Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
112
views

1. Is the budget deficit of a country linked to its current account balance? If so, how so? If not, why not? Explain how it is possible for the United States’ current account deficit to grow while the budget deficit has disappeared. Hint: There’s an equation that will help answer this question.

2. When looking at a nation’s financial account, is it possible to determine the total amount of official reserves available to that nation? If so, explain why. If not, explain why not

3. What can you say about the sign of the financial account if the government budget is balanced, and S is greater than I? Why?

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
112
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Joshua Stredder
Joshua StredderLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Is the budget deficit of a country linked to its current account balance? If so, how so? If not, why not? Explain how it is possible for the United States current account deficit to grow while the budget deficit has disappeared. Hint: There's an equation that will help answer this question.

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 nation’s spending amount which increases the economy’s 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. That’s 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 “you can’t be both a monetarist and a Keynesian simultaneously—at least I can’t 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.” 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t 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 aren’t declining meaning investment wouldn’t continue. Krugman in his blog basically argues this. He states “Most 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.” 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 Soro’s point in the debate in the New York review of books. He states “The 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.” 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: “But when you have a collapse of credit there’s only one source of credit that is still credible, and that’s 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.” 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 Krugman’s IS-LM model, and later on, we come to find out that even Ferguson had come to an agreement with Krugman’s 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".

Keynesian Multipliers: Suppose the president would like to stimulate the level of output in the economy by introducing a tax cut. However, he also would like to keep a balanced budget if possible. Let's consider if these two objectives can be consistent with each other. Assume a consumption function C = 100 + 0.75(Y-T), and let G = 100, T = 100, I = 100 (investment is not a function here of the interest rate).

a) First, suppose there is just a tax cut alone, lowering T from 100 to 90. Use the Keynesian multipliers to compute the change in output. Compute also the effect on government saving.Will the president be satisfied (did he get a rise in output and a balanced government budget)?

b) Now suppose he combines the tax cut with spending cuts to keep the budget balanced. So supposed taxes and government spending both are cut from 100 to 90. What is the effect on government saving and output? Will the president be satisfied?

c) Now suppose that the president instead uses a rise in government purchases to stimulate the economy, and then raises taxes to pay for these purchases. In particular, suppose government purchases and taxes both are raised from 100 to 130. Compute the effects on output and government saving. Will the president be satisfied now? Explain how this result is possible and why it is so different from the result in part (b) above.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in