🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
87
views

 

Many people have difficulty borrowing as much money as they want, even if they are confident that their incomes in the future will be high enough to easily pay back the borrowed funds. For example, many students in medical school will earn high incomes after they graduate and become physicians. If they could, they would probably borrow now in order to live more comfortably while in medical school and pay the loans back out of their higher future income. Unfortunately banks are reluctant to make loans to people who currently have low incomes, even if there is a good chance their incomes will be higher in the future. If people could always borrow as much as they want to, would you expect consumption to become more or less sensitive to current income? Please explain.

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
87
views

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

Retselisitsoe Pokothoane
Retselisitsoe PokothoaneLv10
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

Instructions: Review and respond to at least two of your classmates' posts by sharing any ideas you may have about how households and businesses can protect themselves against inflation.

Please help with a response to the following:

The government tries to restrain inflation because it causes an unintended and undesirable redistribution of income and wealth€ (Amacher, Pate 2012). That is when a lender who is in the driver's seat when providing a loan to a person can charge a low-interest rate to entice people to borrow money at that low rate. Now if the Feds were to raise the interest rate even a quarter of a percent this could turn the tables from the lender over to the borrower. In the first scenario, the Lender will make a small profit over the long term with the low-interest rates. If the nation's interest rate increases, the value of the dollar goes down and the Lender ends up making less back than they loaned. This causes the redistribution of the income to favor the borrower.

Once inflation starts to happen it is a trickle-down effect on the consumer in the long run. Eventually, the consumer will start to pay inflated rates in some way through the goods and services they purchase. Those that are on fixed incomes will be adversely affected because as their income does not increase but the cost of goods does, they will have to find ways to cut their spending in order to make ends meet. This could be done without eating out as often, buying cheaper and fewer quality foods, or shopping at lower quality stores just to save the extra dollars that inflation has cost them. People who are on fixed incomes have to become more creative in order to still enjoy some qualities in life when times get tight.

How would I respond to this post below. I just need something very short.


If I had a fixed 30-year mortgage and the economy experienced unanticipated inflation,the borrower would be the winner and the lender would be the loser in the given scenario. The reason being is if a society experiences unanticipated inflation, individuals and institutions will change their behavior. For example, potential homeowners will not be able to borrow from banks at fixed rates of interest, but will be required to accept loans whose rates can be adjusted as inflation rates change. Banks do not want to lend money at a fixed interest rate if there is a strong likelihood that inflation will erode the real value of the income stream they expected. However, if banks become reluctant to make loans with fixed interest rates, this imposes more risk on homeowners. In this scenario the fixed loan was made prior to the unexpected inflation sodebtors will gain at the expense of creditors. Creditors, on the one hand, will lose because inflation will erode the amount of money they planned to earn on the loans. Since the loans have already been made, there

. Vouchers to Pay Private School
Tuition
Two conditions that justify government intervention in a market are the presence of external benefits and equity concerns. Both of these issues are present in the case of primary and secondary education in the United States. Think about what education without government education would look like. In the absence of government intervention, all primary and secondary education in the US would be private. Public school districts would not exist. Parents would need to pay private firms (schools) to educate their children.

External benefits

If all education were private, it’s likely that people would buy too little education, from society’s point of view. External benefits are one reason. When a child is educated, he or she benefits and we expect his or her parents to take those benefits into account when they purchase education. But there are additional benefits to society which parents may ignore. As people become more educated, they are less likely to be unemployed or be criminals and are more likely to volunteer and vote. The presence of these external benefits is an example in support for the government getting involved in education.

Equity

Many families in the United States have low incomes. Among all children in first through twelfth grades in 2001, 46% were from families with incomes below $40,000. Since the cost of private education would be an important share of these families’ incomes, most Americans would be concerned about the fairness of relying on markets to decide how much education children receive. Current spending by these families on private education provides some support for this concern. Of all children in private school in 2001, only 25% were from families with incomes below $40,000. Therefore, equity concerns are another example in support for government getting involved in education.

Providing vs. producing education

Most economists think external benefits and equity concerns justify government intervention in education. But it is important to distinguish between government production of education and other forms of government intervention. At the level of elementary and secondary education, K- 12 education, government intervention today mostly means production of education by local school districts. To benefit, children must attend public schools. But this is not the only form intervention could take.
There are other markets where government intervention takes the form of subsidizing people’s access to products—think of financial aid to college students, for example. Many people in the US think that government should move from producing education to subsidizing access.

One form that subsidy could take is government providing vouchers to parents. Parents would use the voucher to help pay for their child’s education in a private school. After it receives the voucher, the school would turn it in and be paid by a local or state government.

Today there is a lively debate between people who think K-12 education should be delivered publicly and people who think quality and efficiency would be higher if government provided vouchers and the education was delivered by private schools. Some of these quality and efficiency arguments can be based on material we covered this week. Price competition between private schools will pressure each one to produce efficiently. Competition for students will lead private schools to offer programs of interest to parents and their children.

Answer the questions below and make use of the sources supplied. Be sure to cite you sources in your answers.

1. Explain whether a potential exit by students with vouchers will lead to the improvement of public schools. 2. Discuss whether the implementation of vouchers will lead the best students to leave public school, which could lead to a decline in education for the students left behind in the public schools. 3. Consider what might happen to the students who use vouchers to leave public schools in order to attend private schools. How might their academic performance change as a result of switching? 4. Finally, think about the impact of a voucher system on the students in an urban setting. Describe whether all families would have an equal opportunity to access education.

Your final product will be a paper that: ? Addresses each of the four questions above in total. ? Is APA formatted. ? The body is to be 2 pages minimum.

The requirements for your assignment are: 1. Answer each question fully 2. Define the overall subject of each question. 3. Cite at least three (3) resources from this week’s materials.

Weekly leaderboard

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