldn’t work. Plus your own criticism would apply to your new definition.
@Ramanan
You’re speaking in terms of a single Saving measure, which begs the question. (Realizing we’d need another labeled measure to accompany Primary Income: Primary Saving.)
I really think you’re saying:
These additional measures don’t balance…if we don’t add these measures.
Where doesn’t the arithmetic add up? Really want to know.
>adopt Aristotle and throw away Newton
To repeat: I’m not saying we should throw away or redefine either. I’m saying we should make it easy to perceive both by defining/labeling our measures precisely and clearly (eg Primary Income), and adding other, usefully explanatory named measures.
@Ramanan
“Also are you sure that your changes in net worth thing is universal and not peculiar to the United States.”
Why would it not hold in all countries with capital markets?
Seems to me that revaluation is an issue that is confusing, since apparently neither Steve nor I seem to get it.
I know people (accountants) that run spreadsheets tracking changes in their net worth on a daily basis and clearly look at the changes as flows affecting stocks. Of course those changes don’t show up until realized, but they represent the actual position and its fluctuations pretty minutely. In their minds they are gaining or loosing, even though this doesn’t show up on their income statement and balance sheet, and it is very important to them.
Piketty thinks that unrealized asset revaluation should be taxed periodically in his global wealth tax, which he admits might be impractical presently, but suggests that countries, especially large wealthy countries, could and should do it.
Where does unrealized asset revaluation show up in accounting, or does it show up at all. Given my limited knowledge, I thought that assets were carried at book value rather than changing market valuation. On the other hand, the value of firms is reported in the media as the market capitalization and that is used to figure the “wealth” of the owners. People move up and down the ladder of the Fortune 500 on this basis, for instance.
@Tom Hickey “Of course those changes don’t show up until realized”
What does “show up” mean? They don’t show up on your tax returns until they’re realized through sale, but they very much show up on your accountants’ spreadsheets.
If you want a to get a loan based on your net worth (as opposed to income), the realized/unrealized distinction is immaterial.
My answer to Piketty’s wealth tax and its problems (political and administrative):
We already have a wealth tax. The great thing about it is that you only have to calculate your net worth once per lifetime. Even better: you don’t have to do it; your kids do!
I say turn it up.
“Where does unrealized asset revaluation show up in accounting, or does it show up at all.”
Take a look at the IMAs. It shows up very clearly and explicitly, in the Revaluation Account — just as it does in your accountants’ spreadsheets.
@Ramanan
Oops I should have said:
We need to a more precise, explanatory label for existing measure: Primary Saving
Steve,
“I’m trying to make this basic household monetary identity work:
Income – Expenditures = Saving = Change in Net Worth/â€Savings—
That is inventing new definitions.
The way saving is defined in national accounts/flow of funds is really conceptually correct.
You want to say that a sector’s surplus or net lending is also a useful measure and it is indeed recognized in national accounts.
So I really do not see the point of you endlessly going into all this regularly.
@Tom Hickey
“I know people (accountants) that run spreadsheets tracking changes in their net worth on a daily basis and clearly look at the changes as flows affecting stocks. Of course those changes don’t show up until realized, but they represent the actual position and its fluctuations pretty minutely. In their minds they are gaining or loosing, even though this doesn’t show up on their income statement and balance sheet, and it is very important to them.”
There is a section in the SNA FAQ which addresses this 🙂
SR,
Just 25 years and back, it used to be difficult to buy a house on mortgage in India because the interest rate was astronomically high. So people would buy it by putting their saving as fixed deposits and then buy a house at retirement. Now when they’d actually buy, it would not be that they are dissaving but according to your definitions they’d be dissaving at a massive scale!
Which for some vague reason reminds me of the phrase “it’s just an asset swap”. I think that phrase is a bit misleading.
@Tom Hickey
“I know people (accountants) that run spreadsheets tracking changes in their net worth on a daily basis and clearly look at the changes as flows affecting stocks”
I think the SNA calls revaluations flows.
@Ramanan
Thanks, this is getting clearer for me.
Is asset revaluation taken into account as contributing to S in the income=expenditure macro identity?
@Ramanan
“Income – Expenditures = Saving = Change in Net Worth/â€Savingsâ€â€
That is inventing new definitions.”
Almost correct.
It is:
1. Using the SNA/IMA’s existing clear, descriptive label for an already-defined and already-labeled measure (Primary Income).
2. Giving clear descriptive labels to three other measures, and suggesting they be displayed or more prominently called out, and more widely used in economic discussions.
Why? Because they make it easier to think about economies in ways that are hard to do otherwise, if you haven’t internalized Godley/Lavoie.
“You want to say that a sector’s surplus or net lending is also a useful measure”
No. I want to say that a sector’s Comprehensive Income and Comprehensive Saving are also useful measures.
These measures are especially revealing for the Household sector, because as the ultimate holder of equity claims against firms hence firms’ Net Worth, and having no equity claims against it, it serves as a very useful telescoped picture of private-sector Net Worth, Comprehensive Saving, and Comprehensive Income.
These measures are also conceptual correct. They balance. They’re just different.
Again, what’s wrong with the arithmetic here?
@Tom Hickey
Here is SNA 3.7:
Economic flows consist of transactions and other flows. A
transaction is an economic flow that is an interaction
between institutional units by mutual agreement or an
action within an institutional unit that it is analytically
useful to treat like a transaction, often because the unit is
operating in two different capacities. The value of an asset
or a liability may be affected by economic flows that do not
satisfy the requirements of a transaction. Such flows are
described as “other flowsâ€. Other flows are changes in the
value of assets and liabilities that do not result from
transactions. Examples are losses due to natural disasters
and the effect of price changes on the value of assets and
liabilities
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/SNA2008.pdf
Revaluations do not affect S.
@Asymptosis
Too many things!
Godley/Lavoie is entirely consistent with SNA/FoF etc.
The thing is that there are some conceptual differences between various systems and some are because of operational issues. These are minor things.
But what you are saying is going quite far away from all of these.
Let me give a simple example SR.
Someone earns $1mn and consumes $100,000 and buys a home for $900,000.
Income is $1mn and expenditure is $1mn.
So is saving zero?
No! It is silly to say saving is 0.
Tom,
And your point about revaluations: can’t did the link but I think nation accounts fundamentally measure production, so if you bring in revaluations as part of income, a lot of thinks get messed up, so the don’t and keep it separate.
I don’t know how to explain this easily but if you make the transactions flow matrix as is done in Godley/Lavoie’s textbook, you will start seeing it.
@Ramanan
Oops lots of autocorrect messup there 🙁
An interesting speech from Greenspan in 2001 about the subject of capital gains in general, with some relevant references to accounting:
http://www.bis.org/review/r010903a.pdf
At the end, he says:
“The complexity of these relationships underscores the potential usefulness of developing separate sets of accounts to track capital gains. These accounts could supplement the income and product accounts, the flow of funds accounts, and the balance of payments accounts.”
The key word there is “supplement”.
That means – don’t tear down existing fences that were put up for good reason.
He mentions such reasons in the speech as well.
Indeed, “supplement” is the way it is done now, generally speaking.
SR,
Another point is that if you are worried about how revaluations are important, you can say the same thing you want to say by sentences such as “the graph for change in net worth is this” instead of changing the definition of saving.
You are totally not going to go anywhere by changing the definition of saving.
@Ramanan
“Too many things!”
Feeling the same.
“Someone earns $1mn and consumes $100,000 and buys a home for $900,000.
Income is $1mn and expenditure is $1mn”
Really? You know this:
Primary Income and Saving unchanged because those measures/definitions are unchanged.
Comprehensive, likewise. This doesn’t change income, and expenditure definition is unchanged, so…. .
If newly produced houses, firms gain net worth (cash balances), which is gain is imputed to households. No chg to net worth. As you say, asset swap
And error of composition: one old household, changes their picture. A billion people of different ages aggregated?
@Ramanan “nation accounts fundamentally measure production, so if you bring in revaluations as part of income, a lot of thinks get messed up.”
If you changed the def of Primary Income and Saving that would be true. But nobody is suggesting that.
Adding addendum measures of Comprehensive would obvioiusly have no such effect.
Q: Why do you think the IMAs eschew the word Investment in favor of capital creation (except re: durables)? Why is gross saving absent from their presentation? Why are they so careful to label income as Primary?
Because those changes give a more comprehensible picture of the economy.
I don’t understand why you’re so resistant to better labeling, and a couple of extra defined measures.
On the latter, all I’m suggesting is this (say at the bottom of the Current Account):
Addendum:
Comprehensive income including changes in net worth due to nominal holding gains/losses (line 9 + line 95)
Comprehensive saving including changes in net worth due to nominal holding gains/losses (line 28 + line 95)
This is The End of National Accounting As We Know It?
@JKH “sets of accounts to track capital gains”
Happily, the IMAs have given us that in very clear form — without the realized/unrealized confusion plaguing Greenspan’s discussion.
Addendum measures of Comprehensive Income and Comprehensive Saving (would) just reveal that in clear and comprehensible form.
@Asymptosis
I didn’t find Greenspan’s discussion confused
“Happily, the IMAs have given us that in very clear form”
So what’s the problem?
All:
Read the first few pages of this for good explanation of accrual vs. realized approach to cap gains and income.
http://www.asymptosis.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/burkhauser-income-dist.pdf
The conclusions of this paper, btw, are directly opposite to my contentions of political perniciousness. This is the “money argument” that Scott Winship uses to pooh-pooh the Pavlina Tcherneva share-of-income-in-recoveries graph that went viral recently.
@Asymptosis
nothing new in that paper
Godley and Lavoie develop a meticulous approach to Haig-Simons integration while respecting the required core accounting framework for income, balance sheets, and flow of funds
@Asymptosis
What do you mean really?
C’mon!
@Ramanan
“You are totally not going to go anywhere by changing the definition of saving.”
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
@Asymptosis
Sorry don’t get your point. My example was to show how it is.
There was no need to say “really?”
Your repeating yourself won’t change much.
You can do this:
“Under my proposed system of accounts, saving is this this this … and xyz is abc …. ”
Instead you alternate between your system and the system of national accounts.
@Ramanan
Under my proposed system of accounts
o What Ramanan calls Income would be called Primary Income, as in the IMAs. No change in the definition.
o Net Saving would be called Net Primary Saving. No change in the definition.
o Two addendum measures would be added, labeled Comprehensive Income and Comprehensive Saving, defined as above.
End Of The World?
@Ramanan
Oh and: Gross Saving would be pretty much ignored, as in the IMAs.
@Asymptosis
What??
S.1.a has both gross and net saving.
@Ramanan
S.1.a here http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/z1.pdf
@Ramanan “S.1.a has both gross and net saving.”
It does? I find on use of “Saving” in that table. Line 41.
??
S.1.a Total Economy – Current Account
Billions of dollars
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
1 Gross value added 12283.5 13129.2 14073.2 14460.1 14619.2 14343.4 14915.2 15556.3 16372.3 16980.0 1
(income approach)
2 Less: Consumption of fixed capital 1831.7 1982.0 2136.0 2264.4 2363.4 2368.4 2381.6 2450.6 2530.2 2627.2 2
3 Equals: Net value added 10451.8 11147.2 11937.2 12195.8 12255.8 11975.0 12533.6 13105.6 13842.1 14352.7 3
4 Compensation of employees (paid) 6748.8 7097.9 7513.7 7908.8 8090.0 7795.7 7969.5 8277.1 8614.9 8853.6 4
5 Wages and salaries 5431.2 5703.1 6068.8 6405.7 6543.6 6260.1 6385.6 6641.2 6940.5 7133.6 5
6 Employers’ social contributions 1317.6 1394.8 1444.9 1503.1 1546.4 1535.6 1583.9 1635.9 1674.4 1720.1 6
7 Taxes on production and imports less subsidies 817.6 873.6 940.5 980.0 989.4 967.8 1001.2 1042.6 1074.0 1102.3 7
8 Operating surplus, net 2885.5 3175.7 3483.0 3307.0 3176.5 3211.6 3562.8 3785.9 4153.2 4396.8 8
9 Plus: Income receipts from the rest of the world 451.4 575.8 724.2 875.7 856.9 648.9 720.0 792.6 793.8 810.4 9
10 Less: Income payments to the rest of the world 362.3 483.2 656.6 750.1 684.9 497.8 514.1 546.0 566.5 586.1 10
11 Equals: Net national income/Balance of primary incomes, net 10540.9 11239.8 12004.8 12321.4 12427.8 12126.1 12739.5 13352.3 14069.5 14577.1 11
12 Operating surplus, net 2885.5 3175.7 3483.0 3307.0 3176.5 3211.6 3562.8 3785.9 4153.2 4396.8 12
13 Compensation of employees (received) 6739.5 7086.8 7502.3 7898.3 8078.3 7787.0 7961.4 8269.0 8606.5 8844.8 13
14 Wages and salaries 5421.9 5692.0 6057.4 6395.2 6531.9 6251.4 6377.5 6633.2 6932.1 7124.7 14
15 Employers’ social contributions 1317.6 1394.8 1444.9 1503.1 1546.4 1535.6 1583.9 1635.9 1674.4 1720.1 15
16 Taxes on production and imports, receivable 863.9 934.5 991.9 1034.6 1041.9 1026.1 1057.1 1102.6 1132.0 1162.4 16
17 Subsidies paid -46.4 -60.9 -51.5 -54.6 -52.6 -58.3 -55.9 -60.1 -58.0 -60.2 17
18 Property income (received) 4880.3 5624.9 6618.0 7291.8 6916.9 5815.3 5752.9 6011.3 6276.1 6425.3 18
19 Interest 2828.3 3420.9 4150.9 4706.7 4234.7 3464.1 3230.4 3233.2 3179.1 3098.0 19
20 Distributed income of corporations 1842.3 2164.3 2199.1 2300.9 2390.7 2072.0 2166.7 2410.7 2751.8 2935.3 20
21 Dividends 809.8 1109.8 1067.3 1234.4 1255.5 989.3 1007.3 1118.0 1324.8 1424.2 21
22 Withdrawals from income of quasi-corporations 1032.5 1054.5 1131.8 1066.6 1135.2 1082.6 1159.4 1292.8 1427.0 1511.1 22
23 Reinvested earnings on U.S. direct investment abroad 192.5 20.4 247.8 261.4 265.6 260.9 336.6 345.7 322.7 370.2 23
24 Rents on land and natural resources 17.1 19.4 20.3 22.6 25.9 18.3 19.2 21.7 22.5 21.7 24
25 Less: Uses of property income (paid) 4781.9 5521.3 6539.1 7155.7 6733.1 5655.5 5538.8 5756.6 6040.3 6192.1 25
26 Interest 2935.0 3556.3 4328.1 4924.0 4457.7 3661.6 3411.5 3400.4 3345.1 3267.9 26
27 Distributed income of corporations 1779.9 1903.4 2121.2 2160.5 2210.1 1953.8 2045.3 2255.8 2574.9 2802.4 27
28 Dividends 747.5 848.9 989.4 1093.9 1075.0 871.2 885.9 963.1 1147.9 1291.3 28
29 Withdrawals from income of quasi-corporations 1032.5 1054.5 1131.8 1066.6 1135.2 1082.6 1159.4 1292.8 1427.0 1511.1 29
30 Reinvested earnings on foreign direct investment 49.8 42.1 69.5 48.5 39.4 21.9 62.8 78.7 97.7 100.1 30
31 Rents on land and natural resources 17.1 19.4 20.3 22.6 25.9 18.3 19.2 21.7 22.5 21.7 31
32 Net national income/Balance of primary incomes, net 10540.9 11239.8 12004.8 12321.4 12427.8 12126.1 12739.5 13352.3 14069.5 14577.1 32
33 Plus: Current taxes on income, wealth, etc. (received) 1347.9 1616.5 1821.0 1923.9 1735.1 1405.8 1553.5 1766.9 1944.4 2121.1 33
34 Less: Current taxes on income, wealth, etc. (paid) 1352.1 1620.9 1825.5 1933.4 1744.3 1414.4 1562.0 1779.7 1958.5 2136.0 34
35 Plus: Social benefits (received) 2233.5 2364.3 2515.3 2658.3 2840.4 3070.9 3223.0 3179.9 3263.4 3482.1 35
36 Less: Social contributions (paid) 2239.7 2370.9 2523.2 2666.9 2851.1 3081.9 3234.6 3192.6 3276.9 3495.6 36
37 Plus: Other current transfers (received) 468.2 494.1 497.2 532.5 560.9 668.8 719.3 697.4 649.3 672.7 37
38 Less: Other current transfers (paid) 554.3 597.4 585.5 639.1 676.1 782.0 840.4 819.1 763.0 782.5 38
39 Equals: Disposable income, net 10444.5 11125.6 11904.1 12196.7 12292.8 11993.2 12598.3 13205.1 13928.2 14438.8 39
40 Less: Final consumption expenditures 10129.0 10774.2 11393.8 11960.2 12382.2 12289.0 12724.4 13220.2 13632.9 14031.9 40
41 Equals: Net saving 315.6 351.4 510.2 236.5 -89.5 -295.8 -126.1 -15.1 295.4 406.8 41
Addendum:
42 Gross value added (line 1) 12283.5 13129.2 14073.2 14460.1 14619.2 14343.4 14915.2 15556.3 16372.3 16980.0 42
43 Plus statistical discrepancy (NIPA) -8.6 -35.5 -217.3 17.5 99.4 75.3 49.2 -38.3 -209.2 -211.9 43
44 Equals: GDP (NIPA, expenditure approach) 12274.9 13093.7 13855.9 14477.6 14718.6 14418.7 14964.4 15517.9 16163.1 16768.0 44
@Asymptosis
Because “net” is net of something “gross”. So gross saving is net saving plus consumption of fixed capital.