Log in
Economics
2
answers
1
watching
156
views

Problem Scenario 
Covid-19 global economic pandemic has negatively affected economies as a whole at the global, 
national and regional levels. The novel effects of the fluidity of Covid-19 appears to continue to 
have negative impacts on the macro business model as the global recession seems to be inevitable. 
You are working as a macroeconomist in economic affairs in your local country, and you are tasked 
with analyzing the impact of Covid-19 on the economy and you are required to prepare notes on 
what specific government policies can be implemented as a stimulus package to jump-start the 
economy savings and investment market. The team meeting will be held in 3 days from the date 
of the assignment and because of limitation of time the Chief economist has given you the 
following guidelines: 
(a) You are required to identify four (4) key macroeconomic issues from the impact of Covid-19, 
(b) For each issue identified in (a) explain in detail what specific government policy/ies would you 
implement 
(c) For each government policy/ies identify in (b) what would be the rationale for your choice of 
policy 
(d) Your answer should be accompanied by relevant diagrams. 
[Total marks 60 marks.]

Watch
2
answers
1
watching
156
views

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

Unlock all answers

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

NOTE: Under "d" there are two answeres required.

In the first quarter of 2009, President Obama pushed his massive fiscal stimulus package of $862 (It was originally at $787 billion) through the Congress and later passed by the House and the Senate, whose centerpiece was spending most of this stimulus funds in repairing and building infrastructure in transportation, healthcare, science and technology, and education. Pres. Obama also urged to make a modest tax cut for middle-income families making a household income less than $250K per year (it has been modified to $400k starting from January 2013). The push for this combined package of spending and partial tax cut was also criticized by several opponents in politics, academia, and businesses on the ground that the spending was too large under government financing to balance the growing budget deficit and national debt that might threaten future economic stability of the country.

d) Using the Keynesian Cross model diagram (The diagram with 45 degree line by splitting AD (C+I+G+NX) on the vertical axis and RGDP on the horizontal axis, See in Ch. 9,10 & 13 of the textbook) and equation, critically and briefly illustrate the short run and long run economic impact (negative effect on RGDP growth, employment, and other variables) of Recent "Sequester" measure of $85 billion (automatic spending cut of Government spending, G) passed by the US Congress.

(Hint: The impact will be in terms of major macroeconomic variables of US economy such as GDP growth, unemployment rate, interest rates, and inflation). 3 pts.

However, many critics contended that this "sequester" measure is only temporary and too small given the $4T US government budget to have a significant impact on the economy. Therefore, many economists considered this spending cut as too small to bring the economy back into recession. Do you agree or disagree with this contention?

Hint: You may also observe he most recent economic trend and the stock prices in the Wall Street, especially during the end of the second quarter of 2013. 2 pts.

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."

Article:

INTRA, Portugal--Leaders of the world's top central banks warned Wednesday that escalating trade conflicts could ricochet through financial markets and hurt the world economy, potentially prolonging the era of ultralow interest rates.

Rising tensions over trade come at an awkward time for major central banks, which have started moving away from easy-money policies introduced since the global financial crisis.

In a moderated discussion in Portugal, the heads of the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan and Reserve Bank of Australia called for calm and warned that the costs of further escalation could be high.

Global stock markets sagged this week after U.S. President Donald Trump called for a fresh round of tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods, upping the ante after he previously approved tariffs on $50 billion of goods.

"It's very worrisome and again, I can't see any positive," said ECB President Mario Draghi, who was hosting the event, Europe's answer to the Fed's annual economic symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo.

Mr. Draghi warned that disputes over trade have created "considerable uncertainty" for the 19-nation eurozone economy, which has slowed sharply in recent months.

The European Union said Wednesday it would impose tariffs on U.S. goods worth around [euro]2.8 billion ($3.2 billion) in response to American import tariffs on steel and aluminum. But the EU's move is unlikely to discourage the U.S. from a second round of tariffs, possibly targeted at European autos, which would hit exports worth 0.3% of the EU's economic output, said Oliver Rakau, an economist with Oxford Economics in Frankfurt.

In a shift reflecting those concerns, Mr. Draghi warned Tuesday that the bank could delay plans announced only last week to phase out its [euro]2.5 trillion bond-buying program and suggested the timing of a first interest-rate increase could be pushed back.

Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned in the discussion that changes in trade policy "could cause us to have to question the outlook." The Fed last week raised short-term interest rates and signaled a quicker pace of interest-rate increases to keep the U.S. economy from overheating.

While the tensions haven't yet dented U.S. economic growth, Mr. Powell said businesses increasingly were expressing concerns to the Fed about how the conflict might affect their plans for investment and hiring.

For Japan, whose central bank maintained its aggressive stimulus policies last week to support a softening economy, the trade conflict is "a matter of great concern," said Bank of Japan Gov. Haruhiko Kuroda.

The indirect impact on Japan's economy could be "quite significant if the escalation between China and the U.S. continues," Mr. Kuroda said, because it could affect the Asian supply chain centered on countries like Japan and Taiwan and across southeast Asia.

While the tariffs themselves might not derail the global economic recovery, the fallout could be magnified by investors through financial markets, said Australia's central bank governor, Philip Lowe.

"I believe what is happening [on trade] is incredibly worrying," Mr. Lowe said. "It wouldn't take that much for financial markets to turn this into a very big global event."

The problem for central banks, in Japan and elsewhere, is that they appear to have little ammunition left to deal with any new economic downturn after years of aggressive stimulus. The value of assets held by the Bank of Japan is set to exceed the nation's annual economic output over the coming months, while the ECB's balance sheet also will continue to grow through the end of this year. Both central banks are still holding short-term interest rates below zero.

Asked how the ECB could respond to any new recession, Mr. Draghi said he didn't expect economic growth to turn negative between now and 2020.

Mr. Powell acknowledged that central banks would have less capacity to fight any new recession because interest rates are already close to zero. The U.S. government also has less scope to increase spending than in the past, though it still has room to react, he said.

"I really hope that this escalation could be rescinded and a normal trading relationship between the U.S. and China would prevail," Mr. Kuroda said.

As there any positive outcomes of rising trade tensions, according to central bankers? . What actions would central banks in theory launch, in theory, to counteract any problems with economic growth in their countries? Why are central banks worried about these policy moves at this point in time?

Weekly leaderboard

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