Answer the following in 150-200 words. In Federalism, how has the relationship between the national and state governments changed over time? Discuss the types of Federalism (Dual Federalism, Cooperative Federalism, Fiscal Federalism)

Conclusion: Overtime The power of the federal government has expanded because no.1 it Co-opted some state powers (cooperative federalism), delegating its own powers to state , no.2 is fiscal federalism

answer

watching

490

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

Jarrod RobelLv2

10 Jul 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

Big banks urge Ottawa to spend $20-billion in rapid stimulus

"Two of Canada's big banks want the federal government to pump $20-billion into an economic stimulus for a fast jolt to the flagging economy. Bank of Nova Scotia urged Ottawa to spend that much by mid-2017. Such a measure, the bank said, would equal 1 percent of gross domestic product and would play into its new economic forecast for GDP growth of 1.3 percent this year and 2.5 percent next. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce called for $20-billion in the government's first year, saying the pledges on the table just aren't enough. The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has indeed promised to spend billions in infrastructure stimulus. But, beyond the recent campaign pledges, there have been no details on the final amount, the targets, and the timeline. And remember, the fiscal outlook has changed rapidly, with the Liberals now forecasting a deficit of $18-billion even without their promised spending. Canadians will get the details when Finance Minister Bill Morneau unveils his budget on March 22. While Scotiabank and CIBC are the first to have specific calls, other bank economists have said the further stimulus would be welcome, and that the government certainly has the fiscal room to accommodate it. Scotiabank painted a weak economic picture for 2016, particularly for the oil-shocked province of Alberta, and a national unemployment rate that will top 7 per cent this year and next. It projected the economy of Alberta, which had been the country's economic engine until the oil route, will contract by a further 1.9 percent this year, with a jobless rate of 7.5 percent. Our Canadian forecast incorporates our recommendation for the federal fiscal stimulus of $20-billion, equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP, implemented during the second of 2016 and the first half of 2017, said Aron Gampel, Scotiabank's deputy chief economist. "This stimulus would be over and above the deficit resulting from weaker economic conditions, estimated for fiscal 2016-17 at $18-billion by the federal government," he added. "The stimulus should be designed to: deliver a rapid economic impact; raise Canada's economic capacity and thus our longer-term growth prospects; and, facilitate adjustments in the provinces most affected by weak commodity prices. Once the Canadian economy no longer requires policy support, targeting a declining ratio of net debt-to-GDP should resume." CIBC also weighed in on the stimulus debate today, calling for $20-billion in stimulus over two years. The Liberal pledges had been for $5-billion infrastructure and a further $5-billion in other measures in their first two years in power. But CIBC World Markets doesn't think that's enough given the country's economic troubles. "Federal stimulus under that scenario would be barely more than 0.5 percent of GDP, arguably too little to do the job, particularly with some provinces applying fiscal brakes," said CIBC's Royce Mendes and Avery Shenfeld. "We see a $20-billion stimulus program with a $40-billion deficit as being more appropriate, but given the political sensitivities, the government might show something closer to $35-billion for 2016-17, while perhaps taking on some further stimulus charged to the outgoing year." Some academics believe that in this low-interest-rate environment, what we need is a strong blast of fiscal stimulus to drive employment and growth. They argue that we should reject fiscal austerity and embrace public investment. Indeed, that has been the primary economic platform for the Liberal party, and for some, the reason for them winning a majority in the last election."

(a) The IMF "It is Mostly Fiscal" appears to be what Trudeau and his economic team have bought into. Explain why further fiscal austerity could be particularly painful for the Canadian economy, and how deficit spending may lower the government debt to GDP ratio. Be sure to illustrate using the IS-LM and the AD-AS frameworks.

(b) Discuss why Canadian banks are particularly concerned that the government fiscal stimulus plan may not be enough.

(c) Discuss what are some of the problems with using expansionary monetary policy in an environment of low interest rates. That is, describe the problem of a "liquidity trap."

mauveworm149

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.

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."

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.

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".

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.

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".