Singapore is an economy which is operating at a level which is very close to its full potential. The island has no natural resources, very little spare land and a small but educated workforce. The recent global financial crisis, highlighted Singapore’s vulnerability to changes in the global economy. Singapore is very export dependent country with a large positive trade balance.

The latest government budget was announced here last week and the focus has shifted towards improving productivity in the economy to make it more resilient to these external shocks in the future. The shift has been from Demand Side Policies a year ago, at the depths of the recession, to Supply Side policies in the recovery phase.

Singapore has always been considered one of the original Four Asian Tigers. The four tigers (Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore) were economies, which shared the free market policies and outward looking, export orientated philosophies. All four countries were newly industrialized, and throughout the period between the 1960’s and 1990’s  they all experienced exceptionally high rates of economic growth. More recently other countries tried to follow this model on a road to development.

A picture of the CBD from near my apartment.

A full description of the budget is here. Most of this is copied below, along with my comments. When you read the article think about the four discussion questions at the end of this post.

S’pore unveils Budget aimed at helping country become advanced economy: By Imelda Saad, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 22 February 2010 link

SINGAPORE: Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam has unveiled a Budget aimed at helping Singapore become an advanced economy.

A key theme of the Budget: raising the quality of jobs, skills and the workforce so that workers can continue to earn higher incomes, and the economy, grow.

Singapore emerged from the global financial crisis better than expected, with an overall budget deficit of S$2.9 billion for FY 2009 – much lower than the original S$8.7 billion shortfall projected a year ago.  This year, it is expecting a deficit of S$3 billion, as it spends on areas to boost productivity. The government’s key focus is to raise productivity by 2 to 3 per cent a year over the next decade. This will allow Singapore to maintain a healthy rate of economic growth of 3 to 5 per cent a year, even with a slower growth in the labour force.

The government has therefore managed its spending and revenues in the previous 12 months so is now in a position to spend money to boost the future prospects of the economy. This is unlike some other nations such as the United Kingdom which is searching to cut spending to reduce future budget deficits.

The finance minister said the Budget 2010 set out ways to help Singapore succeed with new growth strategies. Hence the plans seemed to focus more on the long-term growth and health of the economy, and not just the short-term position. The government has set aside S$5.5 billion over the next five years to help enterprises and workers raise productivity.

Mr Tharman said: “Raising skills and productivity is the only viable way we can achieve higher wages and is the best way to help citizens with low incomes. If we achieve this goal, we can raise real incomes by one-third in 10 years.”

The Finance Minster is focusing on long-term growth and the health of the economy. This suggests that Singapore is using supply side policies to increase the potential capacity of the economy and shift the Long Run Aggregate Supply curves towards the right. From a Keynesian perspective, supply side policies are effective when the economy is approaching it’s full potential. The policies are considered ineffective when the economy is a recession with depressed aggregate demand. This idea is illustrated below. (note: the same policies can also be illustrated slightly differently, using a neoclassical perspective of LRAS)

The minister signalled that some painful decisions may have to be taken. Less-efficient industries may have to exit Singapore, as the economy continues to restructure. Mr Tharman said the government must rely on the market to achieve this restructuring. Industries and companies will be given help to upgrade through tax benefits and grants to help to innovate and raise productivity, and invest in R&D and automation.

More will be pumped into raising the skills and tapping the potential of every worker. But this will have to be offset by reducing Singapore’s dependence on cheap foreign labour. To encourage companies to rely less on foreign workers, the government is imposing higher levies on foreign workers in phases over the next three years.

The government will pump in S$2.5 billion in over 5 years to enhance Continuing Education and Training.

It will also set up a high-level National Productivity and Continuing Education Council – to be headed by Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean – to develop a comprehensive system for lifelong learning. In addition, there will be help for older and low-wage workers in a new Workfare Training Scheme. The scheme is aimed at incentivising employers to send older workers for training by providing companies with up to 95 per cent funding for absentee payroll and course fee outlays.

For companies, there will be a Productivity and Innovation Credit so they can get tax deductions for investments in R&D and automation. There are also a slew of measures to help grow more globally competitive Singapore companies. These include tax deductions for angel investors, growth capital for SMEs and incentives to expand sectors with high growth potential.

The government also wants to ensure that no one is left out as it pushes for more inclusive growth, by taking care of the lower and middle income. For example, property tax will be tweaked to be more reflective of the annual values of homes.

Mr Tharman said: “Taking all our measures together, we will be spending S$1.4 billion this year in direct transfers for households. While most Singaporeans will receive some benefits, more will go to those with lower and middle incomes.”

In wrapping up the nearly two-hour speech, Mr Tharman said while the government will commit substantial resources to support the national effort of restructuring the economy and improving the quality of jobs, the success of this will depend very much on the ingenuity and drive of Singaporeans and companies here.

Discussion Questions:

1. Explain why in Singapore demand side policies were favoured during the recession, but now Supply Side policies are being introduced.
2. Explain how one of the suggested policies will affect the labour market and therefore the level of aggregate supply in the economy.
3. What does the finance minister mean by the phrase “no one is left out as we push for inclusive growth” and how does the government support inclusive growth?
4. Evaluate the short run and long run effectiveness of supply side policies to increase the level of Real GDP in Singapore.

John Maynard Keynes was an economist whose opinions have shaped government policies throughout the 20^th century. Joseph Sternberg of the Wall Street Journal explained an interesting link this week, between Keynesian policies and the fate of bankrupted Japan Airlines.

Keynesian policies suggest that during a period of depressed economic growth, a chronic lack of the demand is a core problem that couldn’t be solved with supply side policies. Instead he advocated for demand stimulus packages including infrastructure developments.

The Japanese economy has experienced a turbulent past. Throughout the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s the level for GDP grew at impressive rates, but growth began to slow in the 1990’s due to the effects of an asset bubble. An asset bubble was caused by an abundance of cheap credit caused by exceptionally low interest rates. This lead to the prices of shares, houses and land rising very quickly as buyers speculated and outbid each other. The government responded by sharply raising interest rates in 1989, which crushed the bubble and stalled the economy.  Depressed wealth caused spending to stall, and the Japanese thrift and savings culture to return.

In the 1990’s the government attempted to stimulate the economy but this was largely unsuccessful. The result was low real growth (compared to the past), zero percent interest rates set by the Central Bank and a deflationary spiral. Politicians used a variety of policies, including Keynesian ideas to boost aggregate demand.

During the economic boom, the development of the aviation industry was an important pillar of the countries infrastructure development as Joseph Sternberg of the Wall Street Journal explains.

Starting in the 1960s, successive governments concocted aviation plans focused on building new airports. Perhaps this was justifiable back then, when Japan was an Asian tiger economy with a growing population. But in 1964, even before the bulk of the airport construction, the bullet train appeared. At that point, and especially as the shinkasen high-speed-rail network developed, it might have been prudent to ask whether air would invariably be the most efficient way to connect domestic destinations.

Unfortunately, by then the airport boom had taken on a life of its own. During the lost decade of the 1990s, airport construction popped up in many stimulus plans. National and local politicians, not to mention the politically powerful construction lobby, wanted to put an airport in every prefecture. And ordinary airports wouldn’t do. Because Japan’s relatively small flat surface area is in such high demand, one airport after another was built on reclaimed land in the middle of the ocean at enormous expense. Despite periodic public fulminations about out-of-control costs, in practice “expensive” seemed to be viewed as a net positive.

Boosters touted airports as creators of short-term construction jobs and longer-term boons to their areas. This airport binge has continued right up to today. Japan’s 98th airport opened last year: Shizuoka-Mt. Fuji, roughly 50 miles from the famous mountain. California, with a larger land area, has around one-third as many airports in regular commercial service, with another 35 or so “reliever airports” to handle business jets and general aviation.

The author reflects on the cost of the Keynesian stimulus. Whilst in the short term, development of the airport network provided jobs and helped the construction industry; in the long term the projects have created an inefficient and expensive transport network. Japan Airlines has been forced to offer flights from each of these 98 regional airports, often paying high landing charges, and operating flights at below capacity. Overtime this pressure may have caused Japan Airlines to slide into bankruptcy.  Perhaps this is a unique one off case, but the author predicts some interesting links to current developments in China.

Lest anyone think this is a uniquely Japanese problem, consider all the other places in the world currently undergoing their own Keynesian infrastructure booms—and especially China. For instance, a new high-speed rail line is due to connect Beijing to a station an inconvenient 45 minutes from the downtown commercial center of Guangzhou in southern China. The train will take somewhat less than eight hours to connect cities reachable in under three by air. Will enough passengers ever make that trek for the train to operate in the black?

Discussion Questions:

1. Why does John Maynard Keynes suggest that demand stimulus is an appropriate response, for a country stuck in a deep recession, with depressed demand?
2. If central bank interest rates are very close to zero, what other policies could the government use to stimulate growth?
3. How could supply side policies actually make the recession worse in Japan?
4. Outline the advantages and disadvantages of demand-side policies used in Japan.

One feature of Economics in Plain English several students and teachers have found helpful over the years is the Econ Help Desk, where readers can get questions about basic economic concepts answered personally by me.

Recently I received the following email from an AP Macroeconomics teacher in the United States:

I have a question about graphs that illustrate how trade preferences (specifically Supply and Demand shifts), affect P, Q and Pe on Supply-Demand GRAPHS of Currency Exchange.

In teaching my AP Macro students about this concept, I have reached a gap in our full understanding how to graph the Supply and Demand of Yen, or Euro (Price in USD).

For example, if the Price levels rise in the U.S., relative to Japan’s, and consequently, the U.S. demands more Japanese cars and stereos, the only label that we ever see for the x-axis is “Q” or Quantity, or Qe, a vertical line that represents the starting “market clearing price”, of .01USD=1Y. When DEMAND or SUPPLY shifts, the only change that I ever see labeled on the graphs is the Y-Price in USD of Yen, but descriptions simply talk about the Y=1.

When Demand or Supply shifts (in response to increased demand for Yen), and there is a new higher or lower USD Price for Yen, respectively, does the vertical line for Q simply shift outward (continuing to represent Y=1) at whatever the new Price Equilibrium becomes (simply meaning just more “1s” of them in circulation (at each new Pe market-clearing point)?

Thanks

Here is my response:

Hello, I will try to address your questions below.

Exchange rates can be determined by several factors, including relative price levels, relative interest rates, tastes and preferences of domestic and international consumers, relative income levels at home and abroad and speculation by currency traders. As you say, an increase in the price level of goods produced in United States (say, Fords), ceteris paribus, should lead to an increase in demand among American consumers for goods produced in Japan (say, Hondas), which now appear relatively cheaper. Demand for Yen increases among American households who wish to buy Japanese goods. The USD price of Yen then rises in the Yen market. Since Japanese holders of Yen now receive more USD for each Yen, they will provide more Yen (this is another way of saying with an increase in demand for Yen, the quantity supplied of Yen increases).

Theory would say that there is no increase in the supply of Yen following an increase in Demand by American consumers, only an increase in quantity supplied. The Yen clearly appreciates, as the USD/Yen exchange rate rises. Now, there is another side to this story. The Yen market refers to the market for Yen in the United States. Yen will appreciate in the United States. Simultaneously, USD will depreciate in Japan, as Americans buy more Japanese goods, they are supplying more USD in the USD market in Japan. Here the “price” or the exchange rate is Yen/USD. The Yen price of a USD will fall as the supply of USD increase as Americans exchange their dollars for Yen to buy the relatively cheap Japanese goods.

The “market-clearing price” in foreign exchange markets is the exchange rate that prevails in a floating exchanged rate system where exchange rates are determined solely by supply and demand by international consumers, investors, government, banks, and firms. Assume the Yen is trading for $0.01. If , following inflation in the United States and the corresponding increase in demand for Yen, the value of the Yen remained at $0.01, then the quantity demanded for Yen would exceed the quantity supplied. There would be shortages of Japanese goods in the United States, as Japanese goods are in greater demand yet their prices have not risen. In order to “clear the market” so to speak, the exchange rate must rise, to say $0.012. Now, a Yen’s worth of goods “costs” Americans 20% more than previous, making them less attractive over time. Likewise, a dollar’s worth of goods “costs” Japanese consumers 20% less, since the dollar is weaker in Japan.

As you can foresee, the floating value of the Yen should lead to relatively balanced trade between Japan and the US. The US current account will initially move towards deficit as inflation makes American goods more expensive, however, as demand for Japanese goods increases, the value of the Yen rises making Japanese goods more expensive, which will eventually reduce their appeal to American consumers who will once again begin consuming more American goods and importing less. Japanese will notice the weaker dollar makes US imports cheaper and begin importing more American products. The US current account should remain  balanced in the long-run in a floating exchange rate system.

I don’t know if you’ve had a look at my study guides on exchange rates and balance of payments, but those may help clarify graphically what I describe above:

• Unit 4: Exchange Rates
• Unit 4: Balance of Payments

I hope this clarifies your understanding of how relative price levels help determine exchange rates!

Best,
Jason

It’s that time of the year for IB Economics students all over the world. Time to choose their extended essay topics! The International Baccalaureate (IB) program is a rigorous, two-year diploma program for 11th and 12th graders. In addition two three “higher level” courses and three “standard level” courses chosen from each of the six subject areas (maths, physical sciences, social sciences, fine arts, language A and language B), students must also complete a major research project over the two year program. This “extended essay” is externally assessed and counts towards their points and their final diploma score.

As an IB Economics teacher, it is my duty to assist students who choose to write an economics extended essay. This year I will supervise four Zurich International School students, who will be researching topics ranging from the competitive nature of the local fast food market, to Malaysia’s economic policy and the country’s development, to the health insurance industry in Switzerland and Brazil’s coffee market. Helping students fine tune their research topics and refine their essay is an exciting and rewarding process.

This afternoon I received an email from an IB Economics student in Berlin. Here’s what she had to say:

Dear Mr.Welker :

I’m currently an IB Grade 11 student studying at Berlin International School, and i would like to write my extended essay in Economics. Your blog has provided me with so many ideas now that the problems is now i don’t know what to choose or how to narrow it down . My ideas are mainly focusing on China’s economy, because I’m from Taiwan, I thought it would be an advantage for me, since i can understand information if it was written in Chinese.

I’m thinking of writing about the following topics:

• Limiting factors of China’s economic expansion (inequality, inflation, protectionism from other countries like US, spending and saving habits of the Chinese, export and import) and maybe the possible future of China’s economy, because while some people say it’s going to help lift the global economy out of recession, some say they see an economic crash.( but I’m not sure if as a high school student is able to do that, at the same time I think one of the criterias is to discover something new ? )
• Another thing i also find interesting is about Chinese currency and how it might solve inflation (I came across this from one of your blog posts about China at May 2008) or what policies do governments use to maintain RMB without buying US exports and the possible effects on other countries as a result of weak Chinese currency

I really can’t decide which one to do, therefore i would really appreciate it if you could advice me and give me some feedbacks.

Looking forward to your responses !

I was happy to receive an email from such an enthusiastic young economist. Below is my response and advice to the student:

Hello,

Your ideas are very interesting… it’s impressive as an IB Econ teacher to see a student as thoughtful and reflective on the EE topic as you are. Here are my thoughts on your proposed topics:

I think your first topic would be particularly difficult to research and write a good essay on. In all honesty, not many of the factors that you identify (inequality, inflation, protectionism from other countries like US, spending and saving habits of the Chinese, export and import) have really limited China’s economic growth. China’s growth has been unprecedented in the world in modern history. Inequality could be viewed as a result of the rapid growth the country has experienced; such inequality has been experienced in many countries during their early stages of economic development. Inflation is also a symptom of rapid growth, but in most cases China has keep inflation under control. It has been the lack of protectionism from countries like the US which have led to the massive growth of China’s export industry. If anything, China’s own protectionist policy of managing the value of the RMB at such a low rate has also contributed to its rapid growth.

Even Chinese spending and savings habits have contributed to the growth of the country’s economy. A high savings rate enables the Chinese government to tap the country’s savings to buy US government bonds, which keeps interest rates low in America, the dollar strong, and helps finance the US government’s budget deficits, meaning lower taxes and more disposable income among American consumers who turn around and import hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Chinese goods every year, further fueling growth in China. With a lower savings rate, China would experience fewer net exports. On the other hand, they’d experience more domestic consumption, which is probably what we should expect to see in the future if Beijing begins to loosens its control of the RMB and allows it to strengthen. Chinese will then begin consuming more of their own output and buying more imports from abroad, while net exports decrease in response to the rising prices of Chinese goods in the west. Domestic consumption will begin to replace exports as domestic savings decreases.

I like your second proposal much better. Since you are in Germany, I would consider researching the effects of China’s exchange rate controls on a particular industry in which both German and Chinese firms compete. I had a student in Shanghai who had a similar background to yours; he was of Chinese descent, but born in Germany. He spoke both German and Mandarin. He researched the impact of China’s low cost automobile parts manufacturers on the German auto parts and automobile industries. He did not focus exclusively on the exchange rate, but it was part of his research.

The IB really likes when you research local markets. If you examine the impact of the weak RMB on, say, US net exports, it’s not nearly as impressive as if you focus your investigation on German firms. You may have friends at your school whose parents work for firms who do business with or compete against Chinese firms. Interview them! You could measure historical exchange rate data between the RMB and the Euro, explain the mechanism by which China manages its currency against the US dollar but then explain how that also affects exchange rates with the Euro, then examine the impact on exports and imports from Germany to China and vis versa in response to the fluctuations of the RMB/Euro exchange rate. America is not the only country that wants China to let the RMB float. Europe’s exports are also affected by the weak RMB.

So that’s my suggestion. Take your two homes (well, not really as you’re Taiwanese, but close enough!) and focus on them. Choose one or two industries that exist in Germany AND China, and research the effects of free trade, China’s entry to the WTO, China’s exchange rate policies, and so on, to draw conclusions about how China’s entry to the global economy has affected firms in Germany.

Good luck, I hope this helps! Click on the “China” category on my blog to find all the dozens of articles I’ve written about China over the last three years!

Best,
Mr Welker

Tags: advice, Extended Essay, IB Economics

Welker’s Wikinomics Blog was created three years ago as a way to communicate economic ideas and theories in a clear and intelligible way for the high school economics student. Over those three years over 500 posts have been published, nearly 10 Economics teacher have contributed as authors and over 250,000 readers have visited (now up to over 600 per day).  But where did the name Welker’s Wikinomics come from, anyway?

When my adventure in Web 2.0 teaching began over three years ago, there was no blog. At first Welker’s Wikinomics was, not surprisingly, a wiki for my AP and IB Economics students in Shanghai to use as a study tool. But then came the blog, and for lack of a better name, it took on the same name as the wiki. Today the Welker’s Wikinomics name is actually shared by not only the wiki and this blog, but also by the Economics Universe, where econ students and teachers can find RSS feeds from hundreds of resources for learning economics, as well as the free lecture notes I publish here and which have been downloaded thousands of times by Econ students around the world.

Last year I began thinking about changing the name of this blog, as I was never quite satisfied having my blog called “Wikinomics”, since so many visitors to my site have always been confused about the difference between the wiki and the blog. So today I am happy to announce a new name for this blog, Economics in Plain English.

I thought of the new name while writing a blog post recently for which I spent a frustrating hour reading an article from the Economist. While struggling through the difficult article I guessed that most people without at least two years of college economics would have had a hard time understanding what the author was trying to say with all his economics jargon. Why, I thought, aren’t more journalists and academics writing about economics in a way that anyone interested in the subject, whether he be a high school student or a retired grandfather, can understand. Why don’t more people write about economics in plain english!?

Well, that’s precisely what I’ve been trying to do here for three years. So I decided it was the right name for this blog.

From now on this blog can be accessed by going to the URL: http://www.economicsinplainenglish.com. The original domain will remain intact, however, since over 500 articles on this blog are still used by myself and other Econ teachers and their hyperlinks must remain active. Welker’s Wikinomics is not disappearing, as my homepage will still be located at http://www.welkerswikinomics.com. Only the blog is getting a new name. The wiki, the universe, and the lecture notes will continue to be part of the Welker’s Wikinomics suite of resources available for econ teachers and students.

As always, if you’re an economics teacher who enjoys what you read here and think you may have something to add, please drop me an email at welkerswikinomics@yahoo.com to receive an author account on this blog. Become a regular contributor and I’ll add your face and bio to the “About the Authors” sidebar! How can you pass that up?

A big thanks to everyone who has visited this blog, read our posts and left a comment over the last few years!

Argentina’s reserves and its debts: Central Bank robbery | The Economist

I received the following email from an Econ teacher who wonders if I had any insight on a question posed by one of his students:

The email reads: “I have alittle query i was hoping you could help clear up for me..a year 13 student has asked a question relating to Argentina’s prime minister, Cristina Fernandezde De Kirchner’s, decision to sell the central bank’s dollar reserves to fund part of the country’s decifit against the advice of the director of the central bank who resigned.”

The student’s question is on the following passage from the Economist article above:

Fernández (Argentina’s president”) justified her raid on the reserves by saying that the Central Bank had more than it needed, because they exceeded the size of the monetary base. Economists disagree about what is an appropriate target for the reserves, but Mr Redrado’s view is that a highly dollarised emerging economy like Argentina’s needs an abundance of Treasury bonds (the form in which most reserves are held) as insurance. Even if Ms Fernández might find support from some economists for her argument, her plan to swap the dollar reserves for a non-transferable government bond would not.

The student’s question is: “I do not know what a monetary base is, nor why Argetina needs treasury bonds.”

This article really caught me off guard at first as well. One thing I love about the Economist newspaper is its use of economic jargon that requires a real understanding of the subject to be able to interpret. The first time I read the article, I will be honest I was completely confused as to what the Argentinean president was up to. But after some reflection and rough sketches of graphs on scrap paper, I think I have “translated” the article’s jargon into plain English.

Below is my reply to the teacher and his student:

Hello,

The president of Argentina wants to sell the country’s US dollar reserves, which are held in the form of US treasury bonds, and then use the US dollars she receives to buy Argentinean government bonds in order to finance her own government’s budget deficit. In essence she wants to swap Argentina’s central bank reserves of US debt (considered a very stable and safe asset due to America’s low inflation rate and relative solvency of the US government) for Argentinean government debt (less stable and safe, especially in the wake of the country’s 2002 default on its debt). Argentina’s central bank would then hold fewer transferable, stable US bonds and more “non-transferable”, Argentinean government bonds. And since the bonds represent Argentina’s government debt, the country as a whole reduces its assets and increases its liabilities.

It is important for a developing country like Argentina to keep large reserves of US dollar-denominated assets (i.e. US treasury bonds) in reserve in order to assure foreign investors that the country would be able to stabilize its currency’s value in the face of a currency crisis such as that which Argentina experienced in 2001-2002. If the value of the peso began to decline on foreign exchange markets (due, for instance, to a decline in international investor confidence in the government’s ability to pay the interest on its foreign debt or inflation fears caused by excessive monetary growth or government spending) then the central bank could use its large dollar reserves to intervene in the forex market and stabilize the value of the peso, reestablishing investor confidence and maintaining the government’s ability to attract foreign creditors in the Argentinean bond market. A collapse of the peso would have ripple effects throughout Argentina, driving up imported products and raw materials and causing spiraling inflation, forcing the government to print more money to finance its budget in the face of falling demand for its debt in domestic and international bond markets.

Argentina must be sure to keep its balance sheet (i.e. its liability to asset ratio) in check. Its assets are US government bonds, its liabilities are the Argentinean bonds it issues to finance its budget deficits. If this ratio become too heavy on the liability side, foreign investors and speculators will lose confidence in the both peso and the Argentinean government’s solvency and dump their holdings of Argentinean currency, assets, and bonds, driving interest rates through the roof and the exchange rate through the floor, grinding the economy to a halt.

The article says,

Argentina’s economy is on course to rebound this year and grow at 3-5%. But the government is spending money so fast that this growth will not finance current spending on its own, says Daniel Marx, a former finance minister. Ordinarily, a government faced with a shortfall would turn to domestic and international bond markets. But this has been difficult since Argentina defaulted in 2002.

The country cannot count on private creditors to make up its budget shortfall, so the president is planning to finance her country’s deficit by buying Argentinean bonds with the country’s own US dollar reserves. Such behavior concerns economists because it could send a message to international investors that the country is on the path towards another unsustainable build-up of debt that could culminate in another default and economic collapse. The article is a word of caution to the president that all leaders should heed: balanced budgets are a good idea, and debt is dangerous!

Obamas Efforts To Boost Exports Face Hurdles : NPR

President Obama thinks the key to recovering the millions of American jobs lost during the recession lies in boosting exports to the rest of the world:

The plan sounds great. As we learn in AP and IB Economics, free trade leads to benefits for nations that choose to participate in it. Of course, promoting free trade will harm some industries and workers whose jobs end up being “off-shored” or “out-sourced” to countries with cheaper or more qualified labor; but Obama’s hope is that promoting free trade will result in a net gain of 2 million American jobs.

The goal of doubling US exports in 5 years, however, may be overly ambitious. According to the CIA World Factbook, the US is currently the fourth largest exporter in the world, sending just around $1 trillion worth of goods and services abroad in 2009, behind the EU with $1.9 trillion, China with $1.2 trillion and Germany with $1.18 trillion of exports. Obama’s goal to double US exports would propel the US to the single largest exporting nation in the world, putting it right around where the 27 nations of the European Union are today.

To achieve his goal, Obama proposals include three strategies for boosting demand and supply of US exports.

• On the supply side he suggests continuing recent guarantees for payment by foreign buyers. Essentially such a scheme reduces the risks that often accompany international commerce, reducing the “costs” of exporting firms, which in essence increases the supply of exports from the US.
• On the demand side the US must pressure China to revalue its currency. A stronger RMB (and a weaker dollar) will increase China’s demand for US goods and services.
• Also on the demand side, the US should push through free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama and Columbia, which have encountered obstacles among US lawmakers who fear that more free trade may actually mean a loss of US jobs.

Free trade agreements, export payment guarantees and a weaker US dollar in China will help Obama reach his goal. Chances are, however, that it will ultimately be unattainable. Doubling US exports would propel the US to the top of the list of exporting countries, surpassing even China, today’s current leader, by $700 billion more than the country exported last year. The impact on US GDP would undoubtedly be enormous, adding upwards of  $1 trillion to the US economy.

Creating jobs through trade is controversial, as many Americans still believe trade is partially to blame for the loss of American jobs in recent years.

“The average voter in the U.S. has been pretty on the fence about whether they want more trade coming into the United States,” Slaughter says. “The income pressures that a lot of households have faced in recent years have sort of shifted that balance where more voters now are a lot more wary of globalization than they used to be.”

While his goal is lofty, Obama is on the right track towards growing the US economy and promoting job creation. Trade benefits Americans not just because it will increase demand for our goods and services abroad, but because it will lead to lower prices for many of the things we enjoy consuming at home, ultimately increasing real incomes in America while also creating jobs.

The graph below presents a simple explanation of how the above strategies can result in more jobs in US export industries.

Discussion Questions:

1. How does China manipulate the value of its currency? Why is such manipulation harmful to US exporters?
2. How does a government payment guarantee for exporters actually reduce the costs of doing business for US exporting firms?
3. Do you believe that more free trade agreements with countries like South Korea and Panama will create jobs or destroy jobs in the United States? Explain.

More misleading economic statements from uninformed people who have never taken an economics course!

What about, you say?

I’m glad you asked!

I often read and hear in the American press that the United States is creating a giant wealth transfer by buying oil from other countries. Those “wealth transfer” words imply to the typical citizen that somehow our U.S. money supply is leaving our country, never to return again, and somehow our country is pooer after the transaction than if we had produced the oil within our own country.

Yes, the other country becomes wealthier but it has nothing to do with the US currency we send them, for, after all, the US dollars are only useless paper in their own economies as the US dollars cannot be spent in their own economy, but rather those same US dollars can be used to gain access to the US goods and services that those countries covet! The US also becomes financially better off due to the “trade” as the US can aquire our culturally, covetable and inexpensive oil to fuel our cars and heat our homes, in return for the various US products and services traded to the countries from which we imported the oil. In effect, we have “traded”, just like the old western cowboys & indians, US goods for oil, and both countries are better off!

Let me clear about one thing, however; I am fairly confident that it is NOT in our best homeland security interest in purchasing such a large share of oil purchases from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, whose loyalty to our country is certainly questionable. Luckily, the U.S. produces 40% of its own oil consumed and the other 60% consumed is imported from many different countries. Canada and Mexico are the two largest import countries, which is pretty darn safe.

However, ignoring the aforementioned security issue, when we buy from any of these countries, both countries benefit equally and there is NO transfer of wealth. When the U.S. buys oil from another country those U.S. dollars paid on the oil purchase are immediately returned to the United States and are spent almost immediately in our country since the other country cannot use our dollars in their country. What is really happening is that both countries’ citizens GAIN (not lose!) equally as we are, in essence, trading one product for another for both countries to enjoy!

Let’s use an example. Let’s say the U.S. buys 1000 barrels of oil from Saudi Arabia. At today’s oil price per barrel of $75 that would mean the U.S. would pay Saudi Arabia $75,000 and Saudi Arabia would then, in turn, be forced to turn around and use the paper ($75,000 USD!) on say, a bunch of iPods from Apple. Yes, the Saudi’s are listening to “I Kissed a Girl” by Katy Perry with their IPods hidden under those smart head robes they wear! Ladies and gentlemen: that is why they call it trade: the essence of the transaction is that we have traded some of our iPods for some oil to fuel our cars and heat our homes. Both of us have gained! Katy Perry is hot on the charts and the Saudi’s are boogying in the streets, as US citizens can now drive freely to 7-Eleven for a Big Gulp and stay warm in the winter with the oil received in return.

Also, think of it this way: when an American buys a gallon of gas the money is, ultimately, going to an American business such as Apple! All spending of US dollars is spent back into our economy, and all spending of Saudi dollars (actually they call their currency the “dollar” also but it doesn’t look like ours!) benefit the Saudi economy.

Yes, trade is mutually beneficial. I would rather a warm home this winter and forego another Katy Perry song!

Questions for Discussion:

1. Have you ever realized why they call it “trade”? That each country cannot use the other country’s currency so, in essence, there is a simply a trade of only products and services.

2. The US has a large trade deficit with China and Japan. Why is China and Japan holding on to US dollars and not spending it back into the US? Have they thrown the US dollars away?

3. Do you believe that free trade is a win-win always? If not, why not? Why do nations interfere (tariffs, quotas, etc.) with trade if it is so beneficial?

In IB Economics unit 5, Development Economics, several strategies for achieving improvements in the welfare of the world’s poorest people are investigated. Foreign aid has been one of the main focuses of economic development strategies over the last several decades. But is aid in the form of development loans and grants from international organizations and foreign governments always beneficial to those who receive it in the poorest countries (the bottom billion as described by development economist Paul Collier)?

In the discussion that follows, Paul Collier of Oxford and Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argue that the developed world’s focus on aid to Africa, resulting in a trillion dollars in loans and grants over the last 50 years, has missed the mark and completely failed to achieve meaningful economic development. The focus must therefore shift to opening markets, improving governance, achieving security and creating jobs for the poorest people on the African continent. Watch the two videos below, and respond to the discussion questions that follow. [the time in the video where the question is discussed is in brackets]

Part 1:

Part 2:

Discussion Questions:

Part 1:

1. What factors does Paul Collier point to that contribute to the “poverty traps” many African nations find themselves in? [3:07]
2. What have the two main goals of foreign aid policy been over the last 50 years, according to Dambisa Moyo? [4:45]
3. What are the “four horsemen of the African apocalypse?” How does Moyo think these four obstacles to development can best be overcome? [5:14]
4. What is Paul Collier’s opinion of the role of free trade in promoting human and economic development in Africa? What does he think about Africa’s traditional dependence on primary products and commodities? [7:45]
5. Before economic growth and development can occur, security must be achieved. Why is security, according to Collier, the number one obstacle to achieving meaningful development in Africa? [8:30]
6. In a dissenting view, Dr. Jeffery Sachs argues for more aid to Africa. What types of aid does Sachs believe is absolutely crucial for Africa to continue to receive? [10:39]

Part 2:

1. Collier makes the claim that aid may create “moral hazard” in Africa. What is moral hazard and how could reducing aid to African governments actually “force good governance”? [5:30]
2. Is there any historic record of aid working? What strategies accompanied foreign aid that contributed to its greatest historical success? [8:10]
3. What’s the main difference between Europe’s economic successful development during the second half of the 20th century and Africa’s unsuccessful experience during the same period? [9:00]

Econstories.tv – A new resource for Econ teachers and students, from Russ Roberts and John Papola

The long awaited rap video from George Mason University’s Russ Roberts featuring the theories of John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek has been released at last!

We’ve heard some decent Econ raps before (remember “Demand, Supply” by Rhythm, Rhyme, Results?) But this song covers all bases in the predominant macroeconomic schools of thought. Keynes and Hayek are brought back to life and their theories pitted against one another in an all out liquor fueled debate on the streets of New York City.

The video was just released this week. It is packed full of theory from the Classical, supply-side school of macroeconomics (represented by Hayek) and the demand-side school (represented, of course, by Keynes). The video includes cameos from Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose role as bartenders filling Keynes glass reflects their role in the real economy at keeping the money supply and government spending at high levels, fueling economic booms and the eventual busts that result.

Stay tuned to this blog for more feedback on the video, including some graphical analysis and discussion questions for Macro teachers to use in class!

A week after the earthquake, the Haitian people now speak of day zero plus seven.  Day zero was the day when an earthquake rumbled and shook the shallow bay near Port-au-Prince and crumpled the many fragile houses, hospitals, churches and hotels. The quake did not discriminate against the rich and the poor, but in the months and years to come the world needs to ensure that the country gets a fair chance to rebuild.

Some consider the day of the quake, as the day a new nation began. As Economists we can offer insights about the path to improved living standards, through our understanding of what has worked, and not worked, in other countries.

Haiti has a history which is more turbulent than most.  In 1697 when Spain ceded control of Haiti to the French, much of the land was deforested and the ecology wrecked as sugar fields were planted. In 1804 the republic was founded, and later the dominant political figure was Dr. François Duvalier, and his son who reined as Presidents of the country from 1957 – 1972 (François) and his son till 1987. In 1990 the ruling military junta gave up power and President Clinton sent in 20,000 troops to a country ravaged by HIV and entrenched poverty. Hurricanes in 2004 and 2008 displace hundreds of thousands of Haitian’s and ruined existing infrastructure. But the recent earthquake might be the biggest challenge yet for most fragile and poorest nation in the Caribbean. On the Human Development Index, Haiti is classified as one of the least developed nations in the world at 149th of 182 countries (HDI Report, UN 2009).

After the mourning and eventual stabilisation, the government will need explain what the future holds for Haiti. This is a window of unfortunate opportunity that the government will never see again and mustn’t squander. The developed world has made promises of aid to support the reconstruction, but health care and education, skills and employment must be offered to the people to help the nation grow from the depths of this disaster in a sustainable way. From our learning about Development Economics we can explain strategies appropriate to Haiti.

Former President Bill Clinton who is the UN’s Special Envoy to Haiti, offered a good insight on the nations challenge in his excellent essay in last weeks Time Magazine.

Time Magazine – Jan 14 2010 – Bill Clinton: The Haiti Earthquake

We’ve got to all work together toward a common goal (for Haiti). We have to relentlessly focus on trying to build a model that will be sustainable, so we don’t plant a bunch of trees and then revert to deforestation, or adopt a program to bring power to the country that can’t be sustained, or adopt an economic strategy that is going to wither away in two years.

What the economic strategy will be for Haiti will likely be influenced by the trade agreement with USA called the Caribbean Initiative. This has recently provided an impetus for the clothing industry in Haiti. Hanes, which sells T-shirts throughout North America, produces part of their stock in Haiti in the factories, which are now being protected from looting. These labour intensive industries are important in a nation with approximately two-thirds of labour force unable to find work. The quake and eventual rebuild also offer opportunities to build on existing plans as Clinton explains,

Haiti isn’t doomed. Let’s not forget, the damage from the earthquake is largely concentrated in the Port-au-Prince area. That has meant a tragic loss of life, but it also means there are opportunities to rebuild in other parts of the island. So all the development projects, the agriculture, the reforestation, the tourism, the airport that needs to be built in the northern part of Haiti — everything else should stay on schedule. Then we should simply redouble our efforts once the emergency passes to do the right sort of construction in Port-au-Prince and use it to continue to build back better.

It is evident that Haiti can use this opportunity to develop the country as Clinton explains. In addition, there are many other ways that the country could improve the living standards of the Haitian people. These development and growth strategies could include;

• The development of Fair Trade schemes to improve Haiti producer’s access to world markets.
• Facilitating the provision of small loans through Micro Finance schemes
• Developing the export sector by investing in the transportation infrastructure to transport products.
• Exploring new trade agreements with nations.
• Promoting foreign direct investment in Haiti by multinational companies.

Nevertheless the task is daunting for Haiti. As a UN staff member recently explained to a New York Times reporter, the immediate recovery is complex. The future reconstruction and redevelopment will be difficult, and the road long.

“You’re talking about a country that pre-earthquake had limited resources and capability, and what resources it did have were concentrated in the capital,” said Kim Bolduc, who is coordinating the relief effort for the United Nations. “This context helps explain why this emergency is probably the most complex in history, more than the tsunami, more than the Pakistan earthquake” of 2005. Link

Here are some interesting facts about Haiti

• 40% of the population is under 14 years of age.
• The nations main exports are coffee, mango and other agricultural products.
• 66% of all Haitian’s work in the agricultural sector on small subsistence farms.
• Before the quake foreign aid made up a large proportion of national income. In 2004 over $1 billion was pledged by USA, World Bank and Canada and France. Partly in loans but also in direct assistance.
• In 2006 Haiti was ranked as the most corrupt nation in the world by Transparency International, followed by Burma and Iraq.

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/21/world/1-billion-is-pledged-to-help-haiti-rebuild-topping-request.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3522155.stm – Haiti: An economic basket-case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6120522.stm – Transparency International

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html – Haiti – CIA World Factbook

http://www.flickr.com/photos/un_photo/ – UN Photo stream, Creative Commons

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/haiti/index.html – New York Times, Haiti News.

Discussion Questions:

1. In your opinion, what is Haiti’s most valuable resource endowment? Explain.
2. Choose two development or growth strategies and explain how these could be implemented in Haiti.
3. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy.
4. How could corruption be a barrier to the future development of Haiti?
5. What do you think Haiti will be like in 20 years?

Keynes vs. Hayek: Late Economists Hip-Hop Legacy | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 16, 2009 | PBS.

A major theme of both the AP and IB Economics courses is the long-running debate between the Keynesian, demand-side theories of macroeconomic policy and those of the Classical, supply-side school. Today’s “Great Recession” has revived this debate, which itself dates back to the Great Depression of the 1930’s, when an Englishman and an Austrian could be found at the ideological centers of two different philosophies of the role government should play in the macroeconomy.

John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek were close friends whose views on government’s role differed greatly. Hayek was a classical, laissez faire libertarian who believed that any intervention by government in a nation’s economy disrupted the efficient functioning of the free market and threatened to stifle private enterprise. Keynes, the father, of course, of modern Keynesian economics, believed that free markets left unchecked were vulnerable to the volotile animal spirits of investors and speculators whose often irrational behaviors could create externalities such as unemployment and credit crunches, thereby harming society as a whole.

Paul Solman of PBS (who I recently met at an Economics teachers conference in Washington DC) interviews a modern Keynesian, Robert Skidelsky (Keynes’ biographer) and a neo-classical economist, Russ Roberts (who I also recently met in Richmond, VA).

What makes oligopolistic markets, which are characterized by a few large firms, so different from the other market structures we study in Microeconomics? Unlike in more competitive markets in which firms are of much smaller size and one firm’s behavior has little or no effect on its competitors, an oligopolist that decides to lower its prices, change its output, expand into a new market, offer new services, or adverstise, will have powerful and consequential effects on the profitability of its competitors. For this reason, firms in oligopolistic markets are always considering the behavior of their competitors when making their own economic decisions.

To understand the behavior of non-collusive oligopolists (non-collusive meaning a few firms that do NOT cooperate on output and price), economists have employed a mathematical tool called Game Theory. The assumption is that large firms in competition will behave similarly to individual players in a game such as poker. Firms, which are the “players” will make “moves” (referring to economic decisions such as whether or not to advertise, whether to offer discounts or certain services, make particular changes to their products, charge a high or low price, or any other of a number of economic actions) based on the predicted behavior of their competitors.

If a large firm competing with other large firms understands the various “payoffs” (referring to the profits or losses that will result from a particular economic decision made by itself and its competitors) then it will be better able to make a rational, profit-maximizing (or loss minimizing) decision based on the likely actions of its competitors. The outcome of such a situation, or game, can be predicted using payoff matrixes. Below is an illustration of a game between two coffee shops competing in a small town.

In the game above, both SF Coffee and Starbuck have what is called a dominant strategy. Regardless of what its competitor does, both companies would maximize their outcome by advertising. If SF coffee were to not advertise, Starbucks will earn more profits ($20 vs $10) by advertising. If SF coffee were to advertise, Starbucks will earn more profits ($12 vs $10) by advertising. The payoffs are the same given both options for SF Coffee. Since both firms will do best by advertising given the behavior of its competitor, both firms will advertise. Clearly, the total profits earned are less when both firms advertise than if they both did NOT advertise, but such an outcome is unstable because the incentive for both firms would be to advertise. We say that advertise/advertise is a “Nash Equilibrium” since neither firm has an incentive to vary its strategy at this point, since less profits will be earned by the firm that stops advertising.

As illustrated above, the tools of Game Theory, including the “payoff matrix”, can prove helpful to firms deciding how to respond to particular actions by their competitors in oligopolistic markets. Of course, in the real world there are often more than two firms in competition in a particular market, and the decisions that they must make include more than simply to advertise or not. Much more complicated, multi-player games with several possible “moves” have also been developed and used to help make tough economic decisions a little easier in the world of competition.

Game theory as a mathematical tool can be applied in realms beyond oligopoly behavior in Economics.  In each of the videos below, game theory can be applied to predict the behavior of different “players”. None of the videos portray a Microeconomic scenario like the one above, but in each case a payoff matrix can be created and behavior can be predicted based on an analysis of the incentives given the player’s possible behaviors.

Assignment: Watch each of the five videos below. For each one, create a payoff matrix showing the possible “plays” and the possible “payoffs” of the game portrayed in the video. Predict the outcome of each game based on your understanding of incentives and the assumption that humans act rationally and in their own self-interest.

“Batman – the Dark Night” – the Joker’s ferry game: the

“Princess Bride” – where’s the poison?:

“Murder by Numbers” – the interrogation:

“Golden Balls” – split or steal:

“The Trap” – the delicate balance of terror:

Discussion Questions:

1. Why is oligopoly behavior more like a game of poker than the behavior of firms in more competitive markets?
2. What does it mean that firms in oligopolistic markets are “inter-dependent” of one another?
3. Among the videos above, which games ended in the way that your payoff matrix and understanding of human behavior and rational decision making would have predicted?
4. How often did the equilibrium outcomes according to your analysis of the payoff matrices correspond with the socially optimal outcome (i.e. the one where total payoffs for all players are maximized or the total losses minimized)?

Competitively Priced Electricity Costs More, Studies Show – New York Times

The problem with monopolies, as our AP students have learned, is that a monopolistic firm, left to its own accord, will most likely choose to produce at an output level that is much lower and provide their product at a price that is much higher than would result from a purely competitive industry. A monopolist will produce where its price is greater than its marginal cost, indicating an under-allocation of resources towards the product. By restricting output and raising its price, the monopolist is assured maximum profits, but at the cost to society of less overall consumer surplus or welfare.

Unfortunately, in some industries, because of the wide range of output over which economies of scale are experienced, it sometimes makes the most sense for only one firm to participate. Such markets are called “natural monopolies” and some examples are cable television, utilities, natural gas, and other industries that have large economies of scale. (click graph to see full-sized)

Government regulators face a dilemma in dealing with natural monopolistic industries such as the electricity industry. A electricity company with a monopoly in a particular market will base its price and output decision on the profit maximization rule that all unregulated firms will; they’ll produce at the level where their marginal revenue is equal to their marginal cost. The problem is, for a monopolist its marginal revenue is less than the price it has to charge, which means that at the profit maximizing level of output (where MR=MC), marginal cost will be less than price: evidence of allocative inefficiency (i.e. not enough electricity will be produced and the price will be too high for some consumers to afford).

Here arises the need for government regulation. A government concerned with getting the right amount of electricity to the right number of people (allocative efficiency) may choose to set a price ceiling for electricity at the level where the price equals the firm’s marginal cost. This, however, will likely be below the firm’s average total cost (remember, ATC declines over a WIDE RANGE of output), a scenario which would result in losses for the firm, and may lead it to shut down altogether. So what most governments have done in the past is set a price ceiling where the price is equal to the firm’s average total cost, meaning the firm will “break even”, earning only a “normal profit”; essentially just enough to keep the firm in business; this is known as the “fair-return price”.

Below AP Economics teacher Jacob Clifford illustrates and explains this regulatory dilemma. Watch the video and see how he shows the effect of the two price control options on the firm’s output and the price in the market.

The article above examines the differences in the price of electricity in states which regulate their electricity prices and states that have adopted “market” or unregulated pricing, in which firms are free to produce at the MR=MC level:

“The difference in prices charged to industrial companies in market states compared with those in regulated ones nearly tripled from 1999 to last July, according to the analysis of Energy Department data by Marilyn Showalter, who runs Power in the Public Interest, a group that favors traditional rate regulation.

The price spread grew from 1.09 cents per kilowatt-hour to 3.09 cents, her analysis showed. It also showed that in 2006 alone industrial customers paid $7.2 billion more for electricity in market states than if they had paid the average prices in regulated states.”

The idea of deregulation of electricity markets was that removing price ceilings would lead to greater economic profits for the firms, which would subsequently attract new firms into the market. More competitive markets should then drive prices down towards the socially-optimal price, benefiting consumers and producers by forcing them to be more productively efficient in order to compete (remember “Economic Darwinism”?). It appears, however, that higher prices have not, as hoped, led to lower prices:

“Since 1999, prices for industrial customers in deregulated states have risen from 18 percent above the national average to 37 percent above,” said Mrs. Showalter, an energy lawyer and former Washington State utility regulator.

In regulated states, prices fell from 7 percent below the national average to 12 percent below, she calculated…

In market states, electricity customers of all kinds, from homeowners to electricity-hungry aluminum plants, pay $48 billion more each year for power than they would have paid in states with the traditional system of government boards setting electric rates…”

That $48 billion represents higher costs of production for other firms that require large inputs of energy in their own production, higher electricity bills for cash-strapped households, and greater profits and shareholder dividends for the powerful firms that provide the power. On the bright side, higher prices for electricity should lead to more careful and conservative use of power, reducing Americans’ impact on global warming (since the vast majority of the country’s power is generated using fossil fuels).

Here arises another question? Should we be opposed to higher profits for powerful electricity firms if their profits result in much needed energy conservation and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? An environmental economist might argue that if customers are to pay higher prices for their energy, it might as well be in the form of a carbon tax, which rather than increasing profits for a monopolistic firm would generate revenue for the government. In theory tax revenue could be used to subsidize or otherwise promote the development and use of “green energies”.

Whether customers paying higher prices for traditionally under-priced electricity is a good or bad thing depends on your views of conservation. But whether higher profits for a powerful electricity company are more desirable than increased tax revenue for the government are beneficial for society or not seems clear. If we’re paying higher prices, the resulting revenue is more likely to be put towards socially desirable uses if it’s in the government’s hands rather than in the pockets of shareholders of fossil fuel burning electricity monopolies.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do governments regulate the prices in industries such as natural gas and electricity?
2. Why would a state government think that de-regulation of the electricity industry might eventually result in lower prices in the long-run?

Powered by ScribeFire.

Essential Question: How does economic development differ from economic growth?

Objective: Whereas most assignments deal in information and analysis, this one deals in imagination. Here we ask you to portray what you believe more economically developed countries look like. And considering that development is a relative term, we also want to see how a country could end up if it only achieves economic growth, without any progress on development.

Goal: To visualize and depict the distinction between economic development and economic growth.

Process:

As you and your partner gather images online, keep in mind the definitions of growth and development. Images should portray these definitions in a creative way.

YouTube - ACDCLeadership’s Channel

More econ review videos from my new favorite YouTube channel, Jacob Clifford’s Econ Concepts in 60 Seconds.

To review for the upcoming test, you will join a small group and watch one of the four videos on the Perfect Competition. After watching and discussing one video with your group, you will be re-assigned to another group with students who watched a different video. You will then lead a short discussion on your original video with your new group.

With your first group – 15 minutes: As your group watches its assigned video, have your notes open in front of you and draw the graphs Mr. Clifford draws along with him. Pause the video where necessary to have time to draw graphs. Take notes while watching the video so you can teach it to another group. With your group, prepare a short discussion of the video’s main points, including:

• What rule or lesson about Perfect Competition does the video focus on?
• What did you already know that this video reminded you of or reinforced your understanding of?
• What did this video introduce that was new to you?
• How were graphs used to teach the concepts?

With your second group – 20 minutes: For the second part of this assignment, there should be four new groups, each including one member of the four original groups.

• Each group member should lead a 2-3 minute discussion of the video he or she watched in the first group.
• Go over each of the discussion points from above.
• Answer any questions your new group members have about video you watched.

Group 1 - The Profit Maximization Rule – MR=MC:

Group 2 - Perfect Competition in the short-run:

Group 3 - Perfect Competition in the long-run:

Group 4 - The Shut-Down Rule in Perfect Competition:

h

YouTube - Chinas empty city – 10 Nov 09.

My buddy living in Shanghai posted this video to his Facebook profile today. It demonstrates how misaligned incentives in China lead local government officials to launch massive government infrastructure projects, all with the goal of meeting the growth targets handed down from Beijing.

Building roads to nowhere and cities that stand empty certainly creates jobs and new spending by the workers employed in their construction, so in that regard at least one goal of such projects is achieved. But whether or not all growth is good growth depends on whether efficiency in the economy is increase or decreased as a result of the growth strategies used.

Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of resources in China are currently being allocated by the government in Beijing towards massive public works projects such as this sparkling new city in remote Inner Mongolia. But it seems that government plans don’t always fall in line with the wishes of the nation’s people. A wise man once said, “build it… and they will come.” Apparently in China, that’s not always true.

I happen to have traveled in Inner Mongolia a few years ago with a group of students from my school in Shanghai. It was a sad thing in my opinion to witness the rampant development of the once pristine and culturally rich Inner Mongolian steppes. Ethnic Mongolians had been put on large reservations (not unlike the Native American people 150 years ago) and turned into tourist attractions. The cities were populated almost entirely with ethnic Han Chinese, there for the purpose of building more new cities, mining raw materials, and selling them to the rest of China’s industries.

Fiscal policy (the use of government spending and taxes to stimulate or reduce the overall level of demand in an economy) is a powerful tool for achieving the macroeconomic goals of full-employment, economic growth and price level stability. When used effectively, government spending can also improve efficiency in an economy by allocating society’s scarce resources towards socially and economically valuable projects. In China, it appears, the government’s incentives are aimed more towards pleasing the higher ups and continuing to inflate the speculative  bubble in real estate that has almost certainly formed, rather than pursuing socially desirable and allocatively efficient projects that actually help the Chinese people. Damn shame!

Discussion Questions:

1. What type of fiscal policy is the government in China pursuing? Expansionary or contractionary? What is the difference?
2. Why is government spending sometimes less efficient than private sector spending?
3. What would have been an alternative policy to allocating over $220 billion of public money into infrastructure projects that may have resulted in a more efficient allocation of China’s resources than projects such as the “empty city” in the video above?