国收入的衡量.ppt

* Again, the growth rate of real GDP from one year to the next is the answer to this question: “How much would GDP (and hence everyone’s income) have grown if there had been zero inflation?” This is why real GDP is corrected for inflation. * The source I used: /fred2/ The original source: U.S. Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis Note: This graph is different than the one in this chapter of the textbook. The one in the textbook excludes nominal GDP, but includes shaded vertical bars over the dates of each recession. Since you have just finished covering real vs. nominal GDP, it might be worthwhile pointing out the following to your students: The graph shows that nominal GDP rises faster than real GDP. This should make sense, because growth in nominal GDP is driven by growth in output AND by inflation. Growth in real GDP is driven only by growth in output. The two lines cross in the year 2000 (the base year for the real GDP data in this graph). This should make sense because real GDP equals nominal GDP in the base year. (Better yet, ask your students whether there’s anything significant about the point where the two lines cross.) Before the base year, real GDP nominal GDP. For example, in 1970, nominal GDP is about $1 trillion, while real GDP is about $3.8 trillion (in 2000 dollars). This should make sense because prices were so much higher in 2000 than in 1970, so using those high 2000 prices to value 1970 output would lead to a bigger result than valuing 1970 output using 1970 prices. Similarly, after 2000, nominal GDP is higher than real GDP because prices are higher in later years than they were in 2000. * The GDP Deflator gets its name because it is used to “deflate” (i.e., take the inflation out of) nominal GDP to get real GDP. The data in the table are for a hypothetical economy that produces two final goods, A and B. For all parts of this problem, use 2007 as the base year. If you’re running short on time, you