Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Is China beginning to get exhausted? Will America bounce back?

China's growth has been simply astonishing. Turning several decades back, China was not given much attention to its economic growth. It is only after when China overtook Japan as the second biggest economy behind America in February 2011, when people started to realize the might of their growing economy. China itself accounts for 10.6% of the world's total exports, and is continually increasing; its no wonder that the majority of things we buy are made in China. China is the largest exporter and the second largest importer in the world.

However, this week, official data published by the Chinese government indicates worrying news to the future of China's growth; its exports and imports have slowed for the second consecutive month. As a result, this year, China's economic growth has dropped to 7.6%, which fails to meet its annual target of 8%. A major effect of the slow in economic growth is due to the sharp decrease in exports. Exports are a component of aggregate demand, a decrease in exports will lead to a decrease in aggregate demand. Exports play a very large factor in China's economic growth, the lack of export "umph" could mean trouble for China's future economic growth. Although it may not be such a big problem in the short run, it could spell trouble in the long run when China simply cannot cope with the rising costs of its factors of production, thus the contraction of the secondary manufacturing sector, further denting China's export figures.

So what are the suspects of China's sluggish export figures? Well, for starters, and one of the main factors is the weakness in overseas economies. America and debt-ravaged Europe are key trading partners to China, but they themselves are experiencing big economic problems. America and Europe's weak economies are largely due to the lack of consumer spending while they are in their downward spiral recession. The business model illustrates that in a recession, unemployment increases and income level decreases, so there is a lack of demand for imports from China. Even though the lesser developed India, China's biggest trading partner is still doing well, but it alone cannot prop up China's loss in exports. The second factor is the appreciation of the Chinese Yuan. Because America is still the world's no.1 economy and one of China's main trading partners, China wants to maintain a good relationship with America. Due to China's low value currency proving a thorn in America's competitive international trade and balance of payments deficit, America has constantly pestered China about re-valuating their currency. In order to maintain a good relationship with America, China eventually gave up to the political pressures from not only America , but other countries as well and appreciated the Yuan. The appreciation of the Yuan increased the price of exports, so other countries wouldn't be able to afford as much goods from China, hence the fall in exported goods. And lets not forget, the downside to this is that Chinese tourists (who have literally taken over Tsim Sha Tsui for all I can think of), are able to take advantage of Hong Kong's pegged currency with America, stimulating demand and creating inflation.


*The Mainland invasion: Mainland Chinese people queuing outside Louis Vuitton, Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui.

This brings us on to the next factor, inflation. Inflation is defined as the continuous and sustained increase in the general price level. Economic growth is desirable in every economy, especially China, because it is one of the macroeconomic objectives the government wants to achieve when he is in the office. Economic growth brings about more jobs (lower unemployment), increase in income, increase in the economy's output, and high levels of inflation. Actually hyperinflation in this case. Inflation causes domestic prices to rise, which reduces domestic supply, therefore causing an increase in production costs. Next, the increase in production costs means that exports are more expensive, reducing foreign demand, ultimately reducing exports. There are two types of inflation: demand pull inflation and cost push inflation. As both of their names suggest, demand pull inflation is inflation due to the rise in demand and cost push inflation is inflation due to the rise in production costs. Demand pull inflation is because the Chinese people became extremely wealthy due to the economic growth, hence they will be more willing and able to purchase goods and services. Aggregate demand increases and and the output of the economy increases. Meanwhile, cost push inflation is due to the increase in wages of labour and supply-side shocks. For example, wage inflation rose by 20% in 2011 of factory workers, and food prices rose by 18.2% on average due to snowstorms and in the long run, the desertification. The Gobi Desert, located in Northwestern China, has been increasing at an alarming rate over the past few years; currently, 3600km sq. of grassland are overtaken every year, affecting the agricultural industry heavily. If demand pull and cost push inflation were not to occur simultaneously, that would not be too problematic, however, it is becoming a huge problem in China. It would appear if China's secondary sector is starting to deteriorate. Of course, as a country becomes more developed and people become more wealthy, the supply of factory workers will decline rapidly as more people desire higher pay jobs in offices. The reality, is that China may be heading towards the tertiary sector. Although it represents that China is heading towards economic stabilization and permanently establishing its place as a first-world country, after some analysis, it is hard to see China thrive as a tertiary sector economy.


Firstly, China's poor education system in poor areas. Although Asians, especially Chinese people, are heavily stereotyped as extremely smart (which is statistically true, Asians on average outperform other children on the SATs), poor education is ravaging the poorer areas of China. As the Chinese secondary manufacturing sector is deteriorating, the education is going to limit the jobs available to them. Linking to the previous point, income inequality. When China was still poor, the first place the government developed was the coastal cities before the inland cities. As we can see from the graph, the east of China are full of coastal cities, meaning that there are many ports. Ports are very good for trading because majority of exported goods travel on container carriers across the world, therefore wealthy cities. As we approach China's western countries, the income gaps start to widen. If anyone has every visited Wuhan or Xi'an, the area is very poor compared to the tall skyscrapers and highways in Shanghai. Since education is poor in the western cities, the lack of jobs available to them will further widen the income gap. And thirdly, technology problems. By an international standard, China's technology is not extremely developed yet unlike America or Europe. It really says a lot when we find that China's exports are mainly manufactured goods, textiles and electronic equipment and imports are mainly machinery and high-tech equipment from Japan and America. As China delves deeper into the tertiary sector, technology will be the main growth factor rather than manufacturing. But with the relatively poor education in western China, technological development will be slow, hence slow economic growth.

With the slowing growth of China's economy, we can answer another question: "Will America bounce back from their dire economic situation?" Its a question that has been pondering the minds of many economists; unfortunately, not many are very optimistic. Why? Well, their debt currently stands at $1.6 Trillion USD, with $1169.6 billion USD borrowed from China, who owns approximately 20.8% of all foreign-owned US Treasury securities. Also, their continually disappointing balance of payments deficit is further enhancing the problem, with slow growth in the second quarter this year. Hopefully, with China's sluggish export figures expected this financial year, things may look up for US made goods.

Unfortunately, the problem is not so simple as to be fixed by market-based solutions. Basically, trade alone cannot save America, because of two reasons. First, actually, America does not even spend that much on Chinese exported goods. In fact, "Made in China" only accounts for less than 3% of American personal expenditure! This may seem awkward since America is one of China's biggest trade partners, but it is true. Lets take a look at the chart below.



If this is the case, then this reflects that 67 percent of spending is on services rather than goods, and services are 96 percent made in America. Also, a lot of the spending on imported goods actually reflects the cost of shipping around America. For example, whereas goods labeled “Made in China” make up 2.7% of U.S. consumer spending, only 1.2% actually reflects the cost of the imported goods. In other words, the U.S. content of “Made in China” is about 55%. This substantial point allows us to confirm that inflation in China is not likely to have a substantial effect on the price level in the United States nor do their trade balance any good. America keeps complaining about the Yuan valued too low for the past several years, well, it seems that the Chinese officials were correct in pointing out its insignificance to America's problem.

Finally, the depletion of America's money supply. The depletion of its money supply means that the quantity of loanable funds in the economy is minimal, that means investors would not be able to borrow money and invest. As investment is part of aggregate demand, a decrease in investment leads to a decrease in the output of the economy, further worsening America's condition. As a counter solution to their debt, America has been printing a LOT of money in order to increase their money supply, hoping to create incentives to investors and increase the output of the economy and pay their creditors. Also, the printed money is sold to other economies in order to depreciate their currency, hoping to regain their competitive edge against China in terms of lower prices.



*Rolling out the money: The role of excessively printing the American Dollar is to stimulate its economy from the recession.

Although in theory, printing money has the ability to bring about beneficial changes, America's weak monetary base is significantly reducing the effect. The sudden short term increase in the money supply is only good for short term investments, and it is American's that are purchasing their own investments, hence the income flow is extremely bad. Investment and consumption is largely down to the consumer confidence, with confidence at an all time low in the current economic environment, it seems printing money may not be the best solution after all. Also, printing money will induce inflation, because the amount of money in the economy increases, so people have higher disposable incomes. Since the interest rate is not so low, people will rather spend money than save, creating consumption and high levels of inflation. And finally, the government is not able to use the printed money to pay bonds because it is not actually real money.

Short term investments take us back to the cause of the Asian financial crisis. Back in the 1990's, when Asian economies are still developing, American investors invest in their land and begin fast growing development. Exports made up a large percentage of the Asian countries' income. After they made a lot of money and America recovered from a recession in the early 1990's, majority of the investors left the Asian market simultaneously since the U.S. became a more attractive investment destination relative to Southeast Asia, which had been attracting hot money flows through high short-term interest rates, and raised the value of the U.S. dollar. Ultimately, the Asian market collapsed and caused a financial contagion. In 2007, American's also did the same, but this time, they did it to themselves. The Lehman Brother's bankruptcy sprang from exactly the same problem. America should face the cruel reality; short term increases in money supply are weak market-based solutions, it requires interventionist policies to fix the issue.

From the above assumptions, we can conclusively deduce that China's economic growth is getting exhausted is a mix of internal and external factors, with the internal factors making up majority of the problem. China's economic growth is also starting to stagnate with the weak demand from foreign countries, and may eventually turn into a tertiary sector economy. Furthermore, it does not seem America is getting back on track for awhile, since they "screwed" themselves up big-time, and there is nowhere to hide.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Can big sporting events save European economies?

2012, the year where many people will be looking forward to. Many big events happened or may happen this year; the sudden death of singer Whitney Houston,  the newly elected chief executive of Hong Kong Leung Chun Ying founded to have illegal building structures in his home, the 2012 World Expo held in South Korea, the Geneva particle research team CERN finally finding the long sought-after Higgs Boson, Man City pipping Man United to the premier league title and the continued curse of Aaron Ramsey (read more about it at the end), and maybe the END OF THE WORLD!!
*Physicist's delight: Higgs Boson finally discovered at CERN particle accelerator. Source: The Journal.ie

So what about Europe? Well...things weren't looking peachy at the beginning of the year as the pain from the sovereign debt crisis are still lingering in many of its largest economies. Switching to present day, the UK are doing as badly as ever, Spain's 4th largest investment bank, Bankia, has recently requested a 19 billion euro bail out from the state, Italy are leaning over its book account like their famous tower of Pisa and Greece....I'm not even going near there. Who is doing well? Germany; the only pillar of hope in Europe's miserable single currency system. But that is not saying much, the European Commission Spring forecasts that the Eurozone economy will contract by an average of 0.3% GDP, and the European Union will experience zero growth in 2012.

Even though Europe is doing very badly from an economists' point-of-view, Europe can be happy about one thing, it held the Euro 2012 and London held the summer Olympics. The Euro 2012, jointly hosted by Sweden and Ukraine, was a very big event on the footballing calendar, especially to football fans around the world. What makes this year's tournament especially interesting is that there were so many things to expect: will Spain retain their crown or will Netherlands take revenge from their bitter defeat in the 2010 world cup? Can retirement-bound legendary striker, Andriy Shevchenko, inspire Sweden to Euro glory? The results? Spain thrashed Italy 4-0 in the final, and Netherlands finished bottom place in the 'group of death'. Moreover, the 2012 Olympics held in London is another long-anticipated event. China continue to establish its dominance in the sporting world by currently leading USA and South Korea in number of points and medals. Andy Murray emphatically beat Roger Federer 6-1 6-2 6-4 in straight sets to be the first UK person to claim gold since Josiah Ritchie in 1908.

Spain Wins Euro 2012 Football Championship 1 Spain Wins Euro 2012 Football Championship
*The best national team ever? Spain retain Euro crown and marked their 3rd consecutive big tournament championship win. Source: On Secret Hunt

As the date drew nearer to these two long-awaited sproting events, this begs a question. Since Europe's economy is doing so badly, can big sporting events such as these save their economies? What we imply is whether the hype of big sporting events can help to stimulate the economy. Certainly, it does not seem likely after hearing that Europe will experience zero growth rate throughout 2012, but forecasts are forecasts, and they might not necessarily be correct. Why? Because economics is not always correct; most of the time predictions are wrong.

First, lets take a look at the possible advantages from big sporting events. Many preparations are needed prior to the event, hence sporting events will increase employment. In the business cycle, the decrease in unemployment is one of the characteristics of economic growth (rise in GDP), which is obviously good to further prevent the GDP from shrinking to the point of no return. Derived from employment, the government would be able to spend less of its funds on unemployment benefits, ultimately creating available funds and overturn the budget deficit. The other advantage is that large sporting events will attract tourists to the country. With many big things to expect in the Olympics, such as Usain Bolt trying to win the 200m event tonight, many people would attend to experience the live atmosphere, even though its gonna end in just over 19 seconds. Tourism involves the export of services from that economy to the other economy using the service. Exports are an injection into the economy, so the income in the economy increases and may lead to economic growth. It is also a component of  aggregate demand, so if the country's exports increase, ceteris parabis (all other things being equal), then aggregate demand would increase.

In theory, big sporting events would be very helpful, but there are many issues with it alone to bring the economy up from its slump. Firstly, the creation of the internet. Whenever you want to find information on anything such as product reviews and what foods are low in calories, a quick search on Google will take you to your answer in no time at all. Our access to information is so much greater nowadays that we can know what happened world wide just by sitting on your desk chair, in front of the computer. If we apply this to results in the Olympics, what need is there for foreigners to travel there by plane, purchase overly-expensive tickets only to watch it live in in such a noisy environment when we could watch it at home? Of course, many people express that watching live is a totally different experience compared to watching from the TV screen, but we can now watch live streams of just about anything! So will it attract many tourists? Probably ones near the host country, but not significantly high from countries far away. Which brings me on to the next problem, the host country will have to build or improve sport infrastructures, which are funded by the state. For the amount of money being invested on organizing the event, the country will really need to expect that the event is going to be a success. Also, only the host country is receiving income from the event, other eurozone countries are not going to benefit even though it is within Europe. Lastly, and most importantly, these events are only very short term. The Fifa World Cup, Euro 2012 and Olympics are held once every 4 years, and the host will change every time. The people working in the Olympics or Euro 2012 would only be employed for only the duration of the event; afterwards they will once again be unemployed unless they find another job. Effects? The state will have to once again resume paying high unemployment benefits, possibly leading to budget deficit and a halt in growth. Likewise, although the event has the capability to generate income into the economy, it being short term creates what's called a growth illusion. Short term growth is not what will be needed to solve the euro crisis, long term growth is what we need. To do this, the respective euro countries will have to find a large and continuous source of revenue through interventionist and market-based policies, and not from the European Central Bank (ECB).

If what we are looking for are long term growth, why not try looking at football leagues rather than short term events? Europe arguably has one of the most impressive set of football leagues in the game; top-flight leagues such as the Premier League in UK, La Liga in Spain, Serie A in Italy, Ligue 1 in France, Bundesliga in Germany and the Primeira Liga in Portugal, attract a host of talents from around the world. Football is not only the world's most popular sport, but its also one off the most expensive too. An average football ticket for a match at the Emirates stadium (Arsenal F.C.) will cost you 100 pounds. Excective seats at the Santiago Bernabéu (Real Madrid C.F.) overlooking the El Classico match, will cost you 1 million euros! Its not just to football tickets, player wages and value have also sky-rocketed in recent years; the world record transfer fee of 80 million pounds for C.Ronaldo from Man United to Real Madrid marks the beginning of the new era of football, when the financial power of big clubs really started to flex their muscles. Who do you suppose caused this? When oil producers started to take ownership of football clubs. They start to pay players unreasonably high wages and clubs transfer fees for their player. For example, Paris-Saint-German spent over 150 million pounds on 4 players this summer. In 2011, Manchester City has reportedly spent 1.2 billion pounds since their takeover of the club, with 360 million pounds spent on players alone! These eye-watering figures are due to the amount of money oil producers make. The world's reliance on fossil fuels have reached a new high this year, and its only going to continue to increase as our demand keeps rising. Hence, the reason why they are making an absolute killing. If we use football in terms of representing wealth, Europe would be doing very well.

So now many of you will be asking, "what has this got to do with economics?" Everything basically. You see, there are certain conditions the state must consider before implementing policies. In the case of generating funds through football, Europe have the best clubs in the world; a perfect starting point. Next, we need to find the money...its also available in the banks of rich club owners. Furthermore, we need to have a football association that deal with matters such these...Uefa, Fifa, FFF etc. Even the Uefa President, Michel Platini, has voiced his concern of wealthy clubs ruining the game by financial incentives, and will implemented the financial fair play rule in 2013. We have met all 3 criterion. So now, what the government can do is to use selective taxation on rich football players and clubs. The advantages associated with this are quite promising. Firstly, the amount of money that can be generated from football leagues are simply astonishing, hopefully raising significant funds for the respective economies to pay debtors, and lift the euro out of recession in the long run. Secondly, the financial incentives associated to football will diminish over time, leading to fall in the player market and wage levels, hence making income distribution more even. Francis Hollande, France's prime minister, has already taken action, by slapping a 75% income tax on Zlatan Ibrahimovic's 13 million euro annual salary. The next step will be to target to wealthy owners for tax revenue. Thirdly, it will also lead to the dilution of monopoly power in the rich clubs, leading to more competitive football not dominated by big clubs winning the league every year. Lastly, it is a long term solution to raise funds, which is perfect in Europe's current economic situation.

There are, however, 2 disadvantages with this plan. It will lead to player unrest; protests to the football association would be inevitable. And, the possible decrease in the quality of football. "People respond to incentives", more specifically, financial incentives. If there is a lack of income in becoming a footballer, less people would want a career as a footballer and will look for other jobs, causing a decrease in the quality of football players, and ultimately the game itself, which may have detrimental effects the European economies in the very long run. Hopefully, Europe would have recovered by the time this happens and have tighter control of its economies to prevent another recession.

As we have stated in the previous post, in theory this would happen, but it is uncertain due to the problem of the human factor in social science. Hopefully, things will turn out like it would without the disadvantages. So our conclusion is that big sporting events are too short term to significantly impact European economies, but maybe the key lies in long term sports to prevent to collapse of the single currency.


Extra Material: The Curse of Aaron Ramsey
Aaron Ramsey is a player in Arsenal Football club that plays in midfield position. Once tipped as one of the leading talents alongside Jack Wilshere that will lift the club out of its trophy-less half decade, his fate took a rather interesting turn for the worse after suffered a broken leg after a nasty challenge by Stoke City defender, Ryan Shawcross after a heated encounter at the Britannia stadium.

He turned from one of Arsenal's brightest prospects to being booed by his own fans. Things aren't looking particularly well for Mr Ramsey; there are rumors going on that when he scores goals, a person mysteriously dies. Not convinced? Take a look:
  1. May 1st 2011: Ramsey scores winner vs Man United. Next day, Osama Bin Laden dies
  2. October 2nd 2011: Ramsey scores in London Derby vs Tottenham. Three day later, Steve Jobs dies
  3. October 19th 2011: Ramsey scores injury-time goal in CL group stages vs Olympique de Marseille. Next day, Muanmmar Gaddafi dies
  4. February 11th 2012: Ramsey scores in League game vs Sunderland. That night, Whitney Houston dies
  5. August 4th 2012: Ramsay scores penalty in quarter-final clash vs South Korea. Next day, Columbus Crew footballer Kirk Urso dies of unknown reason in first autopsy scan.
Well, whatever the reason, if we let Mr Ramsey score, another famous person has a high chance of not seeing another day.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Euro Crisis: How long can the ECB Draghi it out?


Pictured: Mario Draghi, President of the European Central Bank (ECB). Source: The Economist

The Euro crisis has been going on since the stock market crash and the bankruptcy of the investment bank, Lehman Brothers.ltd. Fast forward five years, and the euro is still in quite a big mess. Majority of the large economies in the euro now have painfully serious budget deficits. On May 26th, Spain's fourth-largest bank requested a €19 billion ($24 billion) bail-out from the state. The famous 5 euro countries, dubbed as 'PIIGS' for their terribly high deficits and underwhelming economies, are in constant danger going into default. What happens when a country defaults? There are no set-in-stone definition or conditions when a country defaults, but whatever it is, it certainly would not be very pleasurable. Most likely, the countries will have to engage in further austerity programs, restructure of debt, only to name a few; the IMF most probably will have a plethora of tough measures ready when countries announce their bankruptcy.

Creative people may have to think up of another word as the downward spiral recession in the eurozone are going to affect many more countries. Please take a look at the image below (click image to view full size).




This chart may have been on the web for a good while (Greece's current credit rating is CCC, another saying of 'mediocre'), but it is a very good representation of how badly Europe is doing in terms of their economic situation. Out of 14 countries at the risk of bankruptcy, 7 out of 14, 50%, are European countries. In my opinion, this is hardly surprising because I have always considered the amount of social welfare among European countries a major factor for the lack of government funds. Although the income taxes are astonishingly high, for example PSG footballer Zlatan Ibrahimovic's 75% income tax on his wealthy annual 13 million euro salary, the transfer payments to low income people in the form of unemployment benefits, and pensions is hurting the government's purse. Transfer payments is where the government uses its tax revenues to redistribute income in the market system to different groups in the economy; the transfer of money is made without an equivalent exchange of goods or services. In 2011, the official government spending statistics show that the UK government spent a total of 232.9 billion pounds, or 33% of GDP on welfare and pensions combined.




Furthermore, recent talks about cutting down public spending is undermined if we look at the chart below.


From 1985 to the predicted level of spending in 2014, the total spending by the government has nearly quadrupled in the last two and-a-half decades. There are numerous economic factors for this increase. Firstly, arguably the basis for economics, the idea of limited resources coupled with unlimited wants for economic growth, hence spending keeps on increasing. The second factor could be the increase in population. The improvement in healthcare, technology, income levels etc., is a universal reason for the continual increase in the world population. While this represents development of the human race, more people ultimately leads to more resources needed to be used by the government to meet the needs of society. The third factor could be the unemployment trap. Due to high unemployment benefits in European countries, employed people working in relatively low paid jobs that earn less than receiving benefits from the government may choose not to work. These are all probable reasons for the high budget-deficit.

We really must get back to the main story. Last week, at a investment conference in London, Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank (ECB), has announced that they will start buying government bonds in the coming weeks when vulnerable countries present their balance of payments and their structural reform policies. What does buying government bonds mean? Well for starters, it is a source of funds for the government to pay back its debtors. However, the money is only a short term solution to the problem; what we must all understand is that long term problems require long term solutions. When reporters and investors questioned his intentions, he replied, with a rather cool demeanor, "the ECB is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the euro - and believe me, it will be enough." Plainly, the markets do not believe that Mr Draghi has done enough to quell the fear that the euro may break up. Certainly, Mr Draghi was defiant and had no regrets blurting out the above quote during the London investors conference. Well, I have my suspicions on this one; his response was not the immediate or massive response I would expect after setting up the conference.

If Mr Draghi is adamant on his view that the euro can be saved by the ECB alone, how long can the countries continue to rely on the ECB? My view is that vulnerable countries with large budget deficits are basically eating off the ECB's money supply, the ECB does not have unlimited money to drag this out forever. Of course, it has always been worrying to see how rashly the ECB acts by giving seemingly unlimited amounts of money to support the euro states. The ECB certainly cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this fragile matter, it needs to balance out its power/authority; between printing vast amounts of money and maintaining price stability, between the interests of creditor and debtor states and maintaining market pressure on countries to reform and preventing them from being pushed into insolvency.

What if eventually the ECB runs out of money? That is what Mario Draghi will be trying to avoid as he needs to set effective borrowing policies and get countries to meet those goals. If the euro countries are going to get anywhere, they have to implement structural reforms to the faltering economy. As with structural unemployment, structural reforms indicate that the country's economy is unable to sustain itself with the level of deficits, and have to implement policies and conditions to obtain loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or lower interest rates for their loans. These conditions are usually austerity measures. Certainly, austerity measures, in theory, will enable the government to cut-back on spending in order to pay their deficits. For example, in order to secure the 130 billion euro bailout package, Geece accepted its 5th austerity package. The following conditions of the 5th package are summarized below that are supplemented to the other 4 packages:
22% reduction in minimum wage
150,000 jobs cut from state sector by 2015
Pension cuts worth 300 million euros ($370 million USD) this year
Deregulation of workers laws and reducing trade union power
Health and Defence spending cuts

Naturally, the citizens would not be happy by the decrease in welfare, even if they are much better off than most countries outside of Europe. And their response? Social unrest, protests and riots will take place if the austerity measures are too tough. On the 5th of February, after the 5th austerity package was implemented in Greece, violent protests raged the streets of Athens that involved 100,000 people.



From this, we can summarize the course of actions currently taking place in euro countries and the ECB:

1. The euro country (not specified as all of them are in trouble) is nearing the deadline to pay debtors, but have an insufficient supply of money, and hence, requires a bail-out from the ECB.

2. The ECB will be glad to pay the sum of money, but not for free. So the ECB will implement conditions to the country before the bail-out money can be given to them. Structural reforms and austerity measures to the country takes place next.

3. After the country implements the austerity measures, the euro citizens, who are so well taken care of by the government by relative standards for so long, suddenly being required to give up their "luxury" lifestyles would obviously be angry. Social unrest will follow with protests and riots.

The above illustration is a testament to American economist, William Easterly's view that deft-relief would cause detrimental effects to the economies and societies concerned due to diminishing productivity and undesirable austerity measures. In theory, debt-relief is supposed to lift the country out of recession and increase output, however, debt-relief is a step backwards, rather than forwards! The main issue is that theories may not necessarily work in the real world when people are guided by incentives. Its very similar to why did economists create the theory of veblen goods and giffen goods? Because they were obviously baffled by the abnormal spending patterns that did not obey the law of demand and supply, the fundamentals of economics. Mr Draghi is a very smart man; he is playing the game correctly using economic theories to back up his strategies, but the single flaw of the social science is in the social-side of it after all...humans!



So how long can the ECB drag it out? That will only depend on whether the citizens in Europe (except for Germans) will be willing to suffer in the present, in order for their respective countries to regain economic power.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Welcome to IB Economics Blog!

Introduction

Hello! My name is Terry Ng and I am a Year 13 student from King George V School in Hong Kong. 

There will be many people around the world who will be doing the International Baccalaureate Diploma this year as it is becoming increasingly popular. One of the most popular subjects is Economics, whether taken at higher level or standard level. Many people say it is easy (and it actually is kinda true!), however those who may find it difficult to cram everything into their heads would find Economics a frustrating subject; much like biology or history.

This blog will be dedicated to helping each up-and-coming Economics student to acquire the knowledge to prepare you for the challenges that await in the subject. SL and HL topics will be covered in this blog.
In addition, there will also be a selection of econ articles for you to read; build up those real world examples!

As this is a new blog, it will take a while to get everything up here, so I beg for your patience while the site is under-construction. Thank you very much!


Any questions regarding any of the following HL subjects, please feel free to email me: bigtunit@hotmail.com

HL Subjects:

  • Economics
  • Mathematics
  • Chemistry 
To look for the IB content, please refer to the side page bar.