Please upload your paper title and abstract. Your abstract should include a single, the most important research question and your argument.
Financial Crises and Government's Policy Responses
financial crisis, policy
Please upload your paper title and abstract. Your abstract should include a single, the most important research question and your argument.
Title: Italy Bailed Out?
This paper will focus on the European Union’s highly publicized bailout plan for Spain and Italy. Following the recent financial crisis, Italy found its government buried in debt. In order to prevent a snowball-effect throughout the continent, the EU decided that immediate economic intervention was necessary. The resulting proposal: a 60 billion euro bailout (roughly 80 billion USD). There are many questions and criticisms surrounding this plan. Needless to say, the impact and possible ramifications it may have on the country are extremely significant- in both the short and long-term. This paper will examine how the bailout is implemented as well as some of the political and economic policies that will surely arise from it.
Is this your final research paper topic? Your argument, then, is missing. Of course, your research question is also unclear.
correction: 600 billion (though some sources suggest that figure to be even higher)
The Presidential Economic Policies
Americans find themselves in a tough economic position, the debt is through the roof, the unemployment rate is superfluous, and the economy is crumbling beneath our feet. In my paper, I will be focusing on the economic policies that the current presidential candidates are focusing on. In my research, I will be analyzing both the Democratic and Republican policies for fixing the 2007-2009 global financial crisis. I will explore the history of many previous successful policies passed by former presidents and offer an analysis as to the negative and positive effects of such policies. I will also examine the policies put in place by President Obama and offer their weaknesses and strengths, and determine why they ultimately failed. I will discuss Mitt Romney’s economic policies and determine, with evidence, why he is the clear choice for president on the basis of economic growth and recovery.
Don’t discuss various policies. Pick one and analyze it thoroughly. This post was before I announced the paper guideline, so I understand. But I can’t see your main research question and argument.
Before I knew what the guidelines for this specific topic were, I actually wrote out my beginning introduction paragraphs and emailed them to you. I would like to hear what you think about how I started my research paper and any criticisms you have.
If the policies wont work out, Obama will again come up to people and will say I am only 10% responsible. Its a pretty good topic.
title: Economic stimulus package boost U.S economy
two economic stimulus packages were signed into law by president. Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed by president bush, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was signed by obama during the global financial crisis 2007-2009. the aim of the two act are taxt cut, i will organzie my paper into two parts, the advantages of economic stimulus and the disavantages of economic stimulus.
Where’s your argument? I can’t see your argument.
my argument would be: someone support tax cut, but there is someone against tax cut by saying the tax cut would only work if there is no crisis to boost up economy. i will argue this controversial topic on tax cut policy from its postive and negative sides based on my research, and make my own conculsion.
Still, your argument is not clear. Do you support tax cuts? Choose either pro-tax cut or anti-tax cut position and try to convince your position by providing some logics or empirical data.
In the end, it is a matter of what kinds of tax cuts may be more helpful for economic recovery (boosting investment or consumption), not the level of tax cuts.
while i am writing my paper, i developed my argument to be : Is the stimulus package going to boost the US economy or is it only benefit the minority interest group.
Cyprus and Almost Avoiding the Recession:
How a small EU Nation went from nearly walking by the financial crisis to junk bond status, a “questionable” Russian loan, in the works IMF/EU bailout, and its infrastructure disaster (and the likely source of it’s own demise).
Looks incomplete! Please provide your main research question and argument!
The Question: How did Cyprus, which seemed to have progressed despite the Euro Zone financial crisis, just slipped drastically to recession and to junk status?
Argument: A major infrastructure failure (and the subsequent policy response) systemically destroyed productivity and laid the nation with aggresively growing debt
OK. Hope you can provide convincing information to support your argument.
1) Why did South Korean government implement different economic policies to the recent financial crisis compare to the1997 crisis?
2) The reason why South Korean government implemented lower interest rates and loosened fiscal policies during the recent financial crisis is because of financialisation and the faith in “accumulation of foreign reserve”
3) First, I will talk about economic conditions and context of these two financial crises that became precursor to two contrasting economic policies. Then, referencing these two different conditions, I am going to delve into financialisation and the faith in “accumulation of foreign reserve.” Explain why accumulation of foreign reserve is a good defense to crises as opposed to balanced, minimal accumulation of foreign reserve. After, I will compare several empirical data from 1997 and 2007, and discuss policy implications. Lastly, based on my arguments, I’m going to propose policy prescriptions for South Korean government.
What do you mean by financialization? Also, it may be difficult to link “accumulation of foreign reserves” and Korea’s monetary policy. The existence of foreign pressures, specifically, the IMF program was a critical factor in the 1997 crisis.
Quantative Easing Failure and Detriment (working title)
Paper will discuss QE 1 and 2 primarily and show that both packages had only negative effects on the US economy. The research will be on the concept of “The Dollar Standard” and the confidence that is being eroded by wrong monetary and fiscal policy.
How can you prove the counterfactuals? In other words, what if would have happened, if the U.S.Government did not take QE 1 & 2? Do you think that the confidence on the U.S. dollar would be still strong as before?
The proof is actually a lot simpler, all I did was follow the money and came up with a simple answer: most of it went to paying off debt to unions (in the case of GM) or bailing out banks/insurance company so almost none went into increasing production. The confidence aspect is a bit harder to quantify because even with 0% interest rate foreign investment is still pooling in.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/09/04/fed-is-killing-the-recovery-with-quantitative-easing/
I have almost the same topic and I think it can help you too.
Amendment: After some thought I’ve altered my argument to: Quantative easing was done for political gain with no regard for long term economic growth instead we had short term economic “benefits” around the time of elections. Also known as The Political Business Cycle.
title:Monetary Union and The Loss of Competitiveness in Eurozone.
, why couldn’t the current monetary policies of the European Union provide the monetary stabilization of Euro zone and help trade deficit countries such as Greece?
Most members of EU lost their monetary policy independence with monetary unification or converting to a single currency. Although this had many advantages it brought many problems with it. Most important one is how it resulted in loosing the competitiveness in euro zone. Paper will discuss that policymakers EU concentrated mostly on fiscal problems while ignoring the primary reason behind it , the competition problem
So, what’s your argument? The monetary union itself (creating a single currency) was the problem? Please state your core argument more clearly.
my argument is that the monetary union indirectly caused the problem. In other words, it caused the eurozone to lose its competitiveness which became the fundamental root of the current crisis
As we discussed, check out the trade balances among Eurozone countries to support your argument that the Eurozon in the end will collapse or cannot maintain its current form of union.
Check out the November 17-23 issue of The Economist it has a great special report on France also couple it with the special report on Germany vs Greece published in August.
Research title: Did Obama Government Solve Financial Crisis?
Few weeks ago, there was Presidential election and President Obama won the election with quite big gap with Mitt Romney of Republican party unlike many people expected 2012 Presidential election would be close match. President Obama will keep position again. During election period, Romney kept emphasizing that America’s economy did not get over crisis yet and Obama government’s plans during last four years were not worked well. President Obama refuted Rommey’s arguments with all kind of numbers but people were not sure that their economy status was improved because financial crisis is still going on now and Obama government’s plan does not look enough reformative as people expected. Americans voted for Obama because they expected that Obama could reform and change America in good way for citizens. However, people were disappointed when President Obama appointed Timothy F. Geithner who is from Wall Street as United States Secretary of the Treasury as previous Presidents had been appointed Secretary of the Treasury in favor of Wall Street. Purportedly, some people said Geithner had already been nominated for Secretary of the Treasury by Wall Street even before the Presidential election in 2008. Result of Presidential election, whether Obama would be elected or John McCain would be elected in the Presidential election, was not the matter for Wall Street according to their opinion. They said that President Obama is just Wall Street’s puppet that was under control of Wall Street. Not only nomination of Secretary of the Treasury, but also chairman of the United States Federal Reserve was disappointed. Current chairman of the United States Federal Reserve is Ben Barnanke, who served as chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers then chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, was re-nominated by President Barack Obama in 2010.
We cannot blame President Obama for financial crisis. Financial crisis happened before President Obama took office. However, we can blame President Obama if he did not do well for economy recovery because President is the one who expected to solve this desperate situation for the citizens. Why Obama administration could not get over current financial crisis in the first term? Why they could not provide proper solution for the citizens who are suffering from financial crisis? Is Obama administration not enough reformative because Obama government so called “Wall Street administration?”
This paper is going to talk about whether President Obama’s economy policies to deal with current financial crisis work or not and why achievements of his policy are not revealed clearly. It would be possible to think the reason would be President Obama is not enough reformative or he is too close to Wall Street. However, if we look at President Obama’s policy closely, we could see President Obama keeps trying to solve this crisis. We just cannot see right now. We just spent four years to make correction for long-term. We need more time to make problems correct. There are two major reasons we cannot see achievement of Obama administration right now. First of all, seeing the effect of every kind of policy to solve the problems that had been built for a long time takes time. It should be long-term policy to solve long-term problems. Secondly, situation is so complicated because many domestic and international organizations are closely related. We cannot consider only our domestic market. Our domestic market is related to international market and international politics. Because we need to concern international relationships also, it takes much more time than when we just consider domestic market. So, we need more time to make correction for our financial crisis which is structurally built for a long time. That would be why people re-selected President Obama.
First, you have raised too many questions: “Why Obama administration could not get over current financial crisis in the first term? Why they could not provide proper solution for the citizens who are suffering from financial crisis? Is Obama administration not enough reformative because Obama government so called “Wall Street administration?”
Second, your questions are too broad. I don’t know how you can handle these questions in a 10 page paper. Narrow your questions and make a concrete one.
Third, as your questions are too broad (and vague), you can’t provide a specific argument to that questions either.
Hi,
Just my own personal opinion but I think the topic you raised:
“This paper is going to talk about whether President Obama’s economy policies to deal with current financial crisis work or not and why achievements of his policy are not revealed clearly”
I think that topic is enough for a 10 page paper. You’d have abundant issues to comment on and it could help you focus,
I like this topic as it is closely related to mine, We need to just keep our own ideas in mind when actually writing the paper so that it isn’t too closely related and that our ideas don’t overlap. I think you have a strong concept of what you want to write about, however, the only criticism I have is that you raise to many questions and I would avoid that in the full paper. Try to stray away from a question/answer paper.
Why haven’t The Bush tax cut produced the desired effect?
The bush tax cut which is essentially tax cut for the wealthy has not produced its desired effect because those that benefit from it don’t reinvest the money in businesses in America to create jobs.Instead they continue Outsourcing the jobs they could have created in America to places where cheaper labor and less goverment regulations exist.These countries are predominantly third world countries as well as emerging markets like latin America,Asia and so on.
Check out the specifics on the Bush tax cuts and their beneficiaries and economic effects throughly.
Be careful when gathering information on Bush anything the information is so biased. GDP went from 10 trillion in 2001 to 14 trillion in 2007 that’s including the 2000-2001 dot com crash. Investment recovered back to 2000 levels only by the end of 2003. Same goes for GDP growth rate and exports. Then if you look at statistics, unemployment remained around 4-4.5% and employment growth was around 1% again this was during the dot com crash.
Also point out that the Bush tax cuts also included cuts for other income classes lower than the wealthy. Maybe also include WHY those cuts weren’t permanent and had a sunset provision. Current discussion is only pertaining to +250k and never the lower portion.
U.S policies on “Financial Innovations”
Some people say money is the root of all evil; some say it is the key to happiness and affluence. What we do know is that money is extremely essential in this world today and that’s why a government’s macroeconomic policy is crucial to a nation’s success and that is why some people say it’s the government’s job to be the watchman in the background or the referee when it comes to the economy to ensure fair play. However, this is not always the case. Over the past few decades, banks started using “Financial Innovations” such as secularization to help boost their profits as greed triumphed safe investments. This ultimately lead to their downfall in the 2007-2009 economic crisis. After trillions of dollars lost in the global market value, how can Congress prevent another catastrophy such as this?
How can you handle the question? I’m very concerned whether you can write an empirical paper on the topic. Let me know more concretely how you’re going to handle the topic.
Also, your argument is missing.
I really like this topic and I am interested to know how you approach the paper itself. I would actually like to read this paper just to see what kind of ideas you have that would help the economic crisis, and how you feel congress should act.
I assume when you mention when you securitization, you are referring to Mortgages. You should recall in your paper that those “innovations” started in the 1980s and reason why they became problematic only (or openly) in the mid-late 2000s. (And the according legislative acts between them whether they addressed them or not, or had stemming implications)
Title: The Impact of Deregulation
Topic: This paper will tackle a difficult subject: Why did the asset bubble occur? It is evident there are flaws to the structure of our financial system. I argue that in the past decades, the crisis was closely related to financial deregulation which has had the unintended consequence of destabilizing the financial system. Regulatory failure in the face of the evolving structure and role of financial institutions is in need of repair. However, regulation reform is no easy task; the wrong decisions may well make future crises more severe, while regulations that are too heavy can stifle financial efficiency.
What specific deregulation policy you want to explore in detail?
How about investigating the dissolution process of the Glass–Steagall Act? This is an essential part of financial deregulation proceeded for the past decades.
What was the intention of the “deregulation” (specifics?)? If there was a regulatory failure, was it unenforced regulation or regulation that could never sustain or actually promote “market failure” (is it a market failure when regulation encourages or misses?)?
Was efficiency encouragement the problem?
Why didn’t the first time home buyers tax credit generate the intended effect?
It is clear that the tax credit did slow the drop in home sales and prices. But it only had that effect for a short period.
What seems to have happened is that the tax credit encouraged families who were planning on buying a home to speed their purchase up to benefit from the credit. In essence, it created enough incentive to get buyers who were planning to purchase a home in late 2010 or 2011 to buy in 2009 or the first half of 2010 to get the credit.
This slowed down the deflation of the Housing Bubble, but did not stop it. Why? Because homes were still too expensive in terms of the long-term price trends and income levels.
OK. But it looks highly technical. I wonder whether you can handle your argument well empirically. You need specific data and analyses on the long-term price trends and income levels to support your point.
But, still, honestly, your argument does not includes any political implications or factors. I expect a bit more political economy oriented argument and analysis. For instance, why did the tax credit was not prolonged further? Why not launched more aggressive tax credits?
I agree with Professor Kang that you should incorporate a little more politics when discussing this topic, also it seems like a very difficult topic to discuss for ten pages. See how you can expand on this topic so that it reaches the minimum page requirement while staying true to your topic.
You will have to look at the initial spur in housing demand. What caused or encouraged it? Agreeing with the professor on technicals, analyze how the precursor compares to the tax credit (I’d include the mortgage interest deduction) all the while overlaying the market sentiment at each time.
Was there even a “housing bottom” as some like to say? You’d have to make an assumption of what range a house would have to be. I’d probably do analysis on a a hard hit market like Las Vegas or South Florida and overlay trends with legislation and tax code.
Why should Greece abandon its current austerity measures in favor of a more expansionary fiscal policy?
Greece has been in a recession for five years and is suffering from an unemployment rate of 24 percent. The country has been implementing its austerity plan since 2010 and it hasn’t helped at all in getting its budget deficit under control or spurred economic growth. Many economists say that its only making matters worse. Greece’s austerity plan has slashed the minimum wage, pension and benefits. These measures have incited protests and work stoppages. During the recession austerity measures are lowering consumer demand and cutting public spending hindering any growth. Greece’s economy needs a jolt in the form of government spending to get its economy on its feet.
So, you support the fiscal independence of the Greek government? In other words, withdrawal from the Eurozone, right?
If this is the case you want to explore in your paper, you need to figure out some key questions: The withdrawal from the Eurozone, is this a viable option to Greece? If so, why? If not, why not?
Think about applying the political problem of the “impossible trinity” as your analytic framework.
Title (working): Greek and German Austerity/Competiveness
Central question – Why is it difficult to implement austerity in Greece?
To answer this question this paper will compare the current situation in Greece with the restructuring/austerity that Germany underwent in the early 2000s across two broad categories of factors: economic and political.
Economic factors would include the actual amount of austerity underwent in terms of budgetary changes and unemployment directly resulting with them, as well as the amount of competitiveness gained, scale of privatizations (if any), as well as any decreases social spending or changes in how it is administered (in the German case the work-pay welfare system). Another significant factor is the way in which the national economy interacted with the outside world: if the country already has an industrial export base (Germany) and the austerity occurs in a positive world economic environment then it is likely to result in greater economic growth and thus less resistance. The opposite seems to be the case for Greece, on both sides of that relation.
The political situation would also be considered. A right-wing government or a centrist government is actually in a relatively poor position to carry out austerity, even if it is ideologically more predisposed towards that. A left-wing government is better positioned, as unions are less likely to resist it: they would have no one else as a political representation (discounting numerous revolutionary Marxist organizations who are forever waiting for just such a thing!). Another important consideration is whether or not the austerity program can be explained as something that is being done by the nation of its own free will and for its own benefit or if it is something that is being forced in from the outside. Is it against all of us or just those in the unions that benefit too much at our expense?
Looks promising!
How about just comparing the budgetary change for the economic comparison? For instance, what spendings were reduced or abolished (adjusted) in both cases, especially as to social welfare spending.
And then, you can compare the politics (both internal & external) behind the budgetary change in both cases.
Timothy Yohannan
Why wasn’t the SEC able to foresee the financial crisis and prevent it from happening?
In the future due to all unsteady and increasing debts for most advanced countries. In 2035 the debt will be through the roof and the global economy can’t operate with a major county such as the U.S with this type of liability. Why aren’t current policy makers able to pass regulatory laws that will prevent crisis? I believe that entities and the national government need to create regulations so that firms do not create bubbles and drops in the market. Political ethics and partisanship play a big factor in economic policy. The effect of regulation will impact businesses on their ability to maximize profits.
Which one is your main research question?
“Why wasn’t the SEC able to foresee the financial crisis and prevent it from happening?”
OR
“Why aren’t current policy makers able to pass regulatory laws that will prevent crisis?”
Probably the latter question may be more promising. If you’re more interested in the regulatory reform, which has not been so satisfactory so far, try to focus on a key regulatory issue. For instance, reforming the SEC’s supervisory function on the financial transactions, especially on financial derivatives or creating firewalls among different financial sectors, or reforming the credit rating system or one of specifics of the Dodd-Frank Act. And then raise a specific “WHY” question. For instance, why wasn’t the original firewall idea properly included in the Dodd-Frank Act? Why wasn’t the credit rating system (or regulations on financial derivatives) reformed further?
As you may know, too much regulations can suppress the development or innovation in the financial markets, but too loose regulations can cause financial crises, like the 2007-08 crisis. So, creating a balanced model of financial regulation and supervision is important, but it is very difficult. How about trying to figure out a topic that has made it difficult to reform the existing financial regulatory system?
If you’re interested in the SEC functions, specifically check out what reforms have been carried or not carried out and why.
Title: Are unconventional monetary policies effective?
Abstract: The global financial crisis, which is still on going, of 2007-2009, has been deemed one of the worst recessions this world has ever encountered. The United States, being the most economically successful country, has endured a painful recession that has been felt across the world due to the interdependence the rest of the world has with the United States. Under what policies did we employ that got us into this financial crisis? In this paper, I will focus on quantitative easing, the pros and cons of such an unconventional monetary policy, and what affect it has had in the past and the outlook of the future. Why is it that this unconventional monetary policy has been effective in the past but now the Federal Reserve Bank is struggling now to maintain this policy? How much easing is too much? Is there a limit as to how much help the Federal Reserve Banks can help the economy? Is there a point where the intentions to help wind up counteracting and making the state of the economy worse? I will address these issues and provide existing arguments as well as offering some insight in regards to what early economists would suggest.
All of your questions are related to policy effects of QE. But it’s a difficult to evaluate at this stage, whether it was effective or not. (Please read my comments on other QE-related topics). I understand that you’re interested in real policy effects of QE. But it’s too early to tell.
Instead, you may need to figure out first why unconventional monetary policies were taken for the past years. If you formulate your main question like this, you may point out a couple of political economy factors. Among those various factors, you can focus on one primary factor to explain it.
Or, if you’re interested the effects of QE, an interesting puzzle is why the U.S. government has adopted QEs repeatedly. A couple of factors we can think of this question as well. You can pick one core argument and analyze it further in your paper.
Title: 2013, The end of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010?
What are the possible implications of discontinuing all of the tax deductions that were implemented within the Job Creation Act of 2010 in order to keep the middle class afloat in the midst of the financial crisis in 08-09. Most of the provisions were made in 2 year intervals therefore 2013 is a significant year where the fate of the Act might be in danger. The act included provisions such as keeping personal tax rates in their pre-2001 levels in addition to social security tax rates being reduced 2 percentage points as well as many others. These provisions provide a myriad of benefits to the middle class and the small businesses, so I will focus on the possible implications of the discontinuation of the “Bush” era tax cuts specifically the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010.
I’m confused. Which issue are you focusing on? the Job Creation Act of 2010 and its expiration? Or the “Bush” tax cuts and its discontinuation?
Whichever your topic, I can’t see your main research question, formulated by using a “WHY” question. What’s your puzzle?
I guess, in your case, for instance, you can explore a question: why did the Obama administration made a 2-year (a relatively short-term relief), despite the prospect of the prolonged economic downturn or deflation? Do you think the 2 year grace period was enough to tackle the economic severity related to job creation? If you think the grade period was too short, probably, you can explore further what political and economic factors contributed to such a short-term grace period in the course of legislating the Job Creation Act. And then you can stick to the most primary reason or factor to explain it.
The Gramm Lech Bliley Act
Bank balances and account numbers is one piece of information that most would think is private. What people didn’t know was that their information was the one that was normally brought by banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions. The Gramm Lech Bliley Act of 1999(GLB) was passed to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act. How did this act become an act, is the question asked.
The argument that is to be shown in this paper is, has this act helped us or has it affected us to become where we are now? There are problems with the GLB stating that it doesn’t help out the consumers. The GLB act allows states to formulate protections that exceed the federal law. The state question is whether to allow opt-in standard sharing or whether to create protection of information sharing.
In the first part of this paper I will discuss the background of the act. What is meant to happen with this act in America? The second part of the essay will discuss how it was legislated and what it has done to America. The third part of the essay will show you how it is being enforced today. Lastly, I will discuss my arguments on this Act and what I think it has done to America.
What’s your argument? Why did it pass?
How about focusing on the “political capture” aspect by Wall Street bankers?
Trusting Government
A legitimate government is an essential part of any civilization. Living in a country where everyone is seen as equals has made me question why the bonuses given out by Wall Street firms have not seen a significant reduction when they had to be bailed out during the financial crisis? My argument is that the reason is regulatory capture, which has been noticed by many and even influenced the now popular Wall Street Movement.
OK. How are you going to show the “regulatory capture” phenomenon?
First, check out all the controversies as to the “ridiculously” high bonuses before and after the crisis. Probably journal search can give you much information on this.
Second, figure out how Wall Street financiers fought against popular criticisms for reducing the bonuses.
I really like your topic and I would like to know how you go ahead with your information and what you come up on your research paper.
Creating And Reforming New Fiscal and Global Policies (still working)
In the 21st century and the new age of globalization, one can see that there is much debate when it comes to the role of government in the economy. To our surprise we can still find that there are many who still believe in a liberal economy and still try to argue with the aged ideologies of Adam Smith. In this paper I will attempt to answer the question as to why the people of many nations are so afraid of government interference and, why many nations are so afraid to assume a more aggressive role in the global economy and market.
Many liberalist and free market radicals are opposed to having a government that protects and safe guards the economy. They believe that government should only provide public goods, and intervene only when there is no one else to provide protection for the well being of society. We can now see from the Financial Crisis of 2007-09 that the government bailed out many industries and imposed a stricter regulatory framework in which those industries should operate. In this paper I will explain that if the government reformed its policies, and used them adequately to protect all businesses equally, without being interested only in the big ones, the economy will fluctuate better and a future recession or economic downfall could be prevented. At the same time government needs to protect its nation’s local industries from foreign competition and also help those that want to go global and expand. The role of the government should not only be left to the most successful enterprises to take control, but it should only be the role of the government to provide more guidance and clear policies in how to control them to be fair to everyone else.
The idea of a nation or state that does not involve government protection and intervention in the market economy would just leave the economy in shambles and it would lead to the collapse of the economy. We can all agree that government plays a major role in the economy, but the problem is how the government should be part of the economy; should it only be part of the local market, and should it be tougher with global economy? In the first part of my paper I delineate how in certain parts of the world, as it seems to be the case of many developing countries, government should emphasize more in protecting its nation-state from the global economy with policies to protect its own local business from exploitation from international companies, at the same time, attracting these big businesses to work in their favor. In the second part, I will explore the idea of how many top or large corporations in the United States are dominating the nation not just economically but politically. Then, I will continue to find out why and how the government is so reluctant to take control with innovative policies that would bring more power to the nation. Lastly, I will propose ideas and policies that could work in the favor of a nation or state and keep to maintain a stable role in their own economy.
Great writing and very important topic!!!
But this is a book topic. It’s not appropriate as a short paper topic. How about focusing more on the second and third part and formulating a bit more specific research question?
Are you familiar with SuperPac? How about investigating political donation (or funding) pattern for the last Presidential election? Big corporations or rich people want to influence politics through various channels, and political funding is one good channel.
Of course, you can choose different channels (or sources) such as lobbying, if you have any specific case in mind. It’s up to you.
What is the mode of production? When you referred to American economy there were elements of both Capitalism and Socialism, a market economy can exist in both systems. Your proposal sounds like advocacy of a welfare state/socialism as the main mode of production.
maybe NEW FORM OF SOCIALISM, reforms that will work in the new age of globalization. But like professor Mkang has said this would be a book topic… who knows i may just write it! lol
Title: Quantitative Policy Effectiveness
Money plays a role in both iniquity and prosperity. In some people’s life money plays a role in iniquity, while in others it plays a role in happiness and prosperity. Due to the current economic crisis that began in December 2007, the money playing the role in happiness and prosperity seems very far-fetch. This paper analyzes the United States policy in response to the financial crisis of 2007–2009 by focusing on the United States monetary policy. To interpret the monetary policy, the paper will present the role of government acting in tandem, to prop up the financial system. To convey the point across, the analysis will show us the United States Federal Reserve System and other political entities trying to lower the financial crisis in various ways, but specifically with Quantitative Easing 1 and 2. The argument that I am going to discuss in this research is that why hasn’t QE 1 and 2 being so effective, along with what are the advantages and disadvantages?
Why did the U.S. government launch QE1 and QE2, and recently QE3 again repeatedly?
I think this question may be more suitable to explore further in the paper. It looks too early to tell whether QE1 & QE2 were effective or not . Of course, we can evaluate some economic effects (both negative and positive) of QEs, but most of all, we cannot evaluate QE policy properly because we cannot estimate the situation if QEs had not been adopted. In other words, do you think that the U.S. economic recovery would have been faster without QEs?
So, as to QEs, you’d better change your main research question which can be answered in a more straightforward way. For instance, why did the U.S. government adopt QEs despite strong counterarguments or concerns for inflation in the near future? This kind of question may be more manageable to explore in a short paper.
Alright I will go with the different question: why did the US government launch 3 QE?
Topic: Globalization and the need for International Regulation and Enforcement focusing on the International Market– the idea of creating a healthy global economy and the benefits it will have on the domestic front.
Why hasn’t this been implemented yet?
Globalization is no longer a choice for nations yearning for success, it is a prerequisite. We now live in a world of interconnectedness and there is no going back. We are linked economically, and socially. There is one prong lacking to make this a trifecta of “interconnectedness”—a political link. Within a world that has begun to function like an organism, where our domestic choices affect our international relationships, there is a need to establish international governance in order to promote healthy trading, in regards to activity and ethics. Why this has not been done yet is very clear. Countries fear they will lose their rights domestically—national sovereignty.
However, with a lack on international governance overseeing trade, there are questionable things being done in the name of capitalism in other countries. It is regular practice where companies run away from tightly to lightly regulated jurisdictions to promote their market. They question if international intervention cause more harm than good for domestic development. A supreme international body with fully-fledged regulatory and supervisory powers over all financial institutions is the ideal solution.
Examples to consider: The Basle Accord of 1988, European Union (flaws, strengths, and where international enforcement could have strengthened this regional institution).
The Basle Accord was recently revised: Basle III. Probably you can explore the Basle Accord III: why the Basle Accord was revised in response to the current global financial crisis and why only some countries have complied with the new Accord so far.
Of course, by exploring the case, you can discuss the broad theme you have raised in the draft.
You may want to look at the Basel III accords pertaining to US regional (local banks who aren’t broker/dealers) and their interesting impacts on holdings of soverign debt. ( i do not know the basis on non-US but I imagine they are similar)
IE how does Basel III and say (at random) Apple Bank of NY and foreign debt?
Interesting topic. I like how you described the economic/social/political links of interconnectedness as a “trifecta.” Just remember to mention somewhere in your introduction how you will organize the contents of your paper. Also, a word of advice – consider revising the passive voice “Why this has not been done yet is very clear” into the active voice “It is very clear why this has not yet been done.” Good luck.
Paper question: How has the residential, as well as the commercial real estate market healed prior to the 2008 market crash and how can it continue to sustain a positive future?
Argument: The real estate market has shown wide varieties of change for the positive after the 2008 market crash. As we are currently living through a ‘buyers’ market, I will discuss why we will see a positive sustained future in NYC real estate, as well as outline the key points that could suggest a possible ‘bubble’ again in the housing market, and prove them to be false.
“Healed” prior to the 2008? Probably it’s a typo of “heated”, right?
First, NYC is a special area where always demand exceeds supply in the housing market. So, I don’t think you can generalize your point only by investigating the NYC case. Of course, you can’t prove the falsehood of future housing bubbles in the U.S.
Second, if you’re going to explore the NYC case, try to investigate more specifically on city’s policy toward the housing market in NYC.
Third, as I have repeatedly suggested, please reformulate your main research question by using a “WHY” form. For instance, why have not the real estate market in NYC affected greatly from the subprime crisis? You can highlight some unique aspect of the housing markets in NYC. Of course, don’t jump on rash generalizations based on the NYC case.
Topic: Government of the people or for a selective few
During the 2007-2009 financial crises the U.S government went head first into the crises in order to try and stop the bleeding (prolong suffering). The government implemented a number of different strategies to prop back up the financial system with the Treasury, Federal Reserve, and The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation all working in tandem to elevate the crises. The approach in terms of policies taken by the government was that of government intervention on a large scale. However with this enormous injection of money by the government into the failing economy as a way to save some of the major financial institutions from going under, the government never considered nationalizing these institutions. Why was this so?
With government literally pulling these Banks and companies out the pits of destruction with its monetary policies. It was only logical that the government nationalize these institutions so they could be properly managed until the government felt it fit to privatize them again. Some critics to this theory may say nationalization of companies is in stark contrast to what a free market should be like or that nationalizing these companies effects democracy directly. But when companies and Banks are allowed to grow to a level where their mismanagement can lead to an entire economic crisis, then the government needs to react and do so authoritatively.
In my research paper I will be examining the reason for the 2007-2009 financial crises and how involved were these big companies in causing this crisis. Secondly I will be analyzing some of the arguments against the nationalization of major companies and offer my critiques.
Lastly I will set out reason why I believe nationalization of companies deemed Cooperate giants even if it’s for a short period of time can prevent future financial crisis.
It’s an interesting puzzle. But your argument is not provided yet. Why didn’t the U.S. government nationalize banks?
The first section that plans to describe the background of the 2007-09 financial crisis won’t be necessary too much. Shorten that part. Instead, focus more on the debates on the nationalization issue: different logics that supported nationalization and anti-nationalization. And then provide your view, probably, supporting the nationalization option and convince me why it was a better policy option.
BTW, your draft needs much polished in terms of writing style. There are already many awkward expressions and ungrammatical expressions. Do proofreading and editing before submitting your final paper.
Rescuing America
The economy was at a free fall by the end of 2008 and it was impossible To deny it, the economy needed a fiscal Stimulus Plan quickly.There had to be some drastic changes soon because the U.S collapse had also the potential to collapse the global economy . After a ten year period of cutting taxes and Increasing spending failed policy that lead to a 6 trillion deficit, president Bush was soon leaving the office and ready to Handout a new elected president a disastrous legacy . The new President had to accept from his predecessor a recession worst seen in 80 years, rising unemployment , a big deficit,failed cities, america’s reputation ruined, a war in Iraq and Afganistan and a FED that was about to go into bankruptcy.The stimulus plan was one of President Obamas first bill to pass, why did he considered it to be vital for Americas economy at that time?
In less than a month in office President Obama signed into law, without the Republican’s support,on February 17,2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 mostly know as the economic stimulus plan of $787 billion. the primary objective for ARRA was to rapidly boost economic growth, and save between 900,000-2.3 million jobs.The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, energy, federal tax incentives,expansion of unemployment benefits,and more benefits for americans. The Act also included long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank). With Republicans against it, stating that it was only going to be wasteful,the stimulus package jolted the economy out of it’s coma and fixed the financial mess.
Consumers not spending lead to business struggling which made them reduce workers,then consumer don’t want to spend, which created a vicious cycle that the ARRA was designed to break. One of the best advantages of the stimulus is that we can all track where money was spent and how it created jobs by investing in infrastructure, improved education to make America more competitive and giving”Making Work Pay ” tax credits to boost consumers confidence.
Good details on the Act. But I can’t see whether you’re answering the raised question properly: why did President Obama consider the Act so vital for the American economy?
Probably you may need to ask a slightly different question to include more political economy answer to the question. For instance, why did the Act pass so quickly (or easily) despite strong opposition from the Republican party? Or, why was the Act so comprehensive (in terms of covering scope)? Or the opposite question may be fine: why was the Act so unfocused or small scale, considering the severity of the crisis?
Check out more specifically which aspects the Republican party opposed to regarding the Act.
BTW, do proofreading and editing before you submit your final paper.
Should the US government set stricter rules and regulations for banks in order to prevent an Economic Crisis from happening again as in 2008?
I believe it is important that the government sets strict rules and regulations on US banks because the Banks have a large influence on the US economy. Without regulation, Banks would have the power to swing our economy for its benefit. It is not right that banks do not get audited. Such actions must be tamed through stricter regulations in order to protect the country’s economy and well being. This is important because it has a huge affect on everyone living in the United States. If these banks have so much power, then we must regulate their power in order to protect us as citizens of this country from being hurt by their greed.
As shown in the documentary Inside Job, banks continuously disregard any regulations stated by the government. When caught in malicious acts, the heads of these banks are barely penalized, and in the end, it is the public that is most affected. In order to change this, the government must intervene and enforce its rules. The Dodd-Frank act claims to “protect the American Public” by regulating swap dealers and increasing transparency and improving pricing in the derivatives marketplace. Yet when Brooksley Born put out a legislation that it was necessary to regulate derivative trading, she was quickly shut down by The Federal Reserve’s Secretary Alan Greenspan.
The first part of my paper will discuss the head banks and firms of America and how they were involved in the Financial Crisis. Secondly, I will go into what inside derivative trading is and how it was done. In the third section, I will go into what the Commodity Futures Modernization Act is and why it was implemented. In the fourth section, I will go into the different views of the CMFA. In the fifth section, I will discuss the Dodd-Frank Act and how it has been used. Lastly, I will gather all my research and prove why it is necessary to have government intervention in US Banks and firms.
“When Brooksley Born put out a legislation that it was necessary to regulate derivative trading, she was quickly shut down by The Federal Reserve’s Secretary Alan Greenspan.” Why was it shut down? How can you answer the question?
I understand you’re interested in the CMFA and the Dodd-Frank Act, and more broadly financial regulatory reforms. But, I expect only a 10 page paper, which focuses on a concrete question with a clear argument.
So, I guess it may be enough to focus either on the CMFA case or the Dodd-Frank Act. As to the CMFA, you have already raised a key question to explore. If you’re interested in more recent financial regulatory reforms, you can check out the Dodd-Frank Act and explore why certain regulatory reforms have not been properly included in the Act. Of course, choosing a topic of your paper is entirely your decision based on your interest.
The U.S. government’s macroeconomic policy in response to the global financial crisis of 2007-09 is a subject of deep contention. My particular topic is that of America’s hegemony, which is important because of the vast political and economic responsibilities/burdens which come along with carrying the distinction for being the world hegemon. To be more specific, I will be exploring the impact of the global financial crisis on the hegemonic title of the U.S. Many political scientists and economists are debating over the answer to the following pressing controversial question. Did the global financial crisis of 2007-09 weaken the United States’ hegemonic position in world politics/economics to the extent that other countries or regions (i.e. China or the European Union) will overtake the U.S. as a direct result of said crisis in the next couple of decades?
In short, my argument is that the answer is no. I will be elaborating on my position throughout the course of this paper. Many intellectuals disagree with my argument, and insist that the U.S. is now weakened to the degree that an alternative political-economic player (or multiple players, for that matter) will surpass the U.S. to become the next new hegemon(s). They will posit the idea that the global financial crisis has wounded the political-economic capabilities of the U.S. so deeply that after the next several presidential election cycles, The People’s Republic of China or the European Union may be the subsequent imperially dominant geopolitical state. However, I firmly believe that this is not the case.
The contents of this paper will be organized as such: the initial portion will investigate the conundrum of the paper; the penultimate segment will assess present perspectives, while providing my own opinions in contrast with extant judgments; the final component will supply empirical evidence to reinforce my thesis, before I conclude with a discussion on policy implications of my analysis.
ah, the indents didn’t go though.
paragraph 2 starts at “In short…”
paragraph 3 starts at “The contents…”
OK. Your question and argument is clear. But a remaining task is how to prove your point. Which aspect you want to explore to support your argument?
Technology level, for instance, the number of patent? Quality of higher educational institutions? Superior political system such as the check and balance system (democracy)? Superiority of American liberalism?
Please let me know ASAP how you’re going to support your argument.
Why are economically weaker countries trying to resist austerity policy in order to resolve the European debt crisis?
Argument:
The most important factor in resisting austerity policy is sovereignty of each individual European nation. Many countries feel as if especially Germany is trying to control and force countries out of the crisis by implementing strict monetary policy by limiting possibilities of receiving aid if countries do not follow up on the requirements given. These requirements include severe spending cuts within government institutions. This approach cripples negotiations from the very origin. Furthermore, because it requires a drastic shift within society and most citizens are not happy with that kind of change. This phenomenon then, lashes out to political leaders who are, in all European countries, voted in through democratic elections and therefore are not totally free from their domestic society.
Position:
In order to resolve the European debt crisis austerity policy is not optimal considering the fact that each country is sovereign and no country is trying to be controlled by others. Countries have to be seen as partners and not enemies in order to resolve the crisis. Loosening austerity policy and implementing more government spending instead, is much easier to promote and negotiate in a union where 17 countries have to come to a consensus. Also providing more money to the market and promoting growth would benefit the Eurozone much more than trying to cut themselves through their debt. Considering the fact that there has been way too little growth to even tackle a slice of the debt accumulated over the years since the economic EU was formed. Germany cannot expect political leaders to fully accept the conditions put upon them because their career is tied to their countries public opinion. Germany benefited the most from the EU than any other country and therefore has to take the lead in the right direction, a direction that allows at least as much political unity than there is economic unity.
OK. I can get your clear position. But I wonder how you’re going to show the significance of “sovereignty” as an explanatory variable. In other words, how has national sovereignty made it difficult to revolve the current fiscal crisis in the Eurozone zone?
Who supports the austerity policy and who opposes to it? Try to figure out this issue clearly both at the Euro regional and at the domestic levels. And then choose a specific country case and issue (or sector) that can support your argument (& position).
SUB PRIME LENDING CRISIS and the involvement of financial institutions :
The American dream that many people know of was that of owning your own house and being called a home owner. That dream seems to be moving further and further from the hands of today’s generation. The main question of to my paper is why the financial industries were left to their own devices and creating a bubble that led to the financial crisis.
Greed and instability of financial institutions have made sub-prime lending which was to be helpful to those Americans unable to attain credit due to their jobs or history. Leading to banks to increase the long term interest rate to being double of what the value of the house is actually worth. Created to expand the American dream was made by financial and lending institutions as an easy way of creating money without the interference. Mortgage-backed securities that were made to difficult to understand and hide most of the insecurities and flaws of the sub prime lending. The flaws that the government had by not regulating and the question those financial institutions were left to do as they pleased due to the ruling of the Republican Party. did the SEC and other regulating companies ignore the signs that the private financial business and investors were leading the country to crisis.
The essay will discuss the origins of sub- prime lending. the creation of mortgage based securities through pooling and involvement of financial companies in the investing of sub prime mortgages. the fiscal institutions and their play in the misuse of sub- prime lending.
You and talked about this topic. But I can’t still get your main argument. on your main question: Why has financial deregulation (or more specifically securitization) been accelerated for the past two decades?
Review some existing views and then decide your position. Then, if you’re more interested in figuring out securitization, explore further how it was introduced and allowed before the subprime crisis of 2007-09.
Title: Why not Dodd-Joe?
Why didn’t the United States government take on a more Keynesian approach, of creating jobs and tackling unemployment, rather than injecting large amounts of bailout money to banks? This paper investigates the action taken by the United States government in direct response to the financial crisis that occurred in 2007, focusing on the Dodd-Frank Act and its provisions.
Who is Joe? Keynes?
Your research question is good. But I’m not sure whether the Dodd-Frank Act can be a good example to explain the question.
Regarding your question, you can think of various factors such as ideological orientation of the Obama administration, electoral concerns (the last mid-term election), opposition from the Republican party (the Republican Party was the majority in the House), and some other economic factors as well. Out of various factors, focus on one critical factor that supports your argument.
At the current proposal, I can’t see your clear argument yet. Choose one and try to defend it.
Can i use the argument of bipartisanship? A divided house making it difficult to recover from the recession
Sure! It’s an important factor. Find some key voting records or gridlock situations to support your argument.
BTW, you don’t need to get my approval for your argument. Free speech is fully allowed for my class. It’s your paper, so your view (argument) matters more than anything else. If you think it is the key factor, just stick to it and try to convince it.
Why has a lack of bipartisanship slowed the recovery of Economic Reform during Obama’s first term?
Is that a better argument in itself
Why more quantitative easing is needed from the Federal Government?
This past September QE3 was passed and although its results haven’t been felt I strongly believe more quantitative easing shall be done. Overall Quantitative easing is a stimulus to boost the economy be the federal purchasing a higher percentage of mortgages from big firms like Goldman Sacks to eventually lower interest rates so more people can qualify for loans. In the long run more loans being passed will drive the market positively. I, like Mr. Bernanke believe that three quantitative isn’t enough, the economy needs more to come in the near future to ultimately show drastic improvements in the economy. If no more were to be offered the efforts of past quantitative easing will be an effort wasted.
Why do some people oppose to the QE policy? I guess you want to argue against them, right?
If that’s the case, figure out the anti-QE view first and pick one of critical issues to argue against the view. For instance, inflation is the primary concern of those anti-QE viewers. On what grounds is this view wrong or should not be the primary concern? Do you think you can provide enough evidence to argue against this view?
Of course you can do. Inflation was just an example. Try to figure out those key points those opponents to the QE policy highlight to support their views and if your position is against them, pick one issue and try to argue again it by providing some empirical evidence.
You might want to examine the arguments against QE3 that stem from the “failures” of the earlier rounds of QE and Operation Twist.
If your focus is on more loans for consumers, you may want to explain why that is better for the economy instead of investment from savings or consumer debt reduction for example.
Research Question: Why doesn’t the Dodd-Frank Act eliminate the possibility of another financial crisis in its current form?
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act was signed into law by President Obama on July 21st, 2010 as a response to the economic crisis of the late 2000s. It was held up as a savior, a financial superhero of sorts, that was supposed to bring sweeping change to an unruly financial industry. But as it stands, the bill does not appear to have the superhuman strength to prevent another economic crisis. This can be attributed to many factors which will be discussed in this paper.
Since being signed into law, the act has been stagnated with over 60 percent of it not actually in place. Lobbyists from large financial institutions have been working non-stop to roll-back or lessen the regulations within the act. And to be blunt, some of the policies within the bill may just be ineffective by nature. Due to its seeming inefficiency the bill has been subject to much scrutiny. Even Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney proclaimed that he would “repeal and replace” Dodd-Frank if he succeeded in winning the Presidency. But the Dodd-Frank Act is just what is needed to regulate current financial services and it is essential to the financial future of the United States. This paper will defend the strengths of the Act, highlight reasons much of the bill is still inactive and recommend ways the few weaknesses in the bill can be amended.
Firstly, I will highlight some of the important features of the bill and why they are so important to the financial health of the economy. Next, the paper will shine light on the reasons why most of the act is still inactive. Lastly, the paper will discuss measures that can be taken to save the bill, either from its own inherent weaknesses or save it from stagnation and get more or the entire bill active.
I can get what your paper is heading for, but I can’t quite get what exact target you’re aiming at: what is your main “WHY” question?
“This paper will defend the strengths of the Act, highlight reasons much of the bill is still inactive and recommend ways the few weaknesses in the bill can be amended.”
–> What strength are you going to defend? What weaknesses does it have?
As your main research question is still unclear, your argument cannot be clear yet.
Do review the Act ASAP, and pick one primary issue you want to explore in detail.
Randall Richards
United States of America: Will the Federal Reserve be the key to a future without any financial crisis?
In order to prevent another financial crisis like the one that took place in late 2007 there was a very important law enacted known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010. The financial crisis led to widespread calls for many changes to the financial system. In June 2009 Obama introduced a proposal to a major change of the United States financial regulatory system so that nothing like what had happened would happen again. The main components of the bill were the consolidation of regulatory agencies with the ability to oversee and evaluate systemic risk. There would also be more transparency and regulation of financial markets. There was also consumer protection reforms including a new consumer protection agency and uniform standards for “plain vanilla” products as well as strengthened investor protection. The other components of the law include tools for future financial crisis which include a resolution regime which allow for orderly winding down of bankrupt firms, and including a proposal that the Federal Reserve receive authorization to make certain actions. There were also various measures aimed at increasing international standards for the way financial trades were handled.
It’s a good start you’ve already checked out some details of the Act. But,I can’t see your research question or argument yet. For instance, “Will the Federal Reserve be the key to a future without any financial crisis?” Is this your main research question?
If that’s the case, how is this question is related to the Dodd-Frank Act? Of course, it’s related, but it’s not properly stated in your proposal.
Also, as your argument is not articulated yet, you couldn’t provide your clear argument to the main research question.
If you’re interested in the Act, check out the original bill first and how the original bill was revised or skipped in the legislation process. You can formulate a question why certain reform was not included (or inserted) in the legislation process.
Title: The Statist Revolution
Thesis Question: Since the first bailout in the United States in 1970 via the Penn Central railroad, has the United States accepted the statist paradigm as the new status quo?
The author of this paper will visit the historical analysis of bailouts within the United States through the lenses of the Marxist, Listian, Smithian and Keynesian perspectives. Through these analyses, the author will offer determine the necessity or lack thereof for bailouts and whether or not the trajectory of American Politics is a move in the direction of statism. The author will take a look into the disintegration of the Bretton Woods System/Gold Standard in it’s correlation with an increase in Government’s willingness to increase debt limits which may have provided ripened climates for said bailouts.
Finally, the author will visit the moral issue of using a form of reverse redistribution in the form of bailouts as a push for statism or driving force for more self regulating markets. This point would be discussed in speculating if there would have even been a financial system left for the collective to utilize or if was ethically wrong to socialize the losses of private finance firms under such incredibly self interested decision making.
“Has the United States accepted the statist paradigm as the new status quo?”
–> Is this your main research question? If you raise your question like this, your answer will either in the affirmative (Yes) or negative (No). It’s not a good way of presetting your research puzzle. I have repeatedly emphasized that you need to formulate your research question by using a “WHY” question. In your case, probably you may raise your question as follows: Why has the U.S. government used more frequently bailout options? Or Why did the U.S. government bailout banks despite strong oppositions to it? Or Why didn’t the U.S. government use the bailout option more aggressively? Or why has the U.S. government expanded its intervention in the economy for the past decades despite the growing dominance of neoliberal economic thinking?
Anyhow, your main research question is not articulated enough yet.
Second, you want to explore your topic “through the lenses of the Marxist, Listian, Smithian and Keynesian perspectives.” Which one is the primary perspective you support? Choose one and defend it against other perspectives. That may be a better way of presenting your argument with clarity. But first of all, you need to reformulate your research question and then you can decide your main argument to answer the question.
Third, various issues you raised in the proposal can be discussed briefly when you talk about the implications of your argument or the significance of your paper topic.
BTW, don’t use the expression “the author of the paper or the author”. Just use “I” when you have to use such expressions.
You may want to revisit the idea of bailout further, and what “bailout” means. Looking even not carefully you can see what what grants and subsidies existed far before the 1970s.
If viewing from those perspectives (which is a large task, you want to include an Austrian perspective for a firm “Anti-statist” perspective which may include in minimal state perspective Mises (far less than Smith) and even anarchist Rothbard (I think useful when comparing to Marx). This would be a fast growing idea in recent years, (check Paul Krugman for a “neo”Keynesian view on them)
My thesis for my research paper is that, I believe that QE3 (Quantitative Easing 3) will help the economy of The United Estates at a short term because it will lower the borrowing cost, but at the same time it will create inflation at a long term because it will decrease the purchasing power of the American dollar meaning that it will devaluate the country’s currency because more money will be available.
Also I will analyze why it took a long time for QE3 to get approved and what kind of politics were behind the delay.
The last sentence “why it took a long time for QE3 to get approved and what kind of politics were behind the delay” looks far more interesting than the short-term or long-term effects of QE3.
What factors were critical for the delay? You can think of a couple of factors such as divided government, elelctoral strategy, ideological factor and others. Figure out existing views on the pros and cons on the QE policy and choose one core factor which will support your argument and you want to explore further in the paper.
Is this a supporting argument for QE3 or against?
thank you professor i think i would focus more in the last sentence, which it has to do with politics of it. i feel that a lot of these topics here overlap and most of the students are focusing more in the Economical part of Quantitative Easing rather than the political which it will be perfect for me to write about, i just have to research the material again. any web site that you would recommend?
thank you professor.
@ JustinDebois no i will focus in the politics behind the delay between QE2 and QE3
Banking crisis in the United States has affected us and the entire global economy. But what was it main cause?. Sub-prime crisis was the main reason of banking crisis. Banks started to make risky investments by giving financial support and credit to people so they can buy houses even when they did not have the possibility to pay them back. By having this risky investments, interest rate started to go up. Banks did not worry about this since they were earning more money. Banks also knew that debt can be sold and economic transaction by buying bonds or credit securitizations, subprime mortgages could be removed from the asset side of the concessionaire, being transferred to investment funds or pension plans.
Indeed, “by buying bonds or credit securitizations, subprime mortgages could be removed from the asset side of the concessionaire, being transferred to investment funds or pension plans”, as you described, the subprime mortgage issue has caused the entire financial system crisis.
I can see that you’re interested in the causes of the crisis. But it’s not clear yet what specific topic you’re going to explore in the paper. As your research question is not articulated enough yet, you can’t state your argument yet.
In your proposal, you said that “Banks also knew that debt can be sold…” Do you really think banks knew the problem of the subprime mortgage problem, but continued the risky business just subprime mortgage business was profitable to them? If your answer is Yes to this question, your view is closer to the “moral hazard” view. But if your answer is No to the question, your view disputes the moral hazard view. Which side do you support?
Those people who support the “moral hazard” view claim that banks, even regulators, knew the problem of the subprime lending, but they continued the business (or allowed it) as they expected that if the situation should go bad, they could get a bailout support from the government, as their economic scale is “TOO BIG TO FAI.” In others, banks knew that due to their big size or significance in the economy, the government could not let them go bankrupt.
If you’re interested in the deregulation aspect, you may explore a question: for instance, why did not the government (financial regulatory authorities) regulate (or supervise) the subprime lending? In this case, you can find good information on the “regulatory failure” aspect from the Commission Report of the Congress on the financial crisis.