DOCSLIB.ORG

New Keynesian Versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 1090 / SEPTEMBER 2009 NEW KEYNESIAN VERSUS OLD KEYNESIAN GOVERNMENT SPENDING MULTIPLIERS by John F. Cogan, Tobias Cwik, John B. Taylor and Volker Wieland WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 1090 / SEPTEMBER 2009 NEW KEYNESIAN VERSUS OLD KEYNESIAN GOVERNMENT SPENDING MULTIPLIERS 1 by John F. Cogan 2 , Tobias Cwik 3 , John B. Taylor 4 and Volker Wieland 5 In 2009 all ECB publications This paper can be downloaded without charge from feature a motif http://www.ecb.europa.eu or from the Social Science Research Network taken from the €200 banknote. electronic library at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1468262. 1 The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Central Bank or the Eurosystem. 2 Stanford University – The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, HHMB Rm 347, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 3 Goethe University Frankfurt, Grüneburgplatz 1, Uni-Pf. 77, D-60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] 4 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 5 University of Frankfurt, P.O. Box 94, Mertonstrasse 17, D-60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] © European Central Bank, 2009 Address Kaiserstrasse 29 60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Postal address Postfach 16 03 19 60066 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Telephone +49 69 1344 0 Website http://www.ecb.europa.eu Fax +49 69 1344 6000 All rights reserved. Any reproduction, publication and reprint in the form of a different publication, whether printed or produced electronically, in whole or in part, is permitted only with the explicit written authorisation of the ECB or the author(s). The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily refl ect those of the European Central Bank. The statement of purpose for the ECB Working Paper Series is available from the ECB website, http://www.ecb.europa. eu/pub/scientific/wps/date/html/index. en.html ISSN 1725-2806 (online) CONTENTS Abstract 4 Non-technical summary 5 1 Introduction 7 2 The need for an alternative assessment 9 3 The problem with an interest rate peg 10 4 Government spending multipliers: new Keynesian versus old Keynesian 11 5 Alternative assumptions about monetary policy 13 6 A more realistic path for government purchases 14 7 Estimated impacts 17 8 Impacts of an entire U.S. stimulus package 20 9 Conclusion 23 References 24 Acknowledgement 25 European Central Bank Working Paper Series 26 ECB Working Paper Series No 1090 September 2009 3 Abstract Renewed interest in fiscal policy has increased the use of quantitative models to evaluate policy. Because of modelling uncertainty, it is essential that policy evaluations be robust to alternative assumptions. We find that models currently being used in practice to evaluate fiscal policy stimulus proposals are not robust. Government spending multipliers in an alternative empirically-estimated and widely- cited new Keynesian model are much smaller than in these old Keynesian models; the estimated stimulus is extremely small with GDP and employment effects only one- sixth as large. Keywords: Fiscal Multiplier, New Keynesian Model, Fiscal Stimulus, Government Spending, Macroeconomic Modeling JEL Classification: C52, E62 ECB Working Paper Series No 1090 4 September 2009 Non-Technical Summary A recent paper by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein provides numerical estimates of the impact of an increase in government spending on GDP and employment in the United States. They state that their estimates are based on two particular quantitative macroeconomic models – one from the staff of the Federal Reserve Board and the other from an unnamed private forecasting firm. By averaging the impacts generated by these two models, they calculate that an increase in government purchases of 1 percent of GDP would induce an increase in real GDP of 1.6 percent compared to what it otherwise would be. On this basis, they predict that a stimulus package of similar magnitude as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of February 2009 would increase output by 3.6 percent by the fourth quarter of 2010 and create or save about 3 1/2 million jobs. Macroeconomists remain quite uncertain about the quantitative effects of fiscal policy. This uncertainty derives not only from the usual errors in empirical estimation but also from different views on the proper theoretical framework and econometric methodology. Therefore, robustness is a crucial criterion in policy evaluation. Robustness requires evaluating policies using other empirically-estimated and tested macroeconomic models. In this paper, we consider two such models for comparison, the multi-country model of Taylor (1993) and the model of the U.S. economy by Smets and Wouters (2007). Both models allow for an important role of nominal rigidities in price and wage-setting, but also account for forward-looking behavioural decision making by households and firms. Thus, they can be characterized as New-Keynesian macroeconomic models. In these models, households and firms consider the implications of fiscal stimulus on future taxes and interest rates. Consequently, expectations of lower wealth and higher funding costs dampen private sector economic activity. ECB Working Paper Series No 1090 September 2009 5 We consider more realistic assumptions regarding the likely paths of interest rates. Contrary to Romer and Bernstein, who assume that the nominal interest rate remains pegged, our analysis allows for the return to a stabilizing monetary policy after one or two years. Finally, we consider a more realistic path of government expenditures. While Romer and Bernstein assume a permanent increase in government spending, we assess the time path of the additional government expenditures planned for in the ARRA, and evaluate the effect of households’ and firms’ anticipation of this future spending. Our estimates obtained with the model of Smets and Wouters (2007), which is a typical current New-Keynesian model, suggests that the likely GDP impact of the fiscal stimulus measures is only 1/6 of the estimates presented by Romer and Bernstein. ECB Working Paper Series No 1090 6 September 2009 1. Introduction In a recent paper1 Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein provided numerical estimates of the impact of an increase in government spending on GDP and employment in the United States. Such estimates are a crucial input for the policy making process. They help determine the appropriate size and timing of countercyclical fiscal policy packages and they help inform members of the Congress and their constituents about whether a vote for a policy is appropriate. For packages approaching $1 trillion including interest, as in 2009, the stakes are enormous. The estimated economic impacts matter. The Romer-Bernstein estimates are based on two particular quantitative macroeconomic models – one from the staff of the Federal Reserve Board and the other from an unnamed private forecasting firm. By averaging the impacts generated by these two models, they estimate that an increase in government purchases of 1 percent of GDP would induce an increase in real GDP of 1.6 percent compared to what it otherwise would be. Their results are shown in Figure 1. Also shown in Figure 1 are the estimated effects of exactly the same policy change—a permanent increase in government purchases—as reported in another study published a number of years ago.2 It is clear from Figure 1 that the results are vastly different between the different models. Perhaps the most important difference is that in one case higher government spending keeps on adding to GDP “as far as the eye can see,” while in the other case the effect on GDP diminishes as non-government components are crowded out by government spending. 1 See Romer and Bernstein (2009), Appendix 1, page 12. The paper was written in early January 2009 during the transition period just before Christina Romer was sworn in as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and while Jared Bernstein was Chief Economist of the Office of the Vice-President. 2 See Taylor (1993), Figure 5-8A, page 166. This is a rational expectations model with staggered wage and price setting and thus could be described as “new Keynesian” as defined below. ECB Working Paper Series No 1090 September 2009 7 percent change 1.6 Romer-Bernstein (2009) 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 Taylor (1993) 0.0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 1. Estimated Impact on GDP of a Permanent Increase in Government Purchases of 1 percent of GDP Macroeconomists remain quite uncertain about the quantitative effects of fiscal policy. This uncertainty derives not only from the usual errors in empirical estimation but also from different views on the proper theoretical framework and econometric methodology. Therefore, robustness is a crucial criterion in policy evaluation. Robustness requires evaluating policies using other empirically-estimated and tested macroeconomic models. From this perspective Figure 1 raises concerns because the Romer-Bernstein estimates are far different from existing published results of another model. For these reasons an examination of whether the Romer-Bernstein results are robust to different model and policy assumptions is in order. ECB Working Paper Series No 1090 8 September 2009 2. The Need for an Alternative Assessment We think it is best to start by conducting a fresh set of simulations with a macroeconomic model other than one of those used in Figure 1. We focus on the Smets- Wouters model of the U.S. economy.3 The Smets-Wouters model is representative of current thinking in macroeconomics. It was recently published in the American Economic Review and is one of the best known of the empirically-estimated “new Keynesian” models. It is very similar to, and “largely based on” according to Smets and Wouters, another well-known empirically-estimated new Keynesian model developed by Christiano, Eichenbaum and Evans (2005).
Recommended publications
  • Unemployment Insurance and Macroeconomic Stabilization

    Unemployment Insurance and Macroeconomic Stabilization

    153 Unemployment Insurance and Macroeconomic Stabilization Gabriel Chodorow-Reich, Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research John Coglianese, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Abstract Unemployment insurance (UI) provides an important cushion for workers who lose their jobs. In addition, UI may act as a macroeconomic stabilizer during recessions. This chapter examines UI’s macroeconomic stabilization role, considering both the regular UI program which provides benefits to short-term unemployed workers as well as automatic and emergency extensions of benefits that cover long-term unemployed workers. We make a number of analytic points concerning the macroeconomic stabilization role of UI. First, recipiency rates in the regular UI program are quite low. Second, the automatic component of benefit extensions, Extended Benefits (EB), has played almost no role historically in providing timely, countercyclical stimulus while emergency programs are subject to implementation lags. Additionally, except during an exceptionally high and sustained period of unemployment, large UI extensions have limited scope to act as macroeconomic stabilizers even if they were made automatic because relatively few individuals reach long-term unemployment. Finally, the output effects from increasing the benefit amount for short-term unemployed are constrained by estimated consumption responses of below 1. We propose five changes to the UI system that would increase UI benefits during recessions and improve the macroeconomic stabilization role: (I) Expand eligibility and encourage take-up of regular UI benefits. (II) Make EB fully federally financed. (III) Remove look-back provisions from EB triggers that make automatic extensions turn off during periods of prolonged unemployment. (IV) Add additional automatic extensions to increase benefits during periods of extremely high unemployment.
  • The Neoclassical Economics of Consumer Contracts

    The Neoclassical Economics of Consumer Contracts

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2007 The Neoclassical Economics of Consumer Contracts Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "The Neoclassical Economics of Consumer Contracts," 92 Minnesota Law Review 803 (2007). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Exchange The Neoclassical Economics of Consumer Contracts Richard A. Epsteint There is little doubt that the major new theoretical ap- proach to law and economics in the past two decades does not come from either of these two fields. Instead it comes from the adjacent discipline of cognitive psychology, which has now morphed into behavioral economics. Starting with the path- breaking work of Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in the 1970s, the field has asked one question in a thousand guises: do ordinary people obey the principles of rational choice in making their decisions?' The usual answer given in the field is that in at least some domains they do not.2 The new law and economics literature uses these behavioral findings, especially in the study of cognitive bias, to open a new chapter in the long- standing debate over the extent to which market failures pave t The James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law, The University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, The Hoover Institution.
  • Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern

    Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern

    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern Lima, Gerson P. Macroambiente 3 March 2015 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/63135/ MPRA Paper No. 63135, posted 21 Mar 2015 13:54 UTC Supply and Demand Is Not a Neoclassical Concern Gerson P. Lima1 The present treatise is an attempt to present a modern version of old doctrines with the aid of the new work, and with reference to the new problems, of our own age (Marshall, 1890, Preface to the First Edition). 1. Introduction Many people are convinced that the contemporaneous mainstream economics is not qualified to explaining what is going on, to tame financial markets, to avoid crises and to provide a concrete solution to the poor and deteriorating situation of a large portion of the world population. Many economists, students, newspapers and informed people are asking for and expecting a new economics, a real world economic science. “The Keynes- inspired building-blocks are there. But it is admittedly a long way to go before the whole construction is in place. But the sooner we are intellectually honest and ready to admit that modern neoclassical macroeconomics and its microfoundationalist programme has come to way’s end – the sooner we can redirect our aspirations to more fruitful endeavours” (Syll, 2014, p. 28). Accordingly, this paper demonstrates that current mainstream monetarist economics cannot be science and proposes new approaches to economic theory and econometric method that after replication and enhancement may be a starting point for the creation of the real world economic theory.
  • The Microfoundations of the Multiplier Process

    The Microfoundations of the Multiplier Process

    The Microfoundations of the Multiplier Process Peter Howitt Brown University January 2, 2002 This is the Þrst draft of a paper to be presented at the ASSA meetings in the HES Session on “Keynes and General Equilibrium Theory,” Atlanta, January 4, 2002. 1Introduction The Keynesian multiplier process is the economist’s paradigmatic positive feedback loop. It causes an initial departure from full-employment equilibrium to cumulate instead of being corrected. The existence of some such process in actual economies is attested to by the typical hump-shaped impulse response pattern of GDP to a random shock in estimated times-series models. For example, Chari, Kehoe and McGrattan (1998) report that quarterly movements in the log of detrended US GDP are well approximated by the following AR2 process: yt =1.30yt 1 0.38yt 2 (1) − − − according to which a negative shock that reduces GDP by 1 percent this quarter is expected to reduced it by 1.3 percent next quarter, and by 1.31 percent the following quarter. The theoretical foundations of this process are not well understood. As originally pre- sented by Kahn and Keynes, and as still presented in undergraduate textbooks, it derives from a consumption function that links consumption to disposable income. Clower (1965) showed how such a link can arise in a Walrasian general equilibrium setting if price ad- justment takes place in real transaction time; when labor is in excess supply unemployed workers will not present their notional consumption demands to the auctioneer but will in- stead present demands that are constrained by realized sales income.
  • Natural Experiments in Macroeconomics∗

    Natural Experiments in Macroeconomics∗

    Natural Experiments in Macroeconomics∗ Nicola Fuchs-Sch¨undeln Tarek A. Hassan Goethe University Frankfurt University of Chicago, and CEPR NBER and CEPR March 2015 Preliminary and Incomplete Abstract A growing literature relies on natural experiments to establish causal effects in macroe- conomics. In diverse applications, natural experiments have been used to verify underly- ing assumptions of conventional models, quantify specific model parameters, and identify mechanisms that have major effects on macroeconomic quantities but are absent from conventional models. We discuss and compare the use of natural experiments across these different applications and summarize what they have taught us about such diverse subjects as the validity of the Permanent Income Hypothesis, the size of the fiscal mul- tiplier, and about the effects of institutions, social structure, and culture on economic growth. We also outline challenges for future work in each of these fields, give guidance for identifying useful natural experiments, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. JEL classification: C1, C9, E21, E62, H31, O11, O14, O43, O50 Keywords: Permanent Income Hypothesis, Fiscal Multiplier, Institutions, Social Ties, Net- works, Social Structure, Civic Capital, Trust, Multiple Equilibria ∗Chapter prepared for the Handbook of Macroeconomics. The chapter has benefitted from helpful discussions and comments from Daron Acemoglu, Chang-Tai Hsieh, Nathan Nunn, Rob Vishny and Mirko Wiederholt. Leonhard Czerny, Denis Gorea, and Philip Xu provided excellent research assistance. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Verification: The Permanent Income Hypothesis 6 2.1 Reaction of Consumption to Unexpected Income Shocks . 8 2.2 Reaction of Consumption to Expected Income Changes . 11 2.2.1 Random Treatment: Determining an Appropriate Control Group .
  • A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory

    A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory

    2021 A Primer on Modern Monetary Theory Steven Globerman fraserinstitute.org Contents Executive Summary / i 1. Introducing Modern Monetary Theory / 1 2. Implementing MMT / 4 3. Has Canada Adopted MMT? / 10 4. Proposed Economic and Social Justifications for MMT / 17 5. MMT and Inflation / 23 Concluding Comments / 27 References / 29 About the author / 33 Acknowledgments / 33 Publishing information / 34 Supporting the Fraser Institute / 35 Purpose, funding, and independence / 35 About the Fraser Institute / 36 Editorial Advisory Board / 37 fraserinstitute.org fraserinstitute.org Executive Summary Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a policy model for funding govern- ment spending. While MMT is not new, it has recently received wide- spread attention, particularly as government spending has increased dramatically in response to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and concerns grow about how to pay for this increased spending. The essential message of MMT is that there is no financial constraint on government spending as long as a country is a sovereign issuer of cur- rency and does not tie the value of its currency to another currency. Both Canada and the US are examples of countries that are sovereign issuers of currency. In principle, being a sovereign issuer of currency endows the government with the ability to borrow money from the country’s cen- tral bank. The central bank can effectively credit the government’s bank account at the central bank for an unlimited amount of money without either charging the government interest or, indeed, demanding repayment of the government bonds the central bank has acquired. In 2020, the cen- tral banks in both Canada and the US bought a disproportionately large share of government bonds compared to previous years, which has led some observers to argue that the governments of Canada and the United States are practicing MMT.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 112 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 157 WASHINGTON, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2011 No. 186 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was endured 125 years of change, growth, day, December 4, New York Times enti- called to order by the Speaker pro tem- and service. Today, Consumers Energy tled, ‘‘How the Food Industry Eats pore (Ms. FOXX). delivers electricity and natural gas to Your Kids’ Lunch.’’ This has serious f 6.8 million of Michigan’s 10 million consequences for the 32 million chil- residents in all 68 counties of the dren who rely on school lunches, and DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO State’s Lower Peninsula. often the breakfast program as well. TEMPORE For the past 125 years, Consumer En- Unfortunately, when one-third of our The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- ergy has operated under the timeless children of school age, 6 to 19, are over- fore the House the following commu- principle: provide customers with safe, weight or obese, this matters. nication from the Speaker: reliable, and affordable energy service. There’s no denying that the institu- WASHINGTON, DC, This principle has played an integral tional and political forces combine to December 6, 2011. role of improving the quality of life for favor giving our kids unhealthy food. It I hereby appoint the Honorable VIRGINIA generations of Michigan residents. It doesn’t just shortchange the children FOXX to act as Speaker pro tempore on this also has been responsible for the and their families with huge medical day.
  • Mpcs, Mpes, and Multipliers: a Trilemma for New Keynesian Models

    Mpcs, Mpes, and Multipliers: a Trilemma for New Keynesian Models

    MPCs, MPEs, and Multipliers: A Trilemma for New Keynesian Models Adrien Auclert* Bence Bardóczy† Matthew Rognlie‡ March 2021 Abstract We show that New Keynesian models with frictionless labor supply face a challenge: given standard parameters, they cannot simultaneously match plausible estimates of marginal propen- sities to consume (MPCs), marginal propensities to earn (MPEs), and fiscal multipliers. A HANK model with sticky wages provides a solution to this trilemma. Introduction In recent decades, macroeconomics has experienced a micro-moment revolution. As the field has recognized the importance of heterogeneity for macroeconomic outcomes, it has increasingly used estimates from disaggregated data to discipline its models. One moment that epitomizes this revolution is the marginal propensity to consume (MPC): the amount by which consumption increases in response to a one-time transitory increase in income. Recent research has established that MPCs are extremely important for the macroeconomic effects of shocks and policy, both in partial equilibrium (e.g. Kaplan and Violante 2014, Auclert 2019, Berger, Guerrieri, Lorenzoni and Vavra 2018) and in general equilibrium (e.g. Kaplan, Moll and Violante 2018, Auclert, Rognlie and Straub 2018). Moreover, there exists a widespread consensus on the average level of MPCs in the data. We summarize this consensus as: Fact 1. Average MPCs are high in the data, around 0.25 quarterly and 0.5 annually. *Stanford University, CEPR and NBER. Email: [email protected]. †Northwestern University. Email: [email protected]. ‡Northwestern University and NBER. Email: [email protected]. An earlier version of this paper circulated under the title “A Note on Multipliers in NK Models with GHH Preferences”.
  • Nber Working Paper Series David Laidler On

    Nber Working Paper Series David Laidler On

    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES DAVID LAIDLER ON MONETARISM Michael Bordo Anna J. Schwartz Working Paper 12593 http://www.nber.org/papers/w12593 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 October 2006 This paper has been prepared for the Festschrift in Honor of David Laidler, University of Western Ontario, August 18-20, 2006. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2006 by Michael Bordo and Anna J. Schwartz. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. David Laidler on Monetarism Michael Bordo and Anna J. Schwartz NBER Working Paper No. 12593 October 2006 JEL No. E00,E50 ABSTRACT David Laidler has been a major player in the development of the monetarist tradition. As the monetarist approach lost influence on policy makers he kept defending the importance of many of its principles. In this paper we survey and assess the impact on monetary economics of Laidler's work on the demand for money and the quantity theory of money; the transmission mechanism on the link between money and nominal income; the Phillips Curve; the monetary approach to the balance of payments; and monetary policy. Michael Bordo Faculty of Economics Cambridge University Austin Robinson Building Siegwick Avenue Cambridge ENGLAND CD3, 9DD and NBER [email protected] Anna J. Schwartz NBER 365 Fifth Ave, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016-4309 and NBER [email protected] 1.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 113 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 113 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 160 WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, JANUARY 9, 2014 No. 5 House of Representatives The House met at 10 a.m. and was the world, many of them trafficked for This January designated as National called to order by the Speaker pro tem- labor, but increasingly for underaged Slavery and Human Trafficking Pre- pore (Mr. MESSER). girls. For young women, this is a case vention Month is a perfect time to f where they are exploited in this traf- shine a spotlight on the dark issue of ficking as well. trafficking, but awareness is only a DESIGNATION OF SPEAKER PRO Even in my work as chairman of the first step. More needs to be done. TEMPORE Foreign Affairs Committee, I have To that end, I would urge my col- The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- learned that human trafficking is no leagues to join me in cosponsoring H.R. fore the House the following commu- longer just a problem ‘‘over there.’’ It 3344, the Fraudulent Overseas Recruit- nication from the Speaker: is a problem in our communities here. ment and Trafficking Elimination Act, It is a problem in developing econo- to combat one critical form of recur- WASHINGTON, DC, ring abuse: namely, that is unscrupu- January 9, 2014. mies, but also it is a problem in the I hereby appoint the Honorable LUKE United States and in Europe. It is a lous recruiters. By targeting the re- MESSER to act as Speaker pro tempore on scourge even in the communities that cruiters we can do a lot—these recruit- this day.
  • Market-Structure.Pdf

    Market-Structure.Pdf

    This chapter covers the types of market such as perfect competition, monopoly, oligopoly and monopolistic competition, in which business firms operate. Basically, when we hear the word market, we think of a place where goods are being bought and sold. In economics, market is a place where buyers and sellers are exchanging goods and services with the following considerations such as: • Types of goods and services being traded • The number and size of buyers and sellers in the market • The degree to which information can flow freely Perfect or Pure Market Imperfect Market Perfect Market is a market situation which consists of a very large number of buyers and sellers offering a homogeneous product. Under such condition, no firm can affect the market price. Price is determined through the market demand and supply of the particular product, since no single buyer or seller has any control over the price. Perfect Competition is built on two critical assumptions: . The behavior of an individual firm . The nature of the industry in which it operates The firm is assumed to be a price taker The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit Industry • Normal demand and supply curves • More supply at higher price Firm • Price takers • Have to accept the industry price Perfect Competition cannot be found in the real world. For such to exist, the following conditions must be observed and required: A large number of sellers Selling a homogenous product No artificial restrictions placed upon price or quantity Easy entry and exit All buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge of market conditions and of any changes that occur in the market Firms are “price takers” There are very many small firms All producers of a good sell the same product There are no barriers to enter the market All consumers and producers have ‘perfect information’ Firms sell all they produce, but they cannot set a price.
  • Principles of Microeconomics

    Principles of Microeconomics

    PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS A. Competition The basic motivation to produce in a market economy is the expectation of income, which will generate profits. • The returns to the efforts of a business - the difference between its total revenues and its total costs - are profits. Thus, questions of revenues and costs are key in an analysis of the profit motive. • Other motivations include nonprofit incentives such as social status, the need to feel important, the desire for recognition, and the retaining of one's job. Economists' calculations of profits are different from those used by businesses in their accounting systems. Economic profit = total revenue - total economic cost • Total economic cost includes the value of all inputs used in production. • Normal profit is an economic cost since it occurs when economic profit is zero. It represents the opportunity cost of labor and capital contributed to the production process by the producer. • Accounting profits are computed only on the basis of explicit costs, including labor and capital. Since they do not take "normal profits" into consideration, they overstate true profits. Economic profits reward entrepreneurship. They are a payment to discovering new and better methods of production, taking above-average risks, and producing something that society desires. The ability of each firm to generate profits is limited by the structure of the industry in which the firm is engaged. The firms in a competitive market are price takers. • None has any market power - the ability to control the market price of the product it sells. • A firm's individual supply curve is a very small - and inconsequential - part of market supply.