What Is Average Propensity to Consume?

Average propensity to consume (APC) measures the percentage of income that is spent rather than saved. This may be calculated by a single individual who wants to know where the money is going or by an economist who wants to track the spending and saving habits of an entire nation.

In either case, the propensity to consume can be determined by dividing average household consumption, or spending, by average household income, or earnings.

Understanding Average Propensity to Consume

From the broader economic view, a high average propensity to consume is generally good for the economy. When the average propensity to consume is high, consumers are saving less and spending more on goods or services. This increased demand drives economic growth, business expansion, and broad employment.

Low-income households are often seen as having a higher average propensity to consume than high-income households. Low-income households may be forced to spend their entire income on necessities with minimal disposable income remaining to save. Alternatively, high-income households with higher cash flow after their necessities are met typically have a relatively lower average propensity to consume.

Economists often gauge economy forecasts on actions by the middle-income households. The spending and savings patterns of this demographic often indicate a degree of confidence or pessimism about their own personal financial situations and the economy as a whole.

Propensity to Consume vs. Propensity to Save

The sum of the average propensity to consume and the average propensity to save is always equivalent to one. A household or a nation must either spend or save all of its income.

The inverse of the average propensity to consume is the average propensity to save (APS). That figure is simply the total of income minus spending. The result is known as the savings ratio.

Notably, the savings ratio is normally based on its percentage of disposable income, or after-tax income. An individual determining personal propensities to consume and save should probably use the disposable income figure as well for a more realistic measure.

Example of Average Propensity to Consume

Assume a nation’s economy has a gross domestic product (GDP) equivalent to its disposable income of $500 billion for the previous year. The total savings of the economy was $300 billion, and the rest was spent on goods and services.

The nation’s APS is calculated to be 0.60, or $300 billion/$500 billion. This indicates the economy allocated 60% of its disposable income to savings. The average propensity to consume is calculated to be 0.40, or (1 – 0.60). Therefore, the nation spent 40% of its GDP on goods and services.

APS can include saving for retirement, a home purchase, and other long-term investments. As such, it can be a proxy for national financial health.

Special Considerations

The marginal propensity to consume (MPC) is a related concept. It measures the change in the average propensity to consume.

Assume that the nation in the previous example increased its GDP to $700 billion and its consumption of goods and services rose to $375 billion. The economy’s average propensity to consume increased to 53.57%.

The nation’s consumption increased from $200 billion to $375 billion. Alternatively, the nation’s GDP increased from $500 billion to $700 billion. The nation’s marginal propensity to consume is 87.5% ($375 billion – $200 billion) / ($700 billion – $500 billion). The marginal propensity measures the directional trend of how an entity is utilizing its money. In this case, 87.5% of new growth was further consumed.

What Is the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC)?

The American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC) is a tax credit for qualified education expenses associated with the first four years of a student’s postsecondary education. The maximum annual credit is $2,500 per eligible student. The student, someone claiming the student as a dependent, or a spouse making postsecondary education payments can claim the AOTC on their tax return.

Understanding the American Opportunity Tax Credit (AOTC)

With the AOTC, a household with a qualifying student can receive a maximum $2,500 tax credit per year for the first four years of higher education. Parents claiming a dependent child who is a full-time student ages 19 to 24 can claim an additional $500 Child Tax Credit.

The AOTC helps with educational costs such as tuition and other expenses related to a student’s coursework. Eligible students (or their parents) can claim 100% of the first $2,000 spent on school expenses and 25% of the next $2,000. This comes out to a maximum credit of $2,500: (100% × $2,000) + (25% × $2,000).

In general, tax credits are refundable, nonrefundable, or partially refundable. Up to $1,000 (40%) of the AOTC is refundable, making it a partially refundable tax credit. So, if the credit brings your tax liability to $0, you can receive 40% of your eligible credit (up to $1,000) as a refund.

AOTC Eligibility Requirements

Like other tax credits, you must meet specific eligibility requirements to claim the AOTC.

Who Can Claim the AOTC?

To claim the AOTC on your tax return, you must meet all three of these requirements:

• You pay qualified education expenses for higher education.
• You pay the education expenses for an eligible student.
• The eligible student is either you, your spouse, or a dependent whom you claim on your tax return.

Additionally, you must receive Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 1098-T to claim the credit. Here’s an example of a completed form:

Source: Internal Revenue Service

Which Students Qualify for the AOTC?

A student is eligible for the AOTC only if they meet certain requirements. Specifically, the student must:

• Be taking courses toward a degree or some other recognized education qualification
• Be enrolled at least part time for at least one academic period beginning in the tax year
• Not have finished the first four years of higher education at the beginning of the tax year
• Not have claimed the AOTC (or the former Hope credit) for more than four tax years
• Not have a felony drug conviction at the end of the tax year

Which Expenses Qualify for the AOTC?

For the purposes of the AOTC, qualified education expenses include tuition and some related costs required for attending an eligible educational institution. An eligible educational institution is any accredited public, nonprofit, or private college, university, vocational school, or other postsecondary educational institution. Related expenses include:

• Student activity fees paid to the school as a condition of enrollment or attendance
• Books, supplies, and equipment needed for classes, whether or not you buy them from the school

You can pay for qualified education expenses with student loans. However, you can’t claim the credit if you paid for expenses with scholarships, grants, employer-provided assistance, or funds from a 529 savings plan.

What Are the Income Limits for the AOTC?

To claim the full credit, your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) must be $80,000 or less ($160,000 if married filing jointly). The credit begins to phase out above these limits and disappears entirely if your MAGI is above $90,000 ($180,000 for married filing jointly).

What Is an Adjudication?

An adjudication is a legal ruling or judgment, usually final, but can also refer to the process of settling a legal case or claim through the court or justice system, such as a decree in the bankruptcy process between the defendant and the creditors.

Normally, an adjudication represents the final judgment or pronouncement in a case that will determine the course of action taken regarding the issue presented. Outside of a legal process, adjudication can also more generally refer to other formal processes of judgment or ruling that render a final decision, such as the process of validating an insurance claim.

Understanding Adjudication

Adjudication describes the legal process that helps expedite and deliver a court’s resolution regarding an issue between two parties. The result of the process is a judgment and court opinion that is legally binding. Most adjudication hearings center on disputes that involve money or nonviolent infractions and result in the distribution of rights and obligations for all parties involved.

This legal process differs from other justice-seeking or evidence-based court cases. It is instead used to settle disputes between private parties, political officials and a private party, and public bodies and public officials. In the healthcare industry, for example, adjudication can determine a carrier’s liability for monetary claims submitted by an insured person.

Adjudication Disputes

The types of disputes handled or resolved through adjudication include the following:

• Disagreements between private parties, such as single-persons, individual entities, or corporations
• Disagreements between private parties and public officials
• Disagreements between public officials and/or public bodies

Requirements for full adjudication include requisite notice to all interested parties (all legally-interested parties or those with a legal right affected by the disagreements) and an opportunity for all parties to have their evidence and arguments heard.

The Adjudication Process

Formal rules of evidence and procedure govern the process where the initiating party, or trier, gives a notice establishing the facts in controversy and defines any applicable laws. The notice also sometimes outlines the nature of the dispute between the parties and recounts where and when the dispute occurred, and the desired result based on law. However, there are no specific requirements regarding the notice of adjudication.

An adjudicator is then appointed and a notice is sent to the defending party, who responds by submitting a defense to the claim of adjudication by the plaintiff. The adjudicator gives the plaintiff and defendant a chance to present their arguments at a hearing and makes a final ruling. This is not too dissimilar from an arbitrator in an arbitration hearing settling a business dispute.

What Are Animal Spirits?

“Animal spirits” is a term coined by the famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, to describe how people arrive at financial decisions, including buying and selling securities, in times of economic stress or uncertainty. In Keynes’s 1936 publication, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, he speaks of animal spirits as the human emotions that affect consumer confidence.

Today, animal spirits describe the psychological and emotional factors that drive investors to take action when faced with high levels of volatility in the capital markets. The term comes from the Latin spiritus animalis, which means “the breath that awakens the human mind.” In some ways, Keynes’ insights into human behavior predicted the rise of behavioral economics.

Understanding Animal Spirits

The technical concept of spiritus animalis can be traced as far back as 300 B.C., in the fields of human anatomy and medical physiology. There, animal spirits applied to the fluid or spirit present in sensory activities and nerve endings in the brain that resulting in mass psychological phenomena like manias or hysterias.

Animal spirits also appeared in literary culture, where they referred to states of physical courage, gaiety, and exuberance. The literary meaning implies that animal spirits can be high or low depending on an individual’s degree of health and energy.

Animal Spirits in Finance and Economics

Today in finance, the term animal spirits arise in market psychology and behavioral economics. Animal spirits represent the emotions of confidence, hope, fear, and pessimism that can affect financial decision-making, which in turn can fuel or hamper economic growth. If spirits are low, then confidence levels will be low, which will drive down a promising market—even if the market or economy fundamentals are strong. Likewise, if spirits are high, confidence among participants in the economy will be high, and market prices will soar.

The Role of Emotion in Business Decisions

According to the theory behind animal spirits, the decisions of business leaders are based on intuition and the behavior of their competitors rather than on solid analysis. Keynes understood that in times of economic upheaval, irrational thoughts might influence people as they pursue their financial self-interests.

Keynes further posited in The General Theory that trying to estimate the future yield of various industries, companies, or activities using general knowledge and available insight “amounts to little and sometimes to nothing.” He proposed that the only way people can make decisions in an uncertain environment is if animal spirits guide them.

Animal Spirits Enter the 21st Century

In 2009, the term animal spirits returned to popularity when two economists—George A. Akerlof (Nobel laureate and professor of economics at University of California) and Robert J. Shiller (professor of economics at Yale University)—published their book, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why it Matters for Global Capitalism.

Here, the authors argue that although animal spirits are important, it is equally important that the government actively intervene to control them—via economic policymaking—when necessary. Otherwise, the authors postulate, the spirits might follow their own devices—that is, capitalism could get out of hand, and result in the kind of overindulgence that we saw in the 2008 financial crisis.

Examples of Animal Spirits

The Dotcom Bubble

Animal spirits often manifest as market psychology defined by either fear or greed. For the latter, the term “irrational exuberance” has been used to describe investor enthusiasm that drives asset prices far higher than those assets’ fundamentals justify. Simply tacking on “dotcom” to the name of a company increased its market value to extraordinary levels, with startups showing zero earnings commanding ever-higher share prices.

The crash that followed saw the Nasdaq index, which had risen five-fold between 1995 and 2000, tumble from a peak of 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000, to 1,139.90 on Oct 4, 2002, a 76.81% fall. By the end of 2001, most dot-com stocks had gone bust.

The Great Recession

Another example was the lead-up to the 2008-09 financial crisis and the Great Recession, when the markets were rife with financial innovations. Creative use of both new and existing financial products—like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)—abounded, particularly in the housing market. Initially, this trend was thought to be positive, that is until the new financial instruments were found to be deceptive and fraudulent. At this point, investor confidence plummeted, a sell-off ensued, and the markets plunged. A clear case of animal spirits run amok.

Critiques of Animal Spirits

“Animal spirits” refers to the tendency for investment prices to rise and fall based on human emotion rather than intrinsic value. This theory, however, has been critiqued by some economists who argue that markets are nonetheless efficient and that individual irrationality washes out in the aggregate. The animal spirits thesis, like behavioral economics, essentially throws a monkey wrench into the assumptions of efficiency and rationality.

Other critics argue that bubbles are not the result of mass psychology, but are due to the over-involvement of central banks and too much regulation, which stymie economic growth and throw markets out of equilibrium. These arguments often stem from Austrian economic theory or libertarianism that asserts that large increases in the money supply (“printed” by governments) are the cause of bubbles and their ultimate demise by encouraging malinvestment.