As we study economic development in year 2 IB Economics, we examine different models for economic growth. Growth in GDP is not the only determinant of economic development, which in order to be measured effectively must account for human welfare determinants such as life expectancy, literacy rates, child mortality rates, distribution of income, and so on. However, it has been shown throughout history that economic growth, or the increase in real output and income, correlates directly with improvements in development factors like those above.

The reason? Increases in national income usually mean at least some levels of improvement in access to basic necessities for the average citizen in a developing country. Also, higher incomes mean more savings, which means greater access to capital for investment by entrepreneurs. More investment leads to greater productivity and rising incomes for those who join the emerging industrial and service sectors that usually accompany economic growth. Furthermore, rising incomes mean more tax revenue for governments, whose spending on public goods like education, health care, and infrastructure result in real improvements in standard of living for not just the emerging upper and middle classes, but the poor as well.

Of course, the following models can be observed to varying degrees among the world’s developing economies today. Some of these models will fail to play out if the institutional and political environment fails to create a stable atmosphere for savings and investment. What you should notice, however, is the underlying importance of savings in all three models. Poor countries suffering from low savings and, even worse, capital flight, are doomed to a cycle of poverty, where funds for investment leading to productivity increases are never made available due to instable institutions like banking and politics. To put a poor country on a path towards economic growth and development, a strategy is needed. Such strategies will be covered in a later post. For now, let’s look at the models:

Harrod-Domar Growth Model:

The model suggests that the economy’s rate of growth depends on:

1. the level of saving
2. the productivity of investment i.e. the capital output ratio

The Harrod-Domar model was developed to help analyse the business cycle. However, it was later adapted to ‘explain’ economic growth. It concluded that:

• Economic growth depends on the amount of labour and capital.
• As LDCs often have an abundant supply of labour it is a lack of physical capital that holds back economic growth and development.
• More physical capital generates economic growth.
• Net investment leads to more capital accumulation, which generates higher output and income.
• Higher income allows higher levels of saving.

Lewis Structural Change (dual-sector) Model:

Many LDCs have dual economies:

• The traditional agricultural sector was assumed to be of a subsistence nature characterised by low productivity, low incomes, low savings and considerable underemployment.
• The industrial sector was assumed to be technologically advanced with high levels of investment operating in an urban environment.

Lewis suggested that the modern industrial sector would attract workers from the rural areas.

• Industrial firms, whether private or publicly owned could offer wages that would guarantee a higher quality of life than remaining in the rural areas could provide.
• Furthermore, as the level of labour productivity was so low in traditional agricultural areas people leaving the rural areas would have virtually no impact on output.
• Indeed, the amount of food available to the remaining villagers would increase as the same amount of food could be shared amongst fewer people. This might generate a surplus which could them be sold generating income.

Those people that moved away from the villages to the towns would earn increased incomes:

• Higher incomes generate more savings.
• Increased savings meant more fund available for investment.
• Increased investment meant more capital and increased productivity in the industrial sector, higher wages, more incentive to move from low productivity agriculture to high productivity industry, the circle continues…

Rostow’s Model – the 5 Stages of Economic Development:

In 1960, the American Economic Historian, WW Rostow suggested that countries passed through five stages of economic development.

According to Rostow development requires substantial investment in capital. For the economies of LDCs to grow the right conditions for such investment would have to be created. If aid is given or foreign direct investment occurs at stage 3 the economy needs to have reached stage 2. If the stage 2 has been reached then injections of investment may lead to rapid growth.

Related posts:

1. Does economic growth = economic development? Not for China’s rural poor…
2. Lesson Plan: Sources of Economic Growth and Development
3. “Fair Trade” coffee and economic development

The prevalence of income inequality in free market economies indicates that inequality may be the result of a market failure. Those who are born rich are more likely to become rich, while individuals who are born poor are more likely to live a life of relative poverty. In a “free” market, it is believed, all individuals possess an equal opportunity to succeed, but due to a mis-allocation of resources in a purely market economy, this may not always be the case.

The resources I refer to here are those required for an individual to escape poverty and earn a higher income. These include public and merit goods that those with high incomes can afford to consume, while those in poverty depend on the provision of from the state, including:

• Good education
• Dependable health care
• Access to professional networks and the employment opportunities they provide

Whenever a market failure exists, it can be argued that there is a role for government in regulating the market to achieve a more optimal distribution of resources. When it comes to income inequality, government intervention typically comes in the form of a tax system that places a larger burden on the rich, and a system of government programs that transfer income from the rich to poor, including welfare benefits, unemployment benefits, healthcare for low income households, public schools and support for economic development in poor communities.

Many politicians and some economists like to argue that income inequality is not as evil as many people make it out to be, and that greater income inequality can actually increase the incentive for poorer households to work harder to get rich, contributing to the economic growth of the nation as a whole. Allowing the rich to keep more of their income, in this way, leads more people to want to work hard to get rich, as they will be able to enjoy the rewards of their hard work.

Another common argument is that higher income inequality leads to social and economic disruptions that can slow economic growth and bring an economy into a recession or a depression, since the middle and lower income groups in the nation will not benefit from a relatively equal share of the nation’s output, and over time will see their living standards drop and their overal productivity and contribution to national output decline.

The debate over inequality and what government can or should do about it is at ther root of many other economic debates today. A recent study by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, provides support for those who support the second argument above. Here are some of the main discoveries from the study, “Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families”.

Discoveries of the study:

Some believe that increase inequality leads to more growth, others argue that it leads to less growth.

A more interesting question is whether rising income inequality leads to a higher standard of living for everyone in society, or whether standards of living decline for those in the middle as the percentage of total income earned by the top 10% increases.

The study found that the higher the percentage of income earned by the top 10%, the incomes of those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution actually decreases. Not just the percentage of total income, but the actual incomes of these groups falls as the rich get richer.

The popular belief is that reducing taxes on the rich increases the amount of investment in the economy, creating more jobs and helping increase incomes of the middle and lower income households. This theory is sometimes referred to as “trickle down” economics, as the increased incomes and wealth at the top will “trickle down” and raise the incomes of the rest of society as well.

However, actual data shows that a 10% increase in the share of total income earned by the top 10% of income earners leads to a 2% decline in the incomes of households in the middle of the income distribution (based on data for the period between 1979 and 2005).

It’s not just that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, rather that the rich getting richer makes the poor (and the middle income earners) poorer. This is a breakthrough discovery.

Possible explanations:

• The rich contribute to growth abroad, rather than at home: Rich households’ higher incomes allow them to consume more domestic output and imported goods and services, but it also allows them to save more, which sometimes translates into more investment. But more investment does not always translate into domestic economic growth, since investment is now global. A rich American saving more does not mean American firms will have access to cheaper capital, as domestic savings may fuel investment in emerging markets or elsewhere abroad. Foreign investment resulting from savings among rich Americans counts as a leakage from America’s circular flow of income, leaving less income within America for the middle and low income earners. Essentially, much of the income earned by the rich is saved abroad, contributing to employment and growth overseas, reducing incomes of the middle class at home.
• Reduced support for the provision of public goods: When examining living standards, more than just income must be considered, but also access to education, provision of health care and other public goods such as public safety and security. Richer households are less interested in things like public schools and social welfare programs, as they do not rely on these for their own well-being. Therefore, the richer the top 10% become,  the greater their incentive to work against efforts to fund public education, public health and public safety. The underprovision of these social welfare enhancing goods by govenrment further widens the gap between the living standards of the richest and the middle class. Economist Robert Reich refers to this phenomenon as “the secession of the successful”.
• Wage competition reduces incomes in the middle: Business owners, who make up a large percentage of the richest households in America, increase their own incomes to the extent that they can drive down the wages they pay their employees. In this way a higher share of national income is enjoyed by a smaller proportoin of society. The minimum wage has barely increased over time, and workers have less bargaining power as fewer workers than ever are members of labor unions; this has allowed business owners to pay lower wages over time, concentrating an increasing share of national income in business profits, and less and less in wages for workers.

In the video below, the study’s author shares some of the findings discussed above. Watch the video and respond to the discussion questions that follow.

Discussion Questions:

1. Summarize the argument against a government taking measures to redistribute its nation’s income to reduce the level of inequality between the rich and the poor.
2. Summarize the argument for a government reducing inequality.
3. Popular belief holds that “a rising tide lifts all boats”. In other words, if the total income of a nation is increasing, it does not matter if the rich are enjoying a larger percentage of the higher income than the poor and middle, because everyone is likely to be better off than if total income were not growing at all. Does the study discussed above support this popular view? Why or why not?
4. What measures can a government take to assure that higher national income leads to higher standards of living for everyone in society, including the middle class and the poor? Why might the highest income earners be opposed to such attempts by government?
5. Should government intervene to reduce the level of income inequality in society?

Related posts:

1. How do you support low income workers to reduce inequality? – A Singapore Case Study
2. The role of taxes in income re-distribution – another preview of my textbook
3. Final Market Failure Quiz – IB Economics

The activity below is to introduce Economics students to the three primary Macroeconomic objectives of any government or policy making body. These are :

Full employment of the nations work force: This means that nearly everyone who wants to work in the country is able to find a job. It does not mean that there is no unemployment, rather that the unemployment that does prevail in the economy is voluntary, i.e. it exists because workers are simply not willing to work at the prevailing wage rate. If there is involuntary unemployment in the economy, then the country is not meeting its macroeconomic objective, and there is likely a recession caused by a lack of overall demand (aggregate demand) for the nation’s goods and services.

Resources for learning about Full Employment:

• Textbook (Welker’s IB Economics for the IB Diploma) pages 286 – 288, 295-299.
• Reffonomics – Measuring Unemployment
• Reffonomics – the Types of Unemployment
  
• Reffonomics – Unemployment and Employment Quiz

Price level stability: Changes in the average price level of goods and services in the nation are measured by calculating inflation, commonly using a consumer price index to do so. Low and stable inflation is one of the macroeconomic objectives since price level volatility (high inflation or deflation) has several harmful effects on a nation’s households and business firms. Keeping inflation low and stable promotes a healthy environment for achieving business investment, full employment and economic growth

Resources for learning about Price level stability:

• Textbook pages 302-303, 306-307, 311-314
• Reffonomics – Calculating Inflation using a CPI
• Reffonomics – The effects of inflation
• Reffonomics – Inflation Quiz

Economic growth: The third macroeconomic objective is to increase the output of the nation’s goods and services year after year. Economic growth refers to the increase in real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and can be measured by finding the total value of a nation’s output one year, comparing it to the previous year, and adjusting it for any changes in the price level between the years. Economic growth is a desirable goal because it generally means that incomes are rising and people’s lives are getting better. Of course, GDP only measures the physical output of goods and services, and does not include many non-economic variables that also should be considered when measuring people’s well-being. But rising incomes and output are deemed worthy goals since they are associated with rising living standards.

• Textbook pages 244, 251-253, 337-340
• Reffonomics – Real GDP lesson
• Reffonomics – Real GDP Multiple Choice Quiz

Assignment: Complete the readings and online activities above. Then use the data in the table linked below to answer the quesitons that follow.

Questions:

1. Calculate the unemployment rates for each of the years in the table. Describe what happened to unemployment over the years displayed.
2. Calculate the inflation rates between each of the years in the table. Describe what happened to inflation over the years displayed.
3. Calculate the Real GDP for each of the years in the table.
4. Calculate the Real GDP growth rates between each of the years in the table. Describe what happened to real GDP from one year to the next in the years displayed.
5. Describe the relationship between the inflation and unemployment rates you calculated for each of the years. Is there any correlation in how the figures change from year to year?
6. Based on your analysis of the data above, to what extent has the United States succeeded in achieving its three macroeconomic objectives of:

• Full employment?
• Price level stability?
• Economic growth?

Related posts:

1. Lesson Plan: Macroeconomic Indicators around the World
2. Politics, priorities, and the Phillips Curve
3. A must read for AP Macro teachers: Paul Krugman explains why deficit spending during a recession does NOT cause crowding-out

As yet another school year begins, we once again find ourselves returning to an atmosphere of economic uncertainty, sluggish growth, and heated debate over how to return the economies of the United States and Europe back onto a growth trajectory. In the last couple of weeks alone the US government has barely avoided a default on its national debt, ratings agencies have downgraded US government bonds, global stock markets have tumbled, confidence in the Eurozone has been pummeled over fears of larger than expected deficits in Italy and Greece, and the US dollar has reached historic lows against currencies such as the Swiss Franc and the Japanese Yen.

What are we to make of all this turmoil? I will not pretend I can offer a clear explanation to all this chaos, but I can offer here a little summary of the big debate over one of the issues above: the debate over the US national debt and what the US should be doing right now to assure future economic and financial stability.

There are basically two sides to this debate, one we will refer to as the “demand-side” and one we will call the “supply-side”. On the demand-side you have economists like Paul Krugman, and in Washington the left wing of the Democratic party, who believe that America’s biggest problem is a lack of aggregate demand.

Supply-siders, on the other hand, are worried more about the US national debt, which currently stands around 98% of US GDP, and the budget deficit, which this year is around $1.5 trillion, or 10% of GDP. Every dollar spent by the US government beyond what it collects in taxes, argue the supply-siders, must be borrowed, and the cost of borrowing is the interest the government (i.e. taxpayers) have to pay to those buying government bonds. The larger the deficit, the larger the debt burden and the more that must be paid in interest on this debt. Furthermore, increased debt leads to greater uncertainty about the future and the expectation that taxes will have to be raised sometime down the road, thus creating an environment in which firms and households will postpone spending, prolonging the period of economic slump.

The demand-siders, however, believe that debt is only a problem if it grows more rapidly than national income, and in the US right now income growth is almost zero, meaning that the growing debt will pose a greater threat over time due to the slow growth in income. Think of it this way, if I owe you $98 and I only earn $100, then that $98 is a BIG DEAL. But if my income increases to $110 and my debt grows to $100, that is not as big a deal. Yes, I owe you more money, but I am also earning more money, so the debt burden has actually decreased.

In order to get US income to grow, say the demand-siders, continued fiscal and monetary stimulus are needed. With the debt deal struck two weeks ago, however, the US government has vowed to slash future spending by $2.4 trillion, effectively doing the opposite of what the demand-siders would like to see happen, pursuing fiscal contraction rather than expansion. As government spending grows less in the future than it otherwise would have, employment will fall and incomes will grow more slowly, or worse, the US will enter a second recession, meaning even lower incomes in the future, causing a the debt burden to grow.

Now let’s consider the supply-side argument. The supply-siders argue that America’s biggest problem is not the lack of demand, rather it is the debt itself. Every borrowed dollar spent by the goverment, say the supply-siders, is a dollar taken out of the private sector’s pocket. As government spending continues to grow faster than tax receipts, the government must borrow more and more from the private sector, and in order to attract lenders, interest on government bonds must be raised. Higher interest paid on government debt leads to a flow of funds into the public sector and away from the private sector, causing borrowing costs to rise for everyone else. In IB and AP Economics, this phenomenon is known as  the crowding-out effect: Public sector borrowing crowds out private sector investment, slowing growth and leading to less overall demand in the economy.

Additionally, argue the supply-siders, the increase in debt required for further stimulus will only lead to the expectation among households and firms of future increases in tax rates, which will be necessary to pay down the higher level of debt sometime in the future. The expectation of future tax hikes will be enough to discourage current consumption and investment, so despite the increase in government spending now, the fall in private sector confidence will mean less investment and consumption, so aggregate demand may not even grow if we do borrow and spend today!

This debate is not a new one. The demand-side / supply-side battle has raged for nearly a century, going back to the Great Depression when the prevailing economic view was that the cause of the global economic crisis was unbalanced budgets and too much foreign competition. In the early 30′s governments around the world cut spending, raised taxes and erected new barriers to trade in order to try and fix their economic woes. The result was a deepening of the depression and a lost decade of economic activity, culminating in a World War that led to a massive increase in demand and a return to full employment. Let’s hope that this time around the same won’t be necessary to end our global economic woes.

Recently, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria had two of the leading voices in this economic debate on his show to share their views on what is needed to bring the US and the world out of its economic slump. Princeton’s Paul Krugman, a proud Keynesian, spoke for the demand-side, while Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff represented the supply-side. Watch the interview below (up to 24:40), read my notes summarizing the two side’s arguments, and answer the questions that follow.

Summary of Krugman’s argument:

• Despite the downgrade by Standard & Poor’s (a ratings agency) there appears to be strong demand for US government bonds right now, meaning really low borrowing costs (interest rates) for the US government.
• This means investors are not afraid of what S&P is telling them to be afraid of, and are more than happy to lend money to the US government at low interest rates.
• Investors are fleeing from equities (stocks in companies), and buying US bonds because US debt is the safest asset out there. The market is saying that the downgrade may lead to more contractionary policies, hurting the real economy. Investors are afraid of contractionary fiscal policy, so are sending a message to Washington that it should spend more now.
• The really scary thing is the prospect of another Great Depression.
• Can fiscal stimulus succeed in an environment of large amounts of debt held by the private sector? YES, says Krugman, the government can sustain spending to maintain employment and output, which leads to income growth and makes it easier for the private sector to pay down their debt.
• With 9% unemployment and historically high levels of long-term unemployment, we should be addressing the employment problem first. We should throw everything we can at increasing employment and incomes.
• Is there some upper limit to the national debt? Krugman says the deficit and debt are high, but we must consider costs versus benefits: The US can borrow money and repay in constant dollars (inflation adjusted) less than it borrowed. There must be projects the federal government could undertake with at least a constant rate of return that could get workers employed. If the world wants to buy US bonds, let’s borrow now and invest for the future!
• If we discovered that space aliens were about to attack and we needed a massive military buildup to protect ourselves from invasion, inflation and budget deficits would be a secondary concern to that and the recession would be over in 18 months.
• We have so many hypothetical risks (inflation, bond market panic, crowding out, etc…) that we are afraid to tackle the actual challenge that is happening (unemployment, deflation, etc..) and we are destroying a lot of lives to protect ourselves from these “phantom threats”.
• The thing that’s holding us back right now in the US is private sector debt. Yes we won’t have a self-sustaining recovery until private sector debt comes down, at least relative to incomes. Therefore we need policies that make income grow, which will reduce the burden of private debt.
• The idea that we cannot do anything to grow until private debt comes down on its own is flawed… increase income, decrease debt burden!
• Things that we have no evidence for that are supposed to be dangerous are not a good reason not to pursue income growth policies.
• When it comes down to it, there just isn’t enough spending in the economy!

Summary of Rogoff’s argument:

• The downgrade was well justified, and the reason for the demand for treasuries is that they look good compared to the other options right now.
• There is a panic going on as investors adjust to lower growth expectations, due to lack of leadership in the US and Europe.
• This is not a classical recession, rather a “Great Contraction”: Recessions are periodic, but a financial crisis like this is unusual, this is the 2nd Great Contraction since the Depresssion. It’s not output and employment, but credit and housing which are contracting, due to the “debt overhang”.
• If you look at a contraction, it can take up to 4 or 5 years just to get back where you started.
• This is not a double dip recession, because we never left the first one.
• Rogoff thinks continued fiscal stimulus would worsen the debt overhang because it leads to the expectation of future tax increases, thus causing firms and households increased uncertainty and reduces future growth.
• If we used our credit to help facilitate a plan to bring down the mortgage debt (debt held by the private sector), Rogoff would consider that a better option than spending on employment and output. Fix the debt problem, and spending will resume.
• Rogoff thinks we should not assume that interest rates of US debt will last indefinitely. Infrastructure spending, if well spent, is great, but he is suspicious whether the government is able to target its spending so efficiently to make borrowing the money worthwhile.
• Rogoff thinks if government invests in productive projects, stimulus is a good idea, but “digging ditches” will not fix the economy.
• Until we get the debt levels down, we cannot get back to robust growth.
• It’s because of the government’s debt that the private sector is worried about where the country’s going. If we increase the debt to finance more stimulus, there will be more uncertainty, higher interest rates, possibly inflation, and prolonged stagnation in output and incomes.
• When it comes down to it, there is just too much debt in the economy!

Discussion Question:

1. What is the fundamental difference between the two arguments being debated above? Both agree that the national debt is a problem, but where do the two economists differ on how to deal with the debt?
2. The issues of “digging ditches and filling them in” comes up in the discussion. What is the context of this metaphor? What are the two economists views on the effectiveness of such projects?
3. Following the debate, Fareed Zakaria talks about the reaction in China to S&P’s downgrade of US debt. What does he think about the popular demands in China for the government to pull out of the market for US government bonds?
4. Explain what Zakaria means when he describes the relationship between the US and China as “Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)”.
5. Should the US government pursue a second stimulus and directly try to stimulate employment and income? Or should it continue down the path to austerity, cutting government programs to try and balance its budget?

Related posts:

1. McCain and the Republicans: fiscal conservatives? Think again…
2. The U.S. National Debt: How Bad is the Problem?
3. Fiscal Stimulus package passes in Congress – here comes $170 billion, America!

I have lived in Singapore for two years now and am always interested in the nuances of the city state’s economy. In some measures Singapore has the one of the highest levels of Gross Domestic Product per capita in the world. As measured using Purchasing Power Parity, Singapore is ranked 7th in the world with $53,900 GDP per capita

Singapore also has a high, and growing level of income inequality which has been associated with the form of rapid economic growth. In 2009 Singapore was ranked as having the second highest level of income inequality in developed countries, with a Gini Coefficient score of 0.425. Hong Kong was 1st and USA 3rd. In most rapidly developing economies (China, Brazil, India) strong economic growth is leading to growing income inequality. The gains from growth are not being shared equally between all citizens and the rich continue to get richer at the expense of the poor. Here are some economic indicators from Singapore.

• During 2010 Singapore’s Gross Domestic Product expanded by 14.7%. This is the fastest rate of economic growth in the world.
• Since 1989 it’s GDP per capita has risen from $16,000 to $48,000.
• Total Gross Domestic Product in Singapore Dollars has increased from $56 Billion in 1989 to $265 Billion.
• The bottom 10% of the population now account for only 5% of the national income, compared to the top 10% of people who account for 49% of the income.

Each of the above statistics support the economic goals of Singapore except for the last bullet point. Singapore believes in inclusive growth and attaches a high degree of importance on the ideals of social cohesion. These statistics are a challenge to the goals of the country, which aims to allow all families to live in dignity and with material self sufficiency.

Therefore one possible way to increase the income of the lowest people is to introduce the concept of a minimum wage. Currently the free market determines the market wage. For some occupations such as cleaners, constructions workers and domestic helpers the market is awash which cheap labour from neighbouring countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh. This drives down the market wage. The average domestic live in helper in Singapore would make $120 a week and construction workers slightly more. These workers also have the lowest bargaining power and are often unable to negotiate for higher wages. Thus free market wage seems to disadvantage low income workers in Singapore.

Introducing a Minimum Wage:

The minimum wage is a wage floor. In Singapore, employers would not be allowed to pay their employees a rate below the minimum wage and this presumes the minimum wage was binding and set above the prevailing market rates. Some would call this a living wage and would be set to enable citizens to enjoy a basic standard of life and subsistence.

The negative aspects of the minimum wage legislation would be an increase in unemployment. After the introduction of the minimum wage the market demand for workers would fall to LD. At a higher wage firms have less incentive to hire workers. The other important feature is that Labour Supply would increase at the level of the new minimum wage. More workers would be attracted into the workforce. This therefore creates a disequilibrium where Labour Demand does not equal Labour Supply. In the Labour Market this is known as unemployment. In Singapore potential foreign investors could be less willing to invest in a country with higher labour costs and the nations competitiveness with other economies could fall. After the introduction of minimum wages in Japan (1959), South Korea (1988) and Taiwan (1956) researches found no evidence of a fall in foreign investment or economic competitiveness.

Positive aspects of introducing a minimum wage?

1. To reduce poverty: To help reduce poverty for the bottom 20% of households in Singapore, a binding minimum wage set above the market wage would lift incomes. The lifting of incomes should also reduce the level of income inequality for low income households.
2. Taxes and Benefits: If workers begin to earn higher wages then tax receipts should increase. At the same time the level of financial support for such families will likely fall as they become more self sufficient. This could also help reduce government spending. Both of these effect will likely have a positive impact on the government budget.
3. The effect on worker productivity: Some economists believe that the increased wage might improve labour productivity. Workers may respond to their higher wage rate by working harder, possibly as a result of worrying about losing their job now that the increased wage rate has made it a more ‘sought after’ job. Employers may force through productivity improvements. Some workers will work shorter hours and achieve a greater work life balance and hopefully be more productive during these hours at work.

Market interventions are obvouisly not the only way to improve the incomes of low income households. Singapore currently does many small things to improve the quality of life for low income households. In my opinion in the long run the economy needs to think of other ways to increase incomes of low income households so that Singapore holds the value of social cohesion and does not become a infamous country of unequal incomes and  extremes of wealth and poverty.

• Subsidized Housing and Grants for first home buyers – HDB Scheme
• Free education from Kindergarten to Secondary School.
• Subsidized health care
• Various financial assistance schemes including the Workfare Income Supplement

Resources and Background :

• Minimum Wage Theory – S-Cool UK | Economics
• “Don’t knock the minimum wage yet” | Tommy Tan – see commentary here (The Straits Times, A32, November 11th 2010)
• CIA Factbook | Singapore Overview

Discussion Questions:

1. Describe the kind of tax system which could be developed to reduce income inequality?
2. Outline the difference between income and wealth?
3. What is the more concerning problem for governments, the inequality of wealth or income? Explain.
4. Evaluate the methods available to government to reduce income inequality.

Related posts:

1. Income inequality as a Market Failure
2. The role of taxes in income re-distribution – another preview of my textbook
3. Recession’s effects on small vs. large companies: some evidence in support of the Classical view of self-correction

In my last post, I outlined the consequences of a nation running a persistent deficit in its current account. In the post below, I will share some thoughts on how a nations can reduce its trade deficit by promoting increased competitiveness in the global economy through the use of expansionary supply-side policies. Earlier in the chapter from which this post is taken, I outlined other deficit reduction strategies, including the use of protectionism, currency devaluation and contractionary demand-side fiscal and monetary policies. In my opinion, each of these methods creates more harm than good for a nation, resulting in a misallocation of society’s scarce resources (in the case of protectionism) and negative effects on output and employment (in the case of contractionary demand-side policies)

Therefore, the following presents the “supply-side” strategies for reducing a deficit in a nation’s current account.

From Chapter 22 of my upcoming textbook: Pearson Baccalaureate Economics

Contractionary fiscal and monetary policies will surely reduce overall demand in an economy and thereby help reduce a current account deficit. But the costs of such policies most likely outweigh the benefits, as domestic employment, output and economic growth suffer due to reduced spending on the nation’s goods and services. A better option for governments worried about their trade deficit is to pursue supply-side policies that increase the competitiveness of domestic producers in the global economy.

In the long-run, the best way for a nation to reduce a current account deficit is to allocate its scarce resources towards the economic activities in which it can most effectively compete in the global economy. In an environment of increasingly free trade between nations, countries like the United States and those of Western Europe will inevitably continue to confront structural shifts in their economies that at first seem devastating, but upon closer inspection will prove to be inexorable.

The auto industry in the United States has been forever changed due to competition from Japan. The textile industry in Europe has long passed its apex of production experienced decades past, and the UK consumer will never again buy a television or computer monitor made in the British Isles. The reality is, much of the world’s manufactured goods can be and should be made more cheaply and efficiently in Asia and Latin America than they could ever be produced in the US or Europe.

The question Europe and the United States should be asking, therefore, is not “how can we get back what we have lost and restore balance in our current account”, but, “what can we provide the world with that no one else can?” By focusing their resources towards providing the goods and services that no Asian or Latin American competitor is capable of providing, the deficit countries of the world should be able to reduce their current account deficits and at the same time stimulate aggregate demand at home, while increasing the productivity of the nation’s resources and promoting long-run economic growth.

Sure, you say, that all sounds great, but how can they achieve this? This is where supply-side policies come in. Smart supply-side policies mean more than tax cuts for corporations and subsidies to domestic producers. Smart supply-side policies that will promote more balanced global trade and long-run economic growth include:

• Investments in education and health care: Nothing makes a nation more competitive in the global economy than a highly educated and healthy work force. Exports from Europe and the US will lie ever increasingly in the high skilled service sector and less and less in the manufacturing sector; therefore, highly educated and skilled workers are needed for future economic growth and global competitiveness, particularly in scientific fields such as engineering, medicine, finance, economics and business.
• Public funding for scientific research and development: Exports from the US and Europe have increasingly depended on scientific innovation new technologies. Copyright and patent protection assure that scientific breakthroughs achieved in one country will allow for a period of time over which only that country will enjoy the sales of exports in the new field. Green energy, nano-technology, bio-medical research; these are the field that require sustained commitments from the government sector for dependable funding.
• Investments in modern transportation and communication infrastructure: To remain competitive in the global economy, the countries of Europe and North America must assure that domestic firms have at their disposal the most modern and efficient transportation and communication infrastructure available. High speed rail, well-maintained inter-state or international highways, modern port facilities, high-speed internet and telecommunications; these investments allow for lower costs of production and more productive capital and labor, making countries goods more competitive in the global marketplace.

Reducing a current account deficit will have many benefits for a nation like the United States, Spain, the UK or Australia. A stronger currency will assure price stability, low interest rates will allow for economic growth, and perhaps most importantly, less taxpayer money will have to be paid in interest to foreign creditors. Governments and central banks may go about reducing a current account deficit in many ways: exchange rate controls, protectionism, contractionary monetary and fiscal policies, or supply-side policies may all be implemented to restore balance in the current account. Only one of these options will promote long-run economic growth and increase the efficiency with which a nation employs its scarce factors of production.

Supply-side policies are clearly the most efficient and economically justifiable method for correcting a current account deficit. Unfortunately, they are also the least politically popular, since the benefits of such policies are not realized in the short-run, but take years, maybe decades, to accrue. For this reason, we see time and time again governments turning to protectionism in response to rising trade deficits.

Related posts:

1. Yeah, we have a trade deficit, SO WHAT?!
2. Trade balances around the world
3. The Marshall-Lerner Condition, the J-curve, and the US trade deficit

Over a year has gone by since the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed and put into action by the Obama Administration. Supporters of the program say that it has been successful, arguing that the economy would be in much worse shape if no stimulus had been introduced at all. In fact, some are arguing that government spending has not been sufficient for a full economic recovery and that more direct government spending is necessary. Economists on the other side argue that the stimulus package has done little for the economy except to delay the inevitable, self correcting forces of the economy needed to pave the road back to recovery. Some actually say that we are in a worse situation now due to the massive increase in government debt which will eventually have to be paid back.

So the question is, are we better off as an economy a year after the stimulus package was introduced? With growth still sluggish and unemployment at 9.5%, many people have begun to question the success of the ARRA. Again, some say the $784 billion was insufficient while others say less regulation and more tax cuts should have been utilized.

In a recent Washington Post article, Neil Irwin argues that the obstacles towards economic growth may not be solved by more stimulus, lower interest rates or tax cuts for corporations. The problem, he claims, is not a lack of funds for investment, but in the uncertainty businesses have in future conditions. He writes:

Corporate profits are soaring. Companies are sitting on billions of dollars of cash. And still, they’ve yet to amp up hiring or make major investments — the missing ingredients for a strong economic recovery. Many Democrats say the economy needs more stimulus. Business lobbyists and their Republican allies say it needs less regulation and lower taxes. But here in the heartland of America, senior executives say neither side’s assessment fits.

They blame their profound caution on their view that U.S. consumers are destined to disappoint for many years. As a result, they say, the economy is unlikely to see the kind of almost unbroken prosperity of the quarter-century that preceded the financial crisis.

With consumers choosing to save or pay off their debts now rather than spend, many businesses find it in their interest to hold off on investments into new capital until consumers begin spending again. With no planned investment and no incentive to hire workers, unemployment stays high and economic growth remains stagnant. With inflation rates low and economists predicting deflation, it makes more sense to hold onto money as it is not losing its value.

So is there a solution? In this situation, expansionary monetary policy through lower interest rates will not have the desired effect as demand for loanable funds is low. As stated in the article:

For large companies such as Illinois Tool Works, the price of borrowed money isn’t the problem. The company had $1.3 billion in cash on its balance sheet at the end of June, up from $743 million at the end of 2008. Lower interest rates wouldn’t make much of a difference, either.

“I could borrow $2 billion tomorrow for 3 1/2 percent,” said Speer. “But what am I going to do with it?””

Other executives claim that an increase in government spending would only provide a temporary fix but have no effect on long term consumer spending.

David Speer is chief executive of the company, which has 60,000 employees worldwide in more than 800 business units and $14 billion in sales. He said an additional burst of fiscal stimulus from Washington might help boost economic growth for a period of months. But that is unlikely to affect his decisions about hiring and expansion, which Speer said are based on expectations for sales over years to come, not just the immediate future. As long as U.S. consumers remain deeply strained, he is unlikely to undertake aggressive expansion.

More fiscal stimulus “might help make things a little better for a couple of quarters, but I’m not sure it would get at the underlying economic issue,” Speer said. “The core question is: How do you get consumers back on their feet. We need growth in a sustainable way, not another Band-Aid.”

Another solution would be for the government to implement supply side measures such as less market regulation and lower corporate taxes. Again, without the much needed consumer spending and confidence, its difficult to say whether or not this will materialize into increased investment and employment.

The rest of the Washington Post article can be read here. Once you’ve read the article, answer discuss the questions below and share your thoughts in a comment on this post.

Discussion Questions:

Related posts:

1. It may not be a recession, but it sure feels like one…
2. The Great Economic Experiment – for all year 2 IB Econ students
3. A must read for AP Macro teachers: Paul Krugman explains why deficit spending during a recession does NOT cause crowding-out

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.

Related posts:

1. “A glimmer of hope” – rising incomes in China lead to rising demand for US exports
2. McCain vs. Obama on the costs and benefits of free trade
3. Exports, good – Imports, ALSO GOOD!

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]

Related posts:

1. Perspectives on Development Aid…
2. Does economic growth = economic development? Not for China’s rural poor…
3. Dr. Irene Forichi on Agricultural Productivity and Economic Development in Southern Africa

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?

No related posts.

Just a few weeks ago, the U.S. Government’s Commerce Department provided its first estimate of the country’s 3rd quarter (July-September 2009) gross domestic product or GDP, announcing an estimated annualized quarter over quarter growth of 3.5%. GDP reports are of special interest to countries since they provide an important macroeconomic measurement of how much an economy’s goods & services supply and income has grown, or recessed, compared to the last three calendar months.

Let me try and make the concept of GDP easy to understand and why it is considered perhaps the most important, single macroeconomic measurement.

GDP is simply a calculation that measures the market value (final price) of all the final goods and services produced within the borders of our country. Thus, U.S. GDP includes Toyotas produced in Alabama but excludes Cadillac’s made in Canada. GDP includes all U.S. exports but excludes all U.S. imports since imports, by definition, imports are produced in some other country and are a more direct employment benefit of the foreign country’s GDP.

If you think about it, ultimately our country’s economic satisfaction is best measured by the goods and services that are produced and that we have access to, which is why GDP is the measurement that is synonymous with “economic growth” or growth in goods & services for its citizens. In addition, rising GDP (more goods and services) is the ultimate economic goal of any economy which can best be accomplished through the means of the two other key macroeconomic measurements of employment and productivity, which are not the subject of this particular blog.

Let’s describe how the GDP calculation is made. Each quarter, the Government compares the final value of the domestic goods produced and services rendered in the current quarter to the final value of the goods produced and services rendered in the previous quarter. The calculation then takes the percentage gain, current quarter versus previous quarter, and annualizes the percentage. The comparison is always restated for inflation so that the figures are comparable from one period to the next. For purists, we call this “real GDP” which is the only GDP reported by the media, even though the word “real” is almost always dropped to avoid confusion with the average citizen. For example, the third quarter 2009 U.S. GDP report highlighted a 3.5% GDP annualized growth rate. This means that the second quarter final value of goods and services produced was approximately .87% or 3.5%/4.

Now let me get to my favorite point on GDP, which even many economists lose sight of. GDP growth is precisely the same as income growth! For example, in the second quarter of 2009 we can say that incomes for American households and American citizens grew by 3.5% restated for inflation. Said another way, our country’s purchasing power grew by 3.5% which represents the income to produce the increasing supply of goods and services. You probably never thought about it this way but every time you purchase something, every dollar you spend is going to someone as income, whether it is the workers as wages or benefits, the landlords as rent, a bank that has made a loan as interest income, or to the owners of the business as profits. I tell my students that Real GDP = Real Income and the only question is how that real income is dispersed among owners (profits), workers (employee wages and benefits), lenders (interest), and lessors (rent). Many citizens are unaware that the Government calculates GDP both in terms of the final market value of the goods and services PRODUCED (the “expenditure method”, which is the version that the media uses, as well as how that same production value under the “expenditure method” translates to higher incomes in a GDP version called the “income method”.

I find the preceding paragraph, GDP = Income, to be a break through moment for a lot of citizens, or first time economic students, in truly understanding the value of the GDP measurement. It is easier for most to think in terms percentage growth in income in lieu of a fuzzier wording like GDP percentage growth. Most citizens are surprised to find that our national incomes or GDP, restated for inflation, increased by 17.4% from 2000 – 2007, just prior to the onset of this current recession. This 7-year growth rate in GDP or incomes still equates to a below average historical average performance. More specifically, over the last 7 years our average annual GDP or income growth rate was only 2.2% versus our historical average growth rate of 3.2%. However, the final point of caution is that the GDP or income growth rate is a collective average, thus the growth in GDP or incomes does not indicate how those income gains are accruing to the various socioeconomic classes or professions. That is also a topic of a future blog on “income distribution” or equality.

Discussion Questions:

1. Have you ever thought about substituting the word “income” for “GDP” to understand GDP more simply? Why are the concepts of income and GDP inter-changeable?
2. Which four groups earn the income generated by the production of goods and services?
3. Although GDP has still risen this decade, despite the current severe recession, many analyses show that our nation’s middle class has made virtually no real income gains this decade. How could this be so if GDP = Income and our GDP has grown this decade?

Related posts:

1. GDP made simple…

World Economic Forum – Latest Press Releases

The World Economic Forum, a group of researchers, leaders, educators, entrepreneurs and others with a vested interest in global economic performance, assembles an annual list of the world’s nations ranked according to “competitiveness”. This year, for the first time ever, the United States does not top this list, instead, Switzerland has been promoted to the status of global competitiveness leader.

What does this ranking really mean?

Competitive economies are those that have in place factors driving the productivity enhancements on which their present and future prosperity is built. A competitiveness-supporting economic environment can help national economies to weather business cycle downturns and ensure that the mechanisms enabling solid economic performance going into the future are in place.”

Competitivness means a nation posesses an evnvironment that leads to improvements in the productivity of its resources, most importantly labor. America, with record budget deficits, in the trillions of dollars, faces a future of tight budgets financed by government borrowing, which eventually means higher taxes and less ability for government to spend on public goods like education and health.

America’s demotion in the rankings is attributable to falling expectations about the country’s future growth potential rather than concerns about its current economic slowdown. Switzerland has also been in a recession for the last year, although due to targeted fiscal policies unemployment has remained low, near its level before the recession begain (around 4%).

The index used to rank countries is based on several factors:

The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at all stages of development. The pillars include Institutions, Infrastructure, Macroeconomic Stability, Health and Primary Education, Higher Education and Training, Goods Market Efficiency, Labour Market Efficiency, Financial Market Sophistication, Technological Readiness, Market Size, Business Sophistication, and Innovation.

Discussion Questions:

1. How can a nation’s labor productivity be improved by making policies aimed at improving three of the factors measured by the GCI identified above?
2. How does America’s gigantic budget deficit ($1.8 trillion) threaten its future ability to provide its citizens with the “pillars” identified above?
3. Does economic integration with the global economy improve or limit a country’s ability to achieve economic competitiveness? Explain your answer.

Related posts:

1. The Big “C” – America’s crisis of confidence and the Great Recession
2. Will the Fed’s easy money policy fuel global inflation?
3. Global fiscal stimulus and the plight of Africa: what’s really needed, more aid or more trade?

I wonder how many people in countries like Switzerland, Brazil, Canada, Russia, and China, and the United States would be surprised to learn that prices of products and services in their countries have become much less expensive over the years.

Say what? You must be crazy, you say! Prices are rising way too fast!

Yes, most citizens see their purchases as becoming more expensive when, in actuality, things are becoming less expensive. Of course, the paradox is that although nominal prices (the actual price tag) are, in fact, increasing, nominal income (the average wage or salary) has been growing faster. This is a topic that in economics is called “real income” or a measurement that compares a nation’s income growth relative to the growth in prices that the same income buys.

Let’s take some specific facts for the United States:
In the United States real median household income grew from $41,318 to $50,811 from 1970 through 2006 for a total percentage gain of 23% (source: Pew Research Center). Both of the aforementioned median household incomes are stated in 2008 or current dollars which makes the comparison valid. Median household income is an attempt to quantify the progress that the “middle American” family or typical family has made. So, in short, the median household in America can buy 23% more with their income today than they could in 1970. In other words, relative prices are lower to income.

If we look at the same United States income data over the same period for real average household income, there is real income growth of nearly 60%. The higher growth (60%) in real incomes for the average household versus the median (middle) growth rate (23%) is explained by the fact that much of the growth in United States’ real incomes has accrued disproportionately to the college educated & entrepreneurs driving up real income growth rates much faster for the average than the median or middle household. (Hint: continue your education!)

Now let’s get back to the main premise of the title of this blog and the opening assertion that prices are lower than ever. What we are really saying is that you have to benchmark price increases to income increases to really understand whether things are becoming more expensive. The vast majority of products & services are cheaper today in all nations than they have ever been before, which helps explain, excluding the effects of the current recession, why more citizens than ever before can afford to own their own houses, drive more and better cars, and are likely to have cable, cell phones, and computers. The reason we are led to believe differently is because we are victims of our own human nature, which often causes us to focus on the problem areas (rising prices) and not the benefits (incomes that are rising faster). Most citizens’ focus expands out to the last dollar of their incomes and they quickly notice those select products that are rising faster than others like health care, gasoline prices, and education! Hey, even gasoline prices are not at an all relative price high. If gasoline prices in the United States are restated for inflation, or set to comparable 2009 dollars, they are $2.60 per gallon today vs. $3.17 in 1981 and $3.50 in 1918!

Now, you may say to yourself that statistics can lie or mislead and you are sure in your gut that things are getting more expensive relatively. You can try to validate that incorrect “gut feeling” by examining whether your country’s middle class is enjoying less or more products and services. “Real income” really is just a measurement of the quantity and quality of products and services that you have. For example, the average American household has larger homes, more cars, more air conditioning, more gadgets, and better healthcare & prescription drugs than, say, 20 years ago.

But let’s end this blog with a concern. Although everything noted above is accurate, the pace of real income growth has been relatively slow over the last 10 years, especially for the middle class in the United States. Most of that growth in real income mentioned above has occurred up until this current decade. For the last 10 years, median family income growth in the U.S. has been very small and the average income growth has been higher but below the U.S. historical experience. There are many reasons for this slowdown in real income growth, but three big reasons are that

1. the U.S. has now had two recessions this decade (2001 and 2007-current, versus our historical average of only 1 per decade), and
2. energy and health care prices have risen much faster, and
3. foreign labor competition and technology advancement has kept the uneducated/unskilled U.S. workers real income relatively stagnant. More than ever before, a good education is the ticket to your economic future!

Discussion Questions:

1. Inflation is bad, right? Well, what if average prices rise by 2% a year but average incomes rise by 3%. What happens to real income in this situation? Is the average household better or worse off in such a scenario?
2. How have trade and globalization contributed to rising real wages in America and Swizerland?
3. How have trade and globalization contributed to falling nominal wages in America and Switzerland?
4. How do improvments in technology contribute to rising real wages in both developed and developing economies? What about health and education?
5. What types of policies can government pursue to help raise the real wages of the nation’s workers?

Related posts:

1. Deflation: why lower prices spell doom for any economy!
2. Gas prices continue to rise: Who’s worried?
3. GDP made simple…

Now is that time of year when thousands of high school and college students across the world will be taking their very first economics course. Perhaps it will be a basic, high school introductory economics’ course, or perhaps an even more challenging AP or IB economics’ course. Or perhaps you are a freshman or sophomore in college taking an introductory macroeconomics or microeconomics course.

Whatever your situation, you will soon read that all introductory economic text book authors make the point, usually in their respective text’s first chapter, that a primary benefit of studying economics is that it aims to transform one into a more effective and influential citizen by enabling one to better understand and conclude on the economic positions and promises of those running for public office. The underlying logic is that a citizen or voter that is well-versed in basic economic principles will be a smarter citizen and more likely to vote for the political candidate or referendum that will deliver the greatest economic gain for the citizens of the locality, state, and/or nation. In fact, this “economics for citizenship” reason is why a growing number of states now require completion of a basic economics course as a requirement for high school graduation.

In my classroom, I informally call the study of economics “the 180 degree science” because as the student studies this social science for the very first time they often develop conclusions that are precisely the opposite (hence, the “180 degrees”) of what they had originally believed before taking their first economics course.

For example, here are two “180 degree moments”, which are applicable to the United States’ economy, that you may well learn in your first year economics’ course:

1. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “We don’t make anything anymore in America. America’s manufacturing prowess is in a state of constant decline. It seems like almost everything bought and used in the U.S. is made in China”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: Right before the recession hit in 2007, the U.S. was manufacturing approximately 2.5 times more in dollar value than China and is still today the largest manufacturer in the world. The dollar value of manufactured goods in the United States, restated for price level changes so the comparison is accurate, is up over 50% for the last 13 years ending in June of 2007, just prior to the recession! Yes, it is true that the U.S. has lost several million jobs in manufacturing over that same time period, but that is primarily due to rising manufacturing productivity (think machines & technology replacing humans), where the U.S. can now produce more valuable manufactured products than ever before freeing up those displaced manufacturing workers who now have found or must find employment in other more labor-intensive service-related businesses.

Moreover, the US has maintained its percentage share of rising global manufacturing product over that same aforementioned time period, whereas other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have actually decreased their percentage share of global manufactured product. More specifically, in 2006 U.S. manufacturing revenue, profits, exports, and productivity per employee reached their all time peak! Of course, with the current recession and the regression of the U.S. automobile industry, manufacturing levels are now below the levels of 2006. According to government statistics, manufacturing still accounts for slightly over a third of our economic activity and the U.S. will continue to grow in production value, although manufacturing will continue to decline as a percentage of overall economic activity as the United States is growing faster in services than in manufacturing.

2. Pre-Econ Course or Uninformed View: “It is patriotic for U.S. citizens to “buy American” so that we can help our own economy. When we buy foreign products (i.e., exports), in lieu of American products, we hurt our U.S. economy as we lose American jobs and incomes. I hope the recently passed stimulus bill monies will be spent entirely on U.S. products and services.”

Post-Econ Course and 180 Degree View: The U.S. will benefit the most economically if Americans buy what they consider to be the very best product, in terms of price and quality, regardless of whether it is a foreign-produced product or an American-produced product. One of the greatest “ah-ha” moments in all of economics is when an economics’ student or citizen learns for the first time that every time a U.S. buyer purchases a foreign product (i.e., an “import”) that those same U.S. dollars spent on the foreign product circle back to a U.S.- based company, not a foreign company. Yes, I am telling you that when you (or Wal-Mart, for example) buy Chinese shirts, your same U.S. dollars spent quickly end up in the hands of, say, an Apple, Microsoft, IBM, or General Electric to maintain or increase U.S. employment, profits, and stock prices!

Let me try to explain this concept in more detail so that I may actually be able to convince you of this amazing “180 degree” revelation. I always say the more accurate slogan should be “Buying American is Un-American”, since it creates a weaker America!

Let’s say that the United States (we’ll say Wal-Mart) decides to buy some shirts costing $400 from a Chinese shirt manufacturer, in lieu of buying similar shirts from, say, a shirt manufacturer in Elon, North Carolina (USA). The first key point is that when Wal-Mart buys the shirts from China for $400 it can only pay China with US dollars. Why? Because Wal-Mart has only US dollars! It has no Chinese currency (Yuan). It literally drains its bank account of US dollars that are transferred/paid to China! The second key point is that when China receives that same $400 US dollars for the shirts, China cannot, unfortunately, spend any of the $400 in its own economy since only the Yuan is accepted as a medium of exchange in China! China is now forced to either throw the U.S. currency away (not advised!), or immediately spend the money back to the USA (advised!).

In summary, China has initially traded a product (shirts!) for paper (US dollars!), and those US dollars cannot be spent in China. For China to receive any value at all for the shirts it sent to America, China must now spend the $400 back into the US economy for, say, a few i-Pods from Apple (USA). Cutting through to simplicity, in essence, it’s almost as if Wal-Mart (USA) just paid Apple (USA) $400 directly! Yes, the economic “punch line” is that all spending by the domestic nation on foreign products (imports), in turn, are spent immediately back to the domestic nation increasing or maintaining that domestic nation’s employment, income, and standard of living.

And, yes, let’s not forget about that Elon, North Carolina shirt maker that did not get the original $400 from Wal-Mart in our above example! Any good economy promotes competition and I will be excited to see if that North Carolina shirt manufacturer can “raise their game” (increase productivity and/or quality), and hopefully get the next shirt contract from Wal-Mart! If not, well, that North Carolina firm may just have to close down. But remember the key point is that the $400 spent for the Chinese shirts went to Apple, in lieu of the Elon, North Carolina shirt manufacturer. If Wal-Mart would have “bought American” by buying from the Elon shirt manufacturer, even though the Chinese shirts were preferable, Wal-Mart would have prevented the more effective U.S. business (Apple, in this example) from getting your U.S. dollars by giving them to the less efficient Elon manufacturer. In short, you would have contributed to American inefficiency and mediocrity, hurting our country! And that is un-American!

Now, you may be thinking the following if you have a little economics’ background: “But the US has a growing trade deficit with China, so China may not immediately buy those i-Pods from Apple for $400. And, you are correct, but that is also not a problem for either the United States or China. What China is really doing right now is deciding to temporarily save or invest a minority percentage of their US dollars received from U.S. import purchases. Said another way, China is not buying as many US i-Pods as the US is buying Chinese shirts and, of course, we call that situation the US trade deficit which immediately seems to speak “problem”. But it is really not as big a problem as most people think! China is still spending their “saved” US dollars back into the US economy, but in different ways. China is saving and investing some of those US dollars directly into the United States economy by building plants in America, buying US stock to fund American companies’ expansions, and temporarily saving some of their dollars, for future US purchases, by buying US bonds to help the US government pay for other US government initiatives necessitating borrowing. Eventually, China will sell these US bonds and be forced to use those U.S. dollars to buy those i-Pods or build more plants in America to employ more Americans!

I decided to highlight this particular “180 degree moment” because of the fact that the recently passed $800 Billion U.S. stimulus bill has some “buy American” provisions within it. Based on my intuition, I believe that over 95% of adult Americans believe that these “buy American” clauses somehow help our economy more so than if the stimulus bill was silent on “buy American”, thus allowing stimulus money to be spent on foreign-produced products as well. Yes, it is an economic principle that if U.S. citizens “buy American” driven solely by patriotism (and not because they think the product is superior) the American economy actually becomes weaker as the U.S. dollars spent out of patriotism on that American company are, therefore, unintentionally withheld from another more efficient and deserving American company.

In summary, when citizens of any country in the world buy the product that is best for them based on a combination of quality and price, they will be taking the most patriotic action possible to help their own country they love so much! If a domestic citizen sees the foreign product as a better alternative to the domestic product, buy it! Your money spent will immediately find its way back through the “trade loop” to another business within your country!

Of course, this is why all economists from around the world know that international trade, and not protectionism, helps a country’s standard of living and promotes efficiency and rising standard of livings!

Well enough for now. I could go on and on with more 180 degree moments relating to areas such as standard of living, unemployment, the minimum wage, gasoline taxes, and many others. But we’ll discuss some of those in class and I will cover others through this blog site. For now, I just really hope you look forward to and work hard in your economic course so that, you too, will become a more informed and influential citizen as you begin to see your nation’s economy, and our global economy, in a whole new light!

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you believe that politicians will promise and enact policy that seems on the surface to be beneficial to a nation, but are actually harmful to that nation?

2. After reading this blog do you begin to see how the huge declines in manufacturing employment are more driven by leaps in productivity (machines and know-how)? How else could we be producing more manufacturing value each year if employment is decreasing?

3. What would happen to a nation’s “standard of living” if the government passed a law requiring its citizens to only buy their own domestic products? Why?

4. Do you personally believe you will make your own country’s standard of living grow the fastest if you buy the best product available, whether an import (foreign) or a domestic product?

Related posts:

1. Economics for Citizenship / The 180 Degree Science!
2. Marco Garofolo on the imperfect science of Economics
3. International Trade Made Simple

Harvard Economist Niall Ferguson appeared on CNN’s GPS with Fareed Zakaria over the weekend. Ferguson has stood out among mainstream economists lately in his opposition to the US fiscal stimulus package, an $880 billion experiment in expansionary Keynesian policy. While economists like Paul Krugman argue that Obama’s plan is not big enough to fill America’s “recessionary gap”, Ferguson warns that the long-run effects of current and future US budget deficits could lead the US towards economic collapse. This blog post will attempt to explain Ferguson’s views in a way that high school economics students can understand.

Government spending in the US is projected to exceed tax revenues by $1.9 trillion this year, and trillions more over the next four years. An excess of spending beyond tax revenue is known as a budget deficit, and must be paid for by government borrowing. Where does the government get the funds to finance its deficits? The bond market. The core of Ferguson’s concerns about the future stability of the United States economy is the situation in the market for US government bonds. According to Ferguson:

One consequence of this crisis has been an enormous explosion in government borrowing, and the US federal deficit… is going to be equivelant to 1.9 trillion dollars this year alone, which is equivelant to nearly 13% of GDP… this is an excessively large deficit, it can’t all be attributed to stimulus, and there’s a problem. The problem is that the bond market… is staring at an incoming tidal wave of new issuance… so the price of 10-year treasuries, the standard benchmark government bond… has taken quite a tumble in the past year, so long-term interest rates, as a result, have gone up by quite a lot. That poses a problem, since part of the project in the mind of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is to keep interest rates down“

There’s a lot of information in Ferguson’s statements above. To better understand him, some graphs could come in handy. Below is a graphical representation of the US bond market, which is where the US government supplies bonds, which are purchased by the public, commercial banks, and foreigners. Keep in mind, the demanders of US bonds are the lenders to the US government, which is the borrower. The price of a bond represents the amount the government receives from its lenders from the issuance of a new bond certificate. The yield on a bond represents the interest the lender receives from the government. The lower the price of a bond, the higher the yield, the more attractive bonds are to investors. Additionally, the lower the price of bonds, the greater the yield, thus the greater the amount of interest the US government must pay to attract new lenders.

Ferguson says that the price of US bonds has “taken a tumble”. The increase of supply has lowered bond prices, increasing their attractiveness to investors who earn higher interest on the now cheaper bonds. Below we can see the impact of an increase in the quantity demanded for government bonds on the market for private investment.

Financial crowding-out can occur as a result of deficit financed government spending as the nation’s financial resources are diverted out of the private sector and into the public sector. Granted, during a recession the demand for loanable funds from firms for private investment may be so low that there is no crowding out, as explained by Paul Krugman here.

But crowding out is not Ferguson’s only concern. The increase in interest rates caused by the US government’s issuance of new bonds could lead to a decrease in private investment in the US economy, inhibiting the nation’s long-run growth potential. But the bigger concern is one of America’s long-run economic stability. If the Obama administration does not put forth a viable plan for balancing its budget very soon, the demand for US government bonds could fall, which would further excacerbate the crowding-out effect, and eliminate the country’s ability to finance its government activities. In other words, such a loss of faith could plunge the United States into bankruptcy.

Fareed Zakaria asks Ferguson:

“Is it fair to say that this bad news, the fact that we can’t sell our debt as cheaply as we thought, overshadows all the good news that seems to be coming?”

Ferguson’s reply:

The green shoots that are out there (referring to the phrase economists and politicians have been using to describe the signs of recovery in the US economy) seem like tiny little weeds in the garden, and what’s coming in terms of the fiscal crisis in the United States is a far bigger and far worse story.

Finally Fareed asks the question everyone wants to know:”What the hell do we do?”

Ferguson:

One thing that can be done very quickly is for the president to give a speech to the American people and to the world explaining how the administration proposes to achieve stabilization of American public finance… the administration doesn’t have that long a honeymoon period, it has very little time in which it can introduce the American public to some harsh realities, particularly about entitlements and how much they are going to cost. If a signal could be sent really soon to the effect that the administration is serious about fiscal stabilization and isn’t planning on borrowing another $10 trillion between now and the end of the decade, then just conceivably markets could be reassured.

Ferguson is saying that only if the Obama administration begins taking serious steps towards balancing the US government’s budget can it hope to stave off an eventual loss of faith among America’s creditors (and thus a fall in demand for US bonds). It will be a while before tax revenues are high enough to finance the US budget. But if the country does not begin working towards such an end immediately, it may find itself unable to raise the funds to pay for such public goods as infrastructure, education, health care, national defense, medical research, as well as the wages of the millions of government employees. In other words, the US government could be bankrupt, and its downfall could mean the end of American economic power.

The power of the bond market should not be underestimated. America’s very future depends on continued faith in its financial stability and fiscal responsibility.

Discussion Questions:

1. Why do you think the US government has such a huge budget deficit this year? ($1.9 trillion) Previously, the largest budget deficit on record was only around $400 billion.
2. How does the issuance of new bonds by the US government lead to less money being available to private households and firms?
3. Do you think investors will ever totally lose faith in US government bonds? Why or why not?
4. In what way is the government’s huge budget deficit a “tax on teenagers”? In other words, how will today’s teenagers end up suffering because of the federal budget deficit?

To learn more about the power of the bond market, watch Niall Ferguson’s documentary, The Ascent of Money. The section on the bond market can be viewed here:

Related posts:

1. A must read for AP Macro teachers: Paul Krugman explains why deficit spending during a recession does NOT cause crowding-out
2. Sample IB Economics Internal Assessment Commentary – Understanding the ECB’s bond-purchasing program
3. “The Ascent of Money” – Economic historian Niall Ferguson on the Colbert Report