ECON308 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Liquidity Preference, Market Liquidity, Money Supply

35 views3 pages

redwalrus66

22 Mar 2016

School

University of Delaware

Department

Economics

Course

ECON308

Professor

Marra Vincent

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

Document Summary

Liquidity is about what is useful in exchange immediately. Ms (supply of liquidity) is a vertical line because it is not a function of the interest rate. Md (demand of liquidity) is a function of interest. Md is essential demand for a liquid asset (ex: cash) over a less liquid asset (ex: bonds) It is misleading to think of liquidity as just money. Liquidity demand is low when interest rates are high: people want to earn interest. Liquidity demand is high when interest rates are low: no one cares about the slight money gain on interest when it is small. Income: when income increases, people spend more, which requires more liquidity. This increases the demand for liquidity: income is earnings per unit of time. Not wealth: economic prosperity where employment conditions are good and unemployment is low, income will be higher, economic recession, no pay raises, layoffs, high unemployment will decrease income. A decrease in income decreases demand for liquidity.

Related Questions

1. Why Niall Ferguson thought that the expansionary fiscal policy (or government deficit) could produce crowding-out effect? You can explain by using the IS-LM model or you can use the logic of loanable funds theory

Answer: Ferguson believes that an increase in the government deficit could produce a crowding-out-effect. First, I will touch base on fiscal policy. Well, what is it? Basically, it adjusts the nationâs spending amount which increases the economyâs deficit to close a recessionary gap, which therefore increases the the demand for loans, meaning people want to borrow money. An increase in demand for loans leads to an increase in interest rates. Higher interest rates lead to a decrease in investment and interest-sensitive consumer spending, so both C and I decrease. Thatâs what the crowding-out-effect is, the decrease in investment due to higher interest rates.

>in Deficit = >in Demand for Loans = >in interest rates =

The government speeds up the economy by deficit spending, they crowd out consumers and investors with high interest rates. So what this means is that the government is attempting to help the economy but it is actually hurting the economy. The reason why I think Ferguson believes this is because of what he says in his debate at the New York Review of Books, that âyou canât be both a monetarist and a Keynesian simultaneouslyâat least I canât see how you can, because if the aim of the monetarist policy is to keep interest rates down, to keep liquidity high, the effect of the Keynesian policy must be to drive interest rates up.â He continues on in the interview to say that the Fed has minted out a fresh $1.75 billion in bonds and that no one is going to buy them. Driving up bonds will increase interest rates which increases mortgage rates which is why he basically doesnât agree with the Keynesian theory.

2. Why Paul Krugman thinks that Niall Ferguson was wrong and thought that government deficit could not produce a crowding-out effect? In other words, please explain Krugman's Liquidity trap .

Answer: To start I think Krugman believes that the Fiscal policy is effective. It is effective when the Liquidity-Money (LM) curve is horizontal. It creates the crowding in effect. The supply of money is constant so it creates money demanded to be interest inelastic, meaning it doesnât change. So if the government wishes to stimulate the economy, it leaves interest rates at a constant rate, and an increase in investment and saving, therefore helping the economy close the gap on a recession. There is an indifference between money and bonds so this makes fiscal policy effective. So then we get into a monetary expansion, meaning we have an increase in the money supply. Well with the liquidity trap, we get the case that the investment-savings (IS) curve is horizontal. So when the government increases the money supply, investment responds to rapidly changing interest rates, which would decrease the money demanded, making monetary policy effective. But the liquidity trap becomes apparent because interest rates cannot fall below zero percent. This is when monetary policy would become ineffective because interest rates arenât declining meaning investment wouldnât continue. Krugman in his blog basically argues this. He states âMost spectacularly, IS-LM turns out to be very useful for thinking about extreme conditions like the present, in which private demand has fallen so far that the economy remains depressed even at a zero interest rate.â He sums up his argument for the liquidity trap and explains his logic behind the investment-savings, liquidity-money curve, and that is why he disagrees with Ferguson.

3. In the discussion, other discussants such as George Soros and Robin Wells pointed out some interesting issues. Please provide at least one thing that you agree and one thing that you disagree. Discuss in details why you think so.

Answer: One thing I found interesting was George Soroâs point in the debate in the New York review of books. He states âThe other feature is that the financial system collapsed of its own weight. That contradicted the prevailing view about financial markets, namely that they tend toward equilibrium, and that equilibrium is disturbed by extraneous forces, outside shocks. Those disturbances were supposed to occur in a random fashion. Markets were seen basically as self-correcting. That paradigm has proven to be false. So we are dealing not only with the collapse of a financial system, but also with the collapse of a worldview.â He continues to mention how Obama has 2 problems he has to face and how people who are viewing this crisis the same as the previous financial crisis, are making a huge mistake. To explain he states this: âBut when you have a collapse of credit thereâs only one source of credit that is still credible, and thatâs the state: the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. Then you have actually to inject a lot more leverage and money into the economy; you have to print money as fast as you can, expand the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve, increase the national debt. And that is, in fact, what has been done, which is the right thing to do. But then once this policy is successful, you have to rein in the money supply as fast as you can.â I think Soro is agreeing with Krugman and the monetary policy of pumping money into the economy. It will raise the money supply which eventually is left for us to capitalize on supply and let our GDP. Now I find this interesting because he is also agreeing with Krugmanâs IS-LM model, and later on, we come to find out that even Ferguson had come to an agreement with Krugmanâs points, with the exception being that the United States was a powerhouse, and therefore the European Union would eventually see its downfall.

Please make comments to the answer of discussion I provided above(at least 300 words total). And you can start with "I agree with you on some points... But I disagree with you on some points".

Niall Ferguson believed that expansionary fiscal policy could produce a crowding-out effect. Ferguson believed that if the government tried to increase demand during the crisis it would cause the real interest rate to increase. He theorized that if the government tried to boost the economy through deficit spending it would cause the interest rate to rise, which in turn would crowd-out investors and consumers. The interest in the deficit would lead to an increase in the demand for loanable funds, which would lead to an increase in interest rates. Ferguson stated "The lesson of economic growth is very clear. Economic growth does not come from state-led infrastructure investment. It comes from technological innovation, and gains in productivity, and these things come from private sector, not from the state."

2. Why Paul Krugman thinks that Niall Ferguson was wrong and thought that government deficit could not produce a crowding-out effect? In other words, please explain Krugman's Liquidity trap .

Paul Krugman disagreed with Ferguson and believed that the government deficit could not produce a crowding out effect. Krugman's liquidity trap: Private demand is so low that even if the short-term interest rate is 0% spending is less that what is needed for full employment. Normal monetary policy of the central bank purchasing short-term debts with new money is ineffective. Krugman argues that a major issue during the crisis was people wanting to save money combined with the private sector being far less likely to invest. He referred to this a "savings glut". It was argued that the federal reserve was playing the part that the private banking system through buying private securities and the federal government was playing the roll that business wasn't by engaging in investment. Due to the liquidity trap excess demand for savings is not going to drive interest rates up. Krugman stated " Government borrowing gives some of those excess saving a place to go and in the process expands overall demand, and hence GDP. It does not crowd out private spending, at least not until the excess supply of savings has been sopped up, which is the same thing as saying not until the economy has escaped from the liquidity trap."

I agree with Soros view that the publics view of the financial markets has been forever changed. " Financial markets namely that they tend toward equilibrium, and that equilibrium is disturbed by extraneous forces, outside shocks. But the finical system collapsed of its own weight." I feel like this is a situation in which it takes a very long time to build trust, but that trust can be lost instantly. The crash has challenged the felling of security that people once felt in the banking system. The idea of the market regulating itself is fading, it wasn't until the government stepped that people felt reassured in the banking system. I believe this will lead to a period of government regulation that wouldn't have arose without this change in view. I disagree with robin Wells' view that the US needs to shift towards protectionism. I believe that free trade is good for everyone as long as there is a comparative advantage. If the US moves toward protections as a result of the deficit it will slow economic growth and place us at a disadvantage compared to countries with free trade. Not to mention consumers in the US will be placed with the burden of higher prices on goods.

Please make comments to the discussion I provided above(at least 300 words). And you can start with "I agree with you on some points... But I disagree with you on some points".

Please help wtih these economics questions. I'll give the best answer to the person who justifies their answer.. or someone who does well in economics and knows the subject area well.

Which of the following statements is not true about Say's Law?

A. People produce more goods than they want for their own use only if they seek to trade them for other goods.

B. Markets would be regularly hit by severe shortages and surpluses.

C. Desired expenditures will equal actual expenditures.

D. Surpluses will be eliminated by falling prices and shortages will be eliminated by increasing prices.

Which of the following is not an assumption of the classical model?

A. Buyers and sellers react to changes in relative prices.

B. Households want to maximize economic well being.

C. Wages and prices will move freely in the upward direction but not the downward direction.

D. No single buyer or seller of a commodity can affect its price.

Money illusion is

A. when people think they are better off when their income increases even though prices have increased by the same amount.

B. when people are motivated by self-interest.

C. could not exist if the economy did not have competitive markets.

D. a basic condition that all classical economists assume people have.

Saving is not a problem in the classical model because

A. interest rates were flexible and savings were channeled into investment.

B. savers and investors were the same people.

C. the classical economists assumed that saving was beneficial to people for retirement.

D. saving would be spent by consumers eventually.

Which of the following statements is true?

A. There is an inverse relationship between investment and the interest rate.

B. There is no relationship between investment and the interest rate.

C. There is a direct relationship between investment and the interest rate.

D. Investment is always less than savings.

In the classical model, high unemployment due to either a demand or a supply shock

A. will return to its normal level quickly as wages adjust.

B. will persist if due to a supply shock but not if due to a demand shock.

C. can persist for an indefinite period of time.

D. never exists because unemployment can never deviate from its normal level.

The classical model makes little distinction between the long-run and short-run because

A. the model has not been fully developed yet.

B. prices adjust so fast that the economy is quickly moving towards the long-run.

C. the classical economists knew that we are always operating in the short run.

D. current changes influence the long run, so it is not possible to plan for the future.

In the classical model

A. the level of real GDP per year does not depend on the level of aggregate demand.

B. the level of GDP is demand determined.

C. the level of GDP determines prices independent of demand.

D. changes in aggregate supply affect the price level, not real GDP.

Which of the following is a true statement?

A. Classical economists believed output adjusted more than prices when aggregate demand fell while Keynes believed prices adjusted more than output.

B. Classical economists believed price adjusted more than output when aggregate demand fell while Keynes believed output adjusted more than prices.

C. A decrease in aggregate demand has no short-run effects according to the classical economists, but had significant effects according to Keynes.

D. A decrease in aggregate demand was not possible according to the classical economists, but was possible according to Keynes.

Which of the following is not a reason why GDP can be expanded beyond a level consistent with its long-run growth path in modern Keynesian analysis?

A. Prices and wages are flexible allowing for needed adjustments.

B. In the short-run existing workers can work more hours.

C. The existing capital stock can be used more intensively.

D. Higher prices induce firms to hire more workers.

A recessionary gap can be caused by

A. a decrease in aggregate supply holding aggregate demand constant.

B. an increase in aggregate demand holding aggregate supply constant.

C. an increase in the long run aggregate supply curve holding the aggregate demand constant.

D. a decrease in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply.

lemonpug153

ECON308 Lecture Notes - Lecture 17: Liquidity Preference, Market Liquidity, Money Supply

Document Summary

Get access

Related Documents

ECON308 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: John Maynard Keynes, Government Budget Balance, Liquidity Preference

ECON308 Study Guide - Final Guide: Real Interest Rate, Nominal Interest Rate, Yield Curve

ECON308 Lecture Notes - Lecture 1: Market Liquidity, Commodity Money, Oppositional Defiant Disorder

Related Questions