The increase in real GDP would put downward pressure on the price level and reduce inflation. Supply-siders also believed that the budget deficit would not increase substantially as a result of the tax cut. Even if it did increase, it would be offset by increased saving due to the lower taxes. Many economic critics today and in the 1980’s questioned the effectiveness of Reagan s policies, also known as Reaganomics. Economists still argue whether Reagan’s actions were helpful or harmful to the United States economy.
To increase their taxes would be appropriate and this would be stream lining taxes at a time when the economy needs a boost. The Keynesian economists would look at government spending as a means for the government to stop the little growth the economy has had and is to have. The government spending would make it so the people would not have the money to spend within the states and they would have to go without needs and desires. This in turn would be the money that could be used within the economy.
In the following diagram (Dyball & Newell Figure 7.7), a cultural adaptation towards improved human-ecological health: (Points : 4) is possible if the fraction of the population that believes in unlimited growth increases. is possible if the fraction of the population that believes in limits to growth increases. is impossible. is only possible if the fraction of the population that believes in limits to growth is equal to the fraction of the population that believes in unlimited growth. Question 6.
GNP is rising everywhere 3. Therefore, no need to control population 4. Therefore, promote economic development and population will control itself; people will want fewer children F. Before 1950: population growth always below 1%; now over 2% (due to higher GNP everywhere VIII. Eco-Destruction via the Green Revolution A. Programs to improve agriculture in poor nations B.
I do not agree with her as well on raising the bank reserve requirements as it can restrain lending from banks and as a result it will shrink the economy growth. After analyzing my colleagues’ recommendations, and as the president’s senior economic advisor, I recommend the following: * We should lower income taxes. This shall increase the aggregate demand as the consumer disposable income will increase, which leads to an increase in the consumer spending. If the consumer spending increases, it will bring back up the flow of business and operations which means more jobs opening in the market and low unemployment rates. * Lowering banks’ interest rates.
As the ageing population continues to grow, the dependency ratio will continue to rise and there the ratio of workers to dependents in unbalanced. There are less people to support those that are dependent both financially, through taxes perhaps, and socially. To combat this, Governments could increase taxes so that there was more funding to support the elderly, as in pay for their residential and medical care, but this would cause disputes among taxpayers. An alternative to this would be to revoke pension and service rights or by introducing a cost, which would exclude elderly people that belonged to the proletariat. Marxist would suggest that introducing a higher tax or introducing costs for welfare support would be society’s way of extending the oppression of the proletariat, keeping them poor and preventing revolution to form a communist
On the other hand, the growth in population compared with national output shows less production per head, and therefore less efficient production. His policies did little for agriculture considering 80% of the population were rural peasants. It is thought he focused too much on heavy industry, neglecting others like light engineering. Finally, Russia became overly dependent on foreign loans (never good if a financial crisis were to occur and foreign loans have to be repaid). Tariffs making goods scarce and heavy taxation meant prices for Russian consumers increased, whilst their wages stayed low.
However, pensioners will be hit hard because the extra income they earn from saving will have dramatically reduced, making them worse off. On the other hand, savers may leave the pound for better interest rates in other countries (hot money), causing a fall in the demand for the pound. As a result the value of the pound will fall, making exports cheaper and there will be an injection of net exports. In conclusion, the impact of loose monetary policy will be beneficial to the economy because extra consumption and investment will cause AD to increase which will increase economic growth. However, it takes a long time for changes in interest rates to feed through to consumption and investment and by then the economy may have gotten worse.
The argument to this theory can be overtax on the economic can cause hardship and rundown markets. The high price of supplying rice generated a change demand of elasticity which consumer need to purchase more rice property owner along the lines shift the curve demand to the right from S1 to S2 factoring the income had an reaction on the acquirement of causing a change in consumer outlook. Less consumers buy when prices are higher is the law reaction of the consumers. With the crisis in Indonesia favorably to the high price incurred on rice. The government needed to step on the behalf of the people.
For instance, if our famers don’t have subsidized water, assume the same crops amount needs for the people, the famers need to spend more cost to get the products, and the famers need to raise the product price to sell. If the product price raised to a high end point, the people may not eat those crops and other countries crops may get in the local market, and the local famers will lost the customers and those local famers business workers may lost jobs; this circular flow because the mistake from the governments will let a lot of local people lost job, than they don’t spend money because they don’t have income, and it end up to lowers our GDP and bad to our economics if we stop the subsidized water policy. Thus, I give an A of this quote in economics 4. During the drought that plagued California in the late 1980s and early 1990s, farmers in California were able to purchase subsidized water to irrigate their crops, even though many California homeowners had to pay large fines if they watered their lawns. Can you suggest an explanation for this difference in the treatment of two different groups of citizens within the state of