Expenditure approach to calculating GDP examples

86문장 0% 중국어 번역 0명 참여 출처 : 칸아카데미
번역 0%

Expenditure approach to calculating GDP examples발음듣기

[Instructor] What I hope to do in this video is even more examples to make sure we really understand how various things would be accounted for in the expenditure approach to GDP.발음듣기

Now we have talked about this in other videos.발음듣기

There's many different ways of calculating GDP but in the expenditure approach you can break it down as being made up of consumption by households plus investment by firms plus government spending on goods and services by the government, and net exports.발음듣기

And so with that out of the way pause this video and look at each of these statements and think about what effect would it have on GDP if we have the expenditure approach and how would it be accounted for in these various categories.발음듣기

Okay now let's work through this together.발음듣기

So this first scenario it says Ford pays $1 million for a U.S.-made robot for its factory in California.발음듣기

So we have a firm right over here.발음듣기

It is Ford.발음듣기

And it's investing in physical capital.발음듣기

And in most cases well especially if you're looking at some type of a standardized test on an AP exam investment is firms investing in physical capital although it can also be on intellectual capital things like software.발음듣기

But this is very clear it's Ford buying a U.S.-made robot, physical capital.발음듣기

This robot is going to help Ford make more cars or trucks or whatever it's trying to make.발음듣기

So this is a very clear that it would increase GDP so GDP would go up by $1 million because of this, $1 million.발음듣기

And the place that it would be accounted for is in investment.발음듣기

So I could say investment would go up $1 million.발음듣기

Or the reason why GDP goes up $1 million or you would add $1 million to GDP is because you would add $1 million to investment.발음듣기

This is a clear investment by a U.S. firm.발음듣기

All right now let's look at the next scenario.발음듣기

A U.S. car rental company spends $1 million to buy 30 new Fords that were made in the U.S.발음듣기

So pause this video again see if you can think of that.발음듣기

Well this is a very similar scenario.발음듣기

A U.S. car rental company and it is investing in physical capital right over here.발음듣기

By buying those 30 new Fords, it can rent those out to create future benefit.발음듣기

And so once again it would be the same thing.발음듣기

In that first case, GDP would go up by a million because investment goes up by a million and in this case as well GDP would go up by $1 million because investment went up by $1 million.발음듣기

Now let's look at this third scenario.발음듣기

A U.S. car rental company spends $1 million to buy 30 new Toyotas that were made in Japan.발음듣기

So how is this different?발음듣기

Well in this scenario you still would have a U.S. firm investing in physical capital, it's spending $1 million.발음듣기

So you actually would you would actually have investment go up by $1 million.발음듣기

But it's not investing in things that are made in the United States.발음듣기

It's investing in things that are made in Japan.발음듣기

So in this particular scenario it will be counteracted by net exports.발음듣기

Here we are importing $1 million worth of things and so that would take net exports so net exports would go down by $1 million.발음듣기

A $1 million import is the same thing as a negative $1 million net export.발음듣기

And so because of these two this will have no impact on GDP.발음듣기

No impact on GDP.발음듣기

And the reason why this makes intuitive sense is remember GDP is supposed to measure how much a, how much was produced and in this scenario a car rental company is investing but it was produced someplace else.발음듣기

It wasn't produced in the United States.발음듣기

Now this third scenario a Japanese car rental company spends $1 million to buy 30 new Fords that were made in the United States.발음듣기

So this is almost a symmetrically opposite scenario.발음듣기

So we would not add to investment here because this was a Japanese car rental company and we're calculating GDP for the United States or at least that's the assumption.발음듣기

But because the U.S. would export these 30 new Fords for $1 million, that would add to net exports.발음듣기

So in this case, net exports let me do the net export color net exports would go up by $1 million.발음듣기

And because net exports went up by $1 million and nothing else here is impacted GDP, GDP would go up by $1 million.발음듣기

And once again the reason why this makes sense is United States produced $1 million worth of stuff.발음듣기

It happened to export them out and that's where it got accounted for but definitely GDP is $1 million higher because of this.발음듣기

So this next one is interesting.발음듣기

You buy $100,000 of IBM stock.발음듣기

What do you think this is?발음듣기

Pause this video again.발음듣기

So you in traditional language you might say I invested $100,000 of IBM stock.발음듣기

But I'm a household, so how does this work?발음듣기

Well it turns out that this does not move any of these dials right over here because at least the assumption here is that you are buying that $100,000 of IBM stock from someone else.발음듣기

It is not, it is not because something is being made in the United States there's some new productivity that's happening.발음듣기

And so even though in everyday language we sometimes think of this as in investment this has no impact on any of these categories.발음듣기

So no impact.발음듣기

And I really wanna emphasize that.발음듣기

Investment is sometimes associated with things like buying stocks but investment in the GDP sense is when a firm is buying some type of capital that'll give it some future benefit help it make things better.발음듣기

Oftentimes it's physical capital.발음듣기

More and more it's often things like software or some type of intellectual capital.발음듣기

Microsoft buys $100 million of IBM stock.발음듣기

This one might be even more tempting to put in the investment category because Microsoft for sure is a firm, and it looks like it's investing in another firm.발음듣기

But once again Microsoft isn't buying some type of physical machinery or it isn't buying an accounting system or some type of intellectual capital.발음듣기

It's just buying shares from someone else.발음듣기

So once again nothing new is being produced in the country, so this has no impact.발음듣기

I really wanna emphasize these last two because this shows up on some exams where it says oh this kinda feels like an investment at least in everyday language so people would account for it there.발음듣기

But remember, no new capital.발음듣기

Microsoft isn't buying something that's going to help Microsoft produce more of whatever Microsoft is trying to produce.발음듣기

All right this next one the Social Security Administration makes a $2,000 payment to a retiree.발음듣기

What do you think's going on there?발음듣기

So you might be tempted to say hey that's a government expenditure, the Social Security Administration they're spending $2,000.발음듣기

But we have to remind ourselves this G category is government expenditure on goods and services not a transfer payment like this.발음듣기

And so this would have no, no impact.발음듣기

Another intuitive way to think about it and we've been talking about this for awhile nothing new is being produced in the United States because of this payment.발음듣기

Now we can contrast that with the next scenario right over here.발음듣기

The Social Security Administration buys a new accounting system.발음듣기

Well in this scenario the government is buying a good or service.발음듣기

It might be a combination of both.발음듣기

They might have to buy some computers some software, maybe hire some consultants to implement it for them.발음듣기

So it is the government paying for goods and services.발음듣기

So in this situation our government category would go up by however much they're spending.발음듣기

Let's say they spend let's say this was I don't know $1 million again.발음듣기

So then the government would the government category would go up by $1 million because it's a good or service it's spending and because of that GDP would go up by $1 million.발음듣기

Hopefully you enjoyed that.발음듣기

칸아카데미 더보기더 보기

전체보기
Top