Login

Search the forums now!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

April 25, 2024, 09:13:16 am
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: 2010/2011 Budget Outcome  (Read 1132 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RossiJ

  • Victorian
  • Forum Obsessive
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
  • Respect: +9
2010/2011 Budget Outcome
« on: October 16, 2011, 10:08:18 pm »
0
Contractionary or less expansionary??

Seen various answers from different sources.

CPAP - Less expansionary
Mr Wood - Contractionary

Thoughts?
Logged
BM [50] ACC [41+] ECO [~39] MM [~34] ENG [~35] IT APPS [39]

soldier_on16

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 97
  • Respect: 0
Re: 2010/2011 Budget Outcome
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2011, 10:31:12 pm »
0
The budget is still projected to be in a deficit, so my say would be less expansionary budgetary stance.
Logged

Tashi

  • Guest
Re: 2010/2011 Budget Outcome
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2011, 10:56:04 pm »
+1
My teacher believes you should explain both. That as the budget was a deficit of 22 billion it was an expansionary stance, however as it was was a smaller deficit than the year prior - it is a contractionary move.
Logged

chrisjb

  • Victorian
  • Part of the furniture
  • *****
  • Posts: 1047
  • ROAR
  • Respect: +64
Re: 2010/2011 Budget Outcome
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2011, 05:10:35 pm »
+1
My view is that it is contractionary. If the deficit gets smaller from one year to the next then there a slowing of G1, G2 and transfers adding to C, which means that the government has acted to slow aggregate demand... which means it is contractionary.
Logged
2011: 96.35
2012: http://www.thegapyear2012.com/
2013: Arts (Global) Monash
2016: Juris Doctor (somewhere)
Pages: [1]   Go Up