Who Is Alan Greenspan?

Alan Greenspan is an American economist who was the chair of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Fed), the United States’ central bank, from 1987 until 2006. In that role, he also served as the chair of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which is the Fed’s principal monetary policymaking committee that makes decisions on interest rates and managing the U.S. money supply.

Greenspan is best known for largely presiding over the Great Moderation, a period of relatively stable inflation and macroeconomic growth, that lasted from the mid-1980s to the financial crisis in 2007.

Early Life and Education

Alan Greenspan was born in New York City on March 6, 1926. He received his bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees in economics, all from New York University, as well as studying economics at Columbia University in the early 1950s under Arthur Burns, who would later serve two consecutive terms as chair of the Board of Governors of the Fed.

Greenspan’s first job, in 1948, was not in government but for a non-profit analyzing demand for steel, aluminum, and copper. After this, Greenspan ran an economic consulting firm in New York City, Townsend-Greenspan & Co., Inc., from 1954 to 1974 and 1977 to 1987. Greenspan began his career in the public sector in 1974 when he served as chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) under President Gerald Ford.

In 1987, Greenspan became the 13th chair of the Fed, replacing Paul Volcker. President Ronald Reagan was the first to appoint Greenspan to the office, but three other presidents, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, named him to four additional terms. His tenure as chair lasted for more than 18 years before he retired in 2006 to be replaced by Ben Bernanke. After leaving, he published his memoir, The Age of Turbulence, and began his own Washington DC-based consulting firm, Greenspan Associates LLC. 

Alan Greenspan was known as being adept at gaining consensus among Fed board members on policy issues and for serving during one of the most severe economic crises of the late 20th century, the aftermath of the stock market crash of 1987. After that crash, he advocated for sharply slashing interest rates to prevent the economy from sinking into a deep depression.

Alan Greenspan’s Policies and Actions

Greenspan presided over one of the most prosperous periods in American history—thanks in no small part, supporters feel, to his helming of the Fed. Still, some of his policies and actions were controversial, either at the time or in retrospect.

Views on Inflation

Early in his career, Greenspan developed a reputation for being hawkish on inflation, in part due to his advocacy for a return to the gold standard in monetary policy in the 1967 essay “Gold and Economic Freedom.” 

His allegedly “hawkish” stance was portrayed by early critics as a preference for sacrificing economic growth in exchange for preventing inflation. Greenspan eventually reversed those views as Fed chief; in a 1998 speech, he conceded that the new economy might not be as susceptible to inflation as he had first thought.

In practice, Greenspan’s supposedly hawkish approach was flexible, to say the least. He was clearly willing to risk inflation under conditions that could create a severe depression and certainly pursued a generally easy money policy relative to his predecessor, Paul Volcker. In particular, in the early 2000s, Greenspan presided over cutting interest rates to levels not seen in many decades.

Flip-Flop on Interest Rates

In 2000, Greenspan advocated reducing interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst. He did so again in 2001 after 9-11, the World Trade Center attack. Following 9-11, Greenspan led the FOMC to immediately reduce the Fed funds rate from 3.5% to 3%, and, in the following months, he worked toward lowering that rate to a record (at the time) low of 1.13% and holding it there for a full year.

Some criticized those rate cuts as having the potential to inflate asset price bubbles in the U.S. Greenspan’s pro-inflationary policies, particularly during this period, are today generally understood to have contributed to the U.S. housing bubble, subsequent subprime mortgage financial crisis, and the Great Recession, though this is of course disputed by Greenspan and his allies.

Encouraging Adjustable-Rate Mortgages

In a 2004 speech, Greenspan suggested more homeowners should consider taking out adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) where the interest rate adjusts itself to prevailing market interest rates. Under Greenspan’s tenure, interest rates subsequently rose as inflation accelerated. This increase reset many of those mortgages to much higher payments, creating even more distress for many homeowners and exacerbating the impact of that crisis.

The “Greenspan Put”

The “Greenspan put” was a monetary policy strategy popular during the 1990s and 2000s under Greenspan. Throughout his reign, he attempted to help support the U.S. economy by actively using the federal funds rate to aggressively lower interest rates to fight the deflation of asset price bubbles.

The Greenspan put created a substantial moral hazard in financial markets. Informed investors could expect the Fed to take predictable actions that would bailout investor’s losses, which distort the incentives of market participants. This created an environment where investors were encouraged to take excessive risk because Fed monetary policy tended to inherently limit their potential losses in the event of a market downturn in an analogous way to buying put options on the open market.

The Bottom Line

Like many other government officials, the success of Alan Greenspan’s five terms as Chair of the Fed will depend on who you ask. However, it is certainly true that Greenspan faced some massive challenges during his tenure, such as the 1987 stock market crash and the attacks on the World Trade Center.

Overall, Greenspan helped usher in a strong U.S. economy in the 1990s. Opinion on how much his actions caused the economic recession that began shortly after his term ended varies.

What Is Absolute Advantage?

Absolute advantage is the ability of an individual, company, region, or country to produce a greater quantity of a good or service with the same quantity of inputs per unit of time, or to produce the same quantity of a good or service per unit of time using a lesser quantity of inputs, than its competitors.

Absolute advantage can be accomplished by creating the good or service at a lower absolute cost per unit using a smaller number of inputs, or by a more efficient process.

Understanding Absolute Advantage

The concept of absolute advantage was developed by 18th-century economist Adam Smith in his book The Wealth of Nations to show how countries can gain from trade by specializing in producing and exporting the goods that they can produce more efficiently than other countries. Countries with an absolute advantage can decide to specialize in producing and selling a specific good or service and use the generated funds to purchase goods and services from other countries.

Smith argued that specializing in the products that they each have an absolute advantage in and then trading the products can make all countries better off, as long as they each have at least one product for which they hold an absolute advantage over other nations.

Absolute advantage explains why it makes sense for individuals, businesses, and countries to trade with each other. Since each has advantages in producing certain goods and services, both entities can benefit from the exchange.

This mutual gain from trade forms the basis of Smith’s argument that specialization, the division of labor, and subsequent trade lead to an overall increase in prosperity from which all can benefit. This, Smith believed, was the root source of the eponymous “Wealth of Nations.”

Absolute Advantage vs. Comparative Advantage

Absolute advantage can be contrasted with comparative advantage, which is when a producer has a lower opportunity cost to produce a good or service than another producer. An opportunity cost is the potential benefits an individual, investor, or business misses out on when choosing one alternative over another.

Absolute advantage leads to unambiguous gains from specialization and trade only in cases where each producer has an absolute advantage in producing some good. If a producer lacks any absolute advantage, then Adam Smith’s argument would not necessarily apply.

However, the producer and its trading partners might still be able to realize gains from trade if they can specialize based on their respective comparative advantages instead. In his book On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, David Ricardo argued that even if a country has an absolute advantage over trading many kinds of goods, it can still benefit by trading with other countries if that have different comparative advantages.

Assumptions of the Theory of Absolute Advantage

Both Smith’s theory of absolute advantage, and Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, rely on certain assumptions and simplifications in order to explain the benefits of trade.

Barriers to Trade

Both theories assume that there are no barriers to trade. They do not account for any costs of shipping or additional tariffs that a country might raise on another’s imported goods. In the real world, though, shipping costs impact how likely both the importer and exporter are to engage in trade. Countries can also leverage tariffs to create advantages for themselves or disadvantages for competitors.

Factors of Production

Both theories also assume that the factors of production are immobile. In these models, workers and businesses do not relocate in search of better opportunities. This assumption was realistic in the 1700s.

In modern trade, however, globalization has now made it easy for companies to move their factories abroad. It has also increased the rate of immigration, which impacts a country’s available workforce. In some industries, businesses will work with governments to create immigration opportunities for workers that are essential to their business operations.

Consistency and Scale

More crucially, these theories both assume that a country’s absolute advantage is constant and scales equally. In other words, it assumes that producing a small number of goods has the same per-unit cost as a larger number and that countries are unable to change their absolute advantages.

In reality, countries often make strategic investments to create greater advantages in certain industries. Absolute advantage can also change for reasons other than investment. Natural disasters, for example, can destroy farmland, factories, and other factors of production.

Pros and Cons of Absolute Advantage

One advantage of the theory of absolute advantage is its simplicity: The theory provides an elegant explanation of the benefits of trade, showing how countries can benefit by focusing on their absolute advantages.

However, the theory of comparative advantage does not fully explain why nations benefit from trade. This explanation would later fall to Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage: Even if one country has an absolute advantage in both types of goods, it will still be better off through trade. In other words, if one country can produce all goods more cheaply than its trading partners, it will still benefit by trading with other countries.

Also, as explained earlier, the theory also assumes that absolute advantages are static—a country cannot change its absolute advantages, and they do not become more efficient with scale. Actual experience has shown this to be untrue: Many countries have successfully created an absolute advantage by investing in strategic industries.

In fact, the theory has been used to justify exploitative economic policies in the postcolonial era. Reasoning that all countries should focus on their advantages, major bodies like the World Bank and IMF have often pressured developing countries to focus on agricultural exports, rather than industrialization. As a result, many of these countries remain at a low level of economic development.

Example of Absolute Advantage

Consider two hypothetical countries, Atlantica and Pacifica, with equivalent populations and resource endowments, with each producing two products: guns and bacon. Each year, Atlantica can produce either 12 tubs of butter or six slabs of bacon, while Pacifica can produce either six tubs of butter or 12 slabs of bacon.

Each country needs a minimum of four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon to survive. In a state of autarky, producing solely on their own for their own needs, Atlantica can spend one-third of the year making butter and two-thirds of the year making bacon, for a total of four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon.

Pacifica can spend one-third of the year making bacon and two-thirds making butter to produce the same: four tubs of butter and four slabs of bacon. This leaves each country at the brink of survival, with barely enough butter and bacon to go around. However, note that Atlantica has an absolute advantage in producing butter and Pacifica has an absolute advantage in producing bacon.

If each country were to specialize in their absolute advantage, Atlantica could make 12 tubs of butter and no bacon in a year, while Pacifica makes no butter and 12 slabs of bacon. By specializing, the two countries divide the tasks of their labor between them.

If they then trade six tubs of butter for six slabs of bacon, each country would then have six of each. Both countries would now be better off than before, because each would have six tubs of butter and six slabs of bacon, as opposed to four of each good which they could produce on their own.

The Bottom Line

The theory of absolute advantage represents Adam Smith’s explanation of why countries benefit from trade, by exporting goods where they have an absolute advantage and importing other goods. While the theory is an elegant and simple illustration of the benefits of trade, it did not fully explain the benefits of international trade. That would later fall to David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantages.

What Are Accounts Payable (AP)?

Accounts payable (AP), or “payables,” refer to a company’s short-term obligations owed to its creditors or suppliers, which have not yet been paid. Payables appear on a company’s balance sheet as a current liability.

Another, less common usage of “AP,” refers to the business department or division that is responsible for making payments owed by the company to suppliers and other creditors.

Accounts payable can be compared with accounts receivable.

Understanding Accounts Payable (AP)

A company’s total accounts payable balance at a specific point in time will appear on its balance sheet under the current liabilities section. Accounts payable are obligations that must be paid off within a given period to avoid default. At the corporate level, AP refers to short-term payments due to suppliers. The payable is essentially a short-term IOU from one business to another business or entity. The other party would record the transaction as an increase to its accounts receivable in the same amount.

AP is an important figure in a company’s balance sheet. If AP increases over a prior period, that means the company is buying more goods or services on credit, rather than paying cash. If a company’s AP decreases, it means the company is paying on its prior period obligations at a faster rate than it is purchasing new items on credit. Accounts payable management is critical in managing a business’s cash flow.

When using the indirect method to prepare the cash flow statement, the net increase or decrease in AP from the prior period appears in the top section, the cash flow from operating activities. Management can use AP to manipulate the company’s cash flow to a certain extent. For example, if management wants to increase cash reserves for a certain period, they can extend the time the business takes to pay all outstanding accounts in AP.

However, this flexibility to pay later must be weighed against the ongoing relationships the company has with its vendors. It’s always good business practice to pay bills by their due dates.

Recording Accounts Payable

Proper double-entry bookkeeping requires that there must always be an offsetting debit and credit for all entries made into the general ledger. To record accounts payable, the accountant credits accounts payable when the bill or invoice is received. The debit offset for this entry generally goes to an expense account for the good or service that was purchased on credit. The debit could also be to an asset account if the item purchased was a capitalizable asset. When the bill is paid, the accountant debits accounts payable to decrease the liability balance. The offsetting credit is made to the cash account, which also decreases the cash balance.

For example, imagine a business gets a $500 invoice for office supplies. When the AP department receives the invoice, it records a $500 credit in accounts payable and a $500 debit to office supply expense. The $500 debit to office supply expense flows through to the income statement at this point, so the company has recorded the purchase transaction even though cash has not been paid out. This is in line with accrual accounting, where expenses are recognized when incurred rather than when cash changes hands. The company then pays the bill, and the accountant enters a $500 credit to the cash account and a debit for $500 to accounts payable.

A company may have many open payments due to vendors at any one time. All outstanding payments due to vendors are recorded in accounts payable. As a result, if anyone looks at the balance in accounts payable, they will see the total amount the business owes all of its vendors and short-term lenders. This total amount appears on the balance sheet. For example, if the business above also received an invoice for lawn care services in the amount of $50, the total of both entries in accounts payable would equal $550 prior to the company paying off those obligations.

Accounts Payable vs. Trade Payables

Although some people use the phrases “accounts payable” and “trade payables” interchangeably, the phrases refer to similar but slightly different situations. Trade payables constitute the money a company owes its vendors for inventory-related goods, such as business supplies or materials that are part of the inventory. Accounts payable include all of the company’s short-term obligations.

For example, if a restaurant owes money to a food or beverage company, those items are part of the inventory, and thus part of its trade payables. Meanwhile, obligations to other companies, such as the company that cleans the restaurant’s staff uniforms, fall into the accounts payable category. Both of these categories fall under the broader accounts payable category, and many companies combine both under the term accounts payable.

Accounts Payable vs. Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable are essentially opposites. Accounts payable is the money a company owes its vendors, while accounts receivable is the money that is owed to the company, typically by customers. When one company transacts with another on credit, one will record an entry to accounts payable on their books while the other records an entry to accounts receivable.

The Bottom Line

Accounts payable (AP) refer to the obligations incurred by a company during its operations that remain due and must be paid in the short term. As such, AP is listed on the balance sheet as a current liability. Typical payables items include supplier invoices, legal fees, contractor payments, and so on.