Now the swine is speaking chinese.
One of the questions put to COP26 President Amok Sharma yesterday during a Q & A session in the House of Commons was from David Mundell:
"The big disappointment for me is the chaotic and shambolic way in which SNP-led Glasgow City Council has approached this major global event that is coming to Scotland. Can the President reassure me that, whatever the inadequacies of the council, it will not detract from the event or its ability in future to positively reflect on communities in Glasgow and across Scotland?"
Does anyone know what he is reffering to?
Or is this just the laying of groundwork to lay the blame of a UK Government organised event going wrong on the SNP?
For the record, the answer from Sharma was: "We have had a good working relationship with delivery partners across the piece and it is very important that that continues. Obviously, my right hon. Friend has highlighted a number of local issues. If he wants to get in touch with me, I would be very happy to see what we can do to try to solve the problems."
Still no mention of what the "local issues" are.
Hello everyone ! Student in economics here (MA). Through my studies I've been learning like a LOT of models (those who studied economics knows the most popular ones : IS/LM, AD/AS, Mundell-Fleming and so on). But the thing is, the vast majority of my courses only explained the relations in thoses models in a purely theoritical way.
For example : the IS relation in an open economy is like C(Y-T) + I (y, r) + G + NX(Y, Y*, e). So we might basically say if real interest increases, we could assume a decrease on investment. We can also add an LM equation and then we would get a complete IS/LM or Mundell model (depending if we analyse close or open economy).
Aaaand it stops here. I mean we usually see special cases, closed and open economy, cases in different exchange rate regimes, etc. but we NEVER get the value of the parameters composing the models and not a single time the real forms of the different model's equations.
So my question is simple : imagine I'd like to use in practice IS/LM model or Mundell-Fleming one. How am I supposed to do ? Is there a paper or website giving the whole equations with estimated parameters for a given country so I could put them in a program such as Excel to play with them ? Or is it impossible (and then I'm wondering why studying models like that) ?
Hi there,
I'm studying macroeconomics and I've gotten stuck on the Mundell-Fleming/IS-LM model. Forgive me if this is a stupid question, as I'm so far completely self-taught.
Basically, I don't understand why an increase to the risk premia of a country causes the LM* curve to shift out to the right. I'm not even sure if all my assumptions are correct.
Assumptions:
- Small open economy
- The increased political risk means that the domestic r is greater than the r*
- Floating exchange rate
- Money supply = money demand
My logic sequence:
- I understand that a higher interest rate decreases the level of planned investment. I know that this causes a shift to the left of the IS* curve in the Mundell-Fleming model and a movement up along the IS curve in the IS-LM model.
- Here's where I'm stuck: the theory states that money demand falls due to the higher interest rate (I know this is because of the higher opportunity cost of holding money - that's fine) but the money demand-money supply curve is surely the same for the Mundell-Fleming model as it is for the IS-LM model. The Y-axis still has interest rates. It's just the LM curve for the model that has exchange rate, no?
- Hence, I don't understand how disequilibria (money demand being less than money supply) can even show up on an LM curve, if the LM curve itself is supposed to be all the potential equilibrium points. I thought that only shifts to the money demand function (not caused by the interest rate) could cause movement up along the LM curve in traditional IS-LM graphs (and hence a shift right in the Mundell graph.)
- Is it the case that, since the interest rate has increased, that Y must increase to make sure that money demand = money supply. This makes sense to me because this would increase money demand up to the higher r level, which causes a shift to Mundell-Fleming LM* curve?
- I feel like the last point is potentially the answer, but the book also goes on to say that income may not increase since money demand can increase due to 'x'. How can an increase to money demand cause a decrease to income? I thought when money demand increases, this causes a movement up along the LM curve, which corresponds to a higher Y?
Anyway, I would appreciate any replies!
(I have considered this problem - I've been going out of my mind googling and nothing has come up that was helpful.)
