- Is it time to replace Lipinski’s rules with a more current set of rules based on recent experience.
- If so, what parameters would these new rules include?
- Would they be applied to every program?
- Would they be applied at the very beginning of the program?
Economists emphasize that there are two principal reasons of stagflation. First, a negative supply shock can decrease the productive ability of an economy. Examples of unfavorable shocks involve a raise in oil prices for an importing nation. Such shocks have an inclination of raising prices and slowing down the economy by the increasing costs of production and reducing lucrativeness at the same time (Guillermo & Rodrigo 2008). The second plausible cause of stagnation is inappropriate macroeconomic strategies. For example, letting an extreme growth in the supply of currency can escalate inflation, and the government can generate stagnation by using intense regulation of goods and the labor market. These two aspects performed an important role in triggering the 1970s worldwide stagflation that led to the fall of Keynesian economics. The stagflation began with huge increases in oil prices and continued, because central banks used the intense simulative monetary policy to solve the recession. The fall of Keynesianism also credited to the fact that many economists did not take into account the probability of stagflation (Blinder, 2013). Historical data pointed out that high unemployment rates were related with low inflation rates and vice versa, as shown in the Phillips curve (Khan Academy, 2017). The theory was that a high demand for goods increased prices, which in turn stimulated companies to employ more people. Likewise, high employment rates augmented demand. During the 1970s stagflation, it became obvious that the link between inflation rates and employment levels was sometimes unstable. As a result, macroeconomists were unconvinced about Keynesianism, eventually steering to the end of the impact of Keynesian theories in economic strategies. Monetarist economists, such as Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman clarified a shift in the Phillips curve: they maintained that when companies and workers anticipated high inflation, there was a shifting up of the Phillips curve, suggesting that high inflation can occur at any rate of unemployment (Khan Academy, 2017). Unambiguously, they argued that if inflation remained high for many years, workers and companies would begin emphasizing its consequences during wage negotiations, causing in a quick increase of earnings and firms’ prices, which further quickened inflation. This enlightenment was an extreme case of criticism of Keynesianism, and Keynesians progressively agreed the explanation. This reduced Keynesianism spread and influence on economic policies. To conclude, it is evident that the spread and impact of Keynesianism was largely accelerated by the unmatched economic success and constancy in the post-war period from 1945 until 1973. The basis of Keynesianism was government intervention using active monetary and fiscal actions to normalize aggregate volatility in market economies. Its collapse could have accredited to the 1970s stagflation depicted by an instantaneous increase in both unemployment and inflation rates. Critics ma>GET ANSWER