answer

watching

views

greywombat503Lv1

28 Sep 2019

After our last "conversation", I came up with some additional questions that I believe if I can answer when talking to my boss will increase my chances of landing a raise this year. It seems to me that if the economy grows, then my salary should grow as well. Given that this will be the premise of my argument, I need to have the following questions answered:

a) What would be the best measure of growth in the economy? I have heard the terms GDP, Personal income, Disposable income, and others that relate to the U.S. economy. Could you please sort out this terminology for me, and make a recommendation for which of these measures of economic performance I should use in my contract negotiations? If you could provide some definitions for these measures, it would make me feel more confident.
b) How fast has the economy grown over the last year, the last decade before the current recession, and since 1978 when I entered the job market? If you could provide this information as a percentage growth rate, I would greatly appreciate your efforts. Also, please show me your calculation in case I want to reproduce it for my boss. I am not so swift at the whole math thing.
c) Lastly, I was listening to a news broadcast the other evening and reported was discussing gross national income. This is confusing to me because I thought the measure of income and output were measure by GDP; at least that is what I remember from a friend of mine who took econ in college. Please give me a brief explanation of GDP and how it relates to gross national income. If you could provide a picture or diagram to help me understand I would greatly appreciate the effort. My boss gets crafty occasionally and I would like to understand these concepts if he starts talking about gross national income. Just in case. In addition, is this a good time to crank on my boss for the raise?

answer

watching

133

views

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

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Joshua StredderLv10

28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

Economics is nothing more than the study of scarcity and choice. It's called the Economizing Problem.

Economics is also the study of human action---why people make the choices they do.

We have finite (limited) resources and infinite (unlimited) demand for goods and services. We must, therefore, use rational decisions as to how to allocate these resources so that we can produce the goods and services that satisfy as many needs and wants as possible.

Needs are those things that make life possible---food, clothing, shelter, etc. Wants are the things that make life easier---glass in windows, carpet on the floor, a refrigerator to keep your beer cold, etc.

The resources we are trying to use wisely are not confined to money. We are talking about talent, ability, drive, ambition, etc. We can't all be brain surgeons. Nor would most of us want to be. We have different needs and wants that drive our ambitions. I have 5 grandchildren. The oldest two are twins---a boy and a girl. My granddaughter graduated from Idaho University with a bachelor's and a master's degree in accounting in 5 years. She passed the CPA exam on the first try. She now lives in Panama and works for BMW. She speaks, reads, and writes 4 languages, including English. Her brother finally graduated from the University of Arkansas in May 2016 after 8 years! Why did it happen this way?? They were raised the same way by the same parents. Why was my granddaughter drove to succeed and my grandson so listless?

Then there is subjective valuation and opportunity cost. Opportunity cost is nothing more than what you have to give up to do something else. Some of you might have to roll out of the bar or the party a little before you wanted to leave just to be able to attend my class. You might also have to give up some precious sleep. In any event, you had to give up something to attend my class. That's the opportunity cost. Remember, everything you do has a price (opportunity cost) that must be paid according to Harry Browne who wrote, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.) To do one thing you must give up the opportunity to do something else.

When people decide to buy a product or service they must decide if it will satisfy a need or want at a price they are willing to pay. The number one reason that people buy the products or services they do is called Personal Tastes or Preferences (Subjective valuation). Everyone has a different price they are willing to pay for the same product or service. Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. That's a subjective valuation. Each of us has a different intensity of demand for the same products. Things you want I may not care for at all, and the opposite may also be true. This is why there is such a variety of goods and services offered on the market.

Subjective valuation is also fluid. As your income goes either up or down it changes your valuation of products and services. Have you ever wanted something so bad you would do almost anything to get it---an i phone or I pad?---but once you get the money you think, "do I really want this?' and you don't buy it. This is common. If it were not for a subjective valuation we would all be wearing the same style and color clothes and living in similar houses, etc. Wouldn't that be a wonderful world! I'd find the tallest building in downtown Orlando and see if I could fly! It is not the similarity in people that interests me. It's the differences. It's my desire not to be like everyone else that has driven my life. Don't strive to be someone else. Strive to find and be yourself. God save me from a terminal case of conventional wisdom!

There are 5 embedded questions.

Give me an example of subjective valuation.

salmoneel837

View the video transcript below and share your thoughts on the economic concepts that you believe are applicable.

Question# 1. Provide a rationale on whether or not a firm has to possess market power in order to raise prices.

How to Raise Prices Without Losing Customers

JJ RAMBERG, anchor:

With gas prices soaring and the economy tightening, you may think itâs not possible to charge your customers more. But, it turns out you can successfully raise prices without driving those customers away. Bob Prosen runs the consulting company, Prosen Center for Business. Heâs helped business leaders rapidly increase performance, productivity and profits, and heâs also author of the book, âKiss Theory Goodbye: Five Proven Ways to Get Extraordinary Results in Any Company.â Bob, welcome.

Mr. BOB PROSEN: Thank you.

RAMBERG: So, if youâre going to raise prices on your customers, one of the things you say is donât surprise them. So, how do you give them warning?

Mr. PROSEN: Well, our customers are very important to us, lets not surprise them. Letâs let them know in advance that prices will increase. But, itâs important to explain to them in their language as to why prices are increasing. For instance, if its fuel surcharges, theyâll understand that. But its important we put it in their language so that they, in turn, can pass that along and plan for it in their own business.

RAMBERG: So, a lot of times when people are paying more, they expect to get more. So, you should communicate increased value I assume. But is saying, um--gas prices are going up for me, is that uh--the same as saying, youâre going to get more for your money?

Mr. PROSEN: No, definitely itâs not. In fact, the equation for value is benefits plus price. So, if prices are going to go up we have to have increased benefits for our customers. So, we can do things like under promise and over deliver. Give them a little bit more. Understand their customerâs customer. So that when we provide our services to them, theyâre customized for our customers. They see more value, we understand their business, and therefore theyâll be more appreciative of what we do and less sensitive to price increases.

RAMBERG: That seems to--to follow into your next point, or go right into your next point, which is, track the quality of your products.

Mr. PROSEN: This is absolutely critical, and we can track the quality of our products many ways. Customers call us, complaints, warranty, rework. If weâll deal with that, capture that, and inside of âKiss Theory Goodbyeâ I teach business people how to reduce these problem occurrences and increase the quality of their product. You do it for two reasons: One, customers like us a lot more when things work the way theyâre supposed to; and our cost structure goes down therefore maybe we donât have to increase our prices as much and we can be more competitive.

RAMBERG: And then, also, relationships matter.

Mr. PROSEN: Oh thisâ¦

RAMBERG: So, if you have a good relationship, you can do more within that relationship.

Mr. PROSEN: Oh, definitely. People like to do business with people they like. So, lets make sure we stay in touch with our clients. Customize what we touch them with. You know, for instance, when I travel and I deal with business people, I always carry thank you notes in my briefcase. When Iâm finished, I send them a note. Itâs a rarity these days to even get a thank you note.

RAMBERG: Yeah, it absolutely is. So, about how much can you raise prices by? Can you suddenly figure out that your costs are gone up so much because of energy prices, or food prices, or gas prices, whatever it is, um--and raise it by 50%? Should you do it incrementally? Should you do it all at once? How does it work?

Mr. PROSEN: Yeah, thatâs a great question. It depends on what industry youâre in. It depends on what you customers are doing. It depends on a number of things that determine how much, and when, and the frequency of our ability to raise prices. Therefore, what I always recommend to business leaders is work on your cost structure; make sure youâre efficient and effective. Keep your costs as low as you can. Therefore, you can be more competitive on your pricing. Sometimes, you have to pass along the price. Other times, try to absorb what you can through improved efficiencies.

RAMBERG: Should you be looking at your competitors and how much theyâre charging?

Mr. PROSEN: Yes, you should absolutely be looking at your competitors. We always want to know what theyâre charging. And by the way, we want to differentiate our products and services from our competitors. And, if we can prove a higher value by dealing with us versus our competitor we should be able to articulate that, and we do it based on facts because we know whatâs going on in the industry.

RAMBERG: Alright, Bob I know a lot of people are thinking about raising prices so thanks for giving them some tips on how to actually do it.

Mr. PROSEN: My pleasure.

Can you summarize this article and wrtite down some important points regarding GDP?

NEW YORK â Striving to revive the world economy while simultaneously responding to the global climate crisis has raised a knotty question: are statistics giving us the right âsignalsâ about what to do? In our performance-oriented world, measurement issues have taken on increased importance: what we measure affects what we do. If we have poor measures, what we strive to do (say, increase GDP) may actually contribute to a worsening of living standards. We may also be confronted with false choices, seeing trade-offs between output and environmental protection that donât exist. By contrast, a better measure of economic performance might show that steps taken to improve the environment are good for the economy. Eighteen months ago, French President Nicolas Sarkozy established an international Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, owing to his dissatisfaction â and that of many others â with the current state of statistical information about the economy and society. On September 14, the Commission will issue its long-awaited report. The big question concerns whether GDP provides a good measure of living standards. In many cases, GDP statistics seem to suggest that the economy is doing far better than most citizensâ own perceptions. Moreover, the focus on GDP creates conflicts: political leaders are told to maximize it, but citizens also demand that attention be paid to enhancing security, reducing air, water, and noise pollution, and so forth â all of which might lower GDP growth. The fact that GDP may be a poor measure of well-being, or even of market activity, has, of course, long been recognized. But changes in society and the economy may have heightened the problems, at the same time that advances in economics and statistical techniques may have provided opportunities to improve our metrics. For example, while GDP is supposed to measure the value of output of goods and services, in one key sector â government â we typically have no way of doing it, so we often measure the output simply by the inputs. If government spends more â even if inefficiently â output goes up. In the last 60 years, the share of government output in GDP has increased from 21.4% to 38.6% in the US, from 27.6% to 52.7% in France, from 34.2% to 47.6% in the United Kingdom, and from 30.4% to 44.0% in Germany. So what was a relatively minor problem has now become a major one. Likewise, quality improvements â say, better cars rather than just more cars â account for much of the increase in GDP nowadays. But assessing quality improvements is difficult. Health care exemplifies this problem: much of medicine is publicly provided, and much of the advances are in quality. The same problems in making comparisons over time apply to comparisons across countries. The United States spends more on health care than any other country (both per capita and as a percentage of income), but gets poorer outcomes. Part of the difference between GDP per capita in the US and some European countries may thus be a result of the way we measure things. Another marked change in most societies is an increase in inequality. This means that there is increasing disparity between average (mean) income and the median income (that of the âtypicalâ person, whose income lies in the middle of the distribution of all incomes). If a few bankers get much richer, average income can go up, even as most individualsâ incomes are declining. So GDP per capita statistics may not reflect what is happening to most citizens. We use market prices to value goods and services. But now, even those with the most faith in markets question reliance on market prices, as they argue against mark-to-market valuations. The pre-crisis profits of banks â onethird of all corporate profits â appear to have been a mirage. This realization casts a new light not only on our measures of performance, but also on the inferences we make. Before the crisis, when US growth (using standard GDP measures) seemed so much stronger than that of Europe, many Europeans argued that Europe should adopt US-style capitalism. Of course, anyone who wanted to could have seen American householdsâ growing indebtedness, which would have gone a long way toward correcting the false impression of success given by the GDP statistic. Recent methodological advances have enabled us to assess better what contributes to citizensâ sense of well-being, and to gather the data needed to make such assessments on a regular basis. These studies, for instance, verify and quantify what should be obvious: the loss of a job has a greater impact than can be accounted for just by the loss of income. They also demonstrate the importance of social connectedness. Any good measure of how well we are doing must also take account of sustainability. Just as a firm needs to measure the depreciation of its capital, so, too, our national accounts need to reflect the depletion of natural resources and the degradation of our environment. Statistical frameworks are intended to summarize what is going on in our complex society in a few easily interpretable numbers. It should have been obvious that one couldnât reduce everything to a single number, GDP. The report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress will, one hopes, lead to a better understanding of the uses, and abuses, of that statistic. GDP Fetishism - Project Syndicate 2/8/10 4:05 PM http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz116/English Page 2 of 3 The report should also provide guidance for creating a broader set of indicators that more accurately capture both well-being and sustainability; and it should provide impetus for improving the ability of GDP and related statistics to assess the performance of the economy and society. Such reforms will help us direct our efforts (and resources) in ways that lead to improvement in both. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org Reprinting material from this website without written consent from Project Syndicate is a violation of international copyright law. To secure permission, please contact [email protected]. tvselvakumaran 05:30 30 Sep 09 The official consensus Professor Martin Feldstein's latest article, "The G-20's Empty Promises" on Project Syndicate needs careful consideration. In his article, Professor Feldstein essentially adopts the "official consensus" of the economics profession on the current economic crisis. This official consensus, in its various mainfestations, has also been elaborated on by other famous economists, notably Professor Robert Lucas in his article in the Economist in early August, and by Professor Paul Krugman in his recent article in the New York Times Magazine. One characterizing feature of this official consensus is a confidence (a.k.a. triumphalism) in the certainty of outcomes predicted by modern economic theory. The main precepts of this official consensus are (i) Professor Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, has at his disposal all the theoretical tools of economics that are necessary and sufficient to deal with the current economic crisis. As Professor Lucas explains it in his Economist article, if one were able to predict in advance exactly when a market crash would occur, it would imply that the market entertains arbritrage opportunities. Hence, it is not possible to predict financial crises in advance. However, except for the precise timing of the occurrence of financial crises, macroeconomic theory could explain the workings of the economy completely. In particular, to avert the recurrence of the Great Depression, certain actions were needed to be taken by the Fed -- the specifics of these actions were all clearly understood by the economics profession. However, it was politically untenable to take these actions before there was a financial crisis. Once the financial crisis occurred though, Professor Bernanke could intervene in the markets and take the necessary actions (in the Fall of 2008). These actions include the injection of several trillion dollars into the economy and making the availability of credit the cheapest possible. The actions taken by the Fed have now resulted in the economy avoiding a recurrence of the Great Depression. This is, in brief, what Professor Lucas has stated in his Economist article. (ii) Thus in Professor Lucas' interpretation of things, the collapse of Lehman Brothers, for example, was necessary, in order to justify the intervention of the Federal Reserve in the functioning of the markets. The collapse of Lehman Brothers was, although regrettable, an unavoidable event. But, on the whole, monetary policy, even if it is a profligate one, would be necessary and sufficient to prevent the recurrence of the Great Depression, in Professor Lucas' view. Furthermore, the old wisdom of the Chicago School that government should be kept minimal at all times continues to hold, even in light of the current economic crisis. The Keynesians led by Professor Krugman, on the other hand, believe that Lehman Brothers should never have been allowed to fail. In their view, when the Fed's fund rate is at zero, monetary policy is largely ineffective for sustaining and stimulating economic activity. This is because of liquidity traps caused by businessmen who don't see economic opportunities that would induce them to borrow the cheap money available from the banks. Hence the government should step in to provide massive fiscal assistance to the economy by taking on spending directly, even if it means assuming trillions of dollars of public debt. (iii) Professor Krugman scored a lot of points by pointing out that the current state of economic theory, highly influenced as it is by the efficient market hypothesis of the Chicago School, indicated that a crisis of such magnitude as the current economic crisis could not happen at all. This fundamental failure to recognize that an enormous crisis could indeed happen, calls for the overthrow of the policy that markets provide the best social gain when they are completely free from government interference. From first impressions, it might seem that the views of the monetarists and Keynesians are vastly different. However, it is important to note that in the view of the Keynesians too, once large scale government spending as prescribed by the Keynesians is instituted, there is again enough assurance that modern economic theory (although with a heavy Keynesian tilt) would be sufficient to deal with the current economic crisis. (iv) In this regard, perhaps it is relevant to refer here to Professor Robert Shiller's latest article, "Re-inventing Economics" on Project Syndicate. Professor Shiller points out that the free market ideology fails to identify bubbles. Because of the belief that markets know best on all occasions, bubbles cannot occur according to the free market ideology. Professor Shiller's approach pursues a different branch of the Keynesian school of thought than the big spenders. Rather than advocate large government spending to avert a depression, Professor Shiller proposes using techniques from behavioral psychology to predict bubbles in advance. In this way, the socially harmful effects of massive misallocations of capital that arose in the case of the housing bubble or the tech bubble could be prevented in the future. In his other recent article, "Echo Chamber of Boom and Bust" in the New York Times, Professor Shiller elaborates further on the techniques that one could use for studying bubbles. Briefly, the process by which confidence or panic spreads in markets is very similar to the process by which diseases spread among populations. This outlook allows for introducing methods that scientists use to study epidemics into the study of bubbles. (v) The Keynesians have also managed to re-write the conventional wisdom on the advantages of a strong dollar. Through the works of Professors Barry Eichengreen, Jeffrey Sachs and Ben Bernnake, a consensus has developed that attempting to support the gold standard was a major cause for the prolongation of the Great Depression. This has resulted in a viewpoint among economists that a devaluation of the dollar at present would help to reduce global imbalances by restoring the American manufacturing industry. The implications of this viewpoint were analyzed by Professor Feldstein in his July 2009 article "America's Saving Rate and the Dollar's Future" on Project Syndicate, with the conclusion that devaluation of the dollar would necessarily lead to a better future for GDP Fetishism - Project Syndicate 2/8/10 4:05 PM http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz116/English Page 3 of 3 America. Lost in this new interpretation is the fact that a stable dollar provides many economic benefits for America. The equity premium for American companies taking more risks globally, the transaction charges for providing market making facilities in global markets, and the provisions of liquidity for the currency of international trade are major drivers of economic growth for America, which derive from the dollar being the global reserve currency. (vi) Some other Keynesians have gone beyond questioning just the free market ideology. For example, in his latest article, "GDP Fetishism" on Project Syndicate, Professor Joseph Stiglitz proposes a broad set of economic indicators like health, well-being and sustainability rather than a narrow focus on GDP growth. Yet other developments imply that the rest of the world is steadily moving away from using the dollar as the main reserve currency. To finance this new global reserve system, the IMF has created $250 billion worth of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), and the IMF has indicated its intention to triple this allocation of $250 billion in the future. It would need a strong commitment from the policy-makers in America to re-claim for the dollar its position as the predominant global reserve currency. However, judging from the writings of American economists like Professor Feldstein, it appears that the consensus among professional economists favors devaluing the dollar instead. (vii) The official consensus is a result of a grand compromise between the Chicago School economists and the Keynesians.The conservative economists of the Chicago School would like to avoid the embarassment of getting publicly criticized for the failures of the efficient market hypothesis that this current economics crisis has severely exposed. So famous conservative economists like Professor Lucas have reached out for a consensus by indicating their willingness for a compromise. This compromise involves among other things, (a) foregoing raising concerns about the government's mismanagement of Fanie Mae and Freddie Mac, and (b) lending support to the Fed and the Treasury in their efforts to stabilize the economy, even if the methods that the Fed and the Treasury employ are highly inefficient. What are the Keynesians compromising on? Well, the Western liberal tradition has been intellectually bankrupt ever since the late 1960s. It is only the free market ideology of the Chicago School that has served as the driver of wealth creation in the advanced countries during the last four decades. Hence, the official consensus is a convenient compromise for the Keynesians to avoid asking difficult questions about the future of the Western liberal tradition. Instead, they would like to enact much drama in the media about the resurrection of their hero, John Maynard Keynes. (viii) One other characterizing feature of the official consensus in the economics profession is a collective tendency to "Blame It All On Obama". The conservative economists blame President Obama for not focusing adequately on America's ballooning national debt. The liberals, led by Professor Krugman, fault President Obama for getting distracted from the left's free spending ways by concerns on the size of the fiscal deficit. In the confusion that has ensued, President Obama's own team of economics advisors has fallen back on the official consensus in the economics profession. Availing themselves of the security provided by this official consensus, President Obama's economics team has misled the President thoroughly in economic matters. To begin with, the President is only empowered to administer the nation's affairs for a four year term. The projections put out by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the deficits in the next decade are only a non-authoritative guidance for where the nation's finances would be, if current policies hold for the next decade. Instead, the democrats have been behaving as if the $9 trillion of additional public debt that the CBO projects for the next decade is already a given certainty. In particular, they have not been careful to mention clearly in public discussions how much of this extra spending can be attributed to the President's own spending plans in his current four-year term. Neither have they shown any concerns for taking the Fed and the Treasury to taks for their highly inefficient methods to stabilize the economy. Because of these instances of neglect, the public is not willing to trust the government in financial matters. President Obama has rapidly lost his approval ratings. Professor Lawrence Summers, Professor Christina Romer, Professor Austan Goolsbee and Professor Peter Orszag are directly responsible for this abuse of public trust. (ix) The official consensus has also prevented economists from recognizing that President Obama's universal message of tolerance and justice, which has been received very favorably all around the world, actually opens up vast areas of economic opportunity for America. Unfortunately, it does not matter, for the economists, whether George W. Bush or Barack Obama is in office. The most they can do is re-work their models to favor Keynesian policies, and to argue that the policies they propose arise directly from their number-crunching methods. One might be tempted to attribute this widespread consensus among economists to stick to a narrow theoretical interpretation of the current economic crisis, to the certainty afforded by the mathematical models, which have become indispensible through the course of the 20th century, for the development of economic theory. However, this would be a big mistake. The official consensus in the economics profession is primarily a result of undue influences of power and money. It is much less a result of mathematically based economic theory. In the longterm, this attitude among economists of sticking to an official consensus is going to do serious damage to the American economy. Some other aspects of the official consensus have been explained very well by Professor Kenneth Rogoff in his recent article, "The Confidence Game" on Project Syndicate. I recommend that the reader go through that article. The official consensus is the single largest threat to a robust recovery in the global economy. The official consensus also gravely misinterprets the events of the Great Depression. The implications of this misinterpretation bear directly on the economic health of America.

Weekly leaderboard

Home

Homework Help 3,900,000

Economics 400,000

Unlock all answers

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics

Principles of Macroeconomics

Principles of Microeconomics

Related questions

Weekly leaderboard