Ch05 7e

Editor's Notes

• #5: The main challenge in teaching this topic is generating interest in it. Many teachers are bored by it and not surprisingly, they bore their students. If you are one of the many who lean toward boredom, start by recalling just how vital it is that we measure the value of production with reasonable accuracy. For such a measure is the basis of measurement of the standard of living, economic welfare, and making international comparisons. Final goods versus intermediate goods. The distinction between final and intermediate goods is one of the key points in this first section. Use some standard examples to make the key point—tires and autos, chips and computers, and so on. Also, if you want to spend a bit of time on this topic, tell your students about the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) revision in the treatment of business spending on software. The BEA began a major revision in 1998 and published the first revisions to reclassify software from intermediate to final good status in 1999. When the 1996 GDP was recalculated to include software, it increased by $115 billion, or 1.5 percent of GDP.
• #10: <number> This slide and the next two provide an alternative way of building the circular flow model in the classroom. It starts with a simpler picture than Figure 21.1—just households and firms and just income, consumption, saving, and investment. Then add the government and the flows of government purchases and taxes. Finally add the rest of the world and the export and import flows. You can explain that we’re simplifying things in the picture but are not omitting anything that leads us into a wrong conclusion. For example, we could add business tax payments. The picture envisages all the income being paid to households and households paying all the taxes. Nothing is lost and clarity is gained by this device. Emphasize that the blue flows are incomes and the red flows are expenditures on final goods and services. (The expenditures on intermediate goods and services are omitted from the circular flow model.) And emphasize that the green financial flows are not part of the circular flow of expenditure and income and are shown in Figure 21.1 only so that the student can see what happens to the money that isn’t spent and how spenders get the money that they’ve not earned as income. To use this alternative approach, click Slide Show, Hide Slide on slides 9, 10, and 11. You can hide slides 12 to 23 the same way--or just delete them--if you wish.
• #11: <number>
• #12: <number>
• #29: How investment is financed. Don’t skimp on this topic. It provides the foundation for what the student will meet in Chapter 23 (Chapter 8 in the macro text).
• #37: The low cost of economic data. You might like to tell your students that measuring real GDP is actually very cheap. The BEA (in the Department of Commerce) employs fewer than 500 economists, accountants, statisticians, and IT specialists at an annual cost of less that $70 million. It costs each American less than 0.25¢ (a quarter of a cent) to measure the value of the nation’s production. For some further perspective, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (also in the Department of Commerce), whose mission is to “describe and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, and conserve and manage wisely the nation’s coastal and marine resources so as to ensure sustainable economic opportunities,” employs more than 11,000 scientists and support personnel at an annual cost of $3.2 billion! Most of the income data used by the BEA comes from the IRS. Expenditure data comes from a variety of sources. Creative accounting and GDP measurement. In recent years, the first estimates of GDP, which are based on companies reported profits, have been revised downward when data on company profits as reported to the IRS became available. Enron-style accounting has contaminated the initial estimates of GDP but not the final estimates. You can make a nice point with one example of creative accounting. For some years, in its reports to stock holders AOL recorded its advertising expenditure as investment and amortized it over a number of years. First, you can explain that the correct treatment of this item is as an expenditure on intermediate goods and services by AOL and as a charge against AOL profit. The expenditure on AOL services is the value of AOL’s production. And AOL’s expenditure on advertising is part of the value of the production of the advertising agencies used by AOL. You can go on to explain that AOL accounting practice would misleadingly swell GDP by causing some double counting. On the expenditure approach, AOL’s advertising expenditure shows up as investment in the national accounts. On the income approach, because the expenditure is not a cost, it swells profit, so AOL’s corporate profit increases by the same amount as its “investment.” If AOL filed its income tax return in this same way, the national income accounts wouldn’t get corrected. But if when AOL files its tax returns it calls its advertising a cost and lowers its profits by that amount, the BEA picks up these numbers from the IRS and the national accounts get adjusted appropriately.
• #47: Chain-weighted output index method. If you don’t want to bother with the chain-weighted output index method of calculating real GDP and prefer to limit your discussion to the traditional base-year prices method, you can draw a line half way down the first column of page 96 and define the number we compute in Table 21.5 as real GDP. The section on calculating the price level flows fine with this measure of real GDP. But I suggest that you do explain the chain-weighted method. The textbook has stripped the explanation down to the bare bones and makes the approach intelligible to any student willing to make a small amount of effort.
• #59: Omissions from GDP. A discussion of omissions from GDP can arouse students’ interest. For example, you might point out that if one of your students mows her/his own lawn, the value of the student’s production doesn’t show up in GDP. But if you hire the student to mow your lawn (and if your student reports the income earned correctly to the IRS), the value of the student’s production does show up in GDP. Why don’t we measure all lawn mowing as part of GDP? Some reasons are cost of collecting data and the degree of intrusiveness we’d be willing to tolerate. But note how little we spend on collecting the GDP data and how relatively inexpensive it would be to add some questions about domestic production to either the Labor Force Survey or the Family Expenditure Survey. The inclusion of the imputed rental of owner-occupied houses, but not owner-used cars and other durables, is a good example. You might like to explain how the omission of illegal goods and services also leads to some misleading comparisons. For instance, the day before prohibition ended, the production of (illegal) beer was not counted as part of GDP. But the day after prohibition ended, the production of (now legal) beer counted. Ask your students to suggest two good reasons why illegal goods and services are omitted. First, the data are hard (but not impossible) to obtain. Second, there may be the moral position that illegal activities should not be included in GDP. This latter observation can lead to an interesting discussion. Ask the students if they think that the production of, say, marijuana should be included in GDP. Some, maybe even many, of them will see no problem with this. Then ask about the production of murder-for-hire. The response, we hope, will be significantly different. Does such a good have any value?
• #63: International comparisons and PPP prices. Students sometimes see estimates of GDP per person in developing nations. Most such estimates are extremely low, and students often ask how people can live on such low incomes. Point out that the estimate is biased downward in two ways. First, in poor nations, more transactions do not go through a market than in rich nations. For example, transportation services in developing nations include a lot of walking, which is not counted as part of GDP. In richer nations, people ride a bus or subway and pay a fare, which is counted as part of GDP. Second, many locally produced and consumed goods and services have extremely low prices in poor nations. For example, a haircut that costs $20 in New York might cost $1 in Calcutta. (You might get a better haircut in New York, but probably not one that is 20 times better!) Converting Indian GDP into U.S. dollars at the market exchange rate leaves this bias in the data. Using purchasing power parity prices to convert India’s GDP into U.S. dollars avoids this bias.