Datasets:
title: 'House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12) (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011003)'
source: 'House Oversight: Estate Documents (Nov 12)'
sourceUrl: https://www.justice.gov/epstein
date: '2026-01-01'
category: House Oversight
eftaNumber: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011003
ocrPages: 1
ocrChars: 1268
ocrElapsed: 0
parseTier: external-legacy
engine: engine undisclosed (ep-nov-12.greg.technology mirror)
externalSource: greg-ep-nov-12
externalLicense: not granted
externalCredit: ep-nov-12.greg.technology
externalUrl: https://ep-nov-12.greg.technology
Mill and Keynes and tradition hold (4.2) and (4.2a) as logical certitudes which hold constant over time. I agree if we imagine the asterisks. Constancy over time would imply change in growth = change in output - change in consumption. (4.3) I take the trouble to derive this as a road I haven't preferred to follow. I will reason instead in rates rather than flows. Rates, or ratios of flows to capital, effectively cancel capital from numerator and denominator. That frees them to show comparison between smaller and larger economies among the eight I test. Mill's idea, or anyhow mine, is that the ratio of consumption to capital in all those countries can hold constant. That is what the charts and tables show. To follow that lead, divide (4.2a) by capital. This finds growth capital output consumption capital capital (4.4) That can be put more compactly as growth rate = capital productivity - consumption rate, (4.4a) where rate always means ratio to capital. That needs a caveat because consumption rate in macro means ratio to output. Capital productivity in this sense is also called rate of return. For more compactness still, define thrift rate = - consumption rate, allowing (4.4a) to be restated as Chapter 4 Mill's Idea 1/11/16 12 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011003