Thus,
if real economic growth equals 2 % per year, and population growth equals 2 % per year, then the social discount rate should be zero.
What will happen
if real economic growth is greater than 2 per cent ex post but the Government recorded a deficit?
Not exact matches
I, therefore, thought that the Netherland's finance minister — a country serving as the key enforcer of German austerity - at - all - cost (as long as the costs are not theirs) policies — showed an incredible chutzpah when he lectured the U.S. Congress last Friday that it would be a
real tragedy (sic)
if mandated spending cuts were to stifle American
economic growth.
If real GDP were to increase at 10.3 % instead of 2.5 % in 2015, then the government should receive, at a minimum, an extra $ 6.6 billion in tax revenue thanks to
economic growth (this calculation assumes that nominal GDP grows at the same proportion as
real GDP; it is more likely that nominal GDP would rise even higher as such quick
economic growth would be inflationary, pushing that $ 6.6 billion figure even higher).
Real economic growth becomes extremely difficult
if not impossible to achieve when the net energy supply goes down...
If the deficit is due to an
economic recession, defined as two consecutive quarters of negative
growth in
real gross domestic product, or to «extraordinary events», such as a natural disaster or war, that results in an «cost» of more than $ 3 billion, then the operating budgets of departments and agencies would be automatically frozen to pay for any wage increases.
It can be maddening to read an article that quotes Chinese GDP numbers as
if they were a
real measure of long term
economic growth.
Even
if China's debt and
real estate bubbles don't pop, resulting in a global recession, slowing
economic growth from China could have a detrimental effect on long - term energy prices and result in prolonged weakness in the entire energy sector, including oil services suppliers such as U.S. Silica.
When more money is printed, gold has traditionally been a beneficiary, for two key reasons: 1)
If the money - printing is accompanied by
economic growth, greater access to capital might boost demand for luxury items, including gold (the Love Trade); and 2)
If the money - printing isn't accompanied by
economic growth, inflationary pressures might prompt investors to increase their exposure to
real assets, such as gold (the Fear Trade).
Just think of all the progress we could have made on
real items that could help
economic growth such as better teacher pay, better roads, better bridges, and repairing infrastructure
if we did not have the burden of Medicaid.
Over the years, the more I learned, the more sceptical I became, I don't believe at this stage that the massive
economic costs incurred by proposed anti-AGW policies can be justified, and that
if it is proven to be a serious issue, then dealing with it is better deferred until
economic growth and potential technological breakthroughs would make the cost more feasible,
if and only
if it had been demonstrated that (a) AGW were
real; (b) the costs of inaction were enormous; and (c) the costs of action would bring commensurate benefits, e.g. would stop or long defer dangerous warming.
If global warming is
real and its effects will one day be as devastating as some believe is likely, then greater
economic growth would, by increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, sooner or later lead to greater damages from climate change.
The assumption (and that is all it is) that «The only
real impact it would have is to limit the
growth of our standard of living» is not justified, and allmost certainly false
if high end projections of temperature increase by the end of this century are realized (or
if high end projections of
economic impacts are realized with central estimates of temperature increase).
My standard advice to anyone is that
if you're already in RI for some other reason, it's certainly possible with some hard work to eke out an OK
real estate investing return, but
if you have any choice at all I strongly urge you to research other, higher -
economic -
growth and more - business - friendly, parts of the country.
If residential investment — which encompasses all direct spending on residential
real estate construction and activity — returns to its 1997 level over the next two years, then housing will boost overall
economic growth by 0.5 percentage points in 2013 and 2014,» Stiff continues.
«We conducted a thorough selection and interview process to learn where the candidates stand on the issues, find out
if they understand the
economic importance of the
real estate industry in Bozeman and surrounding areas, and ascertain which of them will support policies that promote
economic growth, home ownership and private property rights,» said GAR President Jeff Renevier.