🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
80
views

Our last discussion question for this course is a fitting one since it seeks to cap off this introductory look at the macro. by assessing the relevant theory that has been developed to date. As your text indicates, there are two broad schools of macroeconomic thought that have been competing for the public mind over the last few decades. The Keynesian, or Mainstream view, sees the economy as being prone to shocks, and is concerned primarily with achieving full employment, and seeks to use government intervention (primarily activist fiscal policy) at boosting aggregate demand to achieve that objective. The Classical School (including the Monetarist branch of that school) sees the economy as being mostly self-correcting, and is more concerned with macroeconomic stability particularly price stability, and prefers monetary policy over fiscal policy in achieving this goal. Although there has been a fair amount of consensus as to some of the major items of analysis, there still remain some controversies, particularly with regard to whether government policy is even effective at managing the macroeconomy. What do you think of these divergent views as to government policy? Has one side of this debate won the majority of the argument here, or do both sides have points in their favor? In either case, though, are there times when one set of theories is called for, and then times when the other is?

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
80
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Richa Arora
Richa AroraLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related textbook solutions

Principles of Economics
2nd Edition, 2017
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172364
Principles of Macroeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172388
Principles of Microeconomics
2 Edition,
Openstax
ISBN: 9781947172340

Related questions

Big banks urge Ottawa to spend $20-billion in rapid stimulus

"Two of Canada's big banks want the federal government to pump $20-billion into an economic stimulus for a fast jolt to the flagging economy. Bank of Nova Scotia urged Ottawa to spend that much by mid-2017. Such a measure, the bank said, would equal 1 percent of gross domestic product and would play into its new economic forecast for GDP growth of 1.3 percent this year and 2.5 percent next. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce called for $20-billion in the government's first year, saying the pledges on the table just aren't enough. The Liberal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has indeed promised to spend billions in infrastructure stimulus. But, beyond the recent campaign pledges, there have been no details on the final amount, the targets, and the timeline. And remember, the fiscal outlook has changed rapidly, with the Liberals now forecasting a deficit of $18-billion even without their promised spending. Canadians will get the details when Finance Minister Bill Morneau unveils his budget on March 22. While Scotiabank and CIBC are the first to have specific calls, other bank economists have said the further stimulus would be welcome, and that the government certainly has the fiscal room to accommodate it. Scotiabank painted a weak economic picture for 2016, particularly for the oil-shocked province of Alberta, and a national unemployment rate that will top 7 per cent this year and next. It projected the economy of Alberta, which had been the country's economic engine until the oil route, will contract by a further 1.9 percent this year, with a jobless rate of 7.5 percent. Our Canadian forecast incorporates our recommendation for the federal fiscal stimulus of $20-billion, equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP, implemented during the second of 2016 and the first half of 2017, said Aron Gampel, Scotiabank's deputy chief economist. "This stimulus would be over and above the deficit resulting from weaker economic conditions, estimated for fiscal 2016-17 at $18-billion by the federal government," he added. "The stimulus should be designed to: deliver a rapid economic impact; raise Canada's economic capacity and thus our longer-term growth prospects; and, facilitate adjustments in the provinces most affected by weak commodity prices. Once the Canadian economy no longer requires policy support, targeting a declining ratio of net debt-to-GDP should resume." CIBC also weighed in on the stimulus debate today, calling for $20-billion in stimulus over two years. The Liberal pledges had been for $5-billion infrastructure and a further $5-billion in other measures in their first two years in power. But CIBC World Markets doesn't think that's enough given the country's economic troubles. "Federal stimulus under that scenario would be barely more than 0.5 percent of GDP, arguably too little to do the job, particularly with some provinces applying fiscal brakes," said CIBC's Royce Mendes and Avery Shenfeld. "We see a $20-billion stimulus program with a $40-billion deficit as being more appropriate, but given the political sensitivities, the government might show something closer to $35-billion for 2016-17, while perhaps taking on some further stimulus charged to the outgoing year." Some academics believe that in this low-interest-rate environment, what we need is a strong blast of fiscal stimulus to drive employment and growth. They argue that we should reject fiscal austerity and embrace public investment. Indeed, that has been the primary economic platform for the Liberal party, and for some, the reason for them winning a majority in the last election."

(a) The IMF "It is Mostly Fiscal" appears to be what Trudeau and his economic team have bought into. Explain why further fiscal austerity could be particularly painful for the Canadian economy, and how deficit spending may lower the government debt to GDP ratio. Be sure to illustrate using the IS-LM and the AD-AS frameworks.

(b) Discuss why Canadian banks are particularly concerned that the government fiscal stimulus plan may not be enough.

(c) Discuss what are some of the problems with using expansionary monetary policy in an environment of low interest rates. That is, describe the problem of a "liquidity trap."

 
After reading the article, post substantive comments on the economic impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017.
 
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF THE TRUMP TAX CUTS
April 25, 2018
The Economic Impact of the Trump Tax Cuts
By Hilary Schmidt, International Banker
 
On December 22, US President Donald Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The legislation is one of the most radical changes to fiscal policy the United States has undertaken in decades, with sweeping amendments implemented across the entire breadth of the tax code. Indeed, in his State of the Union Address, Trump called it the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history. As such, its impact is likely to be felt throughout the economy for quite some time to come.
 
It is arguably the cut in a corporate tax that forms the centrepiece of this new legislation, with the rate being cut from 35 to 21 per cent. That puts the new rate broadly in line with the worldwide average, which as measured by the Tax Foundation across 202 jurisdictions currently stands at 22.96 per cent or 29.41 per cent when weighted by gross domestic product (GDP). Corporations will also stop having to pay corporate tax on any income earned from foreign operations, while such money that is brought back home will be taxed between 8 and 15.5 per cent, significantly lower than the 35-per cent tax they are currently paying.
 
Republicans believe such substantial cuts will spur a massive influx of business investment that will eventually lead to higher average wages for Americans. For example, Texas Congressman Mike Conaway stated, It's in all of our best interest to have these tax cuts for corporations so that they will have more money to invest in their business and pay their workers. But much of the research conducted thus far suggests otherwise; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for instance, recently concluded that workers would receive a maximum of only a quarter of the benefits from tax cuts; and even then, it is most likely to be the higher earners that would be the biggest beneficiaries.
 
Another piece of evidence to which analysts are pointing is data from S&P Dow Jones Indices, which shows that non-financial companies in the S&P 500 are already flush with cash at the moment, having between them an estimated $1.63 trillion. And despite this vast sum of cash, an investment boom has not transpired. Indeed, some top companies have made it explicitly clear that any tax relief they receive from the reforms will be primarily used to increase dividends and buy back stock to boost share prices. Amgen CEO Robert Bradway, for example, said We've been actively returning capital in the form of growing dividend and buyback, and expect us to continue that. And in terms of what businesses planned to do with any profit returned from abroad, a Bank of America Merrill Lynch survey of more than 300 CEOs found that paying down debt and stock buybacks were by far and away from the biggest priorities for businesses.
 
The other major pillar of the reform is the cuts that have been enacted for individual income earners, with middle-class taxpayers earning between $19,050 and $77,400 per year receiving a cut in tax from 15 to 12 per cent. Higher-bracket earners, meanwhile, will see their tax rates go from 25 to 22 percent (for incomes between $77,400 and $165,000); 33 to 24 percent ($165,000 to $315,000); and 39.6 to 35 percent ($400,000 to $600,000). And as far as analysis from the Tax Center is concerned, after-tax income will increase by an average of 2.2 per cent across all groups. However, all of this changes after a few years, due to official budget rules that limit the cost of the bill to $1.5 trillion in total which therefore means that to make the corporate tax cuts permanent, the individual tax relief will expire by 2025. As such, a tax increase will likely result by 2027, which, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, will impact 53 per cent of Americans.
 
Whether the overall impact will be a net positive or negative for the US economy remains to be seen at this stage, therefore. While most analysis produced to date agrees that economic growth will receive a boost in the short-term, the predictions that have so far come in have been decidedly more mixed and less sure for longer time horizons. The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation of the US Congress expects the gross domestic product to be 0.8 per cent higher on average each year during the next 10 years than baseline forecasts, thanks mainly to an expected increase in labour supply and business investment. According to the independent non-profit research organisation the Tax Foundation, meanwhile, the plan will primarily reduce marginal tax rates and the cost of capital. In turn, this will lead to a 1.7-per cent rise in GDP over the long-term, a 1.5-per cent increase in wages and a further 339,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This year, moreover, will see GDP growth being posted at 2.45 per cent, compared to baseline growth of 2.01 per cent.
 
But most analysts see the economic benefits tapering off much sooner than the 10 years asserted by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Goldman Sachs, for example, believes the tax cuts will only slightly boost growth in the short-term before fading quickly. Alec Phillips and Blake Taylor, analysts on Goldman's US economic-analysis team, stated in December that the bank's estimate of the growth effects of the legislation in 2018 and 2019 would be 0.3 per cent per year, before dropping off. Indeed, Phillips and Taylor warn that the legislation may end up damaging the economy in the long run: We note that the effect in 2020 and beyond looks minimal and could be slightly negative.
 
Some also point to the fact that the cuts will drastically deepen the national debt, with Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimating an additional $1.5 trillion will be added to the $10 trillion already forecast for the next decade. As she explained, Instead of trickling down economic growth, the House plan will unleash a tidal wave of debt that will ultimately slow wage growth and hurt the economy. She seems to have a point the debt today is 77 per cent of GDP, much higher than the 31 per cent in place when the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed, and the highest it has ever been save for the period just after World War II. What's more, given that interest rates could well rise faster than expected as a result of the likely ballooning of the debt, it may well dampen the expected boost to business-capital expenditure, consumer spending and wage growth.
 
Indeed, the arbiter of monetary policy itself, the Federal Reserve, has indicated that it remains somewhat unsure of the overall impact of the tax cuts. According to the released minutes of the central bank's December meeting, growth will only modestly be boosted, with members of the Fed's board and presidents of its member regional banks saying they expect real GDP growth of just 2.2-2.6 per cent and a median expectation of 2.5 per cent growth for this year. The comparatively tempered projections are reflective of the debate within the Fed over just how much of a boost business investment and consumer spending will receive from the tax cuts.
 
According to the minutes, Many participants judged that the proposed changes in business taxes, if enacted, would likely provide a modest boost to capital spending, although the magnitude of the effects was uncertain. While they are highly likely to have a positive effect on economic growth, the Fed also warned that much of the extra cash that is generated is more likely to be utilised for mergers and acquisitions or debt reduction and stock buybacks. Moreover, the boost to consumer spending may have already occurred in part on the back of realised future tax-cut expectations.
 
Ultimately, it may be too soon to make any firm conclusions about how impactful the tax cuts will eventually be; but given that the US economy is already experiencing strong economic growth, and given that virtually all the signs point to an economy operating at full employment and therefore, at full capacity such sweeping reforms that have been at least partly designed as an economic stimulus could well be dangerous. The impact on inflation and debt may well force the Fed to hike rates more than the three times that back in December it had projected for 2018. Time will tell.

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Economics 400,000
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in