Jump to content

weird econ question


Recommended Posts

So the question is -- 

If Expansionary monetary policy can intensify businesses to spend more on capital, it implies EMP increases the potential output right? as producers produce more. So the effect of EMP will be increase in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply?

 

thx

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question is -- 

If Expansionary monetary policy can intensify businesses to spend more on capital, it implies EMP increases the potential output right? as producers produce more. So the effect of EMP will be increase in both aggregate demand and aggregate supply?

 

thx

 

Yes that's true. Demand side policies influence AD, and investment is one of the components of AD, so any expansionary demand side policy increases investment and hence increases AS. But its main effect is on AD and not on AS, so although it affects both, the effect on AD is greater. It is correct to say that expansionary monetary increases both, but the focus is generally on AD.

 

Hope this helped :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

If you're writing about this in your commentary make sure that it's the AD that shifts (to the right). Ossih did a good job in explaining that businesses spending on capital is what we call investment, and since I is a component of AD, an increase in that (plus in consumption as well) leads to an overall increase in AD. However, just because firms by more capital, it does not necessarily mean they will be more productive too (or have decreased costs of production overall). In other words, in the LR, an increased money supply (thanks to EMP) will mostly have an inflationary effect and not much influence on the overall output produced. This is represented by the perfectly inelastic LRAS curve.

 

Cheers,

EconDaddy

IB Economics teacher and examiner

www.econdaddy.com

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

If you're writing about this in your commentary make sure that it's the AD that shifts (to the right). Ossih did a good job in explaining that businesses spending on capital is what we call investment, and since I is a component of AD, an increase in that (plus in consumption as well) leads to an overall increase in AD. However, just because firms by more capital, it does not necessarily mean they will be more productive too (or have decreased costs of production overall). In other words, in the LR, an increased money supply (thanks to EMP) will mostly have an inflationary effect and not much influence on the overall output produced. This is represented by the perfectly inelastic LRAS curve.

 

Cheers,

EconDaddy

IB Economics teacher and examiner

www.econdaddy.com

So EMP will not affect the long run aggregate supply even though investors are investing more on capital and the production capability of the country increase? I thought, if the production capability increases, the economy's potential output increases as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

To put it very (very) simply, printing money (one of the ways EMP works - by buying bonds) will not increase the production capacity of a nation. Other EMPs, such as decreasing the reserve ratio, or decreasing the interest rate will also increase the money supply. But the fact that there is more money in the economy does not necessarily mean that the production capacities will also increase. More money will most likely lead to more consumption and investments (and of course to the decrease in the value of money = inflation). This shifts the AD to the right, which means the national output will increase in the short run (as there is a movement along the SRAS curve).

 

The production capacities will improve thanks to supply-side policies. This leads to LR growth. And EMP is not such a policy.

 

Cheers,

EconDaddy

IB Economics teacher and examiner

www.econdaddy.com

Edited by EconDaddy
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

To put it very (very) simply, printing money (one of the ways EMP works - by buying bonds) will not increase the production capacity of a nation. Other EMPs, such as decreasing the reserve ratio, or decreasing the interest rate will also increase the money supply. But the fact that there is more money in the economy does not necessarily mean that the production capacities will also increase. More money will most likely lead to more consumption and investments (and of course to the decrease in the value of money = inflation). This shifts the AD to the right, which means the national output will increase in the short run (as there is a movement along the SRAS curve).

 

The production capacities will improve thanks to supply-side policies. This leads to LR growth. And EMP is not such a policy.

 

Cheers,

EconDaddy

IB Economics teacher and examiner

www.econdaddy.com

I am so sorry, I am still confused about the idea of capital. With the lower interest rate, there will be an increase in investment on human and physical capital. I thought improvement in human capital and physical capital means the economy can produce more as e.g , workers have better level of health and training. thus the economy can produce more. So EMP will not INDIRECTLY affect the LRAS? I am sorry for keep bothering you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...