ECO 3152 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Ricardian Equivalence, Real Interest Rate, Budget Constraint

72 views4 pages

aquamarinesardine37

16 Nov 2018

School

Department

Course

Professor

For unlimited access to Class Notes, a Class+ subscription is required.

Document Summary

Asymmetric information - situation in which a particular market, some market participants know more about their characteristics than do other market participants: exists in that a particular borrower knows more about their credit worthiness than do potential lenders. Leads to difference between the interest rates lent and borrowed. Loan interest rate reflects a default premium - compensates lenders for the fact that some borrowers will default on their loans. If this happens, then a change in the value of collateral will matter for how much they can consume in the present. Credit market imperfections and consumption: show how ricardian equivalence fails with a standard type of credit market friction, gap between interest rates at which a consumer can lend and borrow. If s< or = 0, the consumer is a borrower. If c< or = y-t (consumer is a lender) C+ c"/1+r2 = y+y"/1+r2 - t - t"/1+r2 = we2.

Related Questions

Market Analysis Market Participants Market participants act as if they are rational, self-interested, and forward-looking. For example, financial managers try to maximize the present value of profits for their particular companies, rather than ignore future values. Companies pursue many goals, but it is a financial mistake for managers to pursue any goal that conflicts with the primary goal of maximizing their firm's profits. Decentralized decision making by individual market participants is more economically efficient that centralized decision making by government policymakers. For example, it is more economically efficient to have financial managers obtain financing for their particular companies than to have government obtain it. A high degree of competition among market participants is the most economically efficient disciplining mechanism. For example, highly competitive financial markets discipline financial managers to pay fair market interest rates on the debt securities issued by their particular companies. The market system of prices is the most economically efficient allocative mechanism. For example, it is more economically efficient to distribute a firm's corporate stock to those buyers who are willing and able to pay the market price of the stock than to have the government distribute the stock. It is economically efficient for market participants to buy low and sell high globally. For example, it is economically efficient for U.S. firms to sell their financial securities to the highest bidders, no matter where they live in the world economy. Market imperfections can create considerable risk to market participants. For example, because of market imperfections, firms operating in the international financial markets encounter foreign exchange rate risk, political risk, interest rate risk, and default risk. Consumer Sovereignty The principle of consumer sovereignty tells us that by making their dollar votes, consumers indirectly determine the quantity and quality of products that firms will produce. For example, it is not economically efficient for financial managers to obtain more financing for their particular firms than is needed for their firms to produce the profit-maximizing level of output demanded by consumers. Market Economy A highly competitive market economy is largely self-regulating, in the absence of substantial market imperfections, in that economic conditions cannot be substantially improved by government regulation or other types of government intervention beyond laissez-faire policies. For example, if a firm's corporate stock is overvalued by a market economy, market forces will tend to drive down the value of the stock to a market price at which it is neither overvalued nor undervalued. As if by an invisible hand, highly competitive market forces will tend to create a harmony of interests among individual market participants, in the absence of substantial market imperfections. Consequently, the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders are compatible. For example, in trying to maximize profits, firms produce employment, income, consumer products, and wealth for households, as well as tax revenue for government, which helps maximize consumer utility and maximize social welfare. In a market economy, resources, products, and assets flow to their highest valued uses among alternative uses. For example, the shares of firms' corporate stocks will be acquired by those market participants who most highly value them, as indicated by the fact that they are willing to pay the most to acquire them. The efficient economic role of government is limited to Laissez-Faire ("hands off") policies, which create very little intervention in a market economy. For example, government regulations of banking and securities industries to maintain healthy, reasonably profitable, consumer-oriented financial markets would not be needed in a highly competitive market economy in the absence of substantial market imperfections. In a market economy, it is economically efficient for each market participant to specialize according to comparative advantage in producing what they can produce relatively better than other market participants, rather than produce all the outputs they can produce absolutely better than others. For example, it is economically efficient for people who are relatively better at being financial managers than others, to specialize in financial management even if they are absolutely better than others in doing many other types of work. If all labor were allocated to its comparative advantage, then no possible reallocation of labor would exist that could increase the rate of return to labor (i.e., the wage). There is no such thing as a free lunch, because all resources, products, and assets in a market economy are scarce. For example, current federal government budget deficits are not free to current market participants in that the deficits must be financed by future tax increases and/or future decreases in government spending and/or future inflation. For additional information on the Market Economy click here. Marks, R. E. (2006, December). There Is No Such Thing As Free Lunch. Australian Journal of Management. 31(2). 1-7. Financial Decisions An efficient financial decision, practice, transaction, or condition is one that is optimal -- meaning best; it cannot be improved, from society's perspective. If there is some profitable way to improve some business practice that would benefit society, that practice is somewhat inefficient. Any change in a financial decision, practice, transaction, or condition that improves society is an efficiency improvement. For example, it is an efficiency improvement for a business to cut production costs by reducing waste (e.g., by reducing spending on unprofitable activity. A financial decision, practice, transaction, or condition is fair-- meaning just or equitable, if the financial benefits are distributed to those involved in proportion to how much they each voluntarily contributed to produce those benefits. For example, a financial practice that discriminates against some people on the basis of race, age, gender, nationality, or religion is unfair. For example, an unethical business practice is unfair. For additional information relating to Market Analysis and fair financial decisions, click on the following: Teaching Ethical Economic Practices to Business Managers. Johnston, C. (2009, October). The Proceedings of the Annual Conference of The International Academy of Business and Economics. Fairness is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition, for efficiency. All efficient financial practices are fair, but some fair practices may still fail to be efficient. For example, embezzling company funds is an unfair and inefficient, criminal financial activity. As another example, an ethical business practice that could be improved is fair but not efficient. Opportunity Cost Principle Opportunity cost principle: The efficient measure of the cost of any allocation of resources, products, money income, wealth, or time is its opportunity cost -- the value of the next best use. The opportunity cost of how one uses his or her resources is the value of the highest valued alternative use. The opportunity cost of one investment is the expected return on the next best investment available to the firm. For example, the opportunity cost of a firm using some of its profits to pay dividends to its stockholders would be the present value of future income those profits could have earned if invested in the firm's highest valued investment project.

Discussion Questions These questions stem from the Class Discussion Questions you will be anwering in the Discussion Board. Think about the questions and how they relate to the financial management principles above.

2. Applications: State the financial management principle that appears to be violated in each of the following cases and explain how it is violated:

(a) A corporation is maximizing sales growth and the price of its corporate stock is falling.

(b) A highly paid financial manager in the auto industry quit his job to set up his own small auto repair shop, which is expected to incur a loss for the first three years then earn normal profits.

What valuable company is nobody building? This question is harder than it looks, because your company could create a lot of value without becoming very valuable itself. Creating value isn't enough -- you also need to capture some of the value you create. This means that even very big businesses can be bad businesses. For example, U.S. airline companies serve millions of passengers and create hundreds of billions of dollars of value each year. But in 2012, when the average airfare each way was $178, the airlines made only 37 cents per passenger trip. Compare them to Google, which creates less value but captures far more. Google brought in $50 billion in 2012 (versus $160 billion for the airlines), but it kept 21% of those revenues as profits -- more than 100 times the airline industry's profit margin that year. Google makes so much money that it is now worth three times more than every U.S. airline combined. The airlines compete with each other, but Google stands alone. Economists use two simplified models to explain the difference: perfect competition and monopoly. "Perfect competition" is considered both the ideal and the default state in Economics 101. So-called perfectly competitive markets achieve equilibrium when producer supply meets consumer demand. Every firm in a competitive market is undifferentiated and sells the same homogeneous products. Since no firm has any market power, they must all sell at whatever price the market determines. If there is money to be made, new firms will enter the market, increase supply, drive prices down and thereby eliminate the profits that attracted them in the first place. If too many firms enter the market, they'll suffer losses, some will fold, and prices will rise back to sustainable levels. Under perfect competition, in the long run no company makes an economic profit. The opposite of perfect competition is monopoly. Whereas a competitive firm must sell at the market price, a monopoly owns its market, so it can set its own prices. Since it has no competition, it produces at the quantity and price combination that maximizes its profits. To an economist, every monopoly looks the same, whether it deviously eliminates rivals, secures a license from the state or innovates its way to the top. I'm not interested in illegal bullies or government favorites: By "monopoly," I mean the kind of company that is so good at what it does that no other firm can offer a close substitute. Google is a good example of a company that went from 0 to 1: It hasn't competed in search since the early 2000s, when it definitively distanced itself from Microsoft and Yahoo! Americans mythologize competition and credit it with saving us from socialist bread lines. Actually, capitalism and competition are opposites. Capitalism is premised on the accumulation of capital, but under perfect competition, all profits get competed away. The lesson for entrepreneurs is clear: If you want to create and capture lasting value, don't build an undifferentiated commodity business. How much of the world is actually monopolistic? How much is truly competitive? It is hard to say because our common conversation about these matters is so confused. To the outside observer, all businesses can seem reasonably alike, so it is easy to perceive only small differences between them. But the reality is much more binary than that. There is an enormous difference between perfect competition and monopoly, and most businesses are much closer to one extreme than we commonly realize. The confusion comes from a universal bias for describing market conditions in self-serving ways: Both monopolists and competitors are incentivized to bend the truth. Monopolists lie to protect themselves. They know that bragging about their great monopoly invites being audited, scrutinized and attacked. Since they very much want their monopoly profits to continue unmolested, they tend to do whatever they can to conceal their monopoly -- usually by exaggerating the power of their (nonexistent) competition. Think about how Google talks about its business. It certainly doesn't claim to be a monopoly. But is it one? Well, it depends: a monopoly in what? Let's say that Google is primarily a search engine. As of May 2014, it owns about 68% of the search market. (Its closest competitors, Microsoft and Yahoo!, have about 19% and 10%, respectively.) If that doesn't seem dominant enough, consider the fact that the word "google" is now an official entry in the Oxford English Dictionary -- as a verb. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen to Bing. But suppose we say that Google is primarily an advertising company. That changes things. The U.S. search-engine advertising market is $17 billion annually. Online advertising is $37 billion annually. The entire U.S. advertising market is $150 billion. And global advertising is a $495 billion market. So even if Google completely monopolized U.S. search-engine advertising, it would own just 3.4% of the global advertising market. From this angle, Google looks like a small player in a competitive world. What if we frame Google as a multifaceted technology company instead? This seems reasonable enough; in addition to its search engine, Google makes dozens of other software products, not to mention robotic cars, Android phones and wearable computers. But 95% of Google's revenue comes from search advertising; its other products generated just $2.35 billion in 2012 and its consumer-tech products a mere fraction of that. Since consumer tech is a $964 billion market globally, Google owns less than 0.24% of it -- a far cry from relevance, let alone monopoly. Framing itself as just another tech company allows Google to escape all sorts of unwanted attention. Non-monopolists tell the opposite lie: "We're in a league of our own." Entrepreneurs are always biased to understate the scale of competition, but that is the biggest mistake a startup can make. The fatal temptation is to describe your market extremely narrowly so that you dominate it by definition. Suppose you want to start a restaurant in Palo Alto that serves British food. "No one else is doing it," you might reason. "We'll own the entire market." But that is only true if the relevant market is the market for British food specifically. What if the actual market is the Palo Alto restaurant market in general? And what if all the restaurants in nearby towns are part of the relevant market as well? These are hard questions, but the bigger problem is that you have an incentive not to ask them at all. When you hear that most new restaurants fail within one or two years, your instinct will be to come up with a story about how yours is different. You'll spend time trying to convince people that you are exceptional instead of seriously considering whether that is true. It would be better to pause and consider whether there are people in Palo Alto who would rather eat British food above all else. They may well not exist. In 2001, my co-workers at PayPal and I would often get lunch on Castro Street in Mountain View, Calif. We had our pick of restaurants, starting with obvious categories like Indian, sushi and burgers. There were more options once we settled on a type: North Indian or South Indian, cheaper or fancier, and so on. In contrast to the competitive local restaurant market, PayPal was then the only email-based payments company in the world. We employed fewer people than the restaurants on Castro Street did, but our business was much more valuable than all those restaurants combined. Starting a new South Indian restaurant is a really hard way to make money. If you lose sight of competitive reality and focus on trivial differentiating factors -- maybe you think your naan is superior because of your great-grandmother's recipe -- your business is unlikely to survive. The problem with a competitive business goes beyond lack of profits. Imagine you're running one of those restaurants in Mountain View. You're not that different from dozens of your competitors, so you've got to fight hard to survive. If you offer affordable food with low margins, you can probably pay employees only minimum wage. And you'll need to squeeze out every efficiency: That is why small restaurants put Grandma to work at the register and make the kids wash dishes in the back. A monopoly like Google is different. Since it doesn't have to worry about competing with anyone, it has wider latitude to care about its workers, its products and its impact on the wider world. Google's motto -- "Don't be evil" -- is in part a branding ploy, but it is also characteristic of a kind of business that is successful enough to take ethics seriously without jeopardizing its own existence. In business, money is either an important thing or it is everything. Monopolists can afford to think about things other than making money; non-monopolists can't. In perfect competition, a business is so focused on today's margins that it can't possibly plan for a long-term future. Only one thing can allow a business to transcend the daily brute struggle for survival: monopoly profits. So a monopoly is good for everyone on the inside, but what about everyone on the outside? Do outsize profits come at the expense of the rest of society? Actually, yes: Profits come out of customers' wallets, and monopolies deserve their bad reputation -- but only in a world where nothing changes. In a static world, a monopolist is just a rent collector. If you corner the market for something, you can jack up the price; others will have no choice but to buy from you. Think of the famous board game: Deeds are shuffled around from player to player, but the board never changes. There is no way to win by inventing a better kind of real-estate development. The relative values of the properties are fixed for all time, so all you can do is try to buy them up. But the world we live in is dynamic: We can invent new and better things. Creative monopolists give customers more choices by adding entirely new categories of abundance to the world. Creative monopolies aren't just good for the rest of society; they're powerful engines for making it better. Even the government knows this: That is why one of its departments works hard to create monopolies (by granting patents to new inventions) even though another part hunts them down (by prosecuting antitrust cases). It is possible to question whether anyone should really be awarded a monopoly simply for having been the first to think of something like a mobile software design. But something like Apple's monopoly profits from designing, producing and marketing the iPhone were clearly the reward for creating greater abundance, not artificial scarcity: Customers were happy to finally have the choice of paying high prices to get a smartphone that actually works. The dynamism of new monopolies itself explains why old monopolies don't strangle innovation. With Apple's iOS at the forefront, the rise of mobile computing has dramatically reduced Microsoft's decadeslong operating system dominance. Before that, IBM's hardware monopoly of the 1960s and '70s was overtaken by Microsoft's software monopoly. AT&T had a monopoly on telephone service for most of the 20th century, but now anyone can get a cheap cellphone plan from any number of providers. If the tendency of monopoly businesses was to hold back progress, they would be dangerous, and we'd be right to oppose them. But the history of progress is a history of better monopoly businesses replacing incumbents. Monopolies drive progress because the promise of years or even decades of monopoly profits provides a powerful incentive to innovate. Then monopolies can keep innovating because profits enable them to make the long-term plans and finance the ambitious research projects that firms locked in competition can't dream of. So why are economists obsessed with competition as an ideal state? It is a relic of history. Economists copied their mathematics from the work of 19th-century physicists: They see individuals and businesses as interchangeable atoms, not as unique creators. Their theories describe an equilibrium state of perfect competition because that is what's easy to model, not because it represents the best of business. But the long-run equilibrium predicted by 19th-century physics was a state in which all energy is evenly distributed and everything comes to rest -- also known as the heat death of the universe. Whatever your views on thermodynamics, it is a powerful metaphor. In business, equilibrium means stasis, and stasis means death. If your industry is in a competitive equilibrium, the death of your business won't matter to the world; some other undifferentiated competitor will always be ready to take your place. Perfect equilibrium may describe the void that is most of the universe. It may even characterize many businesses. But every new creation takes place far from equilibrium. In the real world outside economic theory, every business is successful exactly to the extent that it does something others cannot. Monopoly is therefore not a pathology or an exception. Monopoly is the condition of every successful business. Tolstoy famously opens "Anna Karenina" by observing: "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Business is the opposite. All happy companies are different: Each one earns a monopoly by solving a unique problem. All failed companies are the same: They failed to escape competition.

According to the article above by Peter Thiel do you think perfect competition is best for the economy and for consumers? Why or why not? What does Peter Thiel think about perfect competition versus monopolies?

Objectives:

ÃÂ· Learn how individuals contribute to teamwork

ÃÂ· Experience some of the features of group work and teamwork

ÃÂ· Understand what managers and organizational developers do to transform

ÃÂ· groups into teams

ÃÂ· Articulate the tangible benefits (both quantitative and qualitative) of

ÃÂ· high-performing teams

ÃÂ· Finish with an interest in learning more about these concepts and

ÃÂ· techniques to apply what you learn

Background: For this assignment, you will plan and play a game with your family or friends, or at work based on the idea of the classic prisoner's dilemma. If you have had a class on game theory, you will be well aware of this concept. It forms the basis of many TV game shows. The prisoner's dilemma was illustrated in Truman Capote's book, "In Cold Blood" concerning the 1959 robbery of a Kansas farmhouse by Perry Smith and Dick Hickock, who murdered their victims in order to eliminate the witnesses. After the men were captured, the police interrogated them separately. To get a confession, the police offered the men a reduced sentence for cooperating. Failure to cooperate would result in a death penalty charge for both.

In the prisoner's dilemma, if both parties cooperate they are mildly punished; if one betrays another, one is severely punished while the other goes free; and if both betray one-another, both are moderately punished. Can you think of settings where you work in which the organizational structure has created a prisoner's dilemma? Competition can (but does not necessarily) bring out conflict.

In game theory, there are non-cooperative and cooperative games. A non-cooperative zero-sum game has a definite winner and loser. For one to win, one must lose. We often think of politicking as an element of that. A cooperative game is where everyone who plays is better off for having played than not having played the game. That is not to say that everyone is equally well off, but simply better off than they were before playing. Hence, even in a cooperative game, some people will likely benefit more than others.

Instructions

Review in your textbook, the Big Five personality dimensions, pp. 82Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½84, and then consider the 3.1 Personality Insights inventory, pp. 89Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½91
Select four or five friends, coworkers, or family members and have them take the personality inventory
Plan and play a game with the participants
Write a 5-10 page paper that addresses the assignment questions below

As you plan and play your game, you will negotiate the type of game you want to play and your role in it. Strive to determine some personal characteristics of the game participants a head of time, or by observing them. Consider how the personal characteristics of the individuals in the game manifest themselves in the informal roles they assume during the planning and execution of the game.

For the purpose of this assignment, you will want both a cooperative and a competitive element. To do that, you can form several groups to compete and cooperate with each other, or you can have individuals in one group compete and cooperate. You can use rewards and/or punishments to create the competitive/cooperative motivations.

Evaluation: When groups are formed, we want to consider how organizational structures, processes, and situations impact on group motivation, politics, and goals achievement. Alignment of all of these structural, personal, and interpersonal components will help to ensure that the group will meld into a team. A defining feature of teamwork (versus group work) is cooperation!

One of the factors that affect cooperation is conflict. Conflict is defined as when someone perceives that his/her interests are opposed or negatively impacted by another. Conflict can at times produce positive results depending on the basis for the conflict and how the conflict is handled (functional conflict). The worst kind of dysfunctional conflict produces betrayal.

Note that team performance can be observed in how well the team coordinates their interdependencies, works efficiently, communicates, and accomplishes their mission. Consequently, as you implement your game, assess your players based on these factors and the informal roles they play.

After you have played the game, reflect on the personality assessments your participants took, and then consider how they planned and played the game.

Write a (5- 10) page analysis to address the following questions:

1. How well did the personality assessments reflect in the behaviors participants displayed during the game?

2. What do these assessments tell us about how we perceive ourselves versus how others perceive us?

3. What informal roles did participants assume during the game, and were they different from the planning portion from the playing portion of the exercise?

4. What did I learn about myself? For example, did the exercise show that you have characteristic ways of relating to others that are distinctive, or similar, to those the others? Did the exercise show that in a particular type of situation you acted in a particular way, or that when others acted in a particular way, you felt happy or anxious or angry, etc.?

5. What did I learn about someone else in the exercise? Did you see something new about them, such as "they seemed more capable than I imagined," or "inattentive when things were stressful?"

6. In playing your game, what could you have done to increase cooperative behaviors?

7. Based on your game experience, what are some of the key factors involved in gaining cooperation from people in a business setting?

8. How would you go about getting cooperation from a "difficult" co-worker? Give an example or scenario.

Please provide a unique type of game theory preferably instead of Mafia Game.

Text:

Organizational Behavior and Management 10th Edition

John Ivancevich, Robert Konopaske, Michael Matteson

cyanfox187

ECO 3152 Lecture Notes - Lecture 10: Ricardian Equivalence, Real Interest Rate, Budget Constraint

Document Summary

Get access

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics

Principles of Macroeconomics

Principles of Microeconomics

Related Documents

ECON 2HH3- Midterm Exam Guide - Comprehensive Notes for the exam ( 27 pages long!)

ECON 2500 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Mortgage Loan, Ricardian Equivalence, Strategic Default

ECON 2500 Lecture Notes - Lecture 24: Risk Premium, Ricardian Equivalence, Market Failure

Related Questions