Skip to Content

Why Rep. Steve Gottwalt’s view of the economy doesn’t make sense

What is an economy? This might seem like a silly question given that we are daily participants in our local economy, but a couple of recent episodes lead me to believe that it’s a question worth exploring.

Here’s my definition: An economy is an interdependent system of organizations and individuals working together to produce goods and services people need and want. The organizations include households, businesses, non-profits and government. Organizations and individuals produce and exchange goods and services through markets and in non-market settings such as households.

How does this all work? Economists use simplified models to understand complex phenomena, and one of the first models we use in introductory economics courses is called the circular flow. The circular flow is a way of illustrating the interdependent nature of an economy. The diagram below shows a simple version of the circular flow.

The model starts by assuming there are two groups in society: firms and households. Firms have the know-how for producing goods and services while households have the resources (human capital, physical capital, natural capital) the firms need in order to produce goods and services.

Here is the first interdependence at the heart of an economy: firms produce goods and services and sell them to households, but firms need resources from households in order to produce goods and services. You can’t have one without the other.

This version of the circular flow focuses on the physical stuff that’s moving between firms and households, but we can also look at the situation from the perspective of money flows, as shown in the next diagram.

The direction of the flows is now reversed. Households send money to the firms when they purchase goods and services while firms pay for the resources they rent from households. 

Here is the second interdependence. Firms receive income from households buying their goods and services. However, the only way that households have money to buy goods and services is by earning income from firms by working and saving.

In this simplified world, all of the exchanges take place through markets. We know, of course, that in the real world many exchanges take place within firms and within households, and that money doesn’t necessarily change hands within these groups.

We can also expand the circular flow to include all of the different institutions in an economy such as non-profits and governments. The diagram gets pretty complicated; just Google “circular flow” and see what you find.

Geese and golden eggs

I’ve been thinking about what an economy is because of two recent events. First, the Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes asked me to work with their citizens jury on the economy and the federal debt. To understand what is going on with budget deficits, taxes and debt, I believe that you must start with an understanding of what the economy is all about. 

Rep. Steve Gottwalt
Rep. Steve Gottwalt

The circular flow helps you see the connections. Taxes levied on households affect businesses because it reduces their income and vice versa. Spending by government might divert resources away from goods and services households want to buy; on the other hand, if there are unemployed resources, government spending might put those resources to work and increase the flow of income. Once you have this framework, you can then ask questions about the size of government, the appropriate level of taxation, and the consequences of a growing national debt.

The second incident was the recent debate over a tax bill in the state House.  According to the StarTribune,  Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, accused the DFL of waging "class warfare on the House floor."

"These are job creators; these are our Main Street businesses who are sick and tired ... of the Democrat mantra of how they are somehow the evil wealthy, that they're somehow taking advantage of Minnesota," he said. "They create the jobs that put the food on the table, that create the resources for all the do-gooding you want to do.”  (Rep. Gottwalt’s speech is available here.)

This is a different view of what an economy is than the circular flow. Business is the economy in this world; as Rep. Gottwalt later said, business is “the goose that lays our golden eggs.” The role of households, non-profits, government and everyone else in the economy is to feed this goose and hope that it keeps blessing us with its bounty.

This perspective misses the fact that the resources and income in an economy are not created by business alone, households alone, government or by any single group in society. It’s all about the interaction of these groups and their interdependence on one another. We need a healthy business sector to generate jobs; businesses need robust households to purchase the goods and services they produce. Businesses and households rely on the labor of women and men who choose not to work in the market but to produce things of value in our homes, in our churches and in our volunteer organizations. Citizens come together through the democratic process to do things that they can’t do through markets.

That’s what an economy is: it’s all of us working together.

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (13)

Its not about Economics, its about Class

I think this misses the central point of Representative Gottwalt's world view. In order to have "class warfare" you have to believe in distinct social classes. Gottwalt's has a firmly held belief in social class and the superiority of his class over others.

If, on the other hand, you don't believe in social classes, but instead see a variety of shared interests that sometimes come into conflict, you don't see the conflict as class warfare. You see it as resolving natural conflicts between different interests and values. Sometimes our own interests are aligned with one group, sometimes with another. But they are not questions of "class".

This idea of class has become quite central to the political views of a large number of Americans. They see themselves as members of a distinct group, different from other Americans who do not share their interests. And they see those "other" Americans as their enemies.

This is the natural result of the lack of social mobility in the United States. We are becoming a society of relatively rigid social status and Representative Gottwalt's belief in class warfare is part of that. Its not about economics.

Supply and demand not really a new concept

It sounds like Rep. Gottwalt has swallowed the supply side kool -aid. He should talk to his fellow legislator from St. Cloud King Banaian before he does that again and get a lesson in econ 101.

In this economy we have weak demand not restricted supply. It is not universally weak just in some markets (the metro rental market isn't weak but the housing purchase market seems to be) apparently the demand for a Viking Stadiums is strong - and horse racing is not but I could be mistaken.

At this point we have probably seen as much of a response as we are going to get from Tax cuts.

At a Governor's forum held in St. Cloud last winter in which Representative Banaian participated by Representative Gottwalt did not it was only the large businesses (Golden Plump) who whined about taxes the three smaller businesses there (a precast manufacture, and exporter and another small manufacturer) just wanted consistent rules and taxes weren't an issue. It was interesting to note that the three smaller manufactures had added more jobs than the larger one.

Politicians should stop letting the large firms dominate the policy and attributing it to small firms while ignoring their real needs.

But the real issue now is demand. It would be useful if the author modified the diagram to indicate government in the cycle.

A GOP'er who doesn't understand economics?

Wow, that kind of thinking could lead a party into fiscal mismanagement!

Your article raises 2 points that always drive me crazy. First, the GOP is always ready to hand money over to "Job Creators" without ever demanding they actually create any jobs. Second, with the redistribution of wealth over the past 30+ years, the "household" part of the equation continues to shrink. And yet "firms" never seem to grasp that. Maybe the leadership at some "firms" (like Best Buy) are just busy with other activities.

great primer

As far as oversimplifactions go, this is a good one with which to start. The dialogue between our political leaders tends to focus primarily on the Firms within the economy, largely ignoring the Households.

The current Republican

The current Republican delusions:

* Business has the interests of the public at heart and they will do what is best (history is replete with counter-examples).

* Increasing business profits will lead to more hiring (30 years of counter-proof).

*The worth of everything is measurable in dollars (what are the best-remembered cultures famous for?)

*The US will recover it's former glory by discarding measures that made the US into a widely prosperous nation (after all, wasn't everyone prosperous in the past).

There is so much talk of "class warfare" being waged by progressives..

What would be the opposite of "class warfare"?

"Class cooperation."

My question is, where then is the "class cooperation" from the standpoint of the Republicans?

non-market is non-sense

I would add a bit to the professor’s definition, even if it is presumptuous of me:

“An economy is an interdependent system of organizations and individuals working together to produce goods and services people need and want. The organizations include households, businesses, non-profits and government. Organizations and individuals produce and exchange goods and services through markets.” A market can be identified when more than 100 transactions will result in statistically the same end price, whether traded with currency or chattel or labor. The transactions are governed by contracts which can be for individual gain and are fungible, or for group gain and are non-fungible. Many if not virtually all transactions are a blend of the two.

Missed the Point

Johnston's model, while accurate on a utopian level, does not include the pressures of what each of those areas do to one another and misses what Gottwalt is saying. Yes, our economy is the total of all those things mentioned, but what is not mentioned is that we are living in a society where government has had more control over everything and creating more and more obstacles for those who want to create or grow business.

Basic marketing strategies prove that the more barriers there are to opening up business, the less likely new businesses will enter the market and those that acutally do enter the market, the less likely they will survive. We need fewer barriers to the market so that the market as Johnston mentions is allowed to work. This will also allow for more new businesses to enter the economy, which in turn creates more jobs, which in turn creates more wealth as the money people have circulates much more frequently.

Govt has *less* control than historically--not more.

There are far fewer barriers to market creation and entry than ever in the past.

HIstorically, the toughest part of starting a business was reaching the customers in order to inform them of the product being available to buy. Today, the Internet does that at minimal cost and effort.

The hardest thing to do is to differentiate your business from all the others in order to get the customer to buy YOUR product rather than a comparable item produced/sold by someone else.

Most new businesses do NOT need to invest heavily in manufacturing or inventory--because they have someone else make it for them AND they only buy what they expect to sell. Again, this minimizes the cost and investment needed. Or they sell someone else's product and merely make a commission on sales (think SMC and similar types of eBay resellers who "make" nothing at all).

Thus, the claim the govt is creating obstacles is pure nonsense. The reality is consumers are being bombarded with massive and continuous amounts of "BUY ME NOW" crap--which has led to them becoming disappointed and discouraged by the market. Hence the rise of search engines--and the placement of irrelevant responses to legitimate searches. Every spam seller ad in existence has ALL the "tags" for everything--so they are "found" with virtually every "search"--but they do NOT have the product being sought. This applies to Target, Best Buy, and many more businesses as well. So, the problem is NOT the govt--it is other businesses trying to prevent yet another new competitor from succeeding.

Not exactly

The problem isn't the ease by which small businesses can be started--small businesses open all the time (and most fail). The problem is the lack of demand (why many, but not all, small businesses fail) and his inability to recognize that. He and many like him will tout "free market" and "supply and demand," but they don't get that you can't just throw money at the supply side and expect the demand side to pick up just because. That's like trying to prime the pump from the well end of the pipe: you get nothing but yourself into deep water.

Free Market Magi

Repblicans are funny. You can show them the most functional and non-controversial definition of an economy in existence, the look at it, and say yeah but...

Instantly we go form talking about a rational and evidence based observation to an ideological declaration that governments too big and big government is the problem. The fact that the private sector and the public sector are not different economies, but part of the same economy is lost. The fact that the private sector and the public sector do not compete with each other, but perform different and necessary functions is lost. Now we're in an irrational la la land of economics based on faith rather than history or evidence. The fact that the Great Recession followed 20 years of government deregulation is lost amongst true-believer demands for even more deregulation and even "smaller" government.

It's really very simple, why these free market Magi tell us how "big" the government is supposed to be? What is the target? How much square space should the government occupy? How many employees should the government have? What percentage of GDP should government spending produce? What should the government budget be? And of course we need some rationale for the numbers they suggest.

The role of government is still understated

One thing that has fatally damaged our understanding of government has been the failure to recognize government as an investment rather a mere expense. Somewhere along the line economics gave way to mere accounting and government, taxes, etc. got defined as an expense.

Government and the security and infrastructure it provides facilitate the commerce that drives the economy. No large or successful economy in history has looked like Somalia. From the Roman roads we still drive on today to the water reclamation, rural electrification, and interstate highway programs of the 30s, 40s, and 50s, effective government makes successful economies possible, it's not merely a political appendage. I wish US economists would stop dancing around this fact.

Role of government: doing the things that make commerce possible

Government provides the large scale infrastructure: Education of our future workforce, developing water and waste distribution systems, providing efficient mail service (yes - ) development of means of transportation - roads that efficiently interconnect - all things that are for the common good as well as for the efficient running of our businesses, These are things that should not be privatized because increasing productivity is not possible while maintaining the quality and maintenance of these and other such things. They can not do more with less because they are by nature, labor intensive. And there are others. We need a well educated, healthy workforce that is paid enough to contribute back to the community. Cutting back on these constantly as has been done in recent years only serves to 'cut off our noses to spite our faces' in the name of greed.

Good steward ship is necessary to care for our environment and such For those who do not know what a steward is, it is the one who takes care of the entity or resource to make sure it is not wantonly wasted and will continue to be there for us. IE a true conservator.

military IS government

Many of us want to cut government spending. But it seems those who want to cut the most want to leave military spending untouched. As if the Military Industrial Complex is something different than Big Government, as if it is OK to subsidize jobs building weapons but not jobs building bridges.