This blog was started in March of 2007 as a resource for economics students at the Shanghai American School, originally meant to accompany our class wiki. At first, the posts were written specifically for AP and IB Econ students at SAS, but over time readers from all over the world started visiting, reading and commenting on the blog. Other sites linked here, and our numbers steadily increased from rougly 40 visitors per day (mostly students) 12 months ago to an average of 200 visitors per day today. Since June of 2007 the blog has had over 60,000 visitors.

Welker’s Wikinomics Blog has changed in other ways as well. Teachers and students as well as other readers all over the world are reading the blog to learn how economics relates to the events going on around us in the world. Several times per week, a post is written with the purpose of applying basic economic concepts as they affect the world and explaining them in a way within the grasp of anyone seeking a principles level understanding of economics.

Recently, new authors have joined this blog, including Steve Latter from Fairfax, Virginia, who has taught AP Economics for nine years after retiring from his career as a CPA and a chief financial officer. Steve brings much real world experience to a blog that can sometimes be a bit on the academic side. Michelle Close, a fellow SAS economics teacher, continue to write the occasional post and has committed to writing regularly next year. In addition, I have recruited a few additional econ teachers from around the world to sign on as contributing authors, and I look forward to introducing them to our readers when the new school year starts.

Welker’s Wikinomics Blog has also been invited and has since joined the Forbes.com Business and Financial Blog network, an exciting opportunity that has further increased our readership and points to the credibility of what we write about here.

Right now, I am enjoying my second day of summer vacation. Two days ago I woke up in Shanghai and headed to the airport, tonight I sleep in my mountain cabin nestled in the rugged peaks of Northern Idaho. The serenity here seems like a different universe from the chaos from Shanghai. Over the next two months I will post only occasionally to this blog, but post I will… and readers can rest assured that when a new school year begins, and I once again start teaching Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Economics (next year I’ll be teaching at Zurich International School in Switzerland), daily posts will once again return to this blog.

For now I wish to thank readers for visiting this blog, and invite you to become not just readers or visitors, but contributors as well. Comments are always welcome, and if you are an Econ teacher or professor who is interested in becoming an Econ blogger, please send me an email and I’ll see about signing you on as an author. I can be contacted at welkerswikinomics@yahoo.com

Have a great summer. Be sure to return in early August to read more great posts from myself and my fellow authors here at Welker’s Wikinomics Blog.

~Jason

The Sky is Falling! Or is it?
I believe one of the most misunderstood areas of the U.S. economy today is the disdain shown by the average American citizen over the current level of the United States’ national debt which now totals $9.4T. Yes, currently the U.S. Government owes a collective $9.4T to American households, American institutions, and foreigners since the U.S. government has spent in excess of its tax revenue during most years, which, in economic speak is called “deficit spending”.

The shear magnitude of the U.S. national debt ($9.4T), coupled with alarmist comments by the U.S. Congress and the American press lead most Americans to conclude that our country is in a very precarious position and has perhaps grossly mismanaged its financial affairs. Moreover, more Americans are becoming aware that future Federal payouts for social security and Medicare alone, assuming current benefit levels, will rise at a much faster rate than the current tax revenues for those same social programs.

Well, guess what, I am here to tell you the concern is vastly overstated!

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEBT TO A COUNTRY (OR AN INDIVIDUAL)
Contrary to what many Americans believe to be conventional wisdom, debt is actually a beneficial and recommended pursuit, if used correctly, since it enables a nation or an individual to equalize income and expenditures over time, and improve standards of living earlier than what would otherwise be attainable. It is easier to accept this premise on the personal front as millions of Americans have been able to improve their standard of living currently by pulling their future incomes forward via borrowing to purchase homes, cars, and education. Of course, we all know that debt, like a car, can cause damage if it is not used and managed wisely, and that is where many alarmists focus, and even some go so far to say that all debt is bad and should be avoided. Many nations, with Russia being a prime example, have been criticized by noted economists for not utilizing enough national debt to improve their economy and their citizens’ standards of living. Thus, hopefully, with a conclusion that debt can actually be a ”good thing”, if used for productive purposes, one can then proceed to the next section as to what are acceptable levels of national debt.

$9.4T: AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF NATIONAL DEBT?
The United States’ current level of national debt is both affordable and consistent with most all other nations. National accounting statistics show clearly that the U.S.’s 67% national debt/GDP percentage is roughly average compared with other modern economies, about right smack in the middle. Moreover, the level of U.S. national debt as a percentage of GDP (67%) is at the same ratio as it was back in 1997 and 1992, and is much less than it was in 1950! The ‘”trick” is that debt must be benchmarked to the size of a nation’s economy or income. I find it interesting that if I tell someone that Bill Gates owes someone $10M they quickly deduce that he’s probably fine, but if I tell the guy at Starbucks that the U.S. owes $9.4T they think the country is screwed up!

 One additional benchmark is to compare the annual interest paid on the U.S. national debt ($0.4T) relative to current U.S. federal tax revenue ($2.8T) to the percentage of household interest paid as a percentage of household disposable income. Both benchmarks are currently at a 14% ratio indicating that Uncle Sam’s (U.S.) debt load is actually very consistent with Uncle John’s (households).

Much has also been made of the fact that $2.4T of the U.S. national debt, or 26%, is owed to foreigners. Big deal! It sounds scary on the surface, but once you understand it is pretty harmless. Let me explain. Foreign debt is nothing more than saved U.S. dollars which will eventually be spent back into our economy. Foreigners have temporarily not purchased our products (foreigners have U.S. dollars because we bought their products!) and have temporarily lent their dollars to the U.S. Government to finance the U.S. Government’s deficit spending. Debt held by foreigners is “dollar savings” just like debt held by American citizens is “dollar savings”, so, in other words, it is really not that important whether the debt is held by foreigners or US citizens since eventually those dollars will be spent back into the U.S. economy since they can’t be spent in another economy! By the way, the U.S. national debt owed to China is only 5% of the total debt but the newspapers make it seem like 50%.  

SO IT MIGHT BE AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF U.S. NATIONAL DEBT NOW, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FUTURE?
Many have argued that the U.S. aging population coupled with the flood of “baby boomers” moving into their retirement years will cause social security and Medicare alone to “shoot through the roof” and cause the U.S. national debt to reach unacceptable and unmanageable levels, potentially, some say, even bankrupting the U.S. Government. Many use extrapolations of future social security and Medicare payments out into varying distant futures based on the number of retiring baby boomers and increasing life spans concluding that there are trillions of unfunded government obligations ($10T, $25T, $80T, etc.) which are insurmountable. The problem with most all of these analyses are that they fail to address how simple and relatively small adjustments make these problems disappear. For example, on social security, an increase in the social security tax rate from its current rate of 12.4% (6.2% for employees matched by employer) to 15.9% is deemed by one source to fully fund social security at today’s benefit structure out into perpetuity (i.e., forever). Similar analyses are out there for other actions such as updating social security retirement ages to be more consistent with longer life spans. Now granted, few would be happy with a 28% increase in their social security taxes paid or later retirement ages, but what will likely happen will be a combination of different types of changes including reduced benefits, higher taxes, later retirement ages, and reallocations of the overall federal budget.

CONCLUSION
Today’s current level of U.S. national debt is within our government’s means, is an “average” level of national debt compared to other modern economies, and has been an instrumental and, thus far, a necessary part of our country’s economic success. One should never be concerned with the increase in the nominal or absolute amount of the national debt, but rather it should be measured in relation to the corresponding growth in our nation’s economy, usually nominal GDP.

The U.S. economy has some sizable challenges ahead in terms of keeping our increasing national debt in line with increases in our economic growth. Most notably, our demographic trends of fewer births and increased retirees with longer life spans will put additional strains on our country’s debt/income relationship.

One needs to be aware of the increasing number of doomsayers and alarmists who quote projections that are too one-sided and do not paint a fair picture of our challenges ahead. Within the next several years, relatively small changes involving increasing tax rates, lowering government spending, redefining retirement & health benefits, and delaying eligibility of benefits to coincide better with increasing life spans will be necessary to position America into the future.

• Paul Krugman – Bits, Bands and Books – Op-Ed – NYTimes.com

  In the future, will everything be free? Well, maybe not everything, but lots more will. Krugman explains why:
  “…the ease with which digital content can be copied and disseminated would eventually force businesses to sell the results of creative activity cheaply, or even give it away. Whatever the product — software, books, music, movies — the cost of creation would have to be recouped indirectly: businesses would have to “distribute intellectual property free in order to sell services and relationships.”

  tags: economics

• Obama or McCain – who’s better for Housing Market | Wexzilla – Phoenix | Scottsdale Real Estate

  Blogger James Wexler summarizes McCain and Obama’s strategies for dealing with America’s housing crisis:

  “Sen. Obama has suggested $10billion in government funding to help homeowners sell their homes of modify their loans to avoid bankruptcy or Foreclosure.

  Sen. McCain feels like this is a bailout. He feels struggling homeowner and borrowers should share the responsibility and if helped should share equity (if there is a gain) with the lender and Federal Government.

  Obama wants the government to lend money to struggling home owners. Money which usually comes in the form of higher taxes

  McCain has pledged to eliminate (AMT ) taxes. A break that many Americans want (and need). However AMT tax cut with other extended tax cuts leaves less money for such help to home owners. Unless, other government programs are sacrificed. A move, most do not want.”

  tags: economics, housing prices, recession, fiscal policy

• What is Driving the High Oil Prices?

  “High oil prices are here to stay due to heightened political risks, irresponsible behavior by oil-producing governments and growing global demand outside U.S. control. Oil is a finite resource which is produced by a partially cartelized imperfect market. Consumer countries should expand cooperation in order to level the playing field and reduce prices by increasing investment and production, promoting conservation, and diminishing geopolitical risks. Yet, in the long term, high demand, inadequate supply and severe geopolitical risks combine to make oil a problematic transportation fuel.”

  tags: economics, oil prices, scarcity, resources

U.S. food stamp use up sharply, sign of hard times (Reuters) by Charles Abbott

• FT.com / World – Emerging-market cities climb world rankings

  Shanghai ranked one of the best cities in the world for global commerce:

  “Shanghai jumped into the top 25 in this year’s index, joining seven other Asian cities in this group with an eight-position jump that was the most of any city in the index. Among the world’s most populous and fastest-growing cities, Shanghai’s position in the index was bolstered by its economic stability, its legal and political framework, an increased quality of life and China’s booming economy.”

  tags: economics, china

• Why the oil boom will eventually bust – Jun. 6, 2008

  Are high oil prices here to stay? This article suggests they’re not. New supplies will come online at the same time that consumers start to conserve and switch towards alternative energies.

  “The longer prices stay stratospheric, the worse the eventual crash – simply because the higher the prices and bigger the profit margins, the bigger the incentive to over-produce.

  It’s even possible that, a few years hence, we could see a sustained period of plentiful oil supplies and low prices, meaning $50 or below.”

  tags: economics, oil prices

The Employment Law Blog by John Phillips

I receive an alert every time another website links to my blog. When I received one this morning telling me that John Phillips at the Employment Law Blog linked here, I checked out his post and saw that he had done a post sharing with readers some of his favorite blogs. I just love the description he gives of this blog, which, when I think about it, is quite accurate and telling:

Another site to check out if you want a take on politics and the economy is www.welkerswikinomics.com/blog, particularly if you want to mix depression with hope and have it all made somewhat understandable.

Thanks for the plug, John. I’m glad to hear that I am making economics at least somewhat understandable!

Check out John’s Law blog for an interesting take on how legal issues affect the workplace.

At $4, Everybody Gets Rational – Washingtonpost.com

Here is another excellent gas price article containing accurate economic principles.

Yes, the non-economist (ie, average citizen) doesn’t get it on how higher gas prices will ultimately lead a nation’s economy to conservation, energy independence and efficiency in the long run.

Hey, I’ll be honest: I don’t like higher gas prices any more than I do going to the dentist, but I am glad they are rising as I see and read about SUV purchases falling off a cliff, driving habits changing right before my very eyes, and the quantity demanded for gasoline falling fast.

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Friday, June 06, 2008

So now we know: The price point is $4.

At $3 a gallon, Americans just grin and bear it, suck it up, and, while complaining profusely, keep driving like crazy.

At $4, it is a world transformed. Americans become rational creatures. Mass transit ridership is at a 50-year high. Driving is down 4%. (Any U.S. decline is something close to a miracle.) Hybrids and compacts are flying off the lots. SUV sales are in free fall.

The wholesale flight from gas guzzlers is stunning in its swiftness, but utterly predictable. Everything has a price point. Remember that “love affair” with SUVs? Love, it seems, has its price too.

America’s sudden change in car-buying habits makes suitable mockery of that absurd debate Congress put on last December on fuel efficiency standards. At stake was precisely what miles-per-gallon average would every car company’s fleet have to meet by precisely what date.

It was one out-of-a-hat number (35 mpg) compounded by another (by 2020). It involved, as always, dozens of regulations, loopholes and throws at a dartboard. And we already knew from past history what the fleet average number does.

When oil is cheap and everybody wants a gas guzzler, fuel efficiency standards force manufacturers to make cars that nobody wants to buy. When gas prices go through the roof, this agent of inefficiency becomes an utter redundancy.

At $4 a gallon, the fleet composition is changing spontaneously and overnight, not over the 13 years mandated by Congress. (Even Stalin had the modesty to restrict himself to five-year plans.)

Just Tuesday, GM announced that it would shutter four SUV and truck plants, add a third shift to its compact and midsize sedan plants in Ohio and Michigan, and green-light for 2010 the Chevy Volt, an electric hybrid.

Some things, like renal physiology, are difficult. Some things, like Arab-Israeli peace, are impossible. And some things are preternaturally simple. You want more fuel-efficient cars? Don’t regulate. Don’t mandate. Don’t scold. Don’t appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do one thing:

Hike the cost of gas until you find the price point.

Unfortunately, instead of hiking the price ourselves by means of a gasoline tax that could be instantly refunded to the American people in the form of lower payroll taxes, we let the Saudis, Venezuelans, Russians and Iranians do the taxing for us — and pocket the money that the tax would have recycled back to the American worker.

This is insanity. For 25 years and with utter futility (starting with “The Oil-Bust Panic,” the New Republic, February 1983), I have been advocating the cure: a U.S. energy tax as a way to curtail consumption and keep the money at home.

In May 2004 (and again in November 2005), I called for “the government — through a tax — to establish a new floor for gasoline,” by fully taxing any drop in price below a certain benchmark.

The point was to suppress demand and to keep the savings (from any subsequent world price drop) at home in the U.S. Treasury rather than going abroad. At the time, oil was $41 a barrel. It is now $123.

But instead of doing the obvious — tax the damn thing — we go through spasms of destructive alternatives, such as efficiency standards, ethanol mandates and now a crazy carbon cap-and-trade system the Senate debated last week. These are infinitely complex mandates for inefficiency and invitations to corruption. But they have a singular virtue: They hide the cost to the American consumer.

Want to wean us off oil? Be open and honest. The British are paying $8 a gallon for petrol. Goldman Sachs is predicting we will be paying $6 by next year. Why have the extra $2 (above the current $4) go abroad? Have it go to the U.S. Treasury as a gasoline tax and be recycled back into lower payroll taxes.

Announce a schedule of gas tax hikes of 50 cents every six months for the next two years. And put a tax floor under $4 gasoline, so that as high gas prices transform the U.S. auto fleet, change driving habits and thus hugely reduce U.S. demand — and bring down world crude oil prices — the American consumer and the American economy reap all of the benefit.

Herewith concludes my annual exercise in futility. By the time I advocate the tax floor again next year, you’ll be paying for gas in bullion.

FT.com / Weekend columnists / Tim Harford – Why a tax cut just isn’t fair on teenagers

Tim Harford, aka The Undercover Economist, loves to expose the overlooked effects of governments’ economic policies. For example, both the United States and the UK have recently announced tax cut and rebate plans aimed at putting hundreds of dollars back into the hands of taxpayers, with the hope that households will spend their “free money” from the government, giving the national economies a much needed boost in a time of economic slowdown.

Expansionary fiscal policy, as such a tax cut is known, is a popular tool in times of macroeconomic slowdowns. The hope, of course, is that taxpayers who experience sudden fiscal relief will rejoice upon their newfound disposable income, spending it on goods and services, creating new income for various sectors of the economy, which in turn will be spent on more goods and services. In economics, we call this the “multiplier effect”, the idea being that a certain tax cut (say $150 billion), will ultimately create some multiple of that amount in new spending and income throughout the economy as a whole.

In reality, however, house holds do not spend 100% of a tax rebate or tax cut like those recently passed in the US and the UK. When disposable income increases, household will spend a certain proportion and save or pay off past debts with the rest. The proportion of new income spent is determined by an individual’s marginal propensity to consume, and the proportion saved is based on his or her marginal propensity to save. The greater proportion of additional income that is spent, the larger the multiplier effect in the economy as a whole, and the greater impact expansionary fiscal policy will have towards achieving growth in the economy.

Policy makers, therefore, prefer households spend, rather than save, new income from a tax cut or rebate. According to the Undercover Economist, however, saving a tax rebate is precisely what smart households will do. Why? Because of the basic economic truth learned in the first week of most principles of economics courses: There’s no such thing as a free lunch! Tim Harford explains:

…since neither the UK nor US governments plans to alter its spending plans, these tax holidays will be funded by government borrowing – borrowing that must eventually be repaid. That will require taxes to go up in the future, or not to fall when they otherwise might.

Who should celebrate? Not the typical taxpayer, that is for sure. The tax cut makes no difference to her. If she – assume she is British – had wanted an extra £120 right now, she could already have it in her pocket, either by withdrawing it from savings or by borrowing the money. If she did that, of course, she would later have to repay £120 plus interest. But that is exactly what Darling’s successor as chancellor will require of her. To look at it another way, the rational taxpayer should save the £120 windfall now, keeping it to pay the higher taxes that are surely on the horizon.

A tax rebate financed through government borrowing does not make American or British households any better off. Imagine a scenario where your buddy is experiencing some financial difficulties (maybe he’s lost his job, maybe he’s experienced an expensive injury and has no health insurance…), so you decide you’ll help him out by throwing some cash his way. The catch is, you’re already in debt and have spent more in the last couple of years than your actual income should have allowed. So, in order to help your buddy out, you actually need to borrow money from him. So you give him an IOU, he scrounges up the little cash he can find, gives it to you for the IOU, and you turn around and give it back to him to “help him out.” You can imagine, your buddy is not very thankful and certainly doesn’t feel any richer.

On the macro level, the cash mailed out to American households as part of the recent stimulus package came from new borrowing by the government from American households. All those IOUs issued to finance the stimulus must be paid back, and must be done so through future tax increases. The government has chosen to forgo future spending in order to stimulate current spending. Not everyone should dismay, however, as a certain lucky group will clearly benefit from today’s debt-financed fiscal stimulus packages:

…some people should count themselves wealthier after the tax cut. Anyone expecting to die without making a bequest should be pleased: if the Grim Reaper knocks on the door before the taxman does, he can spend the tax rebate now and leave the bill for some other sucker.

Who will be the fall guy? We don’t know for sure, because we can’t say who a future government will tax. But an obvious candidate would be today’s teenagers, very few of whom are paying income tax right now, but most of whom will pay it in the next few years. Their best hope is that their grandparents add the tax windfall to their bequests rather than blowing the money on a weekend in the sun.

A tax cut today almost certainly implies a tax increase tomorrow. Since teenagers enjoy almost none of the tax cuts today, but will bear the future increases required to pay back new debt, it is you, my students, who should be most opposed to the shortsighted policies being undertaken by US and UK policy-makers.

• Fitch: China’s economy to weather through quake – People’s Daily Online

  “The international rating agency, Fitch, believes that neither this year’s heavy snow nor strong earthquake will have much of a negative impact on China’s economy…”

  tags: economics, China, earthquake, economy

• Bernanke: Gloomy on growth – Jun. 3, 2008

  “[H]ouseholds continue to face significant headwinds, including falling house prices, a softer job market, tighter credit, and higher energy prices, and consumer sentiment has declined sharply since the fall,” said Bernanke, addressing the International Monetary Conference in Barcelona via satellite.

  At the same time, Bernanke said that some of the more troubled aspects of the economy are starting to show signs of stability. He said the battered financial markets had “improved of late but conditions remained strained.” He also said the pressures on the U.S. economy are being softened somewhat by foreign demand for U.S. goods and services.

  “We may see somewhat better economic conditions during the second half of 2008, reflecting the effects of monetary and fiscal stimulus,” he said.

  tags: economics, recession, monetary policy

Eight reasons you’ll rejoice when we hit $8-a-gallon gasoline – MarketWatch – by Chris Plummer

I selected this article because I really believe in it. It wasn’t until I became a fan of studying economics that I began to believe that rising gas prices are in the LONG TERM ECONOMIC INTEREST of the US economy as these higher prices will incent consumers and businesses to move towards alternate forms of fuels.

I am also no longer in support of US offshore drilling, not because I am an environmentalist, but an economist that understands that it will be necessary to take higher, painful increases in petroleum to incent businesses and consumers to pursue alternative energy and more efficient transportation solutions. Voluntary conservation or asking oil companies to pursue alternative fuel development is nice in concept, but poor in results.

I now root for “steadily climbing oils prices” to provide greater incentive to move faster to more efficient forms of transportation and spawn alternative energy solutions. It’s a little like going to the dentist: it’s not fun, but it is necessary and will leave us in better condition when its over.

For one of the nastiest substances on earth, crude oil has an amazing grip on the globe. We all know the stuff’s poison, yet we’re as dependent on it as our air and water supplies — which, of course, is what oil is poisoning.

Shouldn’t we be technologically advanced enough here in the 21st Century to quit siphoning off the pus of the Earth? Regardless whether you believe global warming is threatening the planet’s future, you must admit crude is passé.

Americans should be celebrating rather than shuddering over the arrival of $4-a-gallon gasoline. We lived on cheap gas too long, failed to innovate and now face the consequences of competing for a finite resource amid fast-expanding global demand.

A further price rise as in Europe to $8 a gallon — or $200 and more to fill a large SUV’s tank — would be a catalyst for economic, political and social change of profound national and global impact. We could face an economic squeeze, but it would be the pain before the gain.

The U.S. economy absorbed a tripling in gas prices in the last six years without falling into recession, at least through March. Ravenous demand from China and India could see prices further double in the next few years — and jumpstart the overdue process of weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.
Consider the world of good that would come of pricing crude oil and gasoline at levels that would strain our finances as much as they’re straining international relations and the planet’s long-term health:

1. RIP for the internal-combustion engine

They may contain computer chips, but the power source for today’s cars is little different than that which drove the first Model T 100 years ago. That we’re still harnessed to this antiquated technology is testament to Big Oil’s influence in Washington and success in squelching advances in fuel efficiency and alternative energy.

Given our achievement in getting a giant mainframe’s computing power into a handheld device in just a few decades, we should be able to do likewise with these dirty, little rolling power plants that served us well but are overdue for the scrap heap of history.

2. Economic stimulus

Necessity being the mother of invention, $8 gas would trigger all manner of investment sure to lead to groundbreaking advances. Job creation wouldn’t be limited to research labs; it would rapidly spill over into lucrative manufacturing jobs that could help restore America’s industrial base and make us a world leader in a critical realm.

The most groundbreaking discoveries might still be 25 or more years off, but we won’t see massive public and corporate funding of research initiatives until escalating oil costs threaten our national security and global stability — a time that’s fast approaching.

3. Wither the Middle East’s clout

This region that’s contributed little to modern civilization exercises inordinate sway over the world because of its one significant contribution — crude extraction. Aside from ensuring Israel’s security, the U.S. would have virtually no strategic or business interest in this volatile, desolate region were it not for oil — and its radical element wouldn’t be able to demonize us as the exploiters of its people.

In the near term, breaking our dependence on Middle Eastern oil may well require the acceptance of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness — with the understanding that costly environmental protections could easily be built into the price of $8 gas.

4. Deflating oil potentates

On a similar note, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently gained a platform on the world stage because of their nations’ sudden oil wealth. Without it, they would face the difficult task of building fair and just economies and societies on some other basis.
How far would their message resonate — and how long would they even stay in power — if they were unable to buy off the temporary allegiance of their people with vast oil revenues?

5. Mass-transit development

Anyone accustomed to taking mass transit to work knows the joy of a car-free commute. Yet there have been few major additions or improvements to our mass-transit systems in the last 30 years because cheap gas kept us in our cars.

Confronted with $8 gas, millions of Americans would board buses, trains, ferries and bicycles and minimize the pollution, congestion and anxiety spawned by rush-hour traffic jams. More convenient routes and scheduling would accomplish that.

6. An antidote to sprawl

The recent housing boom sparked further development of antiseptic, strip-mall communities in distant outlying areas. Making 100-mile-plus roundtrip commutes costlier will spur construction of more space-efficient housing closer to city centers, including cluster developments to accommodate the millions of baby boomers who will no longer need their big empty-nest suburban homes.

Sure, there’s plenty of land left to develop across our fruited plains, but building more housing around city and town centers will enhance the sense of community lacking in cookie-cutter developments slapped up in the hinterlands.

7. Restoration of financial discipline

Far too many Americans live beyond their means and nowhere is that more apparent than with our car payments. Enabled by eager lenders, many middle-income families carry two monthly payments of $400 or more on $20,000-plus vehicles that consume upwards of $15,000 of their annual take-home pay factoring in insurance, maintenance and gas.

The sting of forking over $100 per fill-up would force all of us to look hard at how much of our precious income we blow on a transport vehicle that sits idle most of the time, and spur demand for the less-costly and more fuel-efficient small sedans and hatchbacks that Europeans have been driving for decades.

8. Easing global tensions

Unfortunately, we human beings aren’t so far evolved that we won’t resort to annihilating each other over energy resources. The existence of weapons of mass destruction aside, the present Iraq War could be the first of many sparked by competition for oil supplies.

Steep prices will not only chill demand in the U.S., they will more importantly slow China and India’s headlong rush to make the same mistakes we did in rapidly industrializing — like selling $2,500 Tata cars to countless millions of Indians with little concern for the environmental consequences. If we succeed in developing viable energy alternatives, they could be a key export in helping us improve our balance of trade with consumer-goods producers.

Additional considerations

Weaning ourselves off crude will hopefully be the crowning achievement that marks the progress of humankind in the 21st Century. With it may come development of oil-free products to replace the chemicals, pharmaceuticals, plastics, fertilizers and pesticides that now consume 16% of the world’s crude-oil output and are likely culprits in fast-rising cancer rates.

By its very definition, oil is crude. It’s time we develop more refined energy sources and that will not happen without a cost-driven shift in demand.

Update: Once again I have updated this post with a few minor changes. Notably, I have added to graphs illustrating a separate shift in supply and demand for loanable funds. Based on discussions with readers via email, it appears that my previous graph illustrating in one diagram the shifts of both supply and demand was confusing and could be considered double counting the effect of an increase in deficit spending. Thanks again to Professor Chuck Orvis for his valuable input.

*Click on a graph to see the full-sized version

Two markets for money, right? Yes… so do they show the same thing? NO! You must know the distinction between these two markets. First let’s talk about the Money Market diagram.

This market refers to the Money Supply (M1 and M2). The Money Supply curve is vertical because it is determined by the Fed’s (or central bank’s) particular monetary policy. On the X axis is the Quantity of money supplied and demanded, and on the Y axis is the nominal interest rate. A tight monetary policy (selling of bonds by the Fed) will shift Money Supply in, raising the federal funds rate, and subsequently the interest rates commercial banks charge their best customers (prime interest rate). On the other hand, an easy money policy (buying of bonds by the Fed) shifts Sm out, lowering the Federal Funds rate and thus the prime interest rate.

You should also know why a tight money policy is considered contractionary and why an easy money policy is considered expansionary monetary policy. Higher nominal interest rates resulting from tight money policy will discourage investment and consumption, contracting aggregate demand. On the other hand, an easy money policy will encourage more investment and consumption as nominal rates fall, expanding aggregate demand.

Government deficit spending and the money market: Does an increase in government spending without a corresponding increase in taxes affect the money market? You may be inclined to say yes, since the Treasury must issue new bonds to finance deficit spending. After all, when the Fed sells bonds, money is taken out of circulation and held by the Fed, thus it’s no longer part of the money supply.

When the Treasury issues and sells new bonds, however, the money the public uses to buy the bonds is put back into circulation as the government spending is increased. Therefore, any leftward shift of the money supply curve caused by the buying of bonds by the public is offset by the injection of cash in the economy initiated the government’s fiscal stimulus package takes effect (be it a tax rebate or an increase in spending). Therefore, money supply should remain stable when the government deficit spends.

Now to the loanable funds market. Loanable funds represents the money in commercial banks and lending institutions that is available to lend out to firms and households to finance expenditures (investment or consumption). The Y-axis represents the real interest rate; the loanable funds market therefore recognizes the relationships between real returns on savings and real price of borrowing with the public’s willingness to save and borrow.

Since an increase in the real interest rate makes households and firms want to place more money in the bank (and more money in the bank means more money to loan out), there is a direct relationship between real interest rate and Supply of Loanable Funds. On the other hand, since at lower real interest rates households and firms will be less inclined to save and more inclined to borrow and spend, the Demand for loanable funds reflects an inverse relationship. At higher interest rates, households prefer to delay their spending and put their money in savings, since the opportunity cost of spending now rises with the real interest rate.

Government deficit spending and the loanable funds market: We learned above that only the Fed can shift the money supply curve, but what factors can affect the Supply and Demand curves for loanable funds? Here’s a few key points to know about the loanable funds market.

• When the government deficit spends (G>tax revenue), it must borrow from the public by issuing bonds.
• The Treasury issues new bonds, which shifts the supply of bonds out, lowering their prices and raising the interest rates on bonds.
• In response to higher interest rates on bonds, investors will transfer their money out of banks and other lending institutions and into the bond market. Banks will also lend out fewer of their excess reserves, and put some of those reserves into the bond market as well, where it is secure and now earns relatively higher interest.
• As households, firms and banks buy the newly issued Treasury securities (which represents the public’s lending to the government), the supply of private funds available for lending to households and firms shifts in. With fewer funds for private lending banks must raise their interest rates, leading to a movement along the demand curve for loanable funds.
• This causes crowding out of private investment.

Another, simpler way to understand the effect of government deficit spending on real interest rates is to look at it from the demand side.

• Deficit spending by the government requires the government to borrow from the public, increasing the demand for loanable funds. In essence, the government becomes a borrower in the country’s financial sector, demanding new funds for investment, driving up real interest rates.
• Increased demand from the government pushes interest rates up, causing banks to supply a greater quanity of funds for lending. The private, however, now has fewer funds available to borrow as the government soaks up some of the funds that previously would have gone to private borrowers.
• This leads to the crowding out of private investment, in which private borrowers face higher real interest rates due to increased deficit spending by the government.

What could shift the supply of loanable funds to the right? Easy, anything that increases savings by households and firms, known as the determinants of consumption and saving. These include increases in wealth, expectations of future income and price levels, and lower taxes. If savings increases, supply of loanable funds shifts outward, increasing the reserves in banks, lowering real interest rates, encouraging firms to undertake new investments. This is why many economists say that “savings is investment”. What they mean is increased increased savings leads to an increase in the supply of loanable funds, which leads to lower interest rates and increased investment.

On the other hand, an increase in demand for investment funds by firms will shift demand for loanable funds out, driving up real interest rates. The determinants of investment include business taxes, technological change, expectations of future business opportunities, and so on (follow link to our wiki page on Investment).

It is important to be able to distinguish between the money market and the market for loanable funds, as both the AP and IB syllabi xpect students to understand and explain the difference between these concepts.

• PintPrice.com – the price of beer anywhere in the world

  The price of beer in 200 countries.

  Pint Price is a database of World Beer Prices. Use this site to find the best watering nation. Pint Price has also been described as an important economic iindicator…

  tags: economics, PPP

pintprice.com – the price of beer anywhere in the world

The theory of purchasing power parity (or PPP) holds that in the long run, the price of a particular basket of goods should adjust across countries and currencies to “cost” the same amount regardless of the currency the goods are denominated in. In other words, one dollar should buy the same amount of “stuff” in the US as it does in Mexico, China, the Netherlands or anywhere else in the world. If a dollar buys MORE in one of these countries once it’s been converted to the local currency, it implies that the local currency is undervalued and should adjust in the long run to achieve parity in the amount it can purchase in dollar terms.

One popular measure of purchasing power parity, devised by the folks at the Economist magazine’s intelligence unit, is the Big Mac Index, which measures the price of McDonald’s Big Macs in over 100 countries where they can be purchased. You can read more about this index here.

The Economist magazine recently reported on an new alternative to its own PPP index, “the Price of a Pint”:

Barflies around the world provide a useful service for their beer-drinking comrades at PintPrice.com. The prices of pints of lager are compared on the basis of anecdotal evidence from beer-drinkers around the world, so figures are regularly updated. There are some surprising results. Beer in Zambia and Burundi seems eye-wateringly expensive considering that they are among the world’s poorest countries. The French overseas départments of Guadeloupe and Martinique charge just about as much as in mainland France. Beer-loving America and Britain fall somewhere in the middle. Happily for sports fans at the Beijing Olympics, a pint in China is just $2.46.

I thought it might be useful to some of our graduating seniors planning their summer vacations or gap years. Pay close attention to the data in this table.

(source: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11333131)

So, if cheap beer is a priority in your vacation decision, it looks like North Korea and Myanmar are ideal destinations. I must say, I am relieved to see that Switzerland, my own new home, is not in the top ten… but it is far from cheap.

The website will tell you the average price of a pint of beer in any country in the world, and then break it down to cities within each country. In Zurich, my soon to be home, a pint costs the equivalent of $6.57 US. Compared to my hometown of Seattle, Washington, where a pint goes for $3.25, that’s exactly double the price! Surprisingly, however, a pint of beer here in Shanghai goes for a shocking $5.15, more than double the Chinese average of $2.35.

Apparently, the price of beer has more to do with the local supply and demand than with relative exchange rates. Where the Big Mac Index offers a rather genuine approach to determining purchasing power parity (since the Big Mac is an identical product sold by the same restaurant facing similar costs in over 100 countries), a pint of beer is a bit more subjective a measure of PPP. Quality of beers clearly differ in locales as diverse as North Korea and Luxembourg, not to mention the incomes of beer drinkers, the number of domestic brewers, excise and value added taxes, consumers’ price elasticities of demand, and so on.

As summer vacation approaches, however, vacation planners may care to take into account the “Price of a Pint” index of purchasing power parity. Clearly, one’s dollars will go much further at bars in some places than others.

I know what you 18 year old American high school grads are thinking, “Mexico or Canada?” You’ll just have to follow the link to find out!

(Disclaimer: Mr. Welker is in no way encouraging his former students to travel to certain places based solely on the cheap price of beer there, merely to avoid places where beer is clearly out of their price range!)