ECONDEV
ECONDEV
Resources (land, labor, factory buildings, timber, minerals, machinery and the like) are the basis
for producing the food, shelter, medical care, and luxury goods that we want. Some of these are
natural resources (land and timber), some are capital goods resources (factories and machinery)
and some are human resources (labor). These resources are scarce in the sense that there are not
enough of them to produce everything we need and desire. Even when using all resources as
efficiently and completely as possible, and using all modern technology to its fullest extent, there
is some limit to the amount we can currently produce.
Production possibilities shows the maximum amounts of two different goods that can possibly be
produced during any particular time period using society's scarce resources. Because reality is
complex, economists try to simplify it by making assumptions about the basic elements involved
in analyzing an issue. In examining production possibilities, we must make these simplifying
assumptions about our economy
Efficiency means that we use our knowledge and technology to produce the maximum amount of
output with these resources. These first two assumptions mean that our economy is doing the
best that it can it is operating fully and efficiently. Third, the quantity and quality of our
resources are not changing. This means that over the current time period, workers do not begin
new training programs to make them more productive, new natural resources are not discovered,
and so on. We make these last two assumptions to deal with the world as it is right now, and not
how it might become in the future. And finally, to simplify our analysis (and because here we
graph in only two dimensions), we assume that we can produce only two goods with our
resources.
Opportunity cost is the best alternative that is forgone to produce or consume something else.
The opportunity cost of producing roses is not measured in dollars but in the bread that we give
up when we produce these roses. And the opportunity cost of producing bread is the roses we
give up when we produce this bread.
Of course, our country and world are capable of producing more than just two goods. We
produce trucks, spaghetti, gasoline, smart phones, swimming suits, and a bewildering array of
merchandise that fills our shopping centers. We also produce services such as health care,
education, road repair, and cellular phone service. We can easily imagine infinite combinations
of all the goods and services that an economy can potentially produce. We might redefine the
horizontal axis as staple goods and the vertical axis as luxury goods. Or we could divide our
economy's output into agricultural goods and manufactured goods, or consumer goods (goods
that are purchased by consumers) and capital goods (goods such as factory buildings and
machinery that are used to produce other goods). We may examine the choice between military
goods and civilian goods. Or we may look at the production possibilities for private goods (such
as cell phones and hamburgers, which are provided by businesses) and public goods (such as
police and fire protection, which are provided by government).
Although production choices are important, they really tell us only half of the story. At least as
important are choices relating to the distribution of goods and services. The reason there is
hunger in a world of plenty is not a problem of production but of distribution, Poor people and
poor governments lack the income to purchase the food that is produced.
Consumer surplus and producer surplus are the basic tools that economists use to study
the welfare of buyers and sellers in a market. These tools can help us address a
fundamental economic question: Is the allocation of resources determined by free
markets desirable?
Efficiency is the property of a resource allocation of maximizing the total surplus
received by all members of society.
Equity is a value-laden concept, and the economist cannot say whether a particular
distribution of goods and is fair. But certain results of market activity may not see fair to
some of us.
The market place is often efficient, but not necessarily equitable.
There are two different methods currently in use for comparing income between countries
using the GDP measure the exchange rate method and the purchasing power parity (PPP)
method.
The exchange rate method uses the exchange rate between the local currency and the US
dollar to convert the currency into its U.S. dollar equivalent. A country's GDP and GDP
per capita would then be valued accordingly, in US. dollars.
PPP Method
The purchasing power parity method develops a cost index for comparable baskets of
consumption goods in the local currency and then compares this with prices in the United
States for the same set of buy the same amount of goods and services that a dollar would
buy in the United States. Because the PPP method uses a basket of many goods and
calculates the relative price of these goods, many economists view this as a better
measure of the relative standards of living than the conventional exchange rate method.
These two different methods can give widely varying estimates of GDP. In general, the
PPP method gives higher estimates of living standards for developing countries compared
with the exchange rate method.
The reason is that calculations of GDP based on exchange rate values depend only on the
relative prices of traded goods, whereas the PPP method considers a basket of goods that
include both traded and nontraded goods.
Nontraded goods are generally much cheaper in developing countries and this helps to lift
the estimate of GDP for these economies. A further advantage of the PPP method is that
it is unaffected by exchange rate changes. As a result of these advantages, the PPP
method has become the preferred measure of GDP for country comparisons. One
difficulty with the PPP method, however, is that it is costly to maintain since price
movements need to be updated on a regular basis.