Quiz bowl!

In macroeconomics 101, next week we’re having what my professor is calling a quiz bowl. The class is divided up into teams. The professor picks 12 questions out of a hat, one at a time, and the first team to answer the question correctly gets a bonus point on the final exam, with a grand total of 12 possible points. We’re given the questions in advance, to study in preparation.

I go to a community college, but my professor apparently did post-grad work for Harvard and also worked for the EPA, for a while (he wrote this short economics guide to aid in instruction). As such, he is a mainstream economist and I do not expect any Austrian responses to be given any credit (if only because he seems to have almost no idea what you guys believe–I’ve asked).

I’m curious as to how you’d answer the following questions from an Austrian perspective and if you find my answers to be in any way at all intelligible.

The questions and my answers are as follows:

The important thing to remember with your class is that (sadly) school is more about “gaming the system” than giving the right answers. If your teacher is a Keynesian you might be better off not getting advice from us. Actually it might be much better for you not to confuse yourself by reading this information (at least until after you finish the class) which may conflict with what you may have been taught. You will do best to answer these questions from your lecture notes, and attempt to echo your teachers answers to these questions. That is the price of a degree. If you really want to learn you MUST be a critical thinker, you have to question everything, read as many opinions about why things happen as you can find, and decide for yourself which ones make the best points, or the most sense. You have to always be as open minded as you possibly can to new ideas, because the more closely you hold a belief the more likely you will disregard information that doesn’t agree with it, it’s a quirk of the way our minds work that this is true. You have to always be willing to question common knowledge, and your own beliefs or you won’t be able to grow. I’m no expert, but that is how I have come to hold the Austrian school, is the most accurate thinking in economics. That said, here are my thoughts on your questions.

#1 - Your answer is good, an important point to remember with comparative advantage is that one country or person can be better at more than one thing but is best to do whichever maximizes total production, for example say that Crusoe can gather 100 berries or catch 5 fish in a day, Friday can gather 50 berries or catch 4 fish in a day. Crusoe obviously is better at both activities (has an absolute advantage) but he is comparatively better at berry gather, and should therefore gather 100 berries and Friday should catch 4 fish to maximize total production. Maximization of total production is why comparative advantage is important to international trade.

**

[Quote]
2)** in many cases, such as America during World War II, deficit spending can be used to increase economic growth in such a way that revenues may be higher later, leading to no overall increase in public debt. quote]

#2 - Government should never be allowed to run deficits. The budget should always be balanced. Keynesianism came about as a response to the crash of '29 and the Great Depression as an attempt to “fix” capitalism (which he believed caused the wide market and economic fluctuations). Keynes believed that in good times the Government should store a surplus of fund, and in recessions the government should run deficits to “prime the pump” of consumer spending. I italicized your comments on WWII because it’s a common misconception that WWII pulled America out of the depression but that is incorrect, the funny thing about economics, and you will learn this is you continue to really study econ. and especially history is that we repeat many mistakes over and over because people don’t learn. Frederic Bastiat wrote “What is seen and what is not seen” in the early 19th century, Henry Hazlitt basically updated the same information in to many, then current, American problems in"Economics in One Lesson", because people still hadn’t learned and over 50 years later we still battle with the same questions.

#3 - Your answer is what your teacher is looking for, but GDP is not a great statistic, it only measures final goods and services, the Austrians believe that goods and services in every stage of production are important. Neither are aggregate supply or aggregate demand for that matter.

no comment on 4-7, your answers are pretty much correct (I think)

**

#8 - You are correct about increased money supply, however expanding the money supply is inflation, (inflating the money supply). Rising prices is the symptom of increased money supply, and almost never increases all prices equally (as monetarists believe). For example, since the 80’s the money went mostly into stocks, causing the stock market bubble (also the case in the 20’s) then a decline in the growth of the money supply caused the market to crash in 2000, since people were scared of the market by this, when the government expanded the money supply and dropped interest rates in 2001 much of the money went into real estate, causing a real estate bubble. The real answer to this question is that we have some ideas about how expanding the money supply affects the economy but no one really knows. The reason for this is that people have different tastes and preferences which change, so say that I increase your personal money supply and give you $1 million. How are you going to spend/invest that money? What would your neighbor do with it? If you invested in stocks and lost it, would you invest in stocks again if I gave you a million next year? This is the problem with a central bank controlling money supply, they don’t know where the money will go. Also important (to Austrians) is the fact that the interest rate is an important indicator to businessmen of the cost of borrowing (or the cost of money). The interest rate in a free market would be driven solely by the demand for and willingness to lend money by private citizens. Since interest rates are driven down by higher rates of savings (interest rates move inversely to savings rates), low interest rates would signal to businessmen that they can invest in extended methods of production that would not be possible at higher interest rates. In a free market as savings were borrowed at low interest rates the amount of savings would be depleted (by lending) and interest rates would rise. (Again the interest rates moving inversely to savings). But when the government lowers the interest rate it allows as much to be borrowed at that rate as people want to borrow, and the interest rate is not responsive to the amount of borrowing, not to mention that the rate is artificially low in the first place. Think about this, if you did away with all the convoluted theory and used only paper money in a society the only way to expand would be to print more dollars. If you have a desert island with 10 apples and 10 $1 bill and each bill is for an apple will printing more apples appear just because you print more dollars? So when the central bank expands money supply what is it really doing since the real amount of savings is only increased by production? It is stealing from whomever has savings. The only way not be be robbed would be to spend your entire paycheck every week, because any monetary savings you have would be devalued by the increase in money. Your other option is to have something that cannot be devalued, something tangible and limited in supply, say art, land, gold, etc. Sure you could invest in interest bearing instruments, but you will be taxed on the interest earned even though you are at best only keeping up with inflation, and at worst being taxed and not even keeping up before taxes.

#9 - if you were an Austrian Economist, you would do nothing, other than recommend that the people use a currency such as gold, require 100% bank reserves, and leave the people otherwise free to do what they want. No central bank, it’s not necessary if you have a stable 100% reserve currency. If you think central planning works you need a central bank, if you believe in capitalism you don’t need one. There is no need to focus on exports, ambiguous national boundaries are meaningless in economics, they are only useful for playing politics, if you have a free society with free trade, imports and exports will be determined by the free market process. Determining long run and short run trade offs are only important to central planners, they also will be taken care of in a free market by the people who make up those markets.

#10 - Yes, there is a short run trade off, The idea of a trade off between inflation(of product an service prices) and unemployment is due to people in the market being deceived by expansion of the money supply. When the government first begins to expand the money supply people may believe that the rise in prices is a cyclical phenomenon and not a permanent trend, and may therefore shift their investment/savings preference and wait for “prices to return to normal’. So the prices will either remain stable or fall due to the decreased demand. But if prices do not fall, or worse continue to rise, consumers begin to anticipate rises in price. When this happens everything gets indexed to the expected inflation, and the only way the government can perpetuate the 'boom” is to increase the money supply faster, this can lead to out of control inflation as the people expect higher and higher rates of inflation and so increase the velocity of money in an attempt to spend their money before it can be further devalued leading to high inflation and unemployment. When people can’t be somewhat certain of what prices may be in the future it becomes very hard for them to plan their businesses.

#11 - This means that the specific basket rose by 3%, but unless a person buys exactly the same basket in the same ratio the 3% is not very useful. CPI is a very misleading indicator, as are most government indicators, because their numbers are managed and massaged to yield what the bureaucrats want them to say.

#12 - No comments

Rob, I’m not sure whether he’s a Keynesian, actually.

He tends to try to dodge any ideological questions I put forth to him. In the last class, after a lecture on the supply & demand for money, I asked him if he was a Keynesian or a Monetarist. He wouldn’t really answer the question.

It’s possible he’s a Monetarist.

Have you tried asking him after classes? Maybe make some statements of an ideological content and see how he responds.

That’s the only time I ask him. Like I said, he dodges the questions or gives wishy-washy answers.

Also, I reviewed my answers with my team tonight. The answers above are correct from a mainstream standpoint, but a few are incomplete, so we added a bit to them (like explaining how increased productivity can decrease both unemployment and inflation together).

The only exception is my answer to #12, which is incorrect. Tax cuts do shift supply, just not in the LR.

Provide both: “The textbook answer is …, but the correct answer is …” - that way the prof gets to hear what he wants to hear and the other students (and the prof!) get exposed to some sense.

I’m a new student, so, I’d like to try to answer and hope that I recieve lots of critics, from which to learn.

  1. Well, when people have more of their own earnings back, id est, tax cuts. They will increase not just demand for products they will enjoy increased productivity, which becomes increased wealth. The focus should be on increasing aggregate wealth, and this can only be done through maximum production of labour. Or, the more stuff there is out there the more wealthy the aggregate becomes, as opposed to the silly notion that people are more wealthy by simply printing more money.

  2. When prices of gross goods increase, this is an indication of purchasing power perceived loss, confidence will keep sliding up until destruction of the reighning fiat. It means it just became a greater increase in the demand on my available capital. I must re-allocate capital recources for myself and stay active as I can, so I am able to succeed.

  3. “When you employ bad means will you succeed in bad ends? Do any means justify ends, of course not.” Un-natural inflation has many negative externalities, to simply focus on employment, is non-congruent. A nation may have maximum employment, which includes the un-employable, like the very old or very young, but not also maximum productivity. The law of diminishing returns applies to any commodity, money is a commodity. When the supply is increased a lack of productivity follows. For instance.. Based on my purchasing power I have less demand for luxury. Therefore it may also be the case that consumer demend decreases with a rise in prices. “We must examine the short and long term of every intervention of the market.”

  4. If I where despot, the only policy I would employ would be laissez faire. This system is best for the long and short run, and will only sacrifice what is unjust and that would be specificly government power.

  5. The FED by it’s nature can only keep the shell game up for a short term. It only corrupts what is a natural balance by playing special privlidge of gain to themselves first, and what a nation has to suffer from totalitarianism. Who cares what they buy, there whole system is a criminal farce.

  6. Over valuation of goods, creating un-sustainable bubbles. The rate of intrest does not follow the market and creates a bubble, which who knows what “carnac” the future offers. The long term does not neccessarily imply a fixed value. Any thing can happen from any given point.

  7. He is responsible for upholding his oath to office. If he did this he could influence congress to practise sound fiscal means, by making his intentions clear, serve as head of executive, foreign emmissary, leader of the armed forces and militas when called into service by the people, making sound appointments, or even by reducing the scope of executive power is on my wish list.

  8. What is wrong about this is the legal barriers it imposes to some while it gives special authority to others.

  9. I argue current fiscal policy is destructive on the aggregate, and serves to cause as means to rule by the rich.

  10. People will find their scales of value to be different among everyone who is by nature a one of a kind. I should not be intoned to believe what is the most preferable living arrangement to anyone but myself. If per persons one country produces more than another, this does not measure the level of satisfaction of fealt wants by the group of individuals inhabiting any state. So a slave state can produce more of given measured resources than a state that enjoys maybe more luxury but less productivity. When people are free to fill their wants they can produce more quality of life which is probably more important than producing quantity of goods, though I would say an increased quantity of goods would be a sign of limited regulation.

  11. Maynard, would answer more proufoundly than me perhaps. World government is cartelized oppression. Governments, like people should mind their own stuff, before they covet that of their neighbors. Should the representative government that I live in be allowed to run a defecit, the people can only pay for this trust in theivery, id est taxes. They could outlaw deficit spending and still find legislatures loopholing the way they abuse the public trust.

  12. Division of labour provides for better capital goods. In an exchange both parties percieve a gain. The policy of tarrifs causes restrictions and can’t really be interpreted as “free”.

It was fun giving it a shot, thank you.