The report highlights the Australia microeconomics indicators that are being affected due to the outbreak of coronavirus pandemic. It states about the various government policies to stabilize its economic development. Furthermore, the report also states about the United States of America economic policies to deal with the pandemic. It further compare and contrast the policies used in both the countries in terms of which is more effective to curb the economic crisis. At last, certain recommendations are given which government should focus to implement to curb the economic crisis of the nation in the pandemic circumstances.
The Australian economy has experienced 26 years of continuous financial development, and it was the largest OECD nation that did not go down during the financial crisis, holding one of the highest development destinations in the world. In 2019, GDP growth in Australia increased by 1.8 per cent, almost one per cent compared to the first year (Aggarwal & Saqib, 2017). The economy continues to be driven by business and government spending, while family units and a consumer war between low-wage developments. The nation likewise benefits from paying a large amount of agricultural inputs and a large portion of its associated revenue. As shown by the refreshing IMF estimate from 14 April 2020, due to the COVID-19 episode, GDP growth is expected to decline to 6.7 percent by 2020 and to 6.1 percent by 2021, according to the post-epidemic for global financial reform (Bruch & White, 2018).
The Coronavirus has introduced a quick developing and critical test to worldwide wellbeing frameworks and economies. The Government has acted conclusively in the national enthusiasm to help families and organizations and address the noteworthy financial results of the Coronavirus. The Government's monetary help bundle has offered convenient help to influenced laborers, organizations and the more extensive network, and has kept Australians in work, and organizations in business. On 21 July the Government declared it is expanding the JobKeeper Payment for a further a half year until 28 March 2021 and is focusing on help to those organizations and not-for-benefits who keep on being fundamentally affected by the Coronavirus. Supporting people and family unit (Bystrov, Yusim & Curtis, 2017).
The brief help measures include:
The Government's JobKeeper Payment will assist organizations with keeping more Australians in employments and bolster organizations influenced by the huge monetary effect of the coronavirus. Under the JobKeeper wage sponsorship plan, organizations and not-for-benefits will be paid a fortnightly installment for part or the entirety of their compensation or wages for qualified workers.
To pad the monetary effect of the Coronavirus and help construct an extension to recuperation the Government has infused a sum of $259 billion into the Australian economy (Correia et al. 2017).
Under the Coronavirus SME Guarantee Scheme, the Government is giving an assurance of 50 percent to SME banks to help new transient unstable advances to SMEs. The Scheme will ensure up to $40 billion of new loaning. This will furnish organizations with financing to meet income needs, by further upgrading loan specialists' readiness and capacity to give credit (Cross & Poon, 2016). This will help in any case practical organizations over the economy who are confronting noteworthy difficulties because of disturbed income to meet existing obligations. The introductory period of the Scheme stays accessible for new credits made by taking an interest banks until 30 September 2020. The second period of the Scheme will begin the 1 October 2020 and be accessible for credits made until 30 June 2021 (Geng et al. 2017).
The Government is cutting formality by giving an impermanent exclusion from dependable loaning commitments for moneylenders giving credit to existing private company clients. This change will enable independent ventures to gain admittance to credit rapidly and productively (Jiang et al. 2017).
The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) declared a bundle on 19 March 2020 that will squeeze obtaining costs for families and organizations. This will help moderate the unfriendly results of the Coronavirus on organizations and bolster their everyday exchanging tasks. The RBA is supporting private ventures as a specific need. The RBA reported a term subsidizing office for the financial framework. Banks will approach in any event $90 billion in subsidizing at a fixed financing cost of 0.25 percent (Melnyk et al. 2018). This will strengthen the advantages of a low money rate by diminishing financing costs for banks, which thusly will help lessen loan fees for borrowers. To urge loaning to organizations, the office offers extra minimal effort financing to banks on the off chance that they grow their business loaning, with specific motivators applying to new advances to SMEs (Panagiotelis et al. 2019). In accumulation, the RBA declared a further facilitating in fiscal strategy by diminishing the money rate to 0.25 percent. It is likewise broadening and supplementing the financing cost slice by finding a way to focus on a 0.25 percent yield on 3-year Australian Government Securities.
The Government is giving the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM) with $15 billion to put resources into organized fund markets utilized by littler moneylenders, including non-Authorized Deposit-Taking Institutions (non-ADIs) and littler Authorized Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADIs). This help will be given by making direct interests in term and distribution center securitisations utilized by these loan specialists (Rosewall & Shoory, 2017).
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) has reported brief changes to its assumptions about bank capital proportions. The progressions will bolster banks' loaning to clients, especially in the event that they wish to exploit the new office being offered by the RBA (Sagaert et al. 2018).
Joblessness protection claims announced for the week finishing March fourteenth indicated a sizable spike, however the genuine compression likely began the next week. Apparently a huge number of Americans have just lost their positions, likely at a pace that surpasses work misfortunes in the most exceedingly terrible long stretches of the Great Recession. Regardless of whether financial action in the United States were not being closed down on the side of social separating, the current global spread of the COVID-19 epidemic is reducing the demand on the planet's economy and being easily diverted by chains, and falling inflation is bringing family wealth to a level that could have had a major impact on the U.S. economy. (Shi et al. 2016).
In numerous financial log jams, the Federal Reserve is the cutting edge of guard. For this situation, it has just brought loan costs down to zero and started sizable acquisition of benefits alongside infusions of liquidity into budgetary markets. The Federal Reserve regularly animates the economy by making it simpler and more affordable to obtain, urging firms and customers to quicken speculation and buying choices. For this situation, the vulnerability about the inevitable results of the COVID-19 pandemic and the financial aftermath may make it hard for firms to get paying little heed to rates (the credit risk may shield banks from loaning), and all the more significantly, the alternative benefit of holding on to see the goal of the pandemic will probably slow any venture or significant buy choices (Strohsal, Proaño & Wolters, 2019).
The government's spending plan can strengthen ongoing funding to ensure that anyone who has lost a job or has limited resources can go through a difficult time in the coming months. The development of the benefits of paid leave being highly prepared (yet limited) for many people can be an important financial means to reduce the spread of infection. Also, the legislature can pass legal appointments to family units to ensure that families have a financial party and that there is enough purchasing power in the economy as families remove social status and remove restrictions. Financial planning can be used to verify credit or it may provide direct assistance to firms that are in a difficult situation to incorporate basic issues to continue paying. (Ülke, Sahin & Subasi, 2018).
Thus in the wake of looking at macroeconomic pointers of both the nations it very well may be presumed that Australia has the vastly improved arrangements to manage this pandemic emergency according to the monetary condition. A few suggestions are:
Aggarwal, P., & Saqib, N. (2017). Impact of macro-economic variables of India and USA on Indian stock market. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 7(4), 10-14.
Bruch, S. K., & White, K. K. (2018). Politics, State discretion and retrenchment in safety net provision: evidence from the USA in the post-Welfare Reform era. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(3), 459-483.
Bystrov, A. V., Yusim, V. N., & Curtis, T. (2017). 'Macroconstants of development': a new benchmark for the strategic development of advanced countries and firms. International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 18(2), 167-181.
Chow, Y. P., Muhammad, J., Noordin, B. A. A., & Cheng, F. F. (2018). Macroeconomic dataset for generating macroeconomic volatility among selected countries in the Asia Pacific region. Data in Brief, 16, 23-28.
Correia, R. A., Jepson, P., Malhado, A. C., & Ladle, R. J. (2017). Internet scientific name frequency as an indicator of cultural salience of biodiversity. Ecological indicators, 78, 549-555.
Cross, J., & Poon, A. (2016). Forecasting structural change and fat-tailed events in Australian macroeconomic variables. Economic Modelling, 58, 34-51.
Geng, Y., Tian, X., Sarkis, J., & Ulgiati, S. (2017). China-USA trade: indicators for equitable and environmentally balanced resource exchange. Ecological Economics, 132, 245-254.
Jiang, B., Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R. J., Panagiotelis, A., & Vahid, F. (2017). Macroeconomic forecasting for Australia using a large number of predictors. Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers, 2, 17.
Melnyk, L., Sineviciene, L., Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., & Dehtyarova, I. (2018). Fiscal decentralization and macroeconomic stability: the experience of Ukraine’s economy. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16(1), 105-114.
Panagiotelis, A., Athanasopoulos, G., Hyndman, R. J., Jiang, B., & Vahid, F. (2019). Macroeconomic forecasting for Australia using a large number of predictors. International Journal of Forecasting, 35(2), 616-633.
Rosewall, T., & Shoory, M. (2017). Houses and apartments in Australia. RBA Bulletin, June, 1-11.
Sagaert, Y. R., Aghezzaf, E. H., Kourentzes, N., & Desmet, B. (2018). Tactical sales forecasting using a very large set of macroeconomic indicators. European Journal of Operational Research, 264(2), 558-569.
Shi, S., Valadkhani, A., Smyth, R., & Vahid, F. (2016). Dating the timeline of house price bubbles in Australian capital cities. Economic Record, 92(299), 590-605.
Strohsal, T., Proaño, C. R., & Wolters, J. (2019). Assessing the cross-country interaction of financial cycles: evidence from a multivariate spectral analysis of the USA and the UK. Empirical Economics, 57(2), 385-398.
Ülke, V., Sahin, A., & Subasi, A. (2018). A comparison of time series and machine learning models for inflation forecasting: empirical evidence from the USA. Neural Computing and Applications, 30(5), 1519-1527.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Economics Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....