🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Economics
1
answer
0
watching
173
views

The political business cycle refers to the possibility that:

A. incumbent politicians will be reelected regardless of the state of the economy.

B. politicians will manipulate the economy to enhance their chances of being reelected.

C. There is more inflation during Democratic administrations than during Republican administrations.

D. recessions coincide with election years. 

Watch
1
answer
0
watching
173
views

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

Kristelle Balando
Kristelle BalandoLv10
3 Jan 2021

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

Too Late to Compensate Free Trade’s Losers

CAMBRIDGE – It appears that a new consensus has taken hold these days among the world’s business and policy elites about how to address the anti­globalization backlash that populists such as Donald Trump have so ably exploited. Gone are the confident assertions that globalization benefits everyone: we must, the elites now concede, accept that globalization produces both winners and losers. But the correct response is not to halt or reverse globalization; it is to ensure that the losers are compensated.

The new consensus is stated succinctly by Nouriel Roubini: the backlash against globalization “can be contained and managed through policies that compensate workers for its collateral damage and costs,” he argues. “Only by enacting such policies will globalization’s losers begin to think that they may eventually join the ranks of its winners.”

This argument seems to make eminent sense, both economically and politically. Economists have long known that trade liberalization causes income redistribution

and absolute losses for some groups, even as it enlarges a country’s overall economic pie. Therefore, trade deals unambiguously enhance national wellbeing only to the extent that winners compensate losers. Compensation also ensures support for trade openness from broader constituencies and should be good politics.

Prior to the welfare state, the tension between openness and redistribution was resolved either by large­scale emigration of workers or by re­imposing trade protection, especially in agriculture. With the rise of the welfare state, the constraint became less binding, allowing for more trade liberalization. Today the advanced countries that are the most exposed to the international economy are also those where safety nets and social insurance programs – welfare states – are the most extensive. Research in Europe has shown that losers from globalization within countries tend to favor more active social programs and labor­market interventions.

If opposition to trade has not become politically salient in Europe today, it is partly because such social protections remain strong there, despite having weakened in recent years. It is not an exaggeration to say that the welfare state and the open economy have been flip sides of the same coin during much of the twentieth century.

Compared to most European countries, the United States was a latecomer to globalization. Until recently, its large domestic market and relative geographical insulation provided considerable protection from imports, especially from low­wage countries. It also traditionally had a weak welfare state.

When the US began opening itself up to imports from Mexico, China, and other developing countries in the 1980s, one might have expected it to go the European route. Instead, under the sway of Reaganite and market­fundamentalist ideas, the US went in an opposite direction. As Larry Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, puts it, “ignoring the losers was deliberate.” In 1981, the “trade adjustment assistance (TAA) program was one of the first things Reagan attacked, cutting its weekly compensation payments.”

The damage continued under subsequent, Democratic administrations. In Mishel’s words, “if free­traders had actually cared about the working class, they could have supported a full range of policies to support robust wage growth: full employment,

collective bargaining, high labor standards, a robust minimum wage, and so on.” And all of this could have been done “before administering ‘shocks’ by expanding trade with low­wage countries.”

Could the US now reverse course, and follow the newly emergent conventional wisdom? Back in 2007, political scientist Ken Scheve and economist Matt Slaughter called for “a New Deal for globalization” in the US, one that would link “engagement with the world economy to a substantial redistribution of income.” In the US, they argued, this would mean adopting a much more progressive federal tax system.

Slaughter had served in a Republican administration, under President George W. Bush. It is an indication of how polarized the US political climate has become that it is impossible to imagine similar proposals coming out of Republican circles these days. The effort by Trump and his Congressional allies to emasculate former President Barack Obama’s signature health­insurance program reflected Republicans’ commitment to scaling back, not expanding, social protections.

Today’s consensus concerning the need to compensate globalization’s losers presumes that the winners are motivated by enlightened self­interest – that they believe buy­in from the losers is essential to maintain economic openness. Trump’s presidency has revealed an alternative perspective: globalization, at least as currently construed, tilts the balance of political power toward those with the skills and assets to benefit from openness, undermining whatever organized influence the losers might have had in the first place. Inchoate discontent about globalization, Trump has shown, can easily be channeled to serve an altogether different agenda, more in line with elites’ interests.

The politics of compensation is always subject to a problem that economists call “time inconsistency.” Before a new policy – say, a trade agreement – is adopted, beneficiaries have an incentive to promise compensation. Once the policy is in place, they have little interest in following through, either because reversal is costly all around or because the underlying balance of power shifts toward them.

The time for compensation has come and gone. Even if compensation was a viable approach two decades ago, it no longer serves as a practical response to

globalization’s adverse effects. To bring the losers along, we will need to consider changing the rules of globalization itself.

QUESTIONS:

a. According to Rodrik, why is it that "trade deals unambiguously enhance national wellbeing only to the extend that winners compensate losers?" Explain completely.

b. Rodrik draws a historical link between globalization and the "welfare state." Explain this link.

c. Rodrik mentions a previous proposal by Scheve and Slaughter called "A New Deal for Globalization." What was the essence of this proposal? What has become of it?

d. What is the "time inconsistency" problem and why is it relevant for Rodrik's argument?

e. In your opinion, what is one weakness in Rodrik's argument? Explain.

TRUE or FALSE?

1. Real GDP can never be greater than potential GDP. 

2. When foreign countries experience an increase in income, this is likely to increase our GDP. 

3. The United States economy spends about as many months in recession as it spends in expansion. 

4. If individuals decrease their consumption spending then this is likely to reduce the growth rate of GDP, all else the same. 

5. Movements of real GDP around potential GDP are called the business cycle. 

6. If total government spending in a given year was $3.7 trillion, then all of this spending counted directly in GDP as part of the government spending (G) category. 

7. The last recession in the United States began in December of 2007. 

8. During a recession, the inflation rate tends to decline. 

9. Changes in spending that cause firms to change their level of production of goods/services are called supply shocks. 

10. All else the same, an increase in income in the United States leads to a decrease in our net exports. 

11. Since 1929 there have been 14 declared recessions in the United States. 

12. Total spending in the economy is equal to consumption + investment + government spending - net exports. 

13. During each recession, potential GDP falls. 

14. Percentage wise, the government collects more tax from individuals than it does from firms. 

15. During a recession, the Federal Reserve pursues contractionary monetary policy. 

16. During a recession, the Federal Reserve is most likely to sell government bonds to the public. 

17. Investment spending increases during periods of recession. 

18. Congress meets about every 6 - 8 weeks to discuss the performance of the economy and potential changes to fiscal policy. 

19. If there is more competition among firms, then the inflation rate will tend to increase. 

20.The demand for labor increases when the economy is in an expansionary phase. 

21. Total spending by the government is about 20% of GDP in the US economy. 

22. The unemployment rate decreases during periods of expansion. 

23. If oil prices increase by 20% then this is an example of a supply shock. 

24. When the Federal Reserve buys government bonds, interest rates are likely to fall. 

25. If Congress wanted to help the economy out of a recession, they would be most likely to reduce government spending and/or increase taxes. 

 

Falsenot in accordance with the fact or reality or actualityMore (Definitions, Synonyms, Translation)

Ques. 1 Read the following comprehension and answer the given questions . (2 x 2= 4 marks)

People often ask economists for predictions about the future of the macroeconomy. Forecasts about the economy’s future, even from experts, are not unlike a baseball writer’s prediction of who will play in the next World Series. The prediction can seem well-reasoned and logical, but it is hardly foolproof. Certain statistical series tend to move in similar ways through all business cycles. Knowledge of these series and their tendencies can provide some insight into future business cycle movements. The Conference Board, a not-for-profit organization, publishes monthly updates of what is called the “index of leading economic indicators.” The index is a weighted average of 10 statistical series that usually lead, or begin turning upward and downward, before the overall economy does. Because not all the components of the index turn before the business cycle hits a peak or a trough, movements in the index are more reliable than the movement in any one of its components. Among the most reliable of the leading indicators is an index of prices for 500 common stocks. Investors want to buy stock shares when their prices are relatively low and sell shares when prices are relatively high. During a recession, stock prices fall due to sluggish sales and profits. Interest rates are relatively low during the last months of recessions because of reduced demand for investment. In choosing between buying bonds and stocks, investors will favor stocks when: (a) stock prices have fallen to a point where there is a strong possibility of future capital gains, and (b) the opportunity cost of buying stocks—the interest rate on bonds—is low. Therefore, prices of common stocks will usually begin to rise during the late stages of a business cycle, before a business expansion begins. As the economy moves near full employment during an expansion, the situation is reversed. Strong demand for consumer goods and investment will drive prices and interest rates upward. At some point, investors sell stocks to realize capital gains and buy bonds, rather than stocks, to take advantage of high interest rates. The downward movement in stock prices will usually begin before a recession begins.

a. Scientists make accurate predictions of the movement of asteroids and comets. Why can’t economists make accurate predictions of business cycle movements?

b. Assume that the U.S. economy is in a recession. Mild weather results in lower demand for energy and a reduction in the price of oil. Investors interpret this as positive news for firms because their costs of production will be lowered. An increase in stock prices results. Will an economic expansion follow?

Weekly leaderboard

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