Chapter 8 - Stabilization Policy

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Beyond+Boomercentrism/2927373/story.html

Summary:

To summarize this article, it was about the baby boomers wanting a better life for their children but even though they have always stated that it hasn’t always been the case. This is because the baby boomers inherited little public debt and they’ll all be retiring all at once, it makes federal and provincial debt both raise to occupying 30% of GDP. And in the future debt and global climate will be the future generation’s problems to solve. Baby boomers consume more than what they can afford and at a pace where the Earth cannot produce resources fast enough to restock those needs.

Connections:

The main connection from the article and text is public debt. The point being from the article of the burden baby boomers are going to leave behind on future generations. This is because when the government borrows money it’ll take quite awhile for it to be paid off and it leads to the debt being left for the baby boomers children to pay off. Although, if spending would benefit future generations then it would be fair for them to help pay for the expenses but if it doesn’t help them then why should they take on the responsibility for other people’s debt?

Reflection:

If you ask me what I think about this situation then I’d say that if baby boomers really do want the best for their children then they’d better start consuming more smartly. They need to keep how much they consume at a level where it’s possible for the Earth to restock its natural resources. Although it isn’t their intention, if this doesn’t happen now by then there’ll be more things for their children to pay for and deal with. But not only do baby boomers need to change consumer habits, so do the government because their priority of spending on pensions will drain out their assets and gain more debt; which will then again lead to future generations to struggle with paying it off and not having any benefits that they will at least gain from all of the spending going on now.

Ch. 5 - Economic Indicators

http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/speeches/2010/sp290310.html

Summary:

This speech by Paul Jenkins was about repositioning the current Canadian economy to benefit Canadians in the long run which will be done with the support of monetary and fiscal stimulus. Having stated that, the main topic discussed was the “economic environment beyond repair”. For example, the economic landscape, public policy, and some challenges and opportunities that will pose for Canadian business. He went into great detail about the rotation of global demand as the solution to the imbalances of the financial crisis. Although, these estimates are uncertain looking ten years from now the economic landscape will be significantly different than it is today. So the government directs the public policy to shape the outcome to benefit everyone.

Connections:

The main connections I made with this article and from the text is that of gross domestic product, investment and of course macroeconomics. The speech was based on the overall economic landscape of Canada but because of the GDP increasing there’ll be a need for fiscal consolidation to take place; especially, the need for good timing for fiscal consolidation. And investment has weakened in the last ten years to the insufficient “capital deepening” and having capital investment not always integrated into the workplace anyways. Because if they really think about it, are investments being put to their full advantage use?

Reflection:

If you ask me, I really do think that Paul Jenkins is making the right decisions here because he’s looking ahead in the years to come and foreseeing what can become of what we have going on now. His analogy is logical and straightforward which benefits. Within, all the mess ups in the economy you do have to take the time to think about what is really going on in and read between the lines to figure an explanation and solution to the ongoing problems. And that’s exactly what he did. Also, putting in the role of public policy is not such a bad idea either. It keeps things together and consistent.

Chapter 7 - Monetary Policy

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/Monetary+policy+should+based+inflation+trends+blips/2601037/story.html

Summary:

In summary, the article linked above talks about the consumer price index rising, how pundits were wondering if the Bank of Canada were going to keep key overnight rates because of the inflation, and if Mark Carney, Bank of Canada’s governor forced to move interest rates before the US (and if done will most likely stiffen Canada’s economic recovery overall). Interest rates do need to rise although inflation pressures down the road of a year or two can be questionable. But actually, the inflation of prices might’ve come from last year’s price drop because gas prices were surely lower last year than it is this year. So the inflation prices had more to do with the past than with the future. In the meantime, the central bank waits for the interest rates as current agreement with the federal government expires next year and for recovery in the economy.

Connections:

The main connection between the article and the text is the monetary policy and the bank rate. The monetary policy is referred to “action taken by the Bank of Canada to alter the money supply, and ultimately economic conditions”. So in the article it’s stating that Canada’s money supply has been growing very much larger than expected because of the inflation in prices overall. People have to spend money more on the increase of gas and even the increase in new car prices leading them to borrow more money from the Bank of Canada. So they think that the only way to control the money being borrowed is to put interest rates up so the spending would be changed more into saving.

Reflection:

I think that the monetary policy shouldn’t be changed suddenly and significantly because it will be a shock to consumers. Especially since the inflations have been sudden as well, the Bank of Canada should take precaution in the changes they do want to make. I’m going to go with the title of the new article and say that the “monetary policy should be based on inflation trends and not blips” because if the inflations happen this time where is it to say that it’ll happen again? And if it does happen again then it might be a better time to change to monetary policy then and not now since they’d know which possible change would be the best for the economy.

Chapter 4 - Government in Canada

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8321967.stm

Summary:

This article is about rich Germans and how they’re having a petition for the government to make wealthy German people pay higher taxes. The rich Germans don’t mind the extra expense because they say they have “more money than they really need”. They also want to help out Germany’s economy and the financial crisis that is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social equality. Dieter Lehmkuhl is the main man behind the petition. Signatory Peter Vollmer supports the proposal because he also inherited “a lot of money I do not need” and he also says and agrees that the tax is “a viable and socially acceptable way out of the flagrant budget crisis”.

Connections:

A connection between the article and text is the ability-to-pay approach. Even though the government isn’t the ones who are promoting the higher tax demands the rich Germans themselves see the opportunity from themselves for having the ability-to-pay the extra tax expenses. And they’d like to help Germany’s economic recovery in the meantime anyways. The wealthy Germans might even have benefits-received for the generosity they are bringing to the table from the government but at the same time it might even be a win-win situation for both parties. This is because if the rich Germans are to help out then they would help Germany’s economy and help themselves not have to pay for the governments needs in the long run.

Reflection:

I honestly think that this might not be such a bad idea. Even if it might be from a “made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment” person’s point of view then I wouldn’t mind too much. Especially if it’s just a temporary expense or payment to help boost the economy back up with a result of having a better country overall and to maybe even boost up my own income from the new business I’d be attracting. It can be possible but then again it also depends on how everyone else is going to react to the changes and if everyone else is going to be on the same page of thoughtfulness.

Chapter 2 - Demand & Supply

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8305036.stm

Summary:

This article is about the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) and how they want to attract small business customers because they need to meet their loan targets. Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds committed to lend to firms and homeowners of this year. But despite this generosity the government feels that “the banks were demanding ‘unrealistic’ interest rates on their business loans”. The real problem was not the fact that there was a lack of demand in their loans but the fact that maybe the pricing was a bit too high to afford. So RBS and Lloyds have been told that “they must meet their obligations” and this was a condition of the banks’ taxpayer bail-out.

Connections:

Connections between the article and text were: change in demand, change in quantity demanded, change in supply, and elasticity. There was change in demand because their pricing was too high and "unrealistic" for potential borrowers. The quantity demanded decreased because customers actually paid back more this time than before. And there was a change in supply because RBS has actual lending targets to meet as of now. So this meant that RBS may have more to lend this year but not enough potential borrowers to use their services. All this leading to the situation being elastic because there was lending targets to be met that result in the pricing of loans going up, but it also meant that the potential borrowers have moved on to other lenders who they could afford.

Reflection:

I think that this is fair because if the banks were making “unrealistic” goals in the first place so these are the consequences that are paid to them. It’s only natural that people would research on the lowest possible interest on loans so they could have their money worth. RBS and Lloyds shouldn’t be surprised if this was happening because after all, they did increase their rates to meet their target loans. This is just a way that the potential borrowers are responding to it. If the demand is low then they should do something about it instead of trying to rip people off for the loss they've gained.

Chapter 1 - Opportunity Cost

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/no-such-thing-as-a-free-market-20090908-fg2o.html

Summary:

In summary of the article, it was about the government’s slack in regulating all markets. The government’s irresponsibility led to a history of a global financial crisis and created fallible business people who we can no longer trust. Unreliable business will continue if the government doesn’t start enforcing their regulation upon all these markets. All in all, “there is no such thing as a free market” because “all markets are regulated by governments to a greater or lesser extent”. But it may have only seemed like a free market because the government hasn’t been adequately policing in the first place.

Connections:

A connection between the article and text was opportunity cost because while the government was putting and giving their attention and time to things (like the environment maybe) other than business markets, they gave up the time to regulate and enforce their laws. This gave the impression for all markets to have freedom and do what they wanted with little or no “supervision” at all in what they were doing, either right or wrong per se. So the cost of giving up the government’s time to certain markets and to maximize regulations, was a higher population of fallible people and a global financial crisis in history nonetheless.

Reflection:

I personally think that the government does need to take more action into enforcing their laws and to actually practice them because it’s not fair to the consumers of the business. Although, sometimes or most of the time life may not be fair it would still be nice if the businesses we were buying from, were somewhat more ethical than they are now. But even if it didn’t have to be fair to consumers or anyone else for that matter at least the government should be maximizing regulations because what’s the point in having a law if there’s no use to it in the first place?