The Multiplier Effect- help! Watch

11owolea
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
I am having some trouble understanding the multiplier effect. There are two main things I don't understand:

1) The effect is explained with an example in which there is a £100 million increase in investment. A firm receives the money from the investment. All of the money is then passed onto households. The households withdraw some of the money, in this case at a rate of 0.1, meaning £90 million flows back to firms. What I don't understand is why ALL the money firms receive must flow back to households, and why when calculating the multiplier, you only take into account the MPW of households. Surely firms save, import and pay taxes. Why are these withdrawals not included in the model?
2) I was taught beforehand that the MPC and the MPS must equal 1, as income is either spent or saved. Why is it then that the value of the multiplier is 1/1-MPC or 1/MPW, which suggests that the MPC and the MPW equal one. This makes more sense, but why was I taught it in terms of the MPS and MPC equalling 1 beforehand?

Thanks in advance for any help. I understand the concept in general but just a few details don't seem to make sense.
0
quote
reply
kas9
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
(Original post by 11owolea)
I am having some trouble understanding the multiplier effect. There are two main things I don't understand:

1) The effect is explained with an example in which there is a £100 million increase in investment. A firm receives the money from the investment. All of the money is then passed onto households. The households withdraw some of the money, in this case at a rate of 0.1, meaning £90 million flows back to firms. What I don't understand is why ALL the money firms receive must flow back to households, and why when calculating the multiplier, you only take into account the MPW of households. Surely firms save, import and pay taxes. Why are these withdrawals not included in the model?
2) I was taught beforehand that the MPC and the MPS must equal 1, as income is either spent or saved. Why is it then that the value of the multiplier is 1/1-MPC or 1/MPW, which suggests that the MPC and the MPW equal one. This makes more sense, but why was I taught it in terms of the MPS and MPC equalling 1 beforehand?

Thanks in advance for any help. I understand the concept in general but just a few details don't seem to make sense.
The circular flow of income model is very basic, and can be used to demonstrate the multiplier effect. Firms can save, import and pay taxes, but the multiplier effect doesn't take those into account. It is more like a theoretical effect in the sense that saying we don;'actually know the actual effect of the spending by government, because of a variety of things, including the 3 things you mentioned.

MPW = Marginal propensity to save, be taxed and import
0
quote
reply
X

Reply to thread

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of Lincoln
    Brayford Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 12 Dec '18
  • Bournemouth University
    Midwifery Open Day at Portsmouth Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 12 Dec '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All undergraduate Undergraduate
    Wed, 12 Dec '18

Do you like exams?

Yes (132)
18.38%
No (436)
60.72%
Not really bothered about them (150)
20.89%

Watched Threads

View All