Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis
After the Second World War, it was noticed that a model in which current consumption was just a function of current income clearly too simplistic. It could not explain the fact that the long-run average propensity to consume seemed to be roughly constant despite the marginal propensity to consume being much lower. Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis are one of the models which seeks to explain this apparent contradiction.
According to the Permanent Income Hypothesis, permanent consumption, CP, is proportional to permanent income, YP. Permanent income is a subjective notion of likely medium-run future income. Permanent consumption is a similar notion of consumption.
Actual consumption, C, and actual income, Y, consist of these permanent components plus unanticipated transitory components, CT and YT, respectively.
CPt =β2YPt
Ct = CPt + CTt
Yt = YPt + YTt
Read more about this topic: Intertemporal Choice
Famous quotes containing the words friedman, permanent, income and/or hypothesis:
“Corporate America will likely be motivated to support child care when it can be shown to have positive effects on that which management is concerned about—recruitment, retention and productivity. Indeed, employers relate to child care as a way to provide growth fostering environments for young managers.”
—Dana E. Friedman (20th century)
“A country whose buildings are of wood, can never increase in its improvements to any considerable degree.... Whereas when buildings are of durable materials, every new edifice is an actual and permanent acquisition to the state, adding to its value as well as to its ornament.”
—Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
“The bread-winner must toil as in the fruitless effort of a troubled dream while the expenditure of an uneducated wife discounts the income in the lack of understanding to discern the broad possibilities of an intelligent economy.”
—Anna Eugenia Morgan (1845–1909)
“The hypothesis I wish to advance is that ... the language of morality is in ... grave disorder.... What we possess, if this is true, are the fragments of a conceptual scheme, parts of which now lack those contexts from which their significance derived. We possess indeed simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have—very largely if not entirely—lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality.”
—Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre (b. 1929)