Trade Policy

This chapter looks at the policies which either facilitate or impede free trade in the world!

As economists, we usually are in favor of free trade. We recognize that free trade offers many benefits to different countries!

Why is free trade a good idea?
-The law of comparative advantage
-When there is regional specialization and trade, the world production of all products rises
-This maximizes the world's average standard of living (world GDP per capita)

On the other hand, some countries may attempt to instill protectionist policies (policies which counteract free trade in order to protect domestic firms from international competition). These can include both TARIFFS and NON TARIFF BARRIERS (NTBs, such as quotas, customs procedures, anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties).

Why might nation choose certain degrees of protectionism?

REASONS WHICH RELATE TO MAXIMIZING NATIONAL INCOME

1: To improve the terms of trade! If a country is large enough, it can force the world price downward for goods it imports by imposing a Tariff

2: Infant Industry Protection. Some countries may set up trade barriers in order to protect domestic firms from international competition, with the hopes that these industries will grow to the point where they can realize economies of scale. The idea here is that under protection, infant industries will eventually "grow up" to the point where they will be able to compete on the international market without need of protectionism. A problem with this is that not all industries develop to this level of competency while under protection. Canada's national policy of 1876 was an example of infant industry protection directed at improving Canadian manufacturing.

3: Learning by doing. This sort of goes along with infant industry protection, but along with protecting developing industries from international competitors, protectionism can also simply give those industries time to operate, which gives personnel time to gain mastery over certain procedures. In this way, countries can turn comparative disadvantages into comparative advantages.

PROBLEM! Not every industry which gets chosen for protection will ultimately grow up to be an international "winner", so each time the government placed an industry under protection, they are effectively gambling (as protectionism exacts economic costs) on their choice. If governments do this frequently, statistically, they are likely to choose more losers than winners, which would be quite costly.

=(

4: Protectionism can allow certain key industries to earn economic profits and thus innovate more. As such, Canada has strategic trade policy in place with regards to Bombardier (if you remember, they're the company which made the olympic torches)

OTHER REASONS

1: There are advantages from diversification. Countries which are only specialized in a narrow range of products may use protectionism in order to diversify their economies (which gives local firms a "safe space" to expand into new industries, thus increasing the range of products produced domestically). This can be useful in that it buffers the volatility and risk posed by price changes and new technologies by spreading production to several different sectors. The idea here is not to "put all of your eggs in one basket" (although, often, this is more of a political argument than an economic argument)

2: Protectionism lets governments protect favored groups! In Canada, competitive advantage favors skilled labour over unskilled labour, and as a result, free trade may lower the wages of unskilled laborers (who are now competing with wage slaves from overseas). Here, protectionism can redistribute income to certain productive groups, but at the expense of the collective standard of GDP. There is a deadweight loss!

USUALLY, HOWEVER, PROTECTIONISM IS FOR POLITICAL OR FALLACIOUS ECONOMIC REASONS!!!!!!!!! >=(

HERE ARE SOME FAULTY ARGUMENTS WHICH PEOPLE WILL OFTEN POSE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT PROTECTIONISM!

1: "We've got to keep our money at home"
The Premise: If I buy a domestic good, by country will have both the good AND the money used to buy that good
Why it's incorrect: Domestic money is only useful for buying domestic goods. If you are buying foreign products, the money you spend on those products eventually gets used to buy Canadian products- it flows between the two trading countries

2: "We've got to protect ourselves from low-cost foreign labour"
The Premise: Low wage foreign goods will eliminate domestic goods from the market, and thus lower the domestic standard of living.
Why it's incorrect: This goes against the law of comparative advantage. Even if a foreign country can produce all goods at a lower cost than Canada, it would still be advantageous to trade, as trade will lower the opportunity cost of having certain products.

3: "Exports are good, and imports are bad"
The Premise: Exports add to domestic GDP, while imports take away from domestic GDP
Why it's incorrect: Standard of living is dependent on consumption, not production. If a country exports a lot of goods, but derives its comparative advantage by paying its workers very low salaries, then those workers will not be able to consume very many products, on average, and thus that country's standard of living will probably be quite low.

4: "Protectionism creates local jobs"
The Premise: Protecting the domestic market can help save local jobs, and thus combat unemployment
Why it's incorrect: Protectionism reduces employment in other sectors which may have local comparative advantages, and thus, while it may increase employment in one sector, the overall economic effect is inefficient.

-----------------

METHODS OF PROTECTIONISM

TARIFFS: Import Duties- these are a tax on imports. They increase costs for domestic consumers, but benefit domestic producers (who can sell at higher than the world price) and the government (who receives tax revenue). Tariffs create a deadweight social loss for the economy as a whole.


Originally, at the world price, Canada will import 1500 units of this product, and domestic producers will supply the other 500 units needed to satisfy demand.

Once the tariff raises the prices, Canada only imports 500 units of the product, and domestic producers supply the other 1000 units needed to satisfy domestic demand (as you can see, demand has decreased due to the higher price).

Consumer lose surplus represented by sections C, D, E, & F due to the Tariff
Producers gain surplus represented by section C due to the Tariff (the increase in price times the increase in production, minus the costs incurred by increasing production)
The government gains section E due to the Tariff (the quantity of foreign imports at the Tariff price, multiplied by the amount of the Tariff)

SECTIONS D & F REPRESENT A DEADWEIGHT SOCIAL LOSS, HOWEVER! (tragic, isn't it!?)

--------------------------------

QUOTAS AND VOLUNTARY EXPORT RESTRICTIONS (VERs)
An import quota is like a quantity ceiling- it restricts the quantity of products which a country will import
With a voluntary export restriction, the exporter agrees to limit the amount of exports it will send to any one country.
This incurs costs for domestic consumers, but benefits domestic producers
The net result is a deadweight social loss which is greater than that which results from a Tariff!



At the world price, Canada will import Q4 - Q1, and domestic producers will supply Q1
Let's say that a quota restricts domestic imports to Q3 - Q2. If this happens, then the domestic price must rise to P1, where the quota exactly satisfies the excess demand which domestic producers cannot meet.

Consumers lose surplus equal to E, F, G, H, & I due to the quota,
Producers gain surplus equal to E due to the quota
Since there is no taxation here, the higher price on the quota goods causes foreign producers to gain surplus equal to G & H

THERE IS A DEADWEIGHT LOSS EQUAL TO SECTIONS F & I due to the quota! >=(

Usually, in trade barrier situations, exporters prefer a quota (so they can gain the extra revenue section) while importing governments prefer a tariff (so they can gain the extra revenue section).

----------------------------------------

NON-TARIFF BARRIERS

1: Antidumping Duties
-Dumping is the practice of selling a good in a foreign country at a price below domestic prices at a reason other than costs
-This is like price discrimination (remember from micro) but on an international level
-Usually, it is only temporary, in order to sell off excess supply, or to weaken local industries and force reliance on foreign imports
-It is seen as anti-competitive, and many people believe that it is an unfair form of competition
-Antidumping duties (taxes to bring "dumped" imports back up to the domestic price level) are often used to compensate for this
-Recently, however, these have been abused and used as a non-trade barrier
-When Antidumping Duties are used, the domestic price becomes the price floor, regardless of the foreign price (which can lead to an inflexibility in domestic prices compared to the world price)
-As such, if the world price falls below the average costs for domestic producers, they are protected
-Often, the system requires foreign accusers to prove that dumping is occurring in order for antidumping duties to be instated

2: Countervailing duties: a tariff imposed as a trade remedy to counteract foreign governments subsidizing their industries
-Governments wishing to impose countervailing duties must prove that there is a foreign subsidy being used to bolster a certain foreign industry, and that it is significantly harming the prospects of domestic producers
-The U.S. is currently placing countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber.

-----------------------

IMPORTANT ORGANIZATIONS AND TERMS

GATT- The general agreement on trades and tariffs: an effort to reduce international protectionism

The Uruguay Round- reduced tariffs by 40%, but failed to deal with European and Canadian agricultural subsidies (eventually, they ended quotas, but replaced them with Tariffs in a process called Tariffication)

WTO- World trade organization- it has 148 members, it is a global organization which deals with the rules of trade, and it endeavors to lower trade and non-trade barriers. It also includes a formal dispute settlement mechanism

Doha Round- tried to reduce agricultural subsidies

The Battle for Seattle- People protested that human, labour, and environmental rights were not being addressed by the WTO. Interestingly, 3rd world countries often argue against considering these in trade deals

MAI- Multilateral agreement on investment: similar to WTO, but for investments

Free trade Area- Goods and services may move freely among member countries, but each member nation still sets barriers against foreign imports on an individual basis (like NAFTA) PROBLEM: Certain Tariffs have grandfather clauses, and thus persist despite agreements.

Customs Union- A free trade area, but with a common set of barriers against foreign imports (like Mercosur: Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Argentina)

Common Market- A customs union in which factors of production (i.e., workers) may move freely among member nations (like the EU)

THAT'S ALMOST ALL!!!

Gains from International Trade

OKAY! Let's talk turkey about international trade.



Over time, while world GDP had been increasing at a fairly constant rate, world trade has increased exponentially!

Canada is, itself, involved in quite a bit of international trade (we export and import quite a lot of goods)

David Rciardo was an economist of lore (1772-1823), and he was a major proponent of international trade. He wrote "Current comparative advantage is a major determinant of trade under free-market conditions."

Economists who advocated world trade often promoted teachings which led to real changes, such as England repealing its corn laws and moving towards a more open economy (an open economy is one which engages in international free trade, and realizes certain advantages from this, known as the gains from trade).

GAINS FROM TRADE: These are increases in total economic output due to efficiency advantages resulting from local economies engaging in specialization and trade of goods in which they have a comparative advantage.

COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE: A situation where one local economy can produce a certain good at a lower opportunity cost than other economies (i.e., if it is less expensive for Canada to grow wheat than it is for Haiti to grow wheat, then we would state that Canada has a comparative advantage in wheat)

WHAT IS THE LOGIC BEHIND INTERNATIONAL TRADE? It's the same logic which states that interpersonal trade will be beneficial!
-When there is no trade on an interpersonal level, each individual has to be self-sufficient: they must provide for all of their own needs
-Trade allows individuals to specialize in providing goods and services which they can produce or provide efficiently, and then trade those for goods and services which they are less proficient at providing.

For an example, if I am a Doctor, I could be very very good at fixing coronary blockages, but terrible at fixing pipes. Trade means that I can simply make money by acting as a doctor, and then trade this money to "borrow" a trained plumber, thus saving me hours of frustration and reading complicated instructions. In this situation, both me and the plumber are providing the services which we are most efficient in, and because I don't have to waste time learning how to fix pipe and he doesn't have to waste time memorizing human anatomy, the overall economic output between the two of us is higher! We are more efficient when we can divide and conquer! =D

Well... interregional and international trade follows the same logic!

There are two different sources of gains from international trade:

1- The fact that different local economies have different resource endowments (and therefore can benefit from specializing in producing products which fit well with regional endowments, both natural and acquired)

2- The fact that international trade leads to a larger market for products means that local firms can realize reductions in production costs due to increased production (they are able to achieve economies of scale)

---------------------------------

ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE: This is when one country (or economy), compared to another, can produce more of a good from the same inputs

So, lets say that given the same inputs...

Canada can produce 10 bushels of wheat or 6 lengths of cloth
England can produce 5 bushels of wheat or 10 lengths of cloth

Canada has an absolute advantage over England in terms of wheat, and England has an absolute advantage of Canada in terms of cloth. Here, we have a situation of reciprocal advantage (each country is more adept at producing a different good), and thus it will be advantageous for England and Canada to trade!

WHY?!

Because each unit of input which Canada switched from cloth production to wheat production leads to 6 fewer cloths, but 10 more wheat. Similarly, each unit of input which England switched from wheat production to cloth production leads to 5 fewer wheat and 10 more cloth. The net effect of this is that the world production of both wheat and cloth has increased if both the countries specialize in what they are best at producing: there are worldwide gains from specialization.

But English and Canadian consumers want to purchase both goods... so unless these countries are able to trade, this specialization would not be practical.

----------------------------

THE LAW OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE

Lets say that using one unit of input...

Canada can produce 100 bushels of wheat or 60 lengths of cloth
England can produce 5 units of wheat or 10 length of cloth

Here, Canada has can absolute advantage in both wheat and cloth (so Canada is more efficient at producing either of these products). Some people might think that Canada should thus not engage in trade... but they would be WRONG! Dead WRONG!

Canada can produce 20 times as much wheat at England, but only 6 times as much cloth using one unit of input. From this, we can surmise that Canada has a COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE in wheat, while England has a comparative advantage in cloth.

Each country should trade goods in which it has a comparative advantage. Trade, in this case, increases the world's per-capita GDP. Comparative advantage is a necessary and sufficient condition for trade. Absolute advantages (in the absence of comparative advantages) do no lead to gains from trade.

How do we figure out which product a country has a comparative advantage in?

Easy! You just calculate the opportunity cost of producing any one good. Given the previous example, the OC of producing 100 bushels of wheat in Canada is 60 lengths of cloth, so the opportunity cost of each bushel of wheat is 0.6 lengths of cloth. Similarly, the OC of producing is length of cloth is 1.67 bushels of wheat for Canada. The opportunity cost for England of producing 1 length of cloth is 0.50 bushels of wheat, and the opportunity cost for England of producing 1 bushel of wheat is 2 lengths of cloth!

The opportunity cost of wheat is lower in Canada than in England, so Canada has a comparative advantage in wheat
The opportunity cost of cloth is lower in England than in Canada, so England has a comparative advantage in cloth

The point: opportunity cost depends on relative costs, no absolute costs!

WHENEVER OPPORTUNITY COSTS DIFFER, SPECIALIZATION AND TRADE CAN INCREASE THE WORLD PRODUCTION OF BOTH COMMODITIES, WHICH LEADS TO INCREASED CONSUMPTION POSSIBILITIES

*to note: increased production does not necessarily lead to increased consumption, and standard of living depends on consumption rather than production (so a country could produce a whole lot of products, but if its workers make very low factor incomes, and are hence unable to consume many goods, that country's standard of living may still be extremely low.)

ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE DOES NOT LEAD TO GAINS FROM TRADE!

If Canada can produce 100 wheats or 60 cloths given one unit of input
and England can produce 10 wheats or 6 cloths given one unit of input

Canada has the same absolute advantage of England in terms of both products, but each country has the same opportunity costs in terms of producing each good. Because of this, specialization and trade will NOT lead to any gains for either country, nor will it increase world output of either product.

There are other reasons in addition to comparative advantage that can make it beneficial to engage in specialization and trade

Basically, whenever OC's differ for the same products between different countries, specialization (and subsequent trade) leads to an increase in net production of goods, and as a result, a decrease in costs, because of...

1: Economies of Scale- Trade creates a larger market for domestic producers (who, after international trade, provide products for consumers around the world instead of just domestically)

2: Product Differentiation- A large international market for any type of product leads to further specialization, or product differentiation. For an example, in Europe, each country specializes in intra-industry trade. Between Canada and the U.S., each country specializes in a different type of car.

3: Learning by doing- Larger international markets lead to specialization, which leads to "accumulated experience". For an example, the silicon valley area of the United States has gained a reputation for computerized innovation, and as a result of that specialization, people from that area gain experience over time, and become better-equiped to compete in that industry.

Economies of Scale = Production moves to the bottom of the LRAC
Learning by Doing = The entire LRAC shifts downward, so any level of production costs less

-------------------------------------

SOURCES OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE:

1: Natural Factor Endowments
-This is how traditional economists explained comparative advantages
-What each country is "born with"
-This includes both natural resources and climates, as well as social patterns and institutional set-ups
-This natural resource advantage translates into cost advantages (i.e., a very fertile country will not incur as many costs growing food as an arid country)

2: Acquired Comparative Advantages
-This is a newer idea: what each country DEVELOPS can lead to a comparative advantage in certain products
-For an example, social fixtures such as education, healthcare, and social services can create more productive workers
-Research and development can also lead to innovations and localized experience which gives certain nations comparative advantages in certain sectors (like Canada and aerospace engineering, or Korea and shipbuilding)

-------------------------

PATTERNS OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE:

We know that countries should specialize and then trade in goods in which they have a comparative advantage.

So... do countries actually export those goods in which they have a comparative advantage? The answer is YESSSSSSS!

THE LAW OF ONE WORLD PRICE: Internationally traded goods sell at the same price, regardless of which country they are sold in, assuming
-zero transport costs
-it is actually the same good
-competitive markets
-the good is tradable

World price simply equates global supply and demand for any product to determine the equilibrium price

So.........

If one country has a comparative advantage in a certain product which would potentially lead to a lower domestic price for this product than the world price level, instead of simply selling the product at the domestic price level, that country will sell that product on the world market at the (higher) world price level: the domestic excess supply will get sold off on the international market.

THE THEORY OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE IS STILL RELEVANT~!! Sources of those competitive advantages may have changed over the years, but the basic premise of this theory still holds true!

------------------------------------

TERMS OF TRADE: These determine how the gains from trade are shared- in other words, how will the gains in world per-capita GDP be shared among the trading nations.

The Terms of Trade = the ratio of (the price of exports / the price of imports)
OR
The relative international price of imports (how many imports can be purchased per unit of export)

If the terms of trade increase, this is favorable for the nation in question, because they are able to get more imports per export. The reverse is true if the terms of trade decrease.

Unfavorable terms of trade will not be conducive to trade! Basically, if the terms of trade make it so that the OC of obtaining imports is equal to or greater than the OC of producing a product domestically, the country in question will not trade for that product! There needs to be a win-win situation (terms of trade which allow for both countries to enjoy lowered OCs) in order to trade to occur.

-----------------------

International Trade and the PPC:



When there is trade, consumption can differ from production! This means that trade can facilitate changes in production which allow for patterns of consumption which lie outside the PPC!

The slope of the dotted line = the terms of trade (tt)

Basically, given any point on the original PPC, international trade allows that country to trade products with another country at a rate which differs from that given on the PPC (which is usually convex). As you can see, if the country in the diagram specializes and trades, it can reach point B!

By specializing (changing production), countries can optimize their production in order to best take advantage of good terms of trade!

NOTE: Which country wins depends on the terms of trade (the slope of the line). Also, the consumption pattern (the point on the CPC) which each country settles into will depend on their preferences between the two products being compared.
Also, most countries have increasing OCs with increased specialization, and thus they have convex PPCs


That's all for now!

More Irritating Details About Inflation

The Phillips Curve & Accelerating Inflation

-We know what the Phillips curve is. I'm not explaining it again.
-At Y* and U*, there is no gap inflation
-When the economy is in an inflationary gap, the BoC must validate for wage inflation
-In the 1960s, the level of wage and price adjustment began to rise for any level of output (the whole phillips curve shifted to the right)
-Why? Because the original phillips curve included only gap inflation and ignored expectation inflation (which impacts wage changes, obviously)
-This newly-shifted phillips curve is called the expectations-augmented phillips curve. There is still an inverse relation between the unemployment rate and the rate of changes of nominal wages, but with the effect of expectation inflation built into the model.
-Expectation inflation is graphically represented by the height of the phillips curve above the X axis at U*

Using this new phillips curve, we can see than when there is gap inflation, and when there are expectations adding to inflation, the curve shifts up at Y*: expected inflation increases for all levels of inflation, and thus, inflation can accelerate.

THERE IS NOT A STABLE TRADEOFF BETWEEN INFLATION AND OUTPUT. TO MAINTAIN Y @ LEVELS GREATER THAN Y*, INFLATION MUST ACCELERATE.

------------------------------------

Is inflation a monetary phenomenon? Was Milton Friedman correct when he said "Inflation is everywhere, and always a monetary problem"?

Does inflation have purely monetary consequences? What about its consequences- are they purely monetary?

Well... inflation on its own can be caused by either an increase in AD or a decrease in A. However, unless monetary validation is continuous, inflation will only be temporary. As such inflation is not necessarily caused by monetary issues, but continuous inflation IS.

The consequences of inflation:
1: Short run gap inflation caused by output being higher than Y*
2: Short run supply inflation caused by Y being less than Y*
3: In the long run, output will always eventually return to Y*, so inflation will only cause a change in the price level.

so... SUSTAINED inflation is everywhere, and is always a monetary problem.

---------------------------------------------

REDUCING INFLATION: The process of disinflation

Accelerating Inflation is inflation. There is a positive change in the price level.
Constant Inflation is inflation. There is a positive change in the price level.
Decelerating Inflation is disinflation. There is a positive change in the price level, but at a decreasing rate.
Stopped Inflation is zero inflation. There is no change in the price level.
Reverse Inflation is deflation. There is a negative change in the price level.

How do we reduce constant inflation from occurring at Y*??? by STOPPING EXPECTATIONS
How do we reduce accelerating inflation? By NO LONGER VALIDATING CHANGES IN THE ECONOMY

both of these measures may cause short-term economic pain (recessionary gaps cause unemployment, which is both depressing for individuals, and unproductive for economies in general). However, this will eliminate sustained accelerating inflation.

But is this a good thing?

There is often questions over whether the benefits of reducing inflation outweigh the costs.

How it works:
1: remove monetary validation to eliminate the inflationary gap (which allow the SRAS to return GDP to Y*)
2: stagflation: the SRAS decreases to the point where it actually overshoots Y* due to the intensity of wage momentum. As a result, there will be a period of rising unemployment accompanied by inflation
3: recovery: wage adjustments can bring SRAS back to Y* the slow way, or the BoC can use expansionary monetary policy to bring it there faster (at the cost in inflation)

The cost of disinflation:
-Disinflation is caused by a recessionary gap
-The cost of disinflation is equal to the loss of output caused by the required recessionary gap.

The SACRIFICE RATIO is the cumulative loss of output as a percentage of potential output divided by the percentage reduction in the inflation rate.

------------------------------------

THE COSTS OF INFLATION: Why is this bad, again?

1: Unanticipated Inflation
-Affected the distribution of income (redistributes income from creditors to debtors)
-Wage contracts: redistributes income from employers to employees if inflation is less than expected, and vice versa if inflation is higher than expected
-Pension contracts: redistributes income away from pensioners (although this can be solved by indexing pensions for inflation)

1970s: Trudeau indexed public pensions, and they have remained indexed as thus until..
1980s: Mulroney de-indexed tax brackets
2000: Chretian fully indexed tax brackets

Low versus Moderate Inflation: BC advocates low inflation
-The price signal distortion hypothesis suggests that inflation interferes with the information conveyed by price changes. As a result, market participants can have a difficult time distinguishing absolute prices from relative prices. This extra confusions created by inflation reduces market efficiency
-In PLANNING DISRUPTION, inflation interferes with retirement plans and long term contracts

With moderate inflation...
-The downward nominal wage rigidity hypothesis claims that low levels if inflation reduce economic efficiency, because real wage cuts will require nominal wage cuts, which will be resisted. Basically, if inflation is zero, a 2% cut in real wages required a 2% cut in nominal wages: workers will resist a drop in their nominal wages. However, if inflation were high enough, nominal wages could simply be maintained to the effect of reducing real wages, and this is met with much less resistance. In this way, this theory suggests that high inflation facilitates more efficient economies, because it makes it easier for employers to "trick" their employees into accepting real wage cuts.

The zero bound on nominal interest rates hypothesis claims that the BoC cannot run expansionary money policy.

AS A GENERAL RULE, healthy economies have moderate inflation (this is caused naturally by economic growth and increases in aggregate demand).

High and accelerating inflation leads to prediction problems, and arbitrary redistribution of income. It may also lead to hyperinflation. Politics, however, is usually the entity to blame for these problems.

HYPERINFLATION: This is associated with low economic growth. Why? Because hyperinflation increases transaction costs (ie: menus must be changed constantly, and holding money for transactions is risky, because that money's purchasing power can rapidly decrease)

DISINFLATION: Governments can try to use wage or price controls, but usually this doesn't work.
-Two recessions in Canada have been caused by the government of Canada attempting to slow the rate of disinflation. As such, the costs of disinflation probably outweigh the benefits unless inflation is getting seriously out of control.

DEFLATION: Like disinflation, is not a good idea.

THAT'S ALL

Monetary Policy in Canada

This is the last piece of the puzzle! This chapter is all about how the government of Canada uses policy instruments to change the money supply!

The central bank can set the money supply and let the market determine the interest rate

OR

The central bank can set the interest rate and the money supply will adjust to this interest rate

PROBLEMS WITH ADJUSTING THE MONEY SUPPLY DIRECTLY:
-The Bank of Canada (BoC) cannot directly control the money supply through the currency ratio and the reserve ratio (they can't control minds and make banks hold more or less assets and make people hold more or less money)
-Also, it's sometimes confusing as to which definition of the money supply should be used: H? M1? M2? Know know...

SO, the BoC sets the interest rate instead, and then accommodates for fluctuations and changes by using open market operations. (The US directly changes the money supply by printing more or less money, while Canada simply changes the bank rate)

There are 5 Different Policy Instruments The BoC Uses:
1: The Overnight Target Rate (Which is changes by changing the Bank Rate)
2: Buyback Operations (Specials and Reverses)
3: Shifting Government of Canada Accounts
4: Moral Suasion
5: The Announcement Effect

NOTE** It's important to know the difference between operational targets: usually, governments can only target one factor, so they have to choose between targeting

a) The Exchange Rate (from 1962-1970, Canada targeted the exchange rate and tried to keep its external value at 92.5)
b) The Interest Rate/Money Supply (from 1975-1982, the BoC would adjust interest rates to affect the money supply through the liquidity preference system. The problem was that interest rates became extremely volatile, and the government had no way of controlling the price level)
c) The Inflation Rate (the BoC uses interest rates and money supply as a policy instrument to affect the inflation rate, so the operational target is currently PRICES. The BoC tries to keep inflation at about 2%, because a little bit of inflation is healthy

Policy Variables: These are the ultimate targets for policy changes
Y - stable economic growth
U - low unemployment
P - Low Inflation !!! THIS IS THE PRESENT GOAL OF THE BoC

----------------------------------

THE 5 POLICY INSTRUMENTS

1: THE OVERNIGHT RATE

Note* the interest rates on borrowing increase as the term of the loan grows longer (as a compensation for leaving money inaccessible for a longer amount of time)

The Overnight Rate: This is the daily interest rate which chartered banks charge each other for borrowing money (or that investment dealers charge to banks for borrowing money) in cases where they have insufficient funds to clear cheques. These loans have a very short maturity (the term is extremely short) and the interest rates are MARKET DRIVEN

The BoC is the LENDER OF LAST RESORT

The Bank Rate is the rate which the BoC charges to lend to money to chartered banks. This is the upper limit of the overnight rate. Because the bank rate is so high, most chartered banks will not borrow from the bank of Canada unless all other sources refuse to loan them money

The Overnight Rate Operational Band: This is the difference between the highest overnight rate (the bank rate) and the lowest overnight rate (the rate the BoC pays to borrow for depoits)
-It is measured in basis points (each basis point is worth 0.01%, so an operational band of 50 basis points would mean a difference of 0.5% between the highest and lowest overnight rates)

Overnight Rate Target: the midpoint of the operational band for overnight rates, as set by the BoC
-THIS is the policy instrument used by the BoC to affect the interest rate
-There are fixed announcement dates: the BoC announces the overnight rate target 8 times per year

The USA uses a slightly different system...


OKAY: so basically, the bank rate is FIXED by the BoC
-Money's liquidity (the demand for money) is given
-The BoC accommodates the money supply to ensure equilibrium in the money market
-The money supply is thus endogenous, and becomes determined from the interest rates and the demand for money!

1: BoC increases the overnight rate (i goes up)
2: Banks increase their target reserves to buffer against this higher opportunity cost of borrowing from the BoC
3: The money supply decreases (because the reserve ratio is higher)
4: The market interest rate goes up!

This is a long-about way of showing how the market interest rate (which includes the prime rate, the 5-year mortgage rate, and commercial lines of credit) is related to the overnight interest rate!

NOTE* A change in the overnight rate target and other market interest rates usually happens very quickly BUT the demand for loans changes gradually (so the first step of the overall transmission mechanism is much faster than then subsequent steps)

As the demand for money changes, the BoC accommodates by using open market operations!

2: BUYBACK OPERATIONS (INCLUDING OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS)
-The BoC Uses Specials and Reverses to stabilize the overnight rate inside the operational band
-Buyback operations are used to fine-tune the overnight rate target within one basis point of the target

SPECIALS (Specials purchase and resale agreement):
-This is a transaction in which the BoC offers to purchase government of Canada securities from major financial players with an agreement to sell them back at a predetermined price the next business day
-This allows the BoC to put money into the system for one day
-This OFFSETS UPWARD PRESSURES on the overnight rate (by adding a bit to the money supply, the BoC decreases the interest rate a little bit)
-The BoC initiates SPRAs daily if overnight funds are generally trading above the target rate
-Differences between the purchase and the sale price determines the overnight rate

REVERSES (Sale and repurchase agreement)
-This is a transaction in which the BoC offers to SELL government securities to major financial parties with an agreement to buy them back at predetermined prices the next business day (this sale is called a reverse)
-Basically, this let's the BoC take cash out of the system for a day (by coaxing investors to temporarily store wealth in bonds instead of money)
-Reverses are used to offset downward pressures on the overnight rate
-The BoC initiates reverses daily if overnight funds are generally trading below the target rate

OPEN MARKET OPERATIONS (OMO): LONG RUN MONETARY ACCOMMODATION
-An OMO is the purchase/sale of government securities by the BoC in the open market for long run monetary accommodation
-Government securities are long run loans to the government
-Treasury bills are short term loans to the government
-These are auctioned off every Thursday, just like stocks, in a market

The BoC BUYS securities to increase excess reserves and attempt to increase the money supply
The BoC SELLS securities to decrease excess reserves and attempt to decrease the money supply

This analysis assumes that there are no cash drains, and that the reserve ratio remains constant in the long run (neither of which may be true)

3: SHIFTING GOVERNMENT OF CANADA DEPOSITS

Cash Management: The Bank of Canada shifts Government of Canada deposits to and from the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks. This is the major day-to-day instrument which the BoC uses to reinforce overnight rate targets within the operational band

Transferring money to a chartered bank increases their reserves, which allows the chartered bank to safely lend out more money, thus increasing the money supply
Transferring money from a chartered bank back to the BoC decreases chartered banks' reserves, which forces the chartered bank to lend out a smaller proportion of money, thus decreasing the money supply

4: MORAL SUASION

-The BoC enlists the cooperation of commercial banks
-This is possible because there is such a small number of banks in Canada
-Since there are not required reserves in Canada (required reserves are not legislated), this tool is more important
-For an example, the BoC may require an increase in settlement balances held at the BoC

5: THE ANNOUNCEMENT EFFECT

-There are fixed announcement dates where the BoC announces the bank rate (8 times per year)
-Like moral suasion, an increase in the bank rate sends a signal to the economy of the government's intentions, which can affect private investment (due to changed expectations)

CONCLUSION: The BoC fixes the overnight rate target, then uses buyback operations and shifting to reinforce it and open market operation to accommodate the demand for money in the long run

1: Policy instruments: The BoC sets the bank rate
2: The Money Market which defines reserves determines the money supply and the equilibrium interest rate
3: Transmission to real sector through the investment and net export effects

GAPBUSTING GUIDE

TO FIX A RECESSIONARY GAP (CREATE EASY MONEY)
-Decrease the target rate
-Increase the money supply
-Decrease interest rates
-Increase Investment and net exports
-Increase Aggregate Demand
-Y moves to the right, back to Y*

TO FIX AN INFLATIONARY GAP (TIGHTEN MONEY)
-Increase the target rate
-Decrease the money supply
-Increase interest
-Decrease investment and net exports
-Decrease aggregate demand
-Y moves left to Y*

The Transmission Mechanism

So... what happens when the money supply changes? How does this affect things? That's what we're going to figure out today!

Remember the marginal efficiency of investment function?

There are two reasons why interest rates and desire for investment are negatively related
-lower interest rates mean that there is a lower opportunity cost for investing (it costs less to borrow money)
-when interest rates are lower, investing in capital becomes more attractive than keeping money in bonds (so if buying a new mixmaster will have a 4% yield, my friend the baker is much more likely to buy one when an equivalently-priced bond would only give him a 2% yield)
-Investment is determined by the REAL interest rate: for simplicity's sake, just assume that there is no inflation in this model for now

SO: There is an investment transmission mechanism

Let's do this in steps

1: The government changes the money supply (we'll learn how in the next little while)
2: The change in the money supply, thanks to the way the money market works, causes interest rates to fall (this is liquidity preference theory)
3: Lower interest rates cause investment to increase (this is marginal efficiency of investment theory)
4: Increased investment causes the family of aggregate expenditure curves for this economy to shift up
5: A shift up in aggregate expenditure causes aggregate demand to shift to the right, indicating an increasing in GDP, a decrease in unemployment, and an increase in the price level

BE SURE THAT YOU CAN REPRESENT EACH OF THESE STEPS GRAPHICALLY! If you have any questions about that, just send me an email and I will spell it out for you! =D

------------------------------

THERE IS ALSO AN EXCHANGE RATE TRANSMISSION EFFECT:

In open economies, consumers are not restricted to buying domestic bonds- they can also buy bonds sold by foreign governments. Thus, when the interest rate falls for one country in comparison with other countries, this makes that particular country's bonds less attractive for investors (if China's interest rate is 25% and Canada's is 4%, why the hell would you put your money in Canadian bonds [assuming the Chinese bonds were relative risk-free]). As a result, when domestic interest rates fall, investors tend to pull money OUT of the domestic economy and into foreign economies. This DEVALUES domestic currencies.

We know that when domestic currencies are devalued, this makes it more attractive for foreign economies to import domestic goods, and less attractive for local consumers to import foreign goods (for price-related reasons). Thus, net exports increases. This leads to an increase in aggregate expenditure, and subsequently, an rightward shift in the aggregate demand curve!

SO! There are 2 different pathways through which changes in the money supply can affect aggregate demand in an economy (and by association, Y, U, and P)

-----------------------

THE LONG RUN NEUTRALITY OF MONEY

Classical economists divided the economy into real and monetary sectors: they believed that changes in the money supply only affected the price level, but would not impact GDP in the long run
MV = PY where V and Y are constant (money has a constant velocity, and GDP tends to return to its potential leve in the long run)

Modern economist now understand that in the short run, changes in the money supply CAN impact GDP through the monetary transmission mechanism. At the same time, they state that in the long run, the "anchor and chain" mechanism will bring GDP back to its potential level (through wage adjustment)

Pretend this graph indicated that the increase in AD was due to an increase in the money supply. In the long run, inflationary pressures cause wages to increase, which effectively raises costs for firms. This shifts aggregate supply to the left until the real GDP is back at Y*, but at a higher price level

Hysteresis: some economists debate that Y* can be affected by short run trends in Y, not just factors and productivity (for an example, a long-lasting recessionary gap may cause worker skills to depreciate, thus bringing productivity down, and consequently lowering potential GDP as well)

---------------------------

SOME OTHER COOL THINGS
-Changes in the money supply cause larger changes in the interest rate when the money-demand curve is STEEP
-Changes in the interest rate cause larger changes in investment when the MEI curve is very FLAT

MONETARISTS: believe that the LPF is steep and the MEI is flat- they think that monetary changes can cause LARGE changes in GDP and price levels
KEYNESIANS: believe that the LPF is very flat and that the MEI is very steep- they think that monetary changes are much less effective than fiscal changes in affecting GDP and the price level

That's all for now. Only one more bit to cover for the midterm! =D

GROWTH ACCOUNTING

It is generally believed that labour accounts for about 2/3 of all income generated, and that capital accounts for approximately 1/3 of national income

as such, percentage-growth in potential national income is = to the percentage change in the level of technology + 2/3 * the percentage change in labour + 1/3 * the percentage change in capital

MEASURING TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE

-It is impossible to directly measure technological change. Solow tried, and got a Nobel Prize.

-The Solow growth model included only 3 independent varaibles: labour, capital, and "other"

-This "other" is the "Solow Residual" or "Total Factor Productivity" or "A" (in our model). It captures all growth in GDP which is not accounted for by changed in N (L and H) and K.

-BIG PROBLEM HERE: Solow's model included both the quantity and quality of labour and capital, and a great deal of technological change is EMBODIED with labour or capital (so technology factors into labour or capital, and cannot always be separated them from). For instance, if one of my shitty sweat-shop sewing machines breaks down and I decide to replace it with an uber-fast, ultra-modern sewing machine, the capital stock will remain the same for my sweatshop, but the technology level has increased.

-As such, the Solow residual underestimates true technical change (as it can only include disembodied technological changes)

--------------------------

The Cobb-Douglas Aggregate Production Function is an example of an aggregate production function with 2 characteristics
-The law of diminishing marginal utility
-Constant returns to scale

For this APF, Y = A * N(2/3) * K(1/3)

Here, equal growth rates in labour and capital cause total GDP to grow at the same rate (as it would in a steady state)

y = A * k(1/3)

This is the per-capita APF, where y is per-capita GDP, and k is the capital-labour ratio
Equal growth rates in both labour and capital (ie: a constant k) cause y (per capita GDP) to remain constant

SO: BIG QUESTION: HOW DO WE ALLOW FOR GROWTH?

1: Increase savings (let per capita savings become larger)- in order for growth to occur, the economy requires sufficient savings to increase the capital stock faster than the population growth.

If you are in the Robert Gateman club of not-breeding, choosing NOT to personally contribute to population growth can also help economies grow here...

2: Increase technology: This requires infrastructural developments (health, education, law, physiological needs such as food and water taken care of), and many such developments are difficult for developing nations to set up.

WHY IS TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE IMPORTANT?

Technological improvements lead to increased productivity, which increases the potential per-capita GDP

Embodied Technical Change = technical change intrinsic to the particular human or unit of physical capital in use: it is a change in the quality of the input (so a higher education, or a computer upgrade would both be examples of embodied technical changes)

Disembodied Technical Change = technical change that is NOT intrinsic to human or physical capital in use. This is a change other than to the quality of the capital (so if my sweat-shop fore-woman comes up with a fantastic new sewing procedure which halves the time it takes her to sew a sneakers, and then she teaches all of her sweat-shop buddies how to sew like this, that new technique would be an example of a disembodied technical change)

Usually, disembodied changes eventually become embodied, so the distinction becomes less important over the long run.

CONVERGENCE HYPOTHESIS: This an interesting theory, and there are 2 different facets of it

1: Absolute Convergence: the tendency for GDP AND Growth Rates in GDP to be equal across nations: each nation will have the same steady state values for y* and k*
-This assumes that different countries have the same marginal propensity to save, the same rate of population growth, and the same rate of technological improvement
-This theory states that if two countries have the same growth model, then even if one starts farther to the left, they will both end up with the same standard of living

2: Conditional Convergence: the tendency for Growth Rates in GDP to be equal across nations: each nation will have the same steady state values.
-This theory assumes different marginal propensities to save for different nations, different population growth rates, and different technological growth rates
-This theory acknowledges that different countries will have different per-capita GDP, but states that they will have THE SAME GROWTH RATES!

-------------------------------------------------

NEW GROWTH MODELS

The Neoclassical Growth Model made growth dependent on exogenous variables such as population growth, the savings rate, and the rate of technological change.

Some new growth theories alter the 2 assumptions of the Neoclassical Model:
-Instead of technology as exogenous, they state that technological changes can be explained within the economic model
-Instead of having diminishing marginal returns, some new growth models suggest that the marginal product of capital is constant, or that there is even increasing marginal product of capital over time!

-----------------------------------

ENDOGENOUS TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE:
Endogenous growth is self-sustaining growth
In this theory, we assume constant marginal product of capital
For an example, if the price of an input rises, firms will develop a new technology rather than just switching to an existing alternative input (so market structures and competition can facilitate technological change)
-Some people believe that competition foster technological change: others believe, especially in the case of health technologies, that only monopolies can risk the large expenditure required to create new drugs

LEARNING BY DOING: In the 1940s, Shumpeter said that innovation was a one-way street- that research caused new developments, which led to new machines and new products. Today, things work different: it is more of a 2-way street. There is a feedback mechanism (ie: the Japanese method of building cars, where the mechanics and workers collaborate with the designer in order to streamline research and production in such a way that is productively efficient).

SHOCKS and INNOVATION:
-Different countries respond to economic shocks in different ways. Some will find different countries to produce goods in where costs are cheaper: others will change production methods and increase technology to make it more cost effective!

---------------------------------------

INCREASING MARGINAL RETURNS TO INVESTMENT: Here, each new addition to the capital stock is more productive than the last.

There are 2 sources of increasing marginal returns to investment:

Market-Development Fixed Costs (Paul Romer)
-The original investment into new knowledge or technology has a large fixed cost
-Adopting or adapting this new technology once it has already been established is cheaper
-Also, consumers, wait to use new technologies
-In this way, the costs decrease as more and more people adopt new technologies, so the returns to scale increase with increasing investment

Knowledge
-It is a public good, so it is not subject to the law of diminishing marginal returns
-New ideas are non-excludable and non-rivalrous (as much as copyright laws try to prevent people from accessing them)
-New ideas are pure public goods
-New ideas may not suffer diminishing marginal returns
-SOOOO, because ideas play such a big role in economics, and ideas are practically unlimited, economics doesn't have to the be DISMAL SCIENCE! Yay!

------------------------------------

LIMITS TO GROWTH

-1970s, the club of Rome published a book called "Limits to Growth"
-This book predicted that increased growth would eventually destroy the earth's resources...

Here is their usual anti-growth argument: growth will look like more of what we witness today: production of mostly useless, impractical consumer goods with a short lifespan, which end up in the landfills in a couple of years.

This could be countered with the argument that growth can still occur, but under that condition that instead of producer large quantities of shitty goods, we focus on producing higher-quality, cleaner, longer-lasting, more efficient products.
-Growth permits societies to protect the environment and help the poor (if you haven't noticed, environmental protection legislation is more a by-product of mature industrial economies, and less-so of developing nations)
-The thought is that market participants will react to supply shortages, and innovate around them (ie: by the time oil runs out, productive processes will have innovated away from it)

RESOURCE EXHAUSTION
-Limits to growth are based on fixed technology and resources
-BUT, technology leads to more efficient resource use
-AND technology leads to the discovery of new resources
-Problem: THERE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE: More people on the earth means that we will require more resource expenditure

POLLUTION:
-Economic growth creates pollution. Nuff said

Although many economists believe that growth creates opportunities for humankind to combat resource depletion and pollution through increased technologies, a lot of these beliefs are based on blind faith.

Like... we are basically relying on our ability to innovate away from these problems...

but what if we simply can't do that? Then what..............?

The Neoclassical Growth Model and Steady States

THE NEOCLASSICAL GROWTH THEORY: This focuses on capital accumulation, and how it is affected by savings

One important function in the neoclassical growth theory is the AGGREGATE PRODUCTION FUNCTION. This function shows the relationship between total real output and total inputs (sort of like a "macro" version of the production function for individual firms we saw in microeconomics)

REMEMBER from the last leccture? There are three main determinants of economic growth: labour, capital, and technology. Well, with the aggregate production function, we say that output is technology times a function of labour and capital

Y = A x F(N,K) where A = total factor productivity (disembodied technology), N = Labour and Human Capital, and K = capital (both quantity and quality)

Now what happens if we divide through by N?

Well, we get

y = A x F(k) where y is the amount of GDP produced per worker, and k is the amount of physical capital available for each worker

Also, potential output is also representable here

Y* = A x F(Nfe, Kfc) where Nfe is full employment, and Kfc is full capacity. In other words, potential output is technology times a function of labour at its full employment level, and physical capital at its full- capacity level

Some important things to remember:
We assume in the long run that income is at its potential level (that there is no output gap)
L is labour quantity, H is labour quality, and N includes both the quality and quantity of labour.
K includes both the quality and quantity of physical capital
We omit land as a factor input for the sake of simplicity in this model
Technology includes entrepreneurship and savviness

PROPERTIES OF THE NEOCLASSICAL AGGREGATE PRODUCTION CURVE

1: In the short run, there are diminishing returns to scale: as more of a variable factor is added to a given amount of fixed factor, the additional output generated by the added factor (the "return") will get increasingly smaller and smaller: they will diminish... ceteris paribus (they will diminish if all other things are held constant) after a certain point (they will not begin to diminish immediately)
But, this is only true of the short run when one factor is increased, and all other factors are held constant!

2: In the long run, there are constant returns to scale: When all factors increase the same amount, output will also increase by that amount (so if I double the amount of workers and also the amount of sewing machines, my sweat shop should double its output of shitty sneakers!)

3: Technology is nuetral: A affects the productivity of K and N equally, so although technology is present, it will not disproportionately impact any one factor.

Image Plz! y = f(k)

4: Steady state equilibrium: Here, the per-capita capital (k) and the per capita output (y) remain constant over time, so /\y = /\k = 0

If the population is growing at n, then income and capital must also grow at the same rate in order to remain in a steady state equilibrium. In other words, in order to be in a stead state equilibrium, the percentage change in output must equal the percentage change in capital, which must = the percentage change in the workforce.

y* and k* are the steady state values (they don't change over time)

Investment required to provide capital for new workers and to replace machines that have worn out (depreciation) is just equal to the national savings in a steady state equilibrium, so New Capital + Replacement Capital = Investment = Savings

If savings is greater than investment, than capital per worker will increase, and thus output per worker will also increase

If savings is just equal to investment, then the capital per worker will be k* and thus output per worker will be y*

When savings is equal to required investment, the economy is in a steady state equilibrium, each worker will have access to k*, and will produce y*

MORE ON THE STEADY STATE

To maintain k at a constant rate, investment depends on both population growth and the depreciation rate. Some of investment will have to go to the new workers

WE ASSUME that the population growth rate is constant: thus, to keep capital per worker constant, you must grow capital by nk (the population growth rate times the amount of capital per worker)
WE ASSUME that the rate of depreciation is constant: thus to keep capital per worker constant, you must grow capital by dk as well (the depreciation rate times the amount of capital per worker)

The level of investment required to fund all of this capital growth to maintain a constant capital-worker ratio can be represented by
I = (n + d)k

THE SAVINGS FUNCTION
Here, we assume that we have a frugal economy (there is no government or international trade)
We also assume that the marginal propensity to save is constant
So:
S/N = sy = sf(k)
in other words, per capita savings are a function of per-capita output, which in turn, is a function of the labour-capital ratio

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER:
The net change in the capital-labour ratio is equal to the excess of actual savings over required investment
/\k = to per-capita savings - the capital-labour ratio multiplied by (the population growth rate + the rate of depreciation)

In a steady state, /\k = o, so per-capita savings must be equal to per-capita required investment
sy* = (n + d)k*

Image plz

If we graph the production function, the savings function, and the required investment function with money on the Y axis and the capital labour ratio on the X axis, the savings function and the required investment function will eventually intersect: this point is the steady state equilibrium, E
at E, actual investment is just equal to required investment
the capital-labour ratio k* and standard of living y* are constant
At capital labour ratios lower than k*, savings will be greater than required investment, so the capital labour ratio and the standard of living will both increase.