Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: Governor Romney

In China, a Big Mac costs close to the equivalent of $2.44. That same burger in the US is $4.20. The basic idea is PPP, purchasing power parity. The dollar can buy more when the yuan is undervalued. And President Obama and Governor Romney have both indicated that an undervalued yuan displeases them.

Actually, they probably would not mind if price fluctuated naturally in foreign currency markets. Instead though, they say currency manipulation might be occurring because a government is intentionally, over a long time period, affecting the demand for and/or supply of its money. And by impacting demand and/or supply, they are shaping its price.

China, though, is not the only one. We could add to the list, Denmark, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Korea, Switzerland, Argentina, Bolivia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Angola, Algeria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia. Some overvalue and others undervalue. But all, according to the Peterson Institute, are engaging in “currency manipulation.”

Finally though, I wonder whether currency “manipulation” is necessarily bad. One position says, “Yes.” An undervalued foreign currency lowers US demand for US made goods and destroys US jobs. The other side says that consumers and businesses that purchase Chinese goods benefit from their artificially low prices. Because consumers have extra money to spend elsewhere, jobs are created. In addition, businesses that buy Chinese metals and motors, for example, have lower costs.

Sources and Resources: To check out the PPP of other currencies, you might enjoy the Big Mac Index and also an econlife PPP explanation. For all the detail you could ever want about currency manipulation from many viewpoints, this Peterson Institute paper, this Treasury Department report and this Mark Perry blog are ideal complements.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

For the first quarter of 2009, GDP declined at a 5.5% rate and, at 7.6% during January, unemployment was rising. With the economy in a tailspin, policy makers wanted to act quickly. Primarily split along party lines, the Congress responded with the $825 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Was it too much or not enough?

Let’s start with Michael Grabell’s description of the 3 parts of the stimulus in Money Well Spent?

  1. “First, a flood of money in tax cuts, food stamps, and unemployment checks would get consumers spending.
  2. An even greater deluge of education and health care money would stop the bleeding in state budgets.
  3. Then, a wave of “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects would kick in, creating new jobs repaving roads and making homes more efficient. As the economy got churning again, new investments in wind farms, solar panel factories, electric cars…” would follow. (pp. x-xi)

 

For example, the plan for airport spending said projects had to be ready to start in 30 days, they could cost no more than $15 million, and the cap for any airport board was $20 million (105). That meant the NY/NJ Port Authority, with oversight for LaGuardia, JFK and Newark could get no more money than a South Dakota airstrip with 200 landings a year.

One expert called it the “peanut butter approach.” Because every state had to get something, they had to spread the resources thinly.

You can imagine the tradeoffs.

  • Politics or need? Huge money to be spent in countless towns and cities. Where was the money really needed? Would a politician say, “It’s okay, you need it more than my constituency?”
  • Shovel ready or deserving projects? Road and bridge projects that were ready to move forward were not necessarily the ones in severe disrepair.
  • All 50 states or only those that were recession devastated? The 50 states would all get funds. South Dakota, with an unemployment rate near 5% got twice as much per person ($1952) as Florida, unemployment, 12%.

It’s tough to judge whether the plan worked because econometric models that say “yes” or “no” reflect their creator’s bias. Instead, each of us has to decide.

And that returns us to the candidates. With the economy sluggish, unemployment still high and GDP growth sluggish, do we need more stimulus spending? The President tends toward more government assistance while Governor Romney says no.

Sources and Resources: For excellent detail and an overview, the Michael Grabell book, Money Well Spent? is ideal. Also, from this Mitt Romney policy paper and his website, you can see his philosophy while President Obama’s approach is reflected by the legislation he has supported.

Election Economics Topics:

My apologies to Mr. Grabell. I just discovered I gave his name an “i” and corrected my error.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Congress and the Deficit

All the talk about Big Bird and federal funding is really about 2 much bigger issues.

1. Discretionary Spending

With proposed spending in the Obama 2013 budget at 3.7 trillion dollars, a tiny proportion–between 1 and 2 percent, goes to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In fact, add to CPB money, the EPA, the entire judicial brach of government, homeland security, education, transportation, agriculture, foreign policy, NASA, and other discretionary categories (except defense) and you approach 15 percent of all federal spending.

The other 85%?

  • Social Security
  • Health and Human Services (primarily Medicare and Medicaid)
  • the Interest on the Debt
  • Defense

 

You can see that for real deficit reduction, we need to focus on 3 mandatory (required by law) budget components and defense–not Big Bird and not discretionary spending.

2. Lighthouses

Would Big Bird pass the lighthouse test? Economists like to point out that when we try to decide what government should pay for, we can start with a lighthouse. Used by anyone, depleted by no one, and a necessity, a lighthouse would be tough to fund privately. So government should step in.

The lighthouse test is a handy start for deciding what should be covered by federal funds.

Sources and Resources: This NY Times interactive graphic is a superb shortcut for illustrating and understanding the federal budget. Also very well done, the NPR Planet Money podcast on public goods was fascinating.

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment