answer

watching

views

5 Aug 2019

Please discuss the different economic theories of Milton Friedman. Why was he important? Has he helped or hurt our economy? If he were alive today, what do you think he would suggest as an economic plan for our economy? Would he agree or disagree with the current policies? Must be 4 pages in length and include at least three references.

answer

watching

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

Sixta KovacekLv2

8 Aug 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

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".

3. Please list the 4 key supply side growth factors we discussed, and discuss their viability in terms of getting our economy growing again, given that today our economy is not growing.

a. The slides should provide you with what you need here.

b. The issue of viability â if the economy is growing slowly or not at all, do we have any chance of achieving success with each of the 4 growth factors? What will likely cause us problems? What approaches could we use to increase our odds of success? You need to think carefully on this one.

4. Creative problem solving

Scenario #1:

The rate of growth in the US economy is currently 0.5% annually. Your mission is to increase our growth rate to at least 4% annually, without setting off unacceptable levels of inflation. You have the tools of fiscal and monetary policy available.

a. Present your solution to the problem â write it down first.

i. Strategy for creating your solution:

1. First identify a specific natural resource and think through how having more of it or a better quality of it could lead to significantly increasing the GDP growth rate.

2. This will lead you to a general solution to the problem.

3. Write it down! The explanation of the solution should take at least one good paragraph!

4. Determine what will be required to make the solution happen, typically it is money.

5. Think of ways to use your fiscal and monetary policy tools to get the needed money.

6. To attack the problem you must select at least one Monetary Policy tool and one Fiscal Policy tool.

b. Write down the names of the one fiscal policy tool and the one monetary policy tools you picked.

i. Remember â for this question you need one Fiscal Policy tool and one Monetary Policy tool.

c. Explain why you picked the tools that you picked and why you did not select the other choices.

i. Specifically explain what is good about the tool you selected and what is not so good about the tools

you did not select? Do this for

both the monetary and fiscal policy tool that you selected. The key here is to use some decision criteria in making your choice.

d.,Thoroughly and completely explain how your solution would work to solve the problem. You must include and explain the use of your monetary and fiscal policy tools and indicate the impact your solution would have on the key economic variables. Please present your answer using a chain of events format. Be specific. I need to see the detail.

indigobeaver443

The opportunity cost of going to college is almost never discussed, yet it is quite high, so high that it is seriously impacting the broader American economy. For non-economists, âopportunity costâ is one of the most important concepts in economics. Because of scarcity we only have limited resources, and when we use those resources to do something like go to college, we cannot use them for other things that we also believe are desirable.

By far the most important resource we use in producing goods and services is labor or âhuman capital.â Based on what we pay owners of resources, we can say that roughly two-thirds of all production of goods and services is attributable to direct human effort â work. When kids go to college, they forego entering the labor force in a major, full-time manner. When six or seven percent of the entire American population is in college, that means a significant reduction in work effort occurs because otherwise highly productive persons in the physical prime of their lives are only lightly utilized in making things or providing services.

Today, only slightly over 59 of every 100 Americans of working age actually work, down from almost 66 in 2000. If we had the employment-population ratio of 15 years ago, we would have at least 16 million more working Americans today â an increase of over 10 percent. Our output would be probably the better part of a trillion dollars higher. The push for âcollege for allâ is one reason we have less work effort today (to be sure, the modern welfare state has also lowered work incentives a lot for other reasons).

The college for all crowd says higher education augments oneâs human capital, and we forego output today from working to bolster output tomorrow from more productive workers. And, no doubt, that is sometimes true. We have many productive engineers and accountants who gained important skills in college, for example. But is that necessarily true of all college graduates, particularly when Arum and Roksa tell us that graduating college seniors typically have only marginally better critical reasoning skills that freshman? And when over 40 percent of those entering four year colleges fail to graduate in six years? What if millions of those who do graduate take jobs similar to those without that college education? What if the debt incurred to pay for the college leads many to delay marrying, delay buying houses? There is evidence that to some extent the push for college has led to all of these unintended consequences.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has published great work showing that there is a very severe underemployment problem amongst college graduates, and other equally good research demonstrating what many of us have been saying for years: the student financial aid programs such as subsidized student loans, have pushed up the cost of college. Now a sister Federal Reserve Bank, namely Philadelphia, is jumping into the act.

The Philly Fed in a new study shows that high student loan debt is preventing young potential entrepreneurs from starting new businesses â they cannot afford the necessary debt. Opportunity cost again: if I borrow a lot to go to college, I cannot afford to borrow to start a business.

Enrollment in all forms of higher education today are up roughly 50 percent or seven million from what they were in 1990. What if enrollments had only risen proportionate to population growth â we would have three or four million fewer enrolled in college today. Would our nation be better or worse off? No one knows for sure, but the continued rise in the proportion of Americans with a college education has been accompanied by a sharp reduction in the rate of economic growth. I bet we would have fewer underemployed recent graduates. I bet we would have less than 17 percent delinquency rates on college loans, and far less than a trillion dollars in loan debt. I bet we would have a higher rate of labor force involvement and entrepreneurial activity among the young. And I bet we would be spending tens of billions less on higher education, and at least a little bit more on capital goods investment, highway construction, et cetera. In short, I suspect we would have been better off as a nation.

Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, teaches at Ohio University, and is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Question :

This is a short article discussing the concept of opportunity cost and college. Provide your views on this topic.Do you agree/disagree with the article? Why? What are your thoughts on the current employment landscape of college graduates? Provide any insight on this topic on a specific industry, your own experience, or the experiences of people that you know who have already graduated.