ECON 1002 (1 Viewer)

[sarevok]

my calculated y is 24166

mate i think you missed a decimal place there

if you havent worked out how to do national saving yet, think leakages = injections

 

[kow_dude]

fuck i hate myself
national saving = 343?

Good Boy!....


xiao: Until you defected?

 

[011]

Bahah you guys are a crackup.

Any more ideas for Q3? Are economists wrong after all? partly wrong? (does that even make sense)

 

[Lainee]

OMG... so glad my mid semester was an essay

(stream 6)

Freaking yes... I can't remember learning half of that stuff in our stream. Good thing with Catherine is that whenever we encounter a lot of dense theory she tells us not to worry about it too much as we won't be examined on it. <3

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

Bahah you guys are a crackup.

Any more ideas for Q3? Are economists wrong after all? partly wrong? (does that even make sense)

this question is gay. the stimulus and the question dont really relate.
i said theyre not wrong though

 

[sarevok]

Any more ideas for Q3? Are economists wrong after all? partly wrong? (does that even make sense)

i said they're right and the stimulus could be explained by increased inflation, changes in Ca and b etc etc

 

[kow_dude]

i said they're right and the stimulus could be explained by increased inflation, changes in Ca and b etc etc

Isnt it decreased inflation that stimulates people to consume more (cheaper goods)?

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

.... at first you'd expect GDP to increase if people consume less, because they will save and invest more (and GDP = C+I+G+NX). But infact what's happened is that GDP has decreased....

Is that it? Sounds good.
Any takers?

can you explain this a bit?.. im not sure why people would save/invest more if they consume less....like...what theory was that part of keynes?, neoclassicals? solow?

Oh..and..
is autonomous consumption independent of income??

 

[sarevok]

Isnt it decreased inflation that stimulates people to consume more (cheaper goods)?

ummm maybe i'm not sure??

i mean fisher equation i = r + ei ... the high interest rates the article is referrign to may be the nominal rates increased by inflation, but r hasnt changed, so ppl still consume the same

 

[011]

can you explain this a bit?.. im not sure why people would save/invest more if they consume less....like...what theory was that part of keynes?, neoclassicals? solow?

That was an assumption. Albeit a slightly dangerous one.

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

So you say the puzzle is that, at first you'd expect GDP to increase if people consume less, because they will save and invest more (and GDP = C+I+G+NX). But infact what's happened is that GDP has decreased, because of the multiplier effect, and infact the equilibrium GDP follows your equation, so that a decrease in b would RAISE gdp as expected, but a decrease in Ca actually LOWERS GDP.

Is that it? Sounds good.
Any takers?

but a change in Ca doesnt affect b.

 

[Rorix]

So you say the puzzle is that, at first you'd expect GDP to increase if people consume less, because they will save and invest more (and GDP = C+I+G+NX). But infact what's happened is that GDP has decreased, because of the multiplier effect, and infact the equilibrium GDP follows your equation, so that a decrease in b would RAISE gdp as expected, but a decrease in Ca actually LOWERS GDP.

Is that it? Sounds good.
Any takers?

If you think that it would make sense that GDP would rise with falling consumption, then I guess that could be a puzzle. There are more obvious 'puzzles' though. I think by puzzle Atta means something that someone who did not know any economics would understand.

Atta and his ambigious questions. .

 

[ToO LaZy ^*]

If you think that it would make sense that GDP would rise with falling consumption, then I guess that could be a puzzle. There are more obvious 'puzzles' though. I think by puzzle Atta means something that someone who did not know any economics would understand.

Atta and his ambigious questions. .

do you have any ideas on what the puzzle could be?
i know that the % fall in GDP > % fall in national savings...but i dont know where that leads to, if anything.

 

[Rorix]

Atta asks you to compare national saving both before and after the shift in consumption. What would, intuitively, if you hadn't done economics before (or maybe you still think so intuitively) would you expect national savings to do after a fall in autonomous consumption?

 

[011]

Atta asks you to compare national saving both before and after the shift in consumption. What would, intuitively, if you hadn't done economics before (or maybe you still think so intuitively) would you expect national savings to do after a fall in autonomous consumption?

That's exactly what we've been saying is it not? Expect it to increase, but it decreases. I can't find any simpler puzzle than that.

 

[sarevok]

do they actually want us to solve the puzzle or just state what it is?

 

[Rorix]

That's exactly what we've been saying is it not? Expect it to increase, but it decreases. I can't find any simpler puzzle than that.

You've been suggesting that a fall in consumption will generally have an expansionary effect on the economy, and that it's suprising that national income falls with falls in autonomous consumption. If that makes sense to you, go ahead and write it.

And sarevok, I believe you're supposed to present some reasoning for why what you supposedly didn't expect to happen has happened. Personally just graphing a S = -a + MPS(Y) curve seems like there wouldn't actually be a puzzle here, but that's Atta for you.

 

[jpr333]

So what did people actually get for q4(a), i got 642 but it looks wrong and i'm not too sure about my methodology. Actually i missed the last tute cause i was sick, is it relevant to this if so im screwed.

 

[kow_dude]

So what did people actually get for q4(a), i got 642 but it looks wrong and i'm not too sure about my methodology.

Refer to previous posts.


I'm almost too embarassed to ask, but in regards lecture 10 slide 9,
how did Atta get:

(1 - b)Y = Ca + I

to

Y* = 1/(1-b)[Ca + I)

.... and Y* is equilibrium income right?!

 

[Sarah168]

Refer to previous posts.


I'm almost too embarassed to ask, but in regards lecture 10 slide 9,
how did Atta get:

(1 - b)Y = Ca + I

to

Y* = 1/(1-b)[Ca + I)

.... and Y* is equilibrium income right?!

in atta style response...just put a 1 in front of Ca + I and you will get your answer