Finally, someone who thinks a bit, before suggesting wasting taxpayers' money:
And interesting blog on the automotive industry without the U.S. automakers.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
How Much Do A Flatbed Scanner Cost
Detroit Let Go Bankrupt!
Finally, someone who thinks a bit, before suggesting wasting taxpayers' money:
And interesting blog on the automotive industry without the U.S. automakers.
Finally, someone who thinks a bit, before suggesting wasting taxpayers' money:
And interesting blog on the automotive industry without the U.S. automakers.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wedding Card For Sister
The myth of economic benefits
An addition to the latest edition of Mankiw / Belzile, chapter 14 (Principles of Macroeconomics)
One of the myths most rooted in the population for the economic benefit of wars. After all, full employment of the mid-1940s following the Great Depression of the 1930s. What should we think?
argument is that economic benefits and it is generally misleading. Any government spending generates benefits: indeed, if the government gives me $ 100, I spent a part. Someone else will therefore receive the money and spend more, etc. .. This is also the principle of the multiplier, which is examined in the next chapter. The Government should then spend as much as possible to increase the collective wealth? Most economists would say probably no, because there is an opportunity cost to each government spending: eventually, someone will pay for such expenses as taxes and taxes. Indeed, tax revenues come from our pockets. They reduce the disposable income of households and private spending. If government expenditures are a percentage of GDP, private spending will be even lower.
Wars are they good for the economy? If the Canadian real GDP increased sharply between 1914 and 1918 and between 1940 and 1945, because the government increased its spending without raising taxes. It has cut its savings (T - G) and budget balance. In other words, it has increased spending and tax increases returned to later. Such a policy stimulates the economy in the short term, but someone has to pay one day for this increased spending. For example, the ratio (federal debt / GDP) was approximately 125% in 1946, following the Second World War: the generation after 1945 was heavily taxed because of the government debt.
The conclusion is clear: whenever the government is considering new spending, one should ask whether the resources used is less than or greater than the value of what he produces. A program by which the government hires half of the unemployed to dig a huge hole, and the other half to fill it, without raising taxes immediately, increases aggregate demand and GDP. Same thing for a war. But these expenditures do not produce anything useful. On the other hand, public expenditure in infrastructure, education, research and development would have the same impact on GDP, while increasing productivity and standard of living over the long term. Same thing for a tax reduction. And these choices increase the well-being, which is not the case for war. 
An addition to the latest edition of Mankiw / Belzile, chapter 14 (Principles of Macroeconomics)
One of the myths most rooted in the population for the economic benefit of wars. After all, full employment of the mid-1940s following the Great Depression of the 1930s. What should we think?
argument is that economic benefits and it is generally misleading. Any government spending generates benefits: indeed, if the government gives me $ 100, I spent a part. Someone else will therefore receive the money and spend more, etc. .. This is also the principle of the multiplier, which is examined in the next chapter. The Government should then spend as much as possible to increase the collective wealth? Most economists would say probably no, because there is an opportunity cost to each government spending: eventually, someone will pay for such expenses as taxes and taxes. Indeed, tax revenues come from our pockets. They reduce the disposable income of households and private spending. If government expenditures are a percentage of GDP, private spending will be even lower.
Wars are they good for the economy? If the Canadian real GDP increased sharply between 1914 and 1918 and between 1940 and 1945, because the government increased its spending without raising taxes. It has cut its savings (T - G) and budget balance. In other words, it has increased spending and tax increases returned to later. Such a policy stimulates the economy in the short term, but someone has to pay one day for this increased spending. For example, the ratio (federal debt / GDP) was approximately 125% in 1946, following the Second World War: the generation after 1945 was heavily taxed because of the government debt.
The conclusion is clear: whenever the government is considering new spending, one should ask whether the resources used is less than or greater than the value of what he produces. A program by which the government hires half of the unemployed to dig a huge hole, and the other half to fill it, without raising taxes immediately, increases aggregate demand and GDP. Same thing for a war. But these expenditures do not produce anything useful. On the other hand, public expenditure in infrastructure, education, research and development would have the same impact on GDP, while increasing productivity and standard of living over the long term. Same thing for a tax reduction. And these choices increase the well-being, which is not the case for war.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Sperm Under Black Light
The U.S. economy is in recession?
We hear (or read) these days contradictory comments on the state of the U.S. economy. Is it a recession or not?
Recall the usual definition of a recession: a period of at least 2 quarters in a row with negative growth real GDP.
Even if she is anemic, growth is slightly positive so far. Look at the chart above, taken from the journal National Economic Trends, Fed of St. Louis in August 2008. Note that it is possible that growth is negative in the third quarter (which started July 1), and the next quarter, but no numbers yet. So they may be in recession, but we do know that in the winter.
In effect, European economies seem worse off than the U.S. economy. See in this connection table, taken from The Economist, 6 September 2008. It shows the top and left, that growth last quarter in the euro area is negative.
Note also that due to the natural growth of the labor force and productivity growth, as soon as economic growth falls below a certain level (in Canada, about 2.5% on average) the unemployment rate increases, even if growth remains positive. Unemployment on the rise is not necessarily indicative of a recession. 
Updating a blog last June:
We hear (or read) these days contradictory comments on the state of the U.S. economy. Is it a recession or not?
Recall the usual definition of a recession: a period of at least 2 quarters in a row with negative growth real GDP.
Even if she is anemic, growth is slightly positive so far. Look at the chart above, taken from the journal National Economic Trends, Fed of St. Louis in August 2008. Note that it is possible that growth is negative in the third quarter (which started July 1), and the next quarter, but no numbers yet. So they may be in recession, but we do know that in the winter.
In effect, European economies seem worse off than the U.S. economy. See in this connection table, taken from The Economist, 6 September 2008. It shows the top and left, that growth last quarter in the euro area is negative.
Note also that due to the natural growth of the labor force and productivity growth, as soon as economic growth falls below a certain level (in Canada, about 2.5% on average) the unemployment rate increases, even if growth remains positive. Unemployment on the rise is not necessarily indicative of a recession.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Dvb-t Prijamnik Otključavanje
The current account balance
Here is an addition to the second edition of Mankiw / Belzile, in preparation. It focuses on the current account.
The net outflow of capital (CNS) represent the difference between the dollar value of foreign assets bought by domestic residents and the value dollar assets purchased by foreign nationals. Thus, when a Mexican spend $ 100 to buy 10 shares of Tim Hortons ($ 10 per share), there is a financial capital inflow of $ 100 in Canada. When Canadian spends $ 160 to buy 40 shares of Telmex, the Mexican phone company ($ 4 per share), there is rather a capital outflow of $ 160 in Canada. The net effect of these two transactions is a net outflow of $ 60.
Another pair of financial flows may be associated with these two transactions involving shares. Later, Tim Hortons will presumably pay dividends to the Mexican who has purchased 10 of its shares. Assume that the dividend represents 3 percent of share prices: the payment of dividends will result in a future release of financial capital of $ 0.30 per share, or $ 3 in total. Similarly, it is possible that Telmex will pay a dividend to a Canadian who has purchased his shares. Suppose a dividend of 5%: $ 0.20 Canadian will then receive a share or a total of $ 8. These two payments (by Tim Hortons and Telmex) will result in a net inflow of $ 5 dividend. Other transactions can also occur, such as purchases and sales of bonds. These exchanges lead to later interest payments.
We consider purchases shares (which in this example result in a net outflow of $ 60) in our measure of net capital outflow (CNS). But how to account for financial capital flows resulting from payments of future dividends? Same for the bond purchases: we take into account in the net outflow of capital, but what to do with the financial capital flows resulting from future interest payments?
The answer is simple: they are measured in the current account balance. We define the current account balance as follows:
Current Account Balance = Net Exports + Enter net dividend and interest
Thus, the current account balance measures the payments received from abroad in exchange for goods and services (including interest and dividends) less similar payments to foreigners. We have already discussed the most important part of the current account when we discussed exports, imports and net exports. However, we did not discuss explicitly the net flow of dividends and interest for two reasons. First, they are small when compared with net outflows of capital that are at their origin (in our example above, the net outflow of $ 60 a net inflow of future dividends of only $ 5). Second, because the flow of dividend payments and interest does not occur until later and continues for several periods (as has the Canadian shares of Telmex and the Mexican has those of Tim Hortons), the analysis of effects events that may create a net outflow of capital is thereby complicated. For these reasons, the second part of the current account balance is often ignored in the basic analysis of open economies. Note however that in Figure 12.1, interest receipts and dividends were included in exports, while payments of interest and dividends were included in exports.
students more "on" may have also noticed that the difference between GDP and GNP is precisely in international payments of interest and dividends. To calculate the GDP, one share of GDP and subtracting income paid to non-residents, then we add the value of income from abroad and received by Canadian residents. In fact, when one uses the concept of GNP, the current account is defined as equal to net exports.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Indian Heroins Showing Boobs
Bombardier and business subsidies
From a very good text by Pierre Lemieux on subsidies to Bombardier, visit the following interesting discussion on the effects of such policies. Specifically, comments David. It all comes back to Frederic Bastiat (1801-185), which was extensively discussed "what we see and what is not seen". Several of his texts can illuminate the debate on the utility to subsidize an activity, including public works A gain and two losses against .
Here's a comment I added to the thread:
According JNH, "In effect, these subsidies are necessary. No, I mean no cutting industry in the area of Bombardier aircraft can boast of successful without subsidies. In the U.S., Boeing receives subsidies in the form of contract R & D military. "And according to Richard," Most other aircraft manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Sukhoi ..) depend on the lucrative military contracts to maximize their commercial arm, that Bombardier can not enjoy (sic) by the absence of an air force with bottomless pockets
...". In fact, military grants have little to do with competition in civil aviation. Unless the military funded research is not directly usable a civil suit by the company, the profits of a military branch have no impact on profits of the industry calendar. How could we understand that a firm that makes, say, 5 billion in profits military would choose to lose money in the civilian sector? It's almost as if Toyota decided that, as it makes profits with the production of cars, it will now begin to produce more bicycles, then it is sure to lose money forever in this field. I do not think the shareholders are very excited about this opportunity. The
bottom line is simple: we produce civilian aircraft if it is profitable, so if the value of the aircraft exceeds the value of resources put into it. If the only way to do that is through grants, it is destroying value. It is certainly not becoming more prosperous ... (Unless the shareholders of Bombardier subsidized).
Finally, a word about the possibility of military research, Boeing, for example, has the effect of lowering its cost of production of civil aircraft. In this case we are dealing with a positive production externality: it is cheaper to produce two types of real one. Pierre Lemieux pointed out to me, very fair to me that Boeing would then be more efficient and produce civilian aircraft with fewer resources than Bombardier. The logic of comparative advantage leads to a clear conclusion: Bombardier to go do something else. 
From a very good text by Pierre Lemieux on subsidies to Bombardier, visit the following interesting discussion on the effects of such policies. Specifically, comments David. It all comes back to Frederic Bastiat (1801-185), which was extensively discussed "what we see and what is not seen". Several of his texts can illuminate the debate on the utility to subsidize an activity, including public works A gain and two losses against .
Here's a comment I added to the thread:
According JNH, "In effect, these subsidies are necessary. No, I mean no cutting industry in the area of Bombardier aircraft can boast of successful without subsidies. In the U.S., Boeing receives subsidies in the form of contract R & D military. "And according to Richard," Most other aircraft manufacturers (Boeing, Airbus, Sukhoi ..) depend on the lucrative military contracts to maximize their commercial arm, that Bombardier can not enjoy (sic) by the absence of an air force with bottomless pockets
...". In fact, military grants have little to do with competition in civil aviation. Unless the military funded research is not directly usable a civil suit by the company, the profits of a military branch have no impact on profits of the industry calendar. How could we understand that a firm that makes, say, 5 billion in profits military would choose to lose money in the civilian sector? It's almost as if Toyota decided that, as it makes profits with the production of cars, it will now begin to produce more bicycles, then it is sure to lose money forever in this field. I do not think the shareholders are very excited about this opportunity. The
bottom line is simple: we produce civilian aircraft if it is profitable, so if the value of the aircraft exceeds the value of resources put into it. If the only way to do that is through grants, it is destroying value. It is certainly not becoming more prosperous ... (Unless the shareholders of Bombardier subsidized).
Finally, a word about the possibility of military research, Boeing, for example, has the effect of lowering its cost of production of civil aircraft. In this case we are dealing with a positive production externality: it is cheaper to produce two types of real one. Pierre Lemieux pointed out to me, very fair to me that Boeing would then be more efficient and produce civilian aircraft with fewer resources than Bombardier. The logic of comparative advantage leads to a clear conclusion: Bombardier to go do something else.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Jokes For Church Anniversaries
Death to the cartels? OK, but all! (La Presse, 11 July 2008) Fourth of July Special
are discussed these days in the eventual disappearance of the management system of supply of agricultural products in Canada. A few weeks ago, newspapers reported that the Competition Bureau had uncovered a conspiracy against the public, while 13 individuals and 11 companies have been accused of having formed a cartel in the gasoline market in Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines. What connection is there between these two events? To answer this question it is helpful to understand what a cartel.
A cartel is a group of producers who agree to keep prices high, by reducing competition. This can enable them to increase their profits by emulating the behavior of a monopoly. Note that a monopoly and a cartel (which works) is the same. Both lead to reduced production and higher prices.
Obviously, we could see the audience moved to such behavior in retail gasoline and demand more vigilance by the government, as well as copies of penalties for offenders. At right, because competition is essential for the proper functioning of the market.
There are actually two ways for producers get less competition and more profits. First, they can try to form a cartel. But it's complicated, because the cartels are unstable and ... illegal. Indeed, once the cartel formed in everyone's interest to cheat, taking advantage of reduced competition from others to increase his own. This is the reason why the offending companies in the field of gas are where the number of competitors is low: it is easier to agree to five, in the regions, only a mile Montreal. And there's always the danger of getting caught by hand in the bag.
Second, firms may form an association funded by its members, who will be lobbying to get legislation that will force everyone to reduce competition. Hence the laws of supply management in agriculture. The supply management is very simple: to produce a good milk, for example, must be licensed. This limits the number of permits, which reduced production and keeps prices high. Because the government imposes itself the quota system, by coercion, everything is settled.
It is particularly amusing to see that oil companies accused of forming a cartel would simply have come together to ask the government a minimum price of gasoline. They have obtained legally, they have tried for concealment. Ah, but I forgot! The minimum price for gasoline already exists in Quebec ...
Bizarre anyway, myopia that we demonstrate to the government. Governments are in fact the largest source of monopolies and cartels in the economy.
Let's go with the most egregious of creating and maintaining cartels (and arrangements that achieve the same result) by governments: the producers' cartel milk, the maple syrup, eggs, poultry (production limiting the emission quotas), the cartel of taxi (limiting the number of permits), maps of "competence" in the trades construction and other union cartels, etc. .. And all areas protected by protectionist trade policies. Finally, do not forget the monopolies created by law: alcohol, electricity, games.
Surprise: Government, by its laws and regulations, is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the largest cartels in the economy. And a significant loss of welfare pour les consommateurs. Nous devrions donc nous réjouir, et non pas nous inquiéter, devant la possibilité de disparition des cartels agricoles. 
are discussed these days in the eventual disappearance of the management system of supply of agricultural products in Canada. A few weeks ago, newspapers reported that the Competition Bureau had uncovered a conspiracy against the public, while 13 individuals and 11 companies have been accused of having formed a cartel in the gasoline market in Sherbrooke, Magog, Victoriaville and Thetford Mines. What connection is there between these two events? To answer this question it is helpful to understand what a cartel.
A cartel is a group of producers who agree to keep prices high, by reducing competition. This can enable them to increase their profits by emulating the behavior of a monopoly. Note that a monopoly and a cartel (which works) is the same. Both lead to reduced production and higher prices.
Obviously, we could see the audience moved to such behavior in retail gasoline and demand more vigilance by the government, as well as copies of penalties for offenders. At right, because competition is essential for the proper functioning of the market.
There are actually two ways for producers get less competition and more profits. First, they can try to form a cartel. But it's complicated, because the cartels are unstable and ... illegal. Indeed, once the cartel formed in everyone's interest to cheat, taking advantage of reduced competition from others to increase his own. This is the reason why the offending companies in the field of gas are where the number of competitors is low: it is easier to agree to five, in the regions, only a mile Montreal. And there's always the danger of getting caught by hand in the bag.
Second, firms may form an association funded by its members, who will be lobbying to get legislation that will force everyone to reduce competition. Hence the laws of supply management in agriculture. The supply management is very simple: to produce a good milk, for example, must be licensed. This limits the number of permits, which reduced production and keeps prices high. Because the government imposes itself the quota system, by coercion, everything is settled.
It is particularly amusing to see that oil companies accused of forming a cartel would simply have come together to ask the government a minimum price of gasoline. They have obtained legally, they have tried for concealment. Ah, but I forgot! The minimum price for gasoline already exists in Quebec ...
Bizarre anyway, myopia that we demonstrate to the government. Governments are in fact the largest source of monopolies and cartels in the economy.
Let's go with the most egregious of creating and maintaining cartels (and arrangements that achieve the same result) by governments: the producers' cartel milk, the maple syrup, eggs, poultry (production limiting the emission quotas), the cartel of taxi (limiting the number of permits), maps of "competence" in the trades construction and other union cartels, etc. .. And all areas protected by protectionist trade policies. Finally, do not forget the monopolies created by law: alcohol, electricity, games.
Surprise: Government, by its laws and regulations, is responsible for the creation and maintenance of the largest cartels in the economy. And a significant loss of welfare pour les consommateurs. Nous devrions donc nous réjouir, et non pas nous inquiéter, devant la possibilité de disparition des cartels agricoles.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Little Bumps Behind Mysnakebites
On this Fourth of July, a few articles about FREEDOM :
Freedom: First Step in Pursuit of Happiness
Reflection Day
Safeguarding liberty and justice for all
Independence Day should reinstill hope for America
Editorial: All hail the First Amendment
America at 232: Liberty's fight
Freedom of Speech: Negative campaigning
Free speech, eh? Why is Canada prosecuting Mark Steyn?
The Post editorial board: The Mark Steyn pharmacien do not understand freedom of speech
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Range Finder Diy -ultrasonic
Summer Reading
Here are some suggestions of economic readings for your holidays:
Here are some suggestions of economic readings for your holidays:
- Tyler Cowen, Discover Your Inner Economist : Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist
- Avinash Dixit and Barry Nalebuff, Thinking Strategically
- Nathalie Elgrably, The hidden face of public policy
- Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom
- Tim Harford, The Logic of Life
- Tim Harford, The Undercover Economist Steven
- Lansburg, More Sex Is Safer Sex: The Unconventional Wisdom of Economics
- John McMillan, Reinventing the Bazaar
- Johan Norberg, In Defence of Global capitalist
- Russell Roberts The Choice: A Fable of Free Trade and Protection
- Charles Wheelan, Naked Economics
Saturday, June 7, 2008
How To Transfer Cpa Licence To Florida
Economic rationality
economists generally postulate that humans are rational. Not that every action of each person is weighed and considered, but rather that, on average, people seeking the best way possible to achieve their goals. Thus, we can predict that people respond to incentives (for example, if the opportunity cost of any action increases, the less people will undertake this action). In this regard, see one of my previous posts . A
interesting debate was held recently in this regard between Tim Harford, a supporter of the orthodox approach and Dan Ariely, who does research in Behavioral Economics. They are each published a book that illuminates the economic position and that of psychologists. 
economists generally postulate that humans are rational. Not that every action of each person is weighed and considered, but rather that, on average, people seeking the best way possible to achieve their goals. Thus, we can predict that people respond to incentives (for example, if the opportunity cost of any action increases, the less people will undertake this action). In this regard, see one of my previous posts . A
interesting debate was held recently in this regard between Tim Harford, a supporter of the orthodox approach and Dan Ariely, who does research in Behavioral Economics. They are each published a book that illuminates the economic position and that of psychologists.
Engagement Congratulation Message
Hillary and Bastiat
With two years late (!), I just read this text . It states that Sen. Hillary Clinton supported a proposal to make real the famous "Petition of the Candle" by Frédéric Bastiat, one of the most famous parodies of economics.
Last month, Sen.. Hillary Rodham Clinton and nine colleagues (ranging from Barbara Boxer to Tom Coburn) Endorsed a petition from - you guessed it - the domestic candlemaking industrie Asking the secretary of commerce to impose a 108.3 percent tariff on Chinese candle Producers.
Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes! 
With two years late (!), I just read this text . It states that Sen. Hillary Clinton supported a proposal to make real the famous "Petition of the Candle" by Frédéric Bastiat, one of the most famous parodies of economics.
Last month, Sen.. Hillary Rodham Clinton and nine colleagues (ranging from Barbara Boxer to Tom Coburn) Endorsed a petition from - you guessed it - the domestic candlemaking industrie Asking the secretary of commerce to impose a 108.3 percent tariff on Chinese candle Producers.
Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes!
Felix The Cat Clock Movie
The U.S. economy is in recession? My course
We hear (or read) these days contradictory comments on the state of the U.S. economy. Is it a recession or not? Recall the usual definition of a recession:
A period of at least 2 quarters in a row with negative growth in real GDP.
Even if she is anemic, growth is slightly positive so far. Look at the chart above, taken from the journal National Economic Trends, Fed of St. Louis in June 2008. It is possible that growth is negative in the second quarter (ending June 30th) and the next quarter, but no numbers yet. So they may be in recession, but we do know that in the fall.
Note also that due to the natural growth of the labor force and productivity growth, as soon as economic growth falls below a certain level (in Canada, about 2.5% on average), the unemployment rate increases, even if growth remains positive. Unemployment on the rise is not necessarily indicative of a recession. 
We hear (or read) these days contradictory comments on the state of the U.S. economy. Is it a recession or not? Recall the usual definition of a recession:
A period of at least 2 quarters in a row with negative growth in real GDP.
Even if she is anemic, growth is slightly positive so far. Look at the chart above, taken from the journal National Economic Trends, Fed of St. Louis in June 2008. It is possible that growth is negative in the second quarter (ending June 30th) and the next quarter, but no numbers yet. So they may be in recession, but we do know that in the fall.
Note also that due to the natural growth of the labor force and productivity growth, as soon as economic growth falls below a certain level (in Canada, about 2.5% on average), the unemployment rate increases, even if growth remains positive. Unemployment on the rise is not necessarily indicative of a recession.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Oil Prices At Walmart
analysis of subjects 'special' by economists
Economists often use their rigorous methodology to address all sorts of subjects:
's economy love ;
The prostitution and marriage;
's economy ecstasy ;
And we could add text on taxes on tobacco and obesity, the price of gasoline and obesity, etc. ... 
Economists often use their rigorous methodology to address all sorts of subjects:
's economy love ;
The prostitution and marriage;
's economy ecstasy ;
And we could add text on taxes on tobacco and obesity, the price of gasoline and obesity, etc. ...
My Dog Has Seizures Daily
chronicles interesting
On other blogs, a selection of reviews on economic topics:
Rising global food prices ;
prices gasoline ;
The economy strip clubs ; 
On other blogs, a selection of reviews on economic topics:
Rising global food prices ;
prices gasoline ;
The economy strip clubs ;
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)