Ask an Economist

In light of the recent layoffs at John Deere and its suppliers, how does the agriculture sector rate compared to the rest of the economy that seems to be rebounding? How long can we expect sluggish commodity prices?

A recent Economist article www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21639587-beware-heavily-traded-stocks-drop-pops reports on an academic paper that seems to offer a mechanical rule for beating the stock market by a substantial margin. Is this a disproof of the efficient market hypothesis or is there some trick?

When health care spending (or military spending or education) is tallied as a "percentage of GDP," doesn't that GDP figure include that same health spending? If you remove all that double-dipping, what would those percentages look like?

What is your opinion on the potential impact of the proposed Nicaragua Canal, a trade route that would connect the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean via Lake Nicaragua, on the Nicaragua economy?

I would like to ask you a basic question of not understanding quantitative easing. I understand the mechanics but I don't understand why this is considered pumping in "fresh" money, since the FED is just buying up Bonds that were purchased before. They are NOT just giving away absolutely free to BANKS. I know it's wordy but the below elaboration details my confusion. Hope you can help. Thank you!

In quantitative easing, the process of US Fed Bank buying bonds from Banks in order to increase money supply is pretty straight forward but no one seems to be able to explain my particular question or I guess confusion. I even posted on the US Fed open market website but they just gave me the typical answer I already knew.

Again, I'm aware that the FED can pretty much "print money" out of thin air and "inject" it into system but when I look closer at the details of what is happening, I still have trouble describing the process of injecting "fresh" money into an economic system because it looks as though they are limited by putting back the money that was spent to buy the bonds in the first place by banks.

So, to elaborate what I'm trying to say is that if you have a situation of the FED just giving away cash or call it a credit on their ledger for various banks out of the blue. Now that is exactly what I would call injecting fresh money because the banks didn't have to do anything or exchange anything in order to receive that money, just like if I were walking down the street and a complete stranger just came up to me and handed me cash. Now that scenario is what I would understand as injecting fresh money on top of a system.

But what is really happening is that under open market operation for quantitative easing, the US FED is buying up all the bonds that banks are holding at a given moment. Those bonds were purchased at an earlier time by various banks by giving money to the FED or other government agencies, so it looks at best to be putting all the money back into a system in which those monies were extracted from the system before, therefore it's not a "fresh" injection of new money. So it's just putting equal money back into system that was taken out at earlier time? Isn't it?

In other words, let's just say for simplicity that all US Banks spent $1 Trillion to buy bonds 5 years ago (so 5 years ago, $1 Trillion was taken out of an economic system) And now, 5 years later the FED is buying up those bonds from the banks(putting $1 Trillion back into system) The net effect is no new fresh money.

Put it another way, if you add up all the bonds that banks are holding, let's say it comes to $1 Trillion, the FED even though they want to inject $2 Trillion into system over time, they can not do that because all the bonds that are out there doesn't equal $2Trillion; they can only purchase back up to $1Trillion. So the saying, the FED can "print" money as much as they want into a system is not possible, at least in this example of how they do it now in the real world.

I'm sorry for such wordiness but you won't believe how much misdirected answers I get even from professionals. I'm really hoping you can shed some light on my confusion.

With all the killing of poultry by bird flu and euthanizing that will this do to the retail poultry prices?

Hi.. I am a writer. I am from India.. I need some help on a story I am writing based on economics.. India is a poor as well as a wealthy country. Therefore, it seems to me that money has a dual purpose - Basic Survival and Human Ambition. The poor I see are busting their asses off just to reach basic survival, while the rich are making millions by the strength of their ambition, intelligence, and passion.. I have always heard the argument that printing money to get rid of poverty will in turn lead to inflation thus in turn leading to even bigger poverty. But one day, I had a different idea... What if, anyone is allowed access to print money.. Every money that is printed can only be accepted by government bodies providing basic necessities like food, basic clothing, water, and modest shelter. These government bodies can later exchange that money for anything they want. But the initial printer cannot exchange the first printed money for anything but only for basic public services. All the money in the market will therefore come from a government source providing one of basic services to people. If people want to then improve, meaning if they want to go to a fancy restaurant rather than a public mess,, they will have to earn that money.. Therefore earning money will be associated with human ambition and passion while money itself will be associated with public basic needs.. With survival out of question,, all people can focus on doing a personal business, taking better jobs, etc. in order to improve their lifestyle; economy will bloom... What I need to know, is, for the sake for my story,, what things can go wrong in this model?? Why is this kind of a system practically impossible because I assume if it was possible it would have been already there.. What are the flaws of this model?? Why does this sound too good to be practical?? I thank you for your time and your patience.. I hope to hear from you soon..

How does the government's disposal/burning of elephant ivory protect the market from illegal trading/poaching?

So, my question might be more philosophical than economical, but it's wracking my brain and I can't seem to find an answer.

It is about currency and how our money is no longer backed by "gold." Money (i.e. coins and bills) in essence is the same as chips at a casino. At the end of the day, if I choose, I could cash in my chips and get something of value for them. MONEY.

Back in the day, before Jimmy Carter, it was the same way, that, at any time, I could cash in my MONEY for GOLD. (which although has no intrinsic value, is determined to HAVE value.)

So, here is my question.....and I hope I explain it well. A lot of people out there are asking "why can't we just print more money and solve the poverty problem?" Terms like "inflation" and the "devaluing of the dollar" are the usual buzz answers to that question. Also, people give the example that if the government were to print more money and just give everyone $50,000, then everyone would go out and buy things, thus making THINGS more in short supply, thus driving up the price of things. (simple supply/demand economics) But this is where I'm curious. With TRUE unemployment probably somewhere around 15% in this country, if DEMAND rose, then companies would WANT to hire more people and build more processing plants to keep up with demand and raise their profits. So, the influx of cash (printed money) would seem to solve the unemployment problem.

So, here is where I'm confused.....if I apply the same idea of "printing more money and handing it out to the public" to my casino example, then that would be like the casino giving everyone at the poker table an extra $100 in chips to play with. But here's the catch. I understand the PROBLEM with doing that at the casino, because if you give people all these extra chips, then at the end of the night, when people CASH OUT, there will not be enough money in the vault to pay for all the chips. Hence the problem.

But how does that relate to American economics since there is no "cashing out" procedure. If the government gave everyone a bunch more money, there is no "checks and balances" since no one, at the end of the day, goes to the cashier station and exchanges their "chips" (money in this case) for something of value.

Exchanging your chips at the end of the day for MONEY back (which has value in our eyes) makes sense, hence why you can't give out more chips than the money you have in the vault. But it seems the American dollar is not a paper representation of the "money in the vault" no one goes to cash in their money in America.

So I don't understand how currency works and why we can't just print more money since it really isn't representative of anything of value.

Please explain, as I cant find a good answer anywhere online.

(I hope this question wasn't convoluted.)

Thank you so much for your time

My wife and I live in the US and are trying to plan for a retirement abroad. We wish to retire to my wife's native Brazil, and one of my principal concerns while we save our nest egg is accounting for the relationship between inflation and exchange rates after retirement, which I do not understand well. The BRL has had fairly high inflation since it's inception in the mid 90's, on average around 7% per year. Due to the inflation of the Real, and my familiarity with investing in the US, I am inclined to leave our assets in USD, and transfer funds into BRL as needed for the duration of our retirement. The exchange rate between BRL and USD also seems to vary wildly, from R$1.50 per USD all the way up to just under $R4.00.

So if we're looking into the future and we predict that the BRL will have an inflation rate of 7% per year, and the USD will have inflation of 3% per year, obviously the cost to live in Brazil will grow much faster than in the US. If that's true, over a period of 30-40 years, in theory, should the exchange rate become more favorable to the USD as the value of the BRL is eroded due to inflation? If so, is there a way I can replicate that effect in my retirement planning? Thank you for hearing my question. Please reach out to my email address if any clarification is needed.

What is the impact of production being directed towards what appears to be endless product differentiation, for example multiple flavours of toothpaste or shampoo variations which ultimately do nothing to improve individual well being? Does this form of market operation generate employment or is it a waste of productive capacity that might be better directed towards activity that genuinely increases well being. For example, creating products that delivers a real benefit.

I gave an economic presentation the other day and we were talking about how the Chinese devalued their currency to make their exports cheaper to the world, and essentially position themselves better to the American consumer. Someone asked me then why doesn't the U.S. simply follow suit. I answered that every country could not do this because it would end up being a zero sum game and that everybody would eventually lose and that it would not be sustainable. Furthermore, with the U.S. dollar the reserve currency of the world, the amount of volatility in the market place would skyrocket if the U.S. did the same thing. What else could I have said or is there another angle to tackle the question?