 |  |
| |
|
December 24, 2006
On foreign remittances c. 1906
Certain circles express concern that foreign nationals send U.S. dollars across our borders to their family and friends in other countries. I am not sure anyone has a solid number on the amount of remittances per year, but numbers I hear here in the DFW area put it in the $80 billion range. From the Dec. 24, 1906 NYT is a story of Christmas remittances back home. The total dollars remitted is estimated to be around $8 m (around $180m in 2005 dollars). This is only for the month of December, so if Christmas remittances are three times the normal amount, the annual remittances in 1906 would be somewhere close to $840 m in 2005 dollars. Eh.net estimates annual real GDP of the U.S. in 1906 (in 2000 dollars) to be $475.4 billion. Estimated remittances in 1906 would be $737m in 2000 dollars. Annual remittances in 1906 were then approximately 0.15% of GDP. In 2006, $80 billion in remittances abroad would be approximately 0.66% of GDP. Today's remittances are a bit higher than in the past, but hardly seem to be a new problem. Not being a macroeconomist, I am not sure what the negative theoretical implications are for U.S. currency being shipped abroad. The 1906 NYT article lists the countries with the greatest remittances: . . . The upshot seems to be that immigrants, regardless of where they are from, send money back home. This is straightforward - immigrants are not sending money to a black box but to their closest family and friends who are not enjoying the benefits of our system. I haven't seen any complaints during the 1905-1906 periods about the dollars being sent back to Great Britain. Although, the article does note: "[o]f course, there is some offset to the stream of money flowing from the Post Office to Europe in the form of remittances from the other side to us. This return current, however, never goes above 25 per cent. of what we send." Posted by Craig Depken at 11:27 AM in Economics
|
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
Blogroll
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden
By Month:
December 2008November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
