The Growth Of Reproducible Wealth Of The United States Of America From 1805 To 1950

The findings of this paper may be summarized in a few paragraphs which, of course, omit all qualifications of the statistical data used. 1. The best single measure of economic growth from the stock (rather than the flow) aspect now available is deflated durable reproducible tangible wealth per head,1excluding military tangible assets, subsoil assets, and civilian semi‐durable and perishable assets. 2. The average rate of growth of real R.T.W. per head for the entire period from 1805 to 1950 is 2 percent, with a range of about 1.8 to 2.2 percent. These figures should be regarded as minima because they do not make allowance for the probable overstatement of the effective rise in the price level involved in the process of deflation and because of the omission or understatement of some types of durable assets such as soil improvement. 3. The rate of growth increased from approximately 2.2 percent in the first half of the nineteenth century to 2.5 percent in the second half. The highest decadal rate for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the‘eighties with approximately 3.8 percent. From this peak it declined to approximately 1.6 percent for the period 1890 to 1922, but rallied to 2 percent in the‘twenties. From 1930 to 1945 R.T.W. per head not only failed to grow but declined slightly, an unprecendented phenomenon due to the Great Depression and to World War II. 4. Since World War II the rate of growth of real R.T.W. per head has averaged fully 4 percent. This is higher than any decadal rate known; and probably higher too than that prevailing during any previous period of prosperity. The increase of 22 percent in the five years 1946–50 seems to be as high as that in any previous period of equal length. While part of this rapid increase may be regarded as making up for deficiencies in the ratio of R.T.W. to national product created in the preceding fifteen years; and while it is uncertain how long the recent rapid rise will continue, even if we disregard restrictions on civilian capital formation under the impact of rearmament, it may be that the downward trend in the rate of growth of R.T.W. per head in evidence since the late nineteenth century has been arrested. 5. During the one hundred and fifty years for which data are available and which encompass virtually the entire economic history of the United States, the structure of R.T.W. has shown considerable changes, but also a degree of stability which may be regarded as astonishing in view of the extraordinary extension of the economic area of the United States and the radical changes in the nature of its economy. In particular, the proportion of R.T.W. represented by reproducible durable assets for consumers' direct use and for use in production has changed but little. 6. Residential buildings and consumers' durable goods accounted for approximately two‐fifths of total domestic R.T.W. (in current prices) throughout the period, although the ratio has shown a slight tendency to rise since the middle of the nineteenth century. Within consumers' R.T.W. residential buildings have lost slightly in importance at the expense of movable durable goods. The share of government (including non‐profit institutions but excluding military assets) has risen from an insignificant fraction to approximately one‐eighth of total R.T.W.’The proportion of R.T.W. represented by private enterprise (including farms) has declined moderately. Within total business R.T.W. changes, however, have been very substantial. The two outstanding trends are the relative decline of R.T.W. of agriculture (excluding farmers' residences and consumers' durables), and the increase in the share of non‐farm business structures and equipment, particularly prior to 1880. Non‐farm business inventories, on the other hand, seem to have maintained approximately the same proportion to total domestic R.T.W. throughout the period. 7. Until World War I part of domestic R.T.W. must be regarded as being the property of foreign owners. The proportion of foreign investments to R.T.W. of the United States, however, declined rapidly throughout the nineteenth century from a proportion of over one‐eighth at its start to only a few percent after World War I. Investments abroad have never been substantial compared to R.T.W. They have been almost insignificant throughout the nineteenth century. Even at their peak in 1929 they represented only 7 percent of domestic R.T.W., a proportion not yet regained by 1950.