Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

In May and June of 2008, the federal government issued one-time tax rebates - checks returning a small portion of taxes previously paid to millions of U.S residents, and U.S. real disposable income temporarily jumped by nearly $500 billion. Household real consumption spending did not increase in response to the short-lived increase in real disposable income. Explain how the logic of the permanent income hypothesis might help to account for this apparent non relationship between real consumption and real disposable income in the late spring of 2008.

Short Answer

Expert verified

Real consumption expenditure has not grown in response to the temporary gain in real disposable income.

Step by step solution

01

Introduction 

The given is the details on the one-time tax rebates checks issued by the federal government

The objective is to explain the logic of permanent income hypothesis

02

Step 1

The permanent income hypothesis states that an individual's consumption flows are determined by his or her permanent income, which is nothing more than the expected long-term average income.

This logic may help to explain the apparent non relationship between real consumption and real disposable income in late spring 2008.

03

Step 2

Temporary increases in income have little impact on long-term average income and consequently have little impact on overall consumption spending.

In the spring of 2008, a similar event occurred when the government offered tax rebates.

04

Step 3

The rise in discretionary income is essentially transitory because these rebates are one-time measures. With little change in predicted long-term average income or permanent income, there has been no impact on consumption spending, and so real consumption expenditure has not grown as a result of the temporary gain in real disposable income.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Recall that the Keynesian spending multiplier equals 1 /(1-MPC). Suppose that in panel (a) of Figure 13-1, the government determined that the amount by which the AD curve had to be shifted directly rightward from the point E1 was equal to \(1.0 trillion. If the government decided that a \)0.2 trillion increase in real government spending was required to generate this shift, what must be the value of the MPC?

Consider the diagram below, in which the current short-run equilibrium is at point A, and answer the questions that follow.

a. What type of gap exists at point A?

b. If the marginal propensity to save equals 0.02, what change in government spending financed by borrowing from the private sector could eliminate the gap identified in part (a)? Explain.

Discuss ways in which indirect crowding out and direct expenditure offsets can reduce the effectiveness of fiscal policy actions.

Assume that MPC= 45when answering the following questions.

a. If government expenditures rise by \( 2 billion, by how much will the aggregate expenditure curve shift upward? By how much will equilibrium real GDP per year change?

b. If taxes increase by \) 2 billion, by how much will the aggregate expenditure curve shift downward? By how much will equilibrium real GDP per year change?

Recall that the Keynesian spending multiplier equals 1 /(1-M P C). Suppose that in Figure 13-4, the MPC is equal to 0.9. In addition, the amount of the horizontal leftward shift from AD2 to AD3 caused by a crowding-out effect on planned investment spending was 0.5\( trillion, or \) 500 billion. How much investment spending was crowded out?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free