Group items tagged

The article relates more to monetary policies and demand-side policies but I believe that it can be connected to supply side policies. In fact, the government is spending a lot of money meaning that those money could be invested for supply-side policies. It doesn't say how much money the government will spend, but the increase in government spending could be related to supply side policies and an increase in the supply of products/goods and services.

Now, I'm not much of the political type but, when I saw this title, I have to admit it drew me in. After about the first five or six sentences you can tell this is an article from the far left of the political spectrum (that being the hardcore democrats), but what I found really interesting about this article was how it looked at supply-side policy as this conservative dooms day device, rather than a neutral policy that can be used to anyone's advantage. I still think it is a strategy with its pros and cons, just like monetary or fiscal policy, yet it is interesting to see how it might benefit one social group more than another and how its implementation can lead to many economic issues.

This article has no direct correlation to supply side of an economy, as it mainly talks about Cypriot economy's bank crisis - credit crunch, predictions on GDP and changing patterns of banking (limitations to every-day withdrawals from ATMs). But the reason I chose this article is that they should aim at increasing the production side of an economy and so aggregate supply, shifting the LRAS curve to the right, and, in addition to that, structural reforms of the economy which overly depends on the banking. Particularly, Cyprus should undertake interventionist supply side policies, such as investments in infrastructure - roads, railways, harbours, airports and telecommunications all serve to lower production costs of all economic agents in a country. Or perhaps investments in technology and industrial policies which would increase the productive capacity of an economy.

The article talks about the climate change and fossil fuels from an economic view point

This article is different than many others that are being bookmarked. It shows, through data, how supply-side policies aren't always effective.It is an interesting read, giving a new perspective to the readers perception of the policy.

This article is long but to sum it all up, it discusses "The idea: Reduce taxes, especially for the wealthy and corporations, and America's entrepreneurial fortunes will soar. The economy, unleashed from the drag of excess taxes, will grow. Government deficits will shrink."

I think this article is good, because it shows both negative and positive externalities. Negative because the outcome of eating a lot of junkfood is something no government likes, and it eventually has a backlash on them because people can't work as well and the general health in the country drops. Because of this they want to make people eat less, and they could to it with a tax to change the equilibrium. This would make the quantity demanded closer to that wanted from the government. (In the article they did it by banning 16-ounce softs drinks) Can you see the positive side?

Well, the title says it all. The governor calls for increased education to "leave a better Commonwealth for the next generation."

Governor Patrick discusses the importance of college and career readiness at the Future Ready Summit at the DCU Center in Worcester.

Well, the Saudis are going green, and GE's heading the project. Not only does this show the greater demand across the world for cleaner energy and better health coverage, but this is also a big PR move for GE. There's a lot of politics that go into selling your product, constantly trying to make as many people as possible feel like you're on their side, like you agree with them. Whether it's for the sake of increasing profits or if GE really does care we may never know, but a decision like this helps brand loyalty and will bring in more customers than it loses.

This article talks about Britain and its problematic exports with subsequent trade deficit problems. Interestingly enough, university courses fees are considered exports as well (money inflow). Britain is a country which is immensely integrated in the global trade flows, but they have a problem of trade deficit. "Part of the reason is the slowdown in continental Europe and America, which take 54% and 17% respectively of British exports. Another is the gradual depletion of North Sea oil and gas. A third is that Britain's strength is in services rather than in the raw materials, machine tools and handbags that emerging markets crave." This running trade deficit can amass huge problems and according to the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10427783/Britain-to-have-worst-2014-trade-deficit-in-industrial-world-on-EU-forecasts.html] Britain will have to tackle it by using expenditure-reducing policies, expenditure-switching policies or supply-side policies.

This article discusses how sometimes the use of barriers has a negative effect on the economy of a country, for example, as can be seen with Bush's administration that imposed tariffs on steel imports. Trade protection can be seen with the rush of agreements that countries are not willing to partake in, such as Japan. Of course after the Bush administration, the democratic party picked up the "protectionist baton" and have worked toward trade liberalization.

The article talks about tariffs imposed by the US government on the steel market. It shows the other side of protectionism. In the case of the US the tariff impose had a negative effect on the steel market. The tariff robbed more in profits than it gave to steel making companies.

The European Union and America are to open negotiations with the aim of creating the world's biggest free trade area worth €86bn (£75bn) within two years.

The article talks about the trade deficit in Europe. Prime minister Cameron wants to increase GDP by 0.5%. This would make a major difference to Europe's economy and could become a "game-changer". Cameron wants to accomplish this goal by breaking down trade barriers.

The European Union and America are to open negotiations with the aim of creating the world's biggest free trade area worth €86bn (£75bn) within two years. Breaking down the remaining trade barriers and securing a comprehensive deal will require hard work and bold decisions on both sides. EU and US economies account for nearly half of the world's economic output and a third of global trade, meaning that a transatlantic free-trade bloc would hold great sway over emerging economic superpowers China, Brazil and India.