it is easier for economists to measure "cost" than "opportunity cost"(because people's tastes are different and changeable)
Economists often give conflicting advice to policy makers for two basic reasons: 1) economists may disagree about the validity of alternative positive theories about how the world works and/or 2) economists may have different values and therefore different normative views about what policy should try to accomplish
Instead of assuming that the macroeconomy would automatically recover from a recession, economists began to consider the possibility that modern market economies could fall into prolonged contractions and that government assistance would be necessary to pull them out.
Prior to government involvement in the free market recessions occurred as they always will in cycles. What goes up must come down type of thing. These recessions were pretty short lived and lasted a year or so and corrected. But around the turn of the 20th century politicians began to place the blame for these recessions on the political party in power. By doing so when the economy improved while they were in power they could take credit for it. That is when the problems really began. The free maket will correct itself and it will do it fairly quickly but when the politicians began to try to "make" it correct itself by dabbling with the monetary system (such as creating the fed) it started taking longer and longer for the market to fix itself. Still today, the people want and expect their government to save them from these recessions and there is political power to be gained from it so politicians rationalize that they have better ideas than the people who actually work in the money market and business and continue to try and "fix" the system.
Actually it is the stock markets and banking systems that go into recession. By far the largest component is household consumption. And it was the collapse in household consumption due to very slow wage increases, along with the closely related decline in the demand for new housing construction, that was the proximate cause of the Great Recession (207-2008).
it is easier for economists to measure "cost" than "opportunity cost"(because people's tastes are different and changeable)
The automotive business is always competitive, and risky to start a business in. However, economic recessions are actually the best time to start a new business in most industries.
Economists often give conflicting advice to policy makers for two basic reasons: 1) economists may disagree about the validity of alternative positive theories about how the world works and/or 2) economists may have different values and therefore different normative views about what policy should try to accomplish
Instead of assuming that the macroeconomy would automatically recover from a recession, economists began to consider the possibility that modern market economies could fall into prolonged contractions and that government assistance would be necessary to pull them out.
Prior to government involvement in the free market recessions occurred as they always will in cycles. What goes up must come down type of thing. These recessions were pretty short lived and lasted a year or so and corrected. But around the turn of the 20th century politicians began to place the blame for these recessions on the political party in power. By doing so when the economy improved while they were in power they could take credit for it. That is when the problems really began. The free maket will correct itself and it will do it fairly quickly but when the politicians began to try to "make" it correct itself by dabbling with the monetary system (such as creating the fed) it started taking longer and longer for the market to fix itself. Still today, the people want and expect their government to save them from these recessions and there is political power to be gained from it so politicians rationalize that they have better ideas than the people who actually work in the money market and business and continue to try and "fix" the system.
There are a number of things that Franklin D Roosevelt did to help the depression in the early 1900's. The main thing that he did was to promote the reforms in the banking sector and so much more.
It depends how the percentage reduction is made and to whom! Generally a reduction in government revenue if reflected in spending is likely to have a depressive effect on the economy as the flow of money in the economy slows down. However, although its not necessarily a popular idea amongst conventional economists, libertarians and some austria-school economists would argue that a reduction in government revunue means a reduction in tax, and a reduction in tax means more corporate revenue, which would , they argue, be stimulatory itself. I'm not sure there is evidence for this however as it seems to contradict a number of observed phenomena, including the tendency for austerity measures to actually depress economic recovery.
Actually it is the stock markets and banking systems that go into recession. By far the largest component is household consumption. And it was the collapse in household consumption due to very slow wage increases, along with the closely related decline in the demand for new housing construction, that was the proximate cause of the Great Recession (207-2008).
The minimum wage is familiar to most through the unskilled service jobs so many Americans take on in their teens to earn pocket money. However, few are aware that the minimum wage is actually an imported concept found in most countries around the world, and that its effects are the subject of a long-standing debate among economists and labor experts.
yeah, i actually think there actually like actually are...actually
"Reaganomics," in simplistic terms, meant lower taxes on businesses and rich people so that, in theory, the economy would be stimulated and more jobs would be created for middle class and poor people, who would then have more money to spend on commercial goods and housing. Reaganomics is controversial, but many economists today argue that it did not have the desired effects and actually put a lot of pressure on the economy overall, making things worse for everyone except the rich.
No, the word actual is an adjective. The adverb form is "actually."