{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Computers_chainindex_2

Computers_chainindex_2 - 46 Chapter 2 The Measurement and...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
Image of page 3

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 46 Chapter 2 The Measurement and Structure of the National Economy 2.4 Real GDP, Price Indexes, and Inflation All of the key macroeconomic variables that we have discussed so far in this chapter—GDP, the components of expenditure and income, national wealth, and saving—are measured in terms of current market values. Such variables are called nominal variables. The advantage of using market values to measure economic activity is that it allows summing of different types of goods and services. However, a problem with measuring economic activity in nominal terms arises if you want to compare the values of an economic variable—GDP, for example—at two different points in time. If the current market value of the goods and services included in GDP changes over time, you can’t tell whether this change reflects changes in the quantities of goods and services produced, changes in the prices of goods and services, or a combination of these factors. For exam— ple, a large increase in the current market value of GDP might mean that a country has greatly expanded its production of goods and services, or it might mean that the country has experienced inflation, which raised the prices of goods and servrces. Real GDP Economists have devised methods for breaking down changes in nominal vari- ables into the part owing to changes in physical quantities and the part owing to changes in prices. Consider the numerical example in Table 2.3, which gives pro- duction and price data for an economy that produces two types of goods: com- puters and bicycles. The data are presented for two different years. In year 1, the value of GDP is $46,000 (5 computers worth $1200 each and 200 bicycles worth $200 each). In year 2, the value of GDP is $66,000 (10 computers worth $600 each and 250 bicycles worth $240 each), which is 435% higher than the value of GDP in year 1. This 43.5% increase in nominal GDP does not reflect either a 43.5% increase in physical output or a 43.5% increase in prices. Instead, it reflects changes in both output and prices. Table 2.3 Production and Price Data Percent change from Year 1 Year 2 year 1 to year 2 Product (quantity) Computers 5 10 +100% Bicycles 200 250 +25% Price Computers $1,200/computer $600/computer —50% Bicycles SZOO/bicycle $240/bicycle +20% Value Computers $6,000 $6,000 0 Bicycles $40,000 $60,000 +50% Total $46,000 $66,000 +43.5% 2.4 Real GDP. Price Indexes, and Inflation 47 Table 2.4 Calculation of Real Output with Alternative Base Years Calculation of real output with base year =Year 1 Current quantities Base-year prices Year 1 Computers $1,200 Bicycles $200 II [I ll Year 2 Computers 10 $1,200 Bicycles 250 $200 II II II Percentage growth of real GDP = ($62,000 — $46,000)/$46,000 = 34.8% Calculation of real output with base year =Year 2 Current quantities Base—year prices Year 1 Computers $600 Bicycles $240 $3,000 548.000 $51,000 II II II Year 2 Computers 10 $600 Bicycles 250 $240 $6.000 $60,000 $66,000 Percentage growth of real GDP 2 ($66,000 — $51,000)/551,000 = 29.4% How much of the 43.5% increase in nominal output is attributable to an increase in physical output? A simple way to remove the effects of price changes, and thus to focus on changes in quantities of output, is to measure the value of production in each year by using the prices from some base year. For this example, let’s choose year 1 as the base year. Using the prices from year 1 ($1200 per computer and $200 per bicycle) to value the production in year 2 (10 computers and 250 bicycles) yields a value of $62,000, as shown in Table 2.4. We say that $62,000 is the value of real GDP in year 2, measured using the prices of year 1. In general, an economic variable that is measured by the prices of a base year is called a real variable. Real economic variables measure the physical quantity of economic activity. Specifically, real GDP, also called constant-dollar GDP, measures the physical volume of an economy’s final production using the prices of a base year. Nominal GDP, also called current—dollar GDP, is the dollar value of an econo- my’s final output measured at current market prices. Thus nominal GDP in year 2 for our example is $66,000, which we computed earlier using current (that is, year 2) prices to value output. What is the value of real GDP in year 1? Continuing to treat year 1 as the base year, use the prices of year 1 ($1200 per computer and $200 per bicycle) to value production, The production of 5 computers and 200 bicycles has a value of $46,000. Thus the value of real GDP in year 1 is the same as the value of nominal 48 Chapter 2 The Measurement and Structure of the National Economy GDP in year 1. This result is a general one: Because current prices and base-year prices are the same in the base year, real and nominal values are always the same in the base year. Specifically, real GDP and nominal GDP are equal in the base year. Now we are prepared to calculate the increase in the physical production from year 1 to year 2. Real GDP is designed to measure the physical quantity of pro— duction. Because real GDP in year 2 is $62,000, and real GDP in year 1 is $46,000, output, as measured by real GDP, is 34.8% higher in year 2 than in year 1. Price Indexes We have seen how to calculate the portion of the change in nominal GDP owing to a change in physical quantities. Now we turn our attention to the change in prices by using price indexes. A price index is a measure of the average level of prices for some specified set of goods and services, relative to the prices in a specified base year. For example, the GDP deflator is a price index that measures the overall level of prices of goods and services included in GDP, and is defined by the formula real GDP 2 nominal GDP/ (GDP deflator/ 100). The GDP deflator (divided by 100) is the amount by which nominal GDP must be divided, or “deflated,” to obtain real GDP. In our example, we have already computed nominal GDP and real GDP, so we can now calculate the GDP deflator by rewriting the preceding formula as GDP deflator = 100 X nominal GDP/real GDP. In year 1 (the base year in our example), nominal GDP and real GDP are equal, so the GDP deflator equals 100. This result is an example of the general principle that the GDP deflator always equals 100 in the base year. In year 2, nominal GDP is $66,000 (see Table 2.3) and real GDP is $62,000 (see Table 2.4), so the GDP defla— tor in year 2 is 100 X $66,000/$62,000 = 106.5, which is 6.5% higher than the value of the GDP deflator in year 1. Thus the overall level of prices, as measured by the GDP deflator, is 6.5% higher in year 2 than in year 1. The measurement of real GDP and the GDP deflator depends on the choice of a base year. Box 2.2 demonstrates that the choice of a base year can have important The Computer Revolution and Chain-Weighted GDP The widespread use of computers has revolutionized in the United States devoted to computers quintupled business, education, and leisure throughout much of between the mid-19805 and the mid-19908,* while com- the developed world. The fraction of the real spending puter prices fell by more than 10% per year on average.’r 'See Joseph Haimowitz, ”Has the Surge in Computer Spending Fundamentally Changed the Economy?” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, Second Quarter 1998, pp. 27—42. *These prices are for computer and peripheral equipment in Table 1 of Stephen D. Oliner and Daniel E. Sichel, ”Computers and Output Growth Revisited: How Big 15 the Puzzle?" Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2: 1994, pp. 273—317. (Continued) The sharp increase in the real quantity of computers and the sharp decline in computer prices highlight the problem of choosing a base year in calculating the growth of real GDP. We can use the example in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, which includes a large increase in the quantity of com— puters coupled with a sharp decrease in computer prices, to illustrate the problem. We have shown that, when we treat year 1 as the base year, real output increases by 34.8% from year 1 to year 2. However, as we will see in this box using Table 2.4, we get a sub- stantially different measure of real output growth if we treat year 2 as the base year. Treating year 2 as the base year means that we use the prices of year 2 to value output. Specifically, each computer is valued at $600 and each bicycle is valued at $240. Thus the real value of the 5 computers and 200 bicycles produced in year 1 is $51,000. If we continue to treat year 2 as the base year, the real value of output in year 2 is the same as the nominal value of output, which we have already calcu— lated to be $66,000. Thus, by treating year 2 as the base year, we see real output grow from $51,000 in year 1 to $66,000 in year 2, an increase of 29.4%. Let’s summarize our calculations so far. Using year 1 as the base year, the calculated growth of output is 34.8%, but using year 2 as the base year, the calculated growth of output is only 29.4%. Why does this differ- ence arise? In this example, the quantity of computers grows by 100% (from 5 to 10) and the quantity of bicy- cles grows by 25% (from 200 to 250) from year 1 to year 2. The computed growth of overall output—34.8% using year 1 as the base year or 29.4% using year 2 as the base year—is between the growth rates of the two individual goods. The overall growth rate is a sort of weighted average of the growth rates of the individual goods. When year 1 is the base year, we use year 1 prices to value output, and in year 1 computers are much more expensive than bicycles. Thus the growth of overall output is closer to the very high growth rate of comput- ers than when the growth rate is computed using year 2 as the base year. Which base year is the ”right” one to use? There is no clear reason to prefer one over the other. To deal with this problem, in 1996 the Bureau of Economic 2.4 Real GDP, Price Indexes, and Inflation 49 Analysis introduced chain-weighted indexes to mea- sure real GDP. Chain-weighted real GDP represents a mathematical compromise between using year 1 and using year 2 as the base year. The growth rate of real GDP computed using chain-weighted real GDP is a sort of average of the growth rate computed using year 1 as the base year and the growth rate computed using year 2 as the base year. (In this example, the growth rate of real GDP using chain—weighting is 32.1%, but we will not go through the details of that calculation here): Before the Bureau of Economic Analysis adopted chain-weighting, it used 1987 as the base year to com- pute real GDP. As time passed, it became necessary to update the base year so that the prices used to compute real GDP would reflect the true values of various goods being produced. Every time the base year was changed, the Bureau of Economic Analysis had to calculate new historical data for real GDP. Chain—weighting effectively updates the base year automatically. The annual growth rate for a given year is computed using that year and the preceding year as base years. As time goes on, there is no need to recompute historical growth rates of real GDP using new base years. Nevertheless, chain- weighted real GDP has a peculiar feature. Although the income—expenditure identity, Y = C + I + G + NX, always holds exactly in nominal terms, for technical reasons, this relationship need not hold exactly when GDP and its components are measured in real terms when chain-weighting is used. Because the discrepancy is usually small, we assume in this book that the income—expenditure identity holds in both real and nom- inal terms. Chain-weighting was introduced to resolve the problem of choosing a given year as a base year in cal- culating real GDP. How large a difference does chain- weighting make in the face of the rapidly increasing production of computers and plummeting computer prices? Using 1987 as the base year, real GDP in the fourth quarter of 1994 was computed to be growing at a 5.1% annual rate. Using chain-weighting, real GDP growth during this quarter was a less impressive 4.0%. The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates that com- puters account for about three-fifths of the difference between these two growth rates.H iFor discussions of chain—weighting, see Charles Steindel, ”Chain—Weighting: The New Approach to Measuring GDP," Current Issues in Economics and Finance, New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York, December 1995, and "A Guide to the NTPAS,” on the Web site of the Bureau of Economic Analysis, ww.bea.gov/bea/an/nipaguid.htm. *” These figures are from p. 36 of J. Steven Landefeld and Robert P. Parker, ”Preview of the Comprehensive Revision of the National Income and Product Accounts: BEA’s New Featured Measures of Output and Prices,” Survey of Current Business, July 1995, pp. 31—38. ...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern