explain why monetary policies are better than fiscal policies... in terms of the us government?
482769
That's because monetary policy is far more flexible : \n1. u don't need to enact laws to change monetary policy\n2. the impact of rate hikes or rate lowering spreads wider than tax policy
523054
because the dollar is more stable than their own currency
974598
The Federal Reserve has the power to mitigate the effects of inflation by adjusting its monetary policy. For example, they can sell government securities and raise interest rates (which would decrease the money supply, thus curbing inflation).
157167
Wow.  Um, it's not the amount of physical money we have, it's the *worth* of the physical money.  The gov't can't just print up an extra mil to cover the cost of stuff, that would cause the worth of the dollar to go down compared to other countries money.
1071060
I'm not sure about your question--which is better?\n\nWhen you have a mortgage, early on the bulk of the payments are interest, and you can deduct that amount on  your income tax.  A good deal.
35409
There is a ton of info in the site below.  Fiscal policy usually falls under Macroeconomics. One of the most common fiscal policies you'll here about a couple of times a year, is when the Federal Reserve Board (The Fed) meets.  Often the board decides to change its prime lending rate to banks, which could affect overall borrowine and spending in the economy.
1145664
market forces do play a part in the rates set by the fed.  the main concern of the fed is to balance inflation and growth of the economy.  If growth is too high and inflation rates spike, then higher rates cool things down.  It's a fine balancing act.
428706
Fiscal Policy: eg.Changing Business/Personal Tax - lowering tax will increase investment/spending, while increasing taxes will reduce spending/investment. Using Fiscal policy has a direct affect on a companies or individuals 'real' income, rather than simply effecting the cost or borrowing for capital (new premises or mortgages/loans/credit).\n\nHaving your faith in Fiscal or Monetary (r of i) Policy on the whole is down to you as an individual but in reality a fully functioning Government uses a mix of Fiscal, Monetary and Exchange Rate policy to maintain a stable (avoiding boom/bust) economy.\n\nAnother advantage to Fiscal Policy is that it can be used to remedy the imbalance of wealth - rich/poor divide!\n\nBoom/Bust Cycle - this is created from the over-heating of the economy ......... people spending too much and then not enough. So, with any economic policy (as a whole), you are looking to maintain some level of control over peoples spending. Whether it's by taking money away from them (tax), persuading them to save (tax free savings, pension) or by increasing the r of i (increasing the cost of borrowing) etc, it doesn't really matter so long as you stick to your long term plans/commitments and don't look for short-term popularity and give in to the populous - like the Conservative Gov of the 80's-90's.\n\nIn my opinion, fiscal policy might be unpopular with some but it provides a greater economic stabiliy that cannot be obtained from changing an economies r of i (base-rate).\n\nNB. Increasing prices wether by fiscal or particularly monetary policy will create inflation and increase prices (the cost of living), so all changes must be gentle, well informed and clear!\n\nHope this helps :O)
763808
Foreign National Debt is above 3 trillion at record levels so I say no. Current US fiscal policy is designed to move wealth to the upper class from the middle class. The government does not seem to want to protect the majority of its people but thats what we deserve for voting in these leaders.
102152
Entitlements are the number one killer of the us economy.  We pay so much more in taxes because of the programs. When you make it easy for people not to work the inclined they are not.  Our government should cut these programs agressively but a majority of the congress doenst have the guts to do it.  You look at the best economy as far as capita per person it is Ireland. They have a flax tax of 16 percent and very few social programs.
984925
Fiscal conservatives are in favor of limited government and prudent spending.\n\nSince I probably spurred this question, how would a fiscal conservative justify spending vast resources on experimentation?\n\nSocial and fiscal conservatives historically have agreed that federal money should not be used to further ANY agenda.
266950
I think you have misquoted or misunderstood that. GDP (gross domestic product) is a monetary value.  In the US, GDP is expressed in US dollars.  In Britain, Pound Sterling.  Or whatever country in their currency, which can be converted to your currency.  A percent of GDP though could be used in numerous ways.  For example.  Mexico's GDP is 13% of US GDP.  Or the manufacturing sector is 37% of GDP, meaning a certain part of the economy makes up a certain percentage of the whole.  By the way, those numbers are made up for example sake.  I don't know the real percentages.
492698
First the term "Inflation" is generally the difference expressed as a percentage of the increase in value of everything except the currency of a country. The reverse to this it takes more money to buy anything.\n\nThe reason that governments go to lengths to reduce the rate of inflation of a country to as low as possible is that should inflation increase then an economic spiral starts with the population buying less then industry must respond by shedding jobs and investing less. This in turn affects investors and they reduce there exposure by selling their investments then if unchecked inflation rises, the spiral goes around again and again.\n\nThis spiral starts by producing what is called a recession and then as inflation increases you enter an economic depression which puts stress,poverty and starvation on the population and the weakest are the most affected.\n\nWhen inflation is run away or "rampant" either a turn around by extremely conservative measures and years of recovery or an injection of funds by neighboring states to bring the value of the currency back to the value of everything else in the country at the cost of massive debt.\n\nGetting back to high inflation, if left for too long becomes what is called hyperinflation then strange things like you wait half a day in a line to just get a cabbage or need a wheelbarrow of money just to buy a loaf of bread and all of a sudden a new currency printed to manage the old. This aggravates the general population so much and generally leads to someone getting the blame (government), then civil instability followed by violence and revolt.
276205
fiscal policy equals to your potential try going to http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/package.jsp?&name=news/state/budget to help you understand
75143
idea 1: inflation has an "invisible hand" to control it...ie when inflation devalues the american dollar to a certain point; people spend substatially less money on luxuries, and luxury item companies react and make their product more affordable...which is reflected in a sort of ratio of cost between necessities and luxuries and whatever falls inbetween...  now idea 2: we, as a nation, expect unemployment.  we have a certain, budgeted amount of money set aside to compensate for that.  Now lets assume two things...1 - that idea 1 is true and that idea 2 is true.  2 - that in the instance that this original question is posed, neither inflation nor unemployment is so out of control that it is causing "economic anarchy"  Assuming all of this... it would make it more important to control inflation because it is not prepared for in the same way that unemployment is...plus (as a side note, and you thought i was done...) inflation causes each dollar to be worth less money...therefore, theorhetically, people are recieving smaller paychecks...and it leads some to get secondary (or even tertiary) jobs or to work additional hours, which begins to take up hours that are availible from employers...and when companies move less product, they have less hours of work to provide to those that work for them....think about it...
165677
In a recessionary type environment, expansionary fiscal policy can promote employment by increasing demand for goods and services. This occurs when a rise in consumption happens from things like a lowering of taxes giving consumers more free money to spend.\nThe government will borrow more money which will make interest rates rise. This will attract foreign investors which in turn will bring the value of the dollar up. If the dollar is worth more, then imports will be cheaper (while exports will be more expensive to the recipients).
766521
It is impossible to disagree with this analysis.  Just look at the economy under Carter in the 1970s.  When the top tax rate was at 70%, we had rampant inflation, high interest rates, and record unemployment.  All of this was a direct result of the out-of-control tax hike.  Businesses, having to pay exhorbitant taxes, passed this expense on to the consumer causing high inflation and thus lowering the value of the dollar.  The fed raised interest rates to slow the inflation, causing home ownership to be out of reach for more Americans.  Businesses could not afford to hire more employees because the money that they would have paid them with was going to the government in taxes.