Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
103
views

Describe three budgetary "gimmicks" and potential structural solutions to them.

Over the years there have been pushes for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which would effectively preclude the use of Keynesian economics, or do we still have a need for the Keynesian approach?

Do you favor a balance budget amendment? why or why not?

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
103
views

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

Samantha Balando
Samantha BalandoLv7
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


48. In order to be classified officially as unemployed, a personmust
a. Be out of work and available for work, need not be activelylooking for work
b. Be out of work, actively looking for work, and currentlyavailable for work
c. Only be out of work
d. Have been out of work for over 3 months

49. If exports rise and imports fall, (ceteris paribus)
a. Aggregate expenditure falls
b. Aggregate expenditure rises
c. Aggregate expenditure remains the same
d. Net exports are irrelevant when considering aggregateexpenditure

50. Over the past 25 years, the U.S. has had a net trade____________; which means
the U.S. has exported _________ it has imported.
a..Deficit; less than
b. Balance; the same amount as
c. Deficit; more than
d. Surplus; more than

43. If our economy was experiencing inflation, which of thefollowing would move us
back toward macro equilibrium?
a. Lower Taxes
b. Increase Investment
c. Reduce Net Exports
d. Increase Consumer Spending


42. If our economy slumped into a recession, which of the followingwould help move us back toward macro equilibrium?:
a. Reduce Taxes
b. Reduce Investment
c. Reduce Net Exports
d. Reduce Government Purchases

34. Economists consider that we are at full employment whenthe
a. Officially reported unemployment rate is at the naturalunemployment rate, about 5%
b. Natural unemployment rate is equal to 10 %.
c. Officially reported unemployment rate is zero.
d. Natural unemployment rate is equal to 0 percent.

35. Beginning at macro equilibrium, inflation occurs becauseaggregate
a. supply increases more rapidly than aggregate demand.
b. supply and aggregate demand increase at the same rate.
d. supply and aggregate demand decrease at the same rate.
c. demand increases more rapidly than aggregate supply.

36. If the U.S. government decreases significantly its expenditureon defense, then, ceteris paribus, the aggregate
a. demand curve shifts rightward.
b. demand curve shifts leftward.
c. supply curve shifts rightward.
d. supply curve shifts leftward.

37. According to Keynesian economics, which of the following ismost likely to raise the unemployment rate?
a. Aggregate demand increases.
b. Aggregate demand decreases.
c. Aggregate supply increases.
d. None of the above is likely to raise the unemploymentrate.

38. If a government has a budget deficit, it must
a. raise the real interest rate.
b. borrow in the financial market.
c. decrease taxes.
d. Increase spending

39. The U.S. gross public debt is approximately ________________which is
approximately ______________ % of U.S. GDP.

40. Under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate power for determiningfiscal policy is:
e. The President
f. The Congress
g. The Council of Economic Advisors
h. The State governments


32. The Marginal Propensity to Consume (MPC) is:
e. The rate at which consumption changes over time
f. The percentage of an additional dollar of disposable income thatwill go toward additional consumption
g. The average percentage of total income one consumes
h. The average percentage of total income one saves

Barbara is working on the audit of a client with a group of five other staff-level employees. During the audit, Diane, a member of the group, points out that she identified a deficiency in the client’s inventory system that she did not discover during the physical observation of the client’s inventory. The deficiency was relatively minor, and perhaps that is why it was not detected at the time. Barbara suggests to Diane that they bring the matter to Jessica, the senior in charge of the engagement. Diane does not want to do it because she is the one who identified the deficiency and she is the one who should have detected it at the time of the observation. Three of the other four staff members agree with Diane. Haley is the only one, along with Barbara, who wants to inform Jessica.

After an extended discussion of the matter, the group votes and decides not to inform Jessica. Still, Barbara does not feel right about it. She wonders: What if Jessica finds out another way? What if the deficiency is more serious than Diane has said? What if it portends other problems with the client? She decides to raise all these issues but is rebuked by the others who remind her that the team is already behind on its work and any additional audit procedures would increase the time spent on the audit and make them all look incompetent. They remind Barbara that Jessica is a stickler for keeping to the budget and any overages cannot be billed to the client.

Assume you are in Barbara’s position. What would you do and why? Consider the following in answering the question:

How can you best express your point of view effectively?

What do you need to say, to whom, and in what sequence?

What do you expect the objections or pushback will be, and then what would you say next?

Public subsidies for new stadiums and arenas are commonly justified based on the economic benefits they will confer on the local economy rather than on public consumption externalities or the value of an enhanced community image. Yet there is virtually no evidence of any perceptible economic development benefits from sports teams or stadiums. How, then, have sports leagues been so successful in persuading government officials and voters to subsidize their industry when they seem to promote the losing argument?

Many referendums on using tax revenue to construct sports stadiums and arenas have been closed (Fort, 1997). At the end of the controversy, however, almost all cities have contributed public funds to subsidize private, for-profit teams owned by some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. The close votes suggest that stadium proponents-team owners and players-have been quite sophisticated in their appeals. If the votes had been overwhelmingly in favor of the subsidies, the proponents probably sought too little.

If the voters had not generally approved the subsidies, they asked for too much. Part of the explanation for the success of subsidies for sports stadiums relies on the distribution of benefits and costs. Only a small proportion of people in any metropolitan area attend professional team sports contests. But those who do often are intensely interested. Thus substantial benefits accrue to some individuals, motivating them to become politically active in supporting the use of tax revenue to procure or retain a team. Team owners and players are also well organized and have low-cost access to the media in their effort to promote subsidization. In contrast, most voters do not find it in their interest to oppose actively a referendum that may cost them $25 or $50 per year in additional taxes.

The issue is complex, the subsidies are indirect, and the proponents have almost all of the information. Those who are motivated to oppose the subsidies frequently are poorly funded, disorganized, and politically naive. Misleading "economic impact statements" commissioned by the proponents of subsidization often confuse the public. As we have seen, these studies are fraught with methodological errors that may be easily overlooked for those not trained in economics. Given the close votes, the studies can be enormously effective even if they deceive only 2 or 3 percent of the voters.

In the article you read by Siegfried and Zimbalist, they write there is virtually no evidence of any perceptible economic development benefits from sports teams or stadiums. How, then have sports leagues been so successful in persuading government officials and voters to subsidize their industry when they seem to promote the losing argument?

The authors give two answers to this question. Describe one of those answers.

Weekly leaderboard

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