Virtually all economists and policy makers agree that, within limits, higher employment is better. If this is true, couldn't the government create more employment by hiring people to dig holes and fill them in again? Is this good economic policy?
The fallacy in this policy is in believing that "jobs" are inherently valuable. This view is incorrect. Jobs are valuable only when they contribute to producing goods and services valued by society. Jobs are only a means to an end, and higher employment is only beneficial if it's accompanied by the efficient production of valuable goods and services.
You might also like to view...
Starting from long-run equilibrium, an increase in autonomous consumption results in ________ output in the short run and ________ output in the long run.
A. higher; higher B. higher; potential C. lower; higher D. lower; potential
Refer to the scenario above. The hypothesis of the model is that:
A) college graduates will earn 80 percent more than high school graduates. B) college graduates will earn 200 percent more than high school graduates. C) college graduates will earn 107 percent more than high school graduates. D) college graduates will earn 275 percent more than high school graduates.
Relative purchasing power parity is:
a. More accurate the shorter the time period. b. Worse than absolute purchasing power parity at predicting changes in exchange rates. c. Highly inaccurate because of the conflict between monetary policy and fiscal policy. d. More accurate the longer the period of time. e. All the above.
Figure 9.3 represents the market for used refrigerators. Suppose buyers are willing to pay $300 for a plum (high-quality) used refrigerator and $100 for a lemon (low-quality) used refrigerator. If buyers believe that 50% of used refrigerators in the market are lemons (low quality), how many lemons (low quality) will be supplied by sellers?
A. 50 B. 125 C. 175 D. 250