ECON 2002.01 Lecture Notes - Lecture 13: Opportunity Cost, Adverse Selection, Risk Neutral

You are working at an investment firm that has many investments in Lithuania. You have been asked to do a simple simulation showing the potential effects of Lithuania building a high-speed rail network, and what will happen if there is worldwide pressure on interest rates. All amounts are in millions of Litas. (The Lita is the Lithuanian currency. For this example use the exchange rate you compute, not the actual exchange rate). Government spending is projected to rise by 50 percent due to construction of the high-speed rail network

This is the status quo scenario

Total Output is equal to 5,000

Government spending is equal to 1,000

Tax revenue is equal to 1,000

Consumption is equal to 250+0.75*(Y-T);

The level of investment is 1,000-50r;

Net Exports are 500-500?,

the world real interest rate is five percent Assume that there are three political parties in Lithuania and each think that building the high speed rail network will have different effects on the economy. They have hired you as a consultant (moonlighting from your investment firm) to do an analysis showing what happens if their beliefs end up being true

a. THE LIBERAL PARTY believes that increasing government spending to build the high speed rail network will increase both G and GDP. That is G, will increase to 1,500 and GDP will increase by 500 too. Compare what happens to the economy (relative to the status quo) if the Liberal party is correct. How do private savings, public savings, national savings, investment, net exports, and the exchange rate change from the status quo?

b. THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY believes that building a high speed rail network will put people to work (thus increasing G), but that it will ultimately be useless (there will be no overall wealth created), so GDP will be unchanged. The conservatives are also concerned that the government taking on new debt will be a bad sign to Lithuania�s creditors, and that borrowing the money for the high-speed rail system will cause the interest rate to rise 20 percent. Under this scenario, how do private savings, public savings, national savings, investment, net exports, and the exchange rate change from the status quo?

c. THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY believes that taking tax money and using it to build a high-speed rail network does nothing more than take money from one group of people (taxpayers) and give it to another group of people (the construction industry) and that there is no productive economic impact. How do private savings, public savings, national savings, Net exports, and the exchange rate change from the status quo?

d. Please compare situations a, b, and c. Who do you think is correct, and why?

e. The Libertarians use a microeconomics explanation about taxation to argue that the economy will be helped most by simply reducing taxes, even if people only save the money that they don�t spend on taxes (C is not affected). They say that this phenomenon is assumed away by most macro-economists. What are they referring to?

2. Assume that households’ consumption function is given by C(Y − T) = 50 + 0.75(Y − T), that firms’ investment function is I(r) = 150 − 10r, government spending is G = 150, and the tax bill T = 200.

(a) What is the Marginal Propensity to Consume (“MPC”)?

(b) What is the equilibrium level of real GDP, in the goods market, if the real interest rate is 5%? (Plug in r = 5 for 5%, rather than 0.05 This is an assumption about the way we scale the coefficients in the investment function.)

(c) Solve for the equation of the IS Curve (“Investment-Savings”). How will this equation change if government spending increases to 200? The money supply is MS = 3000 and the price level is P = 4. Money/liquidity demand is given by Md/P = L(r, Y ) = Y − 50r.

(d) Solve for the equation of the LM Curve (“Liquidity-Money”).

(e) Based on your answers to the previous two questions, what are the equilibrium levels of the real interest rate and real GDP? (G is back to 150.)

(f) Assume now that P is unknown. Solve for the equation of the Aggregate Demand curve (“AD”)

1. Why Niall Ferguson thought that the expansionary fiscal policy (or government deficit) could produce crowding-out effect? You can explain by using the IS-LM model or you can use the logic of loanable funds theory.

Niall Ferguson believed that expansionary fiscal policy could produce a crowding-out effect. Ferguson believed that if the government tried to increase demand during the crisis it would cause the real interest rate to increase. He theorized that if the government tried to boost the economy through deficit spending it would cause the interest rate to rise, which in turn would crowd-out investors and consumers. The interest in the deficit would lead to an increase in the demand for loanable funds, which would lead to an increase in interest rates. Ferguson stated "The lesson of economic growth is very clear. Economic growth does not come from state-led infrastructure investment. It comes from technological innovation, and gains in productivity, and these things come from private sector, not from the state."

2. Why Paul Krugman thinks that Niall Ferguson was wrong and thought that government deficit could not produce a crowding-out effect? In other words, please explain Krugman's Liquidity trap .

Paul Krugman disagreed with Ferguson and believed that the government deficit could not produce a crowding out effect. Krugman's liquidity trap: Private demand is so low that even if the short-term interest rate is 0% spending is less that what is needed for full employment. Normal monetary policy of the central bank purchasing short-term debts with new money is ineffective. Krugman argues that a major issue during the crisis was people wanting to save money combined with the private sector being far less likely to invest. He referred to this a "savings glut". It was argued that the federal reserve was playing the part that the private banking system through buying private securities and the federal government was playing the roll that business wasn't by engaging in investment. Due to the liquidity trap excess demand for savings is not going to drive interest rates up. Krugman stated " Government borrowing gives some of those excess saving a place to go and in the process expands overall demand, and hence GDP. It does not crowd out private spending, at least not until the excess supply of savings has been sopped up, which is the same thing as saying not until the economy has escaped from the liquidity trap."

3. In the discussion, other discussants such as George Soros and Robin Wells pointed out some interesting issues. Please provide at least one thing that you agree and one thing that you disagree. Discuss in details why you think so.

I agree with Soros view that the publics view of the financial markets has been forever changed. " Financial markets namely that they tend toward equilibrium, and that equilibrium is disturbed by extraneous forces, outside shocks. But the finical system collapsed of its own weight." I feel like this is a situation in which it takes a very long time to build trust, but that trust can be lost instantly. The crash has challenged the felling of security that people once felt in the banking system. The idea of the market regulating itself is fading, it wasn't until the government stepped that people felt reassured in the banking system. I believe this will lead to a period of government regulation that wouldn't have arose without this change in view. I disagree with robin Wells' view that the US needs to shift towards protectionism. I believe that free trade is good for everyone as long as there is a comparative advantage. If the US moves toward protections as a result of the deficit it will slow economic growth and place us at a disadvantage compared to countries with free trade. Not to mention consumers in the US will be placed with the burden of higher prices on goods.

Please make comments to the discussion I provided above(at least 300 words). And you can start with "I agree with you on some points... But I disagree with you on some points".