GBE PS1 done

2025-10-14 17:14:26 +02:00
parent 2653afd097
commit 3010ff9ddc
35 changed files with 2069 additions and 12 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+# Part 3 Analysis Summary: Twin Deficits Hypothesis
+
+## Question 1: Government Budget Balance and Current Account Balance (1960-2024)
+
+### Key Findings:
+
+**Correlation Analysis:**
+- **Before 1990 (1960-1989):** r = 0.8246 (p < 0.0001) - **Strong positive correlation**
+- **After 1990 (1990-2024):** r = 0.5331 (p = 0.0010) - **Moderate positive correlation**
+- **Overall (1960-2024):** r = 0.6681
+
+### Does the data support the twin deficits hypothesis?
+
+**YES, the data supports the twin deficits hypothesis**, with an interesting nuance:
+
+1. **Before 1990:** The correlation was actually STRONGER (0.8246)
+   - Both government budget and current account were relatively balanced
+   - When one moved into deficit, the other tended to follow strongly
+   - Smaller absolute magnitudes of both variables
+
+2. **After 1990:** The correlation remained positive but weakened (0.5331)
+   - HOWEVER, both deficits became structurally larger and persistent
+   - The twin deficits hypothesis manifested differently: not just correlation, but sustained co-movement into large deficit territory
+   - Other factors (like private savings) began playing a larger role
+
+3. **Key Observation:**
+   - The relationship changed from a tight correlation during relatively balanced periods to a broader structural relationship during deficit periods
+   - The hypothesis is supported by the persistent co-movement of both variables into deficit territory, even if the correlation coefficient decreased
+
+---
+
+## Question 2: Private Savings and Investment Analysis
+
+### Why did the relationship change after 1990?
+
+**The answer lies in the dramatic decline in private savings:**
+
+### Summary Statistics (% of GDP):
+
+| Period | Private Savings/GDP | Investment/GDP | S-I Gap |
+|--------|--------------------:|---------------:|--------:|
+| **Before 1990** | 8.05% | 18.22% | -10.16% |
+| **After 1990** | 4.67% | 17.70% | -13.03% |
+
+### Key Insights:
+
+1. **Private Savings Collapsed:**
+   - Declined from 8.05% of GDP (before 1990) to 4.67% (after 1990)
+   - This is a **42% reduction** in the savings rate
+   - Multiple factors: demographic changes, credit expansion, financial market development
+
+2. **Investment Remained Relatively Stable:**
+   - Only slight decline from 18.22% to 17.70%
+   - The economy continued to need similar levels of investment
+
+3. **Growing S-I Gap:**
+   - The private sector's savings-investment gap widened from -10.16% to -13.03%
+   - This meant the private sector needed MORE external financing
+
+4. **National Accounting Identity Impact:**
+   
+   The fundamental identity: **CA = (S - I) + (T - G)**
+   
+   Where:
+   - CA = Current Account Balance
+   - S = Private Savings
+   - I = Investment
+   - T = Taxes
+   - G = Government Spending
+   
+   After 1990:
+   - (S - I) became MORE negative (private sector needed more financing)
+   - (T - G) became MORE negative (government deficits increased)
+   - Therefore, CA became MUCH MORE negative (larger current account deficits)
+
+### Why the Twin Deficits Hypothesis Changed Character After 1990:
+
+**Before 1990:**
+- Private savings were relatively high
+- When government ran deficits, they competed for the existing pool of domestic savings
+- This created a direct, strong correlation between government and current account deficits
+- The channel was mainly through crowding out of domestic savings
+
+**After 1990:**
+- Private savings declined dramatically
+- The economy became more dependent on foreign capital
+- Government deficits now had to be financed alongside a larger private sector financing need
+- Both deficits (government and current account) became structurally embedded
+- The channel shifted from crowding out to structural dependence on foreign capital
+
+---
+
+## Conclusions:
+
+1. **The twin deficits hypothesis IS supported by the data**, but its mechanism evolved over time
+
+2. **The key structural shift after 1990** was the collapse in private savings, which made the US economy more dependent on foreign capital
+
+3. **The correlation weakened** (from 0.82 to 0.53) NOT because the hypothesis failed, but because:
+   - Both deficits became persistently large
+   - Private savings decline added another major driver of current account deficits
+   - The relationship became more complex but still fundamentally valid
+
+4. **Policy Implications:**
+   - Simply reducing government deficits may not fully address current account deficits
+   - The decline in private savings is a critical structural issue
+   - The US became increasingly integrated into global capital markets, relying on foreign savings
+
+5. **The national accounting identity remained valid throughout:**
+   - The current account deficit reflects the gap between national savings (private + government) and investment
+   - After 1990, BOTH components of national savings deteriorated, leading to large, persistent current account deficits
+
+---
+
+## Visualizations Generated:
+
+1. **question1_twin_deficits.png**
+   - Time series of government budget and current account balances
+   - Scatter plot showing correlation before and after 1990
+
+2. **question2_savings_investment.png**
+   - Private savings and investment as % of GDP
+   - Savings-Investment gap over time
+   - Nominal values of both series
+
+Both visualizations clearly show the structural break around 1990 and the changing dynamics of the US economy.