Keynesian Aggregate Expenditure Model

[@rishikajain4154]

its been 10 years now and its still helpful

[@andreasmikkelsen6240]

great video ! Best explanation I could find. Watching it twice helps too.

[@KylePurpura]

Glad you found it helpful, Andreas.

[@ravenwilson7979]

Thank you! I've watched like 4 videos and this one actually helped me.

[@HTladyinthemist]

Wow, it helps me adjust my understanding even more clearly. Thank you so much!!

[@jonathanwayne6063]

i dont mean to be offtopic but does any of you know a way to log back into an Instagram account?? I stupidly forgot my account password. I love any assistance you can give me

[@zaidalvaro9474]

@Jonathan Wayne instablaster :)

[@jonathanwayne6063]

@Zaid Alvaro Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out atm. Seems to take a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

[@jonathanwayne6063]

@Zaid Alvaro it did the trick and I finally got access to my account again. I'm so happy:D Thank you so much, you saved my account!

[@zaidalvaro9474]

@Jonathan Wayne no problem :)

[@katt7dee]

THANKS ! This will help me with my midterm tomorrow !

[@fluffybunnymuffinYAY]

AWESOME VIDEO! BEST EXPLANATION EVER!!!

[@YourMissAnonymous]

Thank God! I've got an AP exam tomorrow, and I totally forgot all of this.

[@firuzamirzomustakimova7862]

Thank you very much for your video. How can I found other videos (with MPC, MPS and etc.)

[@MisaMisuMajide]

Thank you so much! My prof is honestly freakin insane and doesn't make sense at all.

[@edwinfrancisco8116]

literally same

[@jiahaoma7779]

Thank you so much! Great video. Cleared my doubts!

[@kingshannaz1]

hi you know when u describe that 0 B is disequilibrium, ive also heard that it is reffered to as dis saving as that also correct

[@britneymedica2668]

Best explanation thank you

[@benjyaw]

Awesome explanation! Thank you Kyle!

[@barin1999]

Would you happen to know how to find the levels of equilibrium in the gdp.

[@rsadsultanov3071]

Yes I can

[@ruup14]

Thanks Kyle! Helped a lot

[@Ureallydontknow]

this was posted in 2011 relevant in 2021 skip to 6:30

[@KylePurpura]

Agreed 👍

[@hasan562]

Is that edmund kemper talking

[@Sikessanchez]

Great video!

[@eltito268]

This video helped me heaps! Thanks for the clear explanations =D

[@darkscope2]

THANK YOU!!!!! you saved my ass for tommorows macro test

[@TheThisguy1983]

What I've never understood is why does the Aggregate Expenditure line begin part of the way up the y-axis? Why is it assumed to be at a certain arbitrary point already?

[@leszekkolosinski8188]

It is because y intercept represents autonomous consumption as a formula for AD=C+I. C = A(y intercept) + MPC*Yd(disposable income)

[@tomsaint]

More basically, everyone needs to spend to function to a certain degree. Even those with no income need to spend money and thus the expenditure can't be zero

[@AntWells]

Very Helpful, Nice, thanks for helping me sink it in.

[@_A_343]

Wow. Good video

[@86clarissamichelle]

Great explanation!

[@at7972]

Hi Kyle! Thank you for explaining this really well! so if total planned spending (C+I) in Economia (a closed economy with no government) intersected the 45º line at a national income of $950 billion, but the economy temporarily found itself with national income of $970 billion, my equilibrium is $950 billion and planned aggregate spending is less than actual output? Thanks for your help!

[@KylePurpura]

Hey A T. Thanks for watching! If firms planned on consumption levels at 950 billion, that means they produced for that anticipated level of consumption. So down the road in time, if actual consumption was 970 billion, then that means that real GDP was also 970 billion; 20 billion more than firms had anticipated. In terms of national equilibrium, there would be a temporary DIS-equilibrium as firms examined their warehouses and found their inventories unexpectedly depleted. So how does the economy get back to national equilibrium? The answer is that firms see the unanticipated depletion of their inventories and they take steps to replenish their stocks - hiring more workers and producing more. This action on the part of firms would move the economy back into equilibrium where planned spending and actual spending equaled each other at 970 billion. Make sense?

[@benjaminfong1]

@@KylePurpura Hi Kyle, I saw this reply and had a question. In this scenario, is the AE the 950 and the real GDP the 970? And if so, wouldn't the inventories be in surplus and not deficit, according to the curve and the video?

[@mo17b94]

Great work! Thank you

[@ivanovpi]

great video! Thank you!

[@Jysc332]

thank you =) your video helped me so much

[@nickfisher2224]

Thank you!

[@jackcela9703]

explained it better than Mankiw's textbook 😂

[@EconomicsMultimediaEducation]

Thanks

[@EconomicsMultimediaEducation]

Great lecture.

[@lawstahz]

Ty

[@prayastiwari9852]

Legend

[@Circa1628]

Red font to small and hard to read

[@withoutdoubt03]

I LOVE YOU SO MUCH

[@slyyouth7752]

informational but maybe a little less black and white and monotonous I almost went to sleep

[@KylePurpura]

Haha! Noted, Ashton. Thanks for watching and staying awake 😀

[@eugeniakay]

It was a little slow and without a lot of glitz, however, I really appreciated the slow, methodical, concise, and thorough explanation of this. This video helped me soooo much. I think the plain non-glitzy approach worked for this concept. I even paused to rewind several times. I think there's simply going to be some boring spots in economics and I'm glad I stuck with this video.

[@Jay-y1c]

Now I need more explanation 😅

[@Skateboarding101]

Watch in 1.5x…. You’re welcome

[@jackcela9703]

Dude you're a genius

[@Skateboarding101]

@@jackcela9703 👍👌🔥

[@irmoli]

Off very complex!!!

[@MrTugwit]

The video is nonsense. 1) GDP = C+I+NX+G. GDP +$1 = C+I+NX+G +$1. There is no multiplier. 2) At 3:00 the graph shows C+I+NX+G of spending, producing ZERO income, ZERO GDP. That's nonsense. Say C, I, NX, G each is $1. C+I+NX+G 1+1+1+1 = 4 The graph says 4 = 0. That's absurd.

[@HT-rq5pi]

+MrTugwit C is a function of Y (income / real GDP). When Y=0 you have exogenous expenditure (spending people will do anyway even if they have zero income). GDP refers to goods produced in the current period, you can still consume goods produced earlier. The multiplier shows its effects on the short run equilibrium after you re-arrange the equation and solve for Y (noting that C is dependent on Y), not just by 'adding 1' to both sides.

[@MrTugwit]

+Walter White That's nonsense. When people spend $1, it must instantly produce $1 of income. You can't have this equation [where Yt is total income]: Yt = C + I + NX + G 0 = 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 And there is no multiplier. Here are Keynes' original equations, for his investment multiplier k: 1) ΔY = ΔC + ΔI 1 = 0 + 1 2) ΔY = k x ΔI 0 = k x 0 [Start at delta zero] 0 = 0 [Multiply] 1 = 1 [Add] You must use PEMDAS, and to use PEMDAS, you have to start at delta zero. Keynes used illegal addition before multiplication.

[@HT-rq5pi]

MrTugwit Fair enough I guess.I see what you're saying. Economics is a bullshit subject anyway.

[@MrTugwit]

+Walter White Macroeconomics is very expensive bullshit too. As of today, Keynes' "multiplier" scam has cost the USA $18.6 TRILLION in government debt, that the government spending (fiscal) multiplier was supposed to pay for. And you can see what it has done to Greece, etc.

[@SonyCamry]

shits so confusing