* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Professor`s Name
Survey
Document related concepts
Modern Monetary Theory wikipedia , lookup
Real bills doctrine wikipedia , lookup
Pensions crisis wikipedia , lookup
Exchange rate wikipedia , lookup
Fiscal multiplier wikipedia , lookup
Fear of floating wikipedia , lookup
Business cycle wikipedia , lookup
Monetary policy wikipedia , lookup
Money supply wikipedia , lookup
Inflation targeting wikipedia , lookup
Full employment wikipedia , lookup
Interest rate wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Course Course Number University or College Professor’s Name Macro3 Problem #4 Answers ( Student Name: Section: points) Open the Macro3 module. Select “Recession” as the state of the macro-economy. Enact a set of policies that would be supported by fiscally conservative politicians that represent creditors and people on fixed incomes. Demonstrate this by showing how your policies reduced unemployment, reduced inflation, or controlled interest rates. In performing this analysis, you need to answer the following question. If you owned bonds or lived on a pension, which would be more important for you, controlling inflation, or reducing the unemployment rate? People living on fixed incomes should be concerned with inflation, since by definition of the term “fixed income” any inflation would cause a decline in the purchasing power of their incomes. Creditors would be especially concerned with unexpected increases in inflation which would not have been taken into account when the interest rates on the loans were set. Such unexpected inflation would reduce the real returns on those loans, and would therefore represent a loss to the owners of the debt. The current budget is running a deficit, which affects the mix of investment and consumption, which might constitute a drawback. However, trying to correct the deficit by increasing taxes or curtailing spending would make the recession worse, so I left government spending and taxes unchanged at $950 and $865 respectively. In order to combat the recession, I increased the money supply to $66. If the economy were at or near full employment, such as increase in the money supply cause a high rate of inflation. However, the unemployment rate is 7%, so increasing the money supply will help ameliorate that without causing much inflation. As a result of my policies, unemployment went down from 7% to 5.06% and inflation went from -11.57% (massive deflation) to -0.16% (a tiny amount of deflation). Real interest rates decreased slightly, from 8.065% to 8.030%. Of course, the rise in the inflation rate (decrease in deflation) would reduce the gains made by those on fixed incomes—who gain from deflation. If this change were unexpected then nominal interest rates on debt from before the change would yield lower real returns to the owners of the debt. Actual price increases are not necessary for these results. (1) Institute a demand shock and see how that affects the results of your policies, then institute a supply shock and see how that affects the results of your policies. (2) Do your policies serve debtors or creditors in the short run, or long run, or both? Explain, making specific reference to each of the reported values (inflation, unemployment, real GDP and its components, the exchange rate). For the demand shock, I increased expected inflation from 1% to 5%. This caused unemployment to go down even further to 4.49%, and real GDP, consumption and investment all rose. However, inflation rose to 3.78%. Real interest rates fell by 0.02%. To many an inflation rate even this high would be unacceptable. Likewise, the currency depreciated, from 0.9774 without the shock to 0.9401 with the shock. This inflation would make the economy more unstable and the devaluation of the currency would make imports of materials and other inputs more expensive. Because of the demand shock, my policies failed at protecting people on fixed incomes and creditors. I chose a supply shock of 10. Unemployment fell from 5.06% to 4.08. Real GDP, consumption and investment all rose slightly. Inflation fell from –0.16% to –0.53%. The currency appreciated slightly from 0.9774 to 0.9809.. A supply shock such as this was probably a drop in production costs (e.g., a lower oil price) and for most firms that would mean higher profits—which is why supply increased. However, this would assist creditors or those on fixed incomes only to the extent that some of the price decrease was unexpected.. Now repeat this assignment, only this time, enact a set of policies that would be supported by the unskilled workers and shareholders in firms. (1) Institute a demand shock and see how that affects the results of your policies, then institute a supply shock and see how that affects the results of your policies. (2) Do your policies affect the interests of these groups in long run? Low skilled workers have their best chance at getting a job and even moving up to better jobs when the unemployment rate is low, even below full employment. Shareholders want profits and firms’ profits are usually the highest when demand is high and so is production. Increases in the money supply might reduce unemployment over time, but government spending may create jobs more quickly, although that aspect is not covered in this module. In order to serve these interests, the government should increase spending to $1,150, leave taxes unchanged at $865 and increase the money supply to $70. The purpose of the increase in the money supply is to prevent the interest rate from going too high. A high interest rate would tend to crowd out private investment, and reduce the impact of the increase in government expenditure.. As a result of my policies, the unemployment rate decreased from 7.00% to 3.86%. Inflation went up from -11.57% to 8.49%. This is good for these groups because the low unemployment rate opens up major opportunities for low skilled workers, although it comes at the cost of a declining real wage for workers overall. Profits in the short run at least would be higher due to the increase in demand and the rise in prices of final goods, relative to costs. The negative side of this is that even though real GDP went up from $2,330.36 to $2,361.72, consumption fell from $1,127.21 to $1,106.82 and investment went down significantly from $265.15 to $119.30. Even with the expanded money supply, the higher interest rate (10.009% compared to 8.065%) is crowding out private investment and consumer spending. The lower level of private investment will inhibit economic growth in the future. What this government is doing is serving the short term interests of the given groups, but forcing future generations to pay for it in terms of lower economic growth. Moreover, the public is enjoying less current consumption that was originally the case. The long run real wage and unemployment rate have not changed, so the policies were helpful to these groups only in the short run. I instituted a demand shock by increasing expected inflation from 1% to 5%. All the resulting changes were small, except for unemployment and inflation. Unemployment went down from 3.86% to 3.33% and inflation increased from 8.49% to 12.89%. This shock exaggerated the effects of the policies. I instituted a supply shock of –10. This significantly lowered real GDP, consumption and investment. It also increased unemployment from 3.86% to 4.70%. The changes in inflation, interest rates and the exchange rate were small. Thus, this supply shock served to negate the positive impact of my policies. My policies were supposed to create jobs and reduce unemployment, but the supply shock cancelled the effect.