Topic: Can microeconomics help macroeconomics after the pandemic (Read 290 times)

I don’t think microeconomics can help us from a plague Epidemics usually damage the country's economy and don't have anything to try to to with microeconomics. It causes a spread of problems and increases the speed of recession within the country's economy during which nobody pays much attention thereto most are trying to recover the economy. Microeconomics hurts the economy.

SMEs are vital to the growth of a country's economy, and it is particularly important in reducing the unemployment rate for which would have otherwise put a strain on already saturated macro businesses.
Keeping such micro businesses running will create lots of opportunities and encourage innovation which with the right support could create a large organization.

Small business is the backbone of the economy. Many countries do not take full advantage of this, resulting in huge problems. Especially, this now applies to countries that received a lot of money due to the export of hydrocarbons, which fell very much in price.

I say yes to more entrepreneurs. As we are going to face a new normal after this pandemic we will be seeing a different kind of approach when dealing with others, individual/business, thus this will create more 3rd party services. Just for example the food/shop deliveries, I think many of us will still be scared even the world announces that there are no virus left, most of people will just order online or get through food delivery, this will boost the number of jobs including crews and driver. I started seeing small business opening now, which might give a good shot in post pandemic.

Microeconomics is actually the life blood upon which many countries survive at the moment. All the countries have to look towards creating more entrepreneurs and thereby create more jobs. This will create base upon which economy will be driven as we see many big firms laying off their staffs. Creation of more entrepreneurs who goes into small and medium scale businesses will help the economies post pandemic.

Don't think this will only affect developing countries as the pandemic isn't subjected just to them. The developed country irrespective of their support for small scale businesses will still be affected in one way or the other. The fact is most countries neglect this sector of the economy and focus more on the big exports. Using Africa as a case study I think this pandemic was the perfect experience they needed to understand the importance of supporting home grown business as oil which was one of their major export has fallen in price which is also affecting other sectors of their economy. Country like Nigeria has seen the inflation of their local currency raisen to all time high.

The central banks are just printing more Naira dumping them into the forex market just to stabilize that sector too as it's one of the most affected sector. Guess the lesson that the pandemic is teaching will make the government look into investing in other sectors like the microeconomics that the OP is referencing on.

It's true that sole concentration on macro economics tools like aggregated demand, agg. supply, national productivity, money, etc helps growing economy of the country however, in free economy, growth in national income may not means that per capita income (standard of living) is also improving. Hence, you are right in saying that government should plan strategy from the minimum of minimum level to ensure prosperity of every individual. In India, government has decided to provide boost in the economy by providing guarantee-free easy loans to Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. This is good step in my opinion because when such small units of production prosper, there is multi-dimensional benefits like such units provide jobs to large number of workers and employees hence reducing unemployment, such units provide cheaper goods as compared to foreign goods, natural resources can be used in local production hence reducing imports. On whole, boost to local business is only way to revive economy especially in developing countries because giving freebies to general public won't last long.

Small businesses help the people not to be unemployed and to take off their mind from white collar jobs from government. Businesses start small before they grow into conglomerate. My suggestion is for government to make loans available for the medium kind of businesses that want to increase. They can submit proposal to government to look into for approval based on what purpose they will achieve. We can not play away with the benefit of small businesses however because they provide smaller services and need and can also support government bake. Even a barber shop can contribute to government in form of income tax.

Ofcourse, government support of small scale business is important but it shouldn't be done by government alone.
There are couple ways to start a small business without relying on loans/support from government... People could get goods in wholesale or from manufacturers "for free" to sell and return the cost price with some profits to the manufacturers or wholesale owners... and remaining gains become their profits.
 You could try apprenticeship. Where I live people who serve as apprentice are usually settled (with their own business or money or both) after few years or so of serving medium/big business owners. It's a cultural thing and still very successful and practiced in this modern time. Lots of people basically avoid government loans and things like that to avoid problems.     Family/relations/friends can help you with money by lending, donation,  partnership etc
There are lots of other ways to start small scale business without relying on governments

This is the time that the government is supposed to look into small businesses and support them. Especially in developing countries many of them are being neglected by the government. There are countries where the government prefers to import things that are already in the country instead of supporting those businesses that are into production of those stuffs, that way they will be able to reduce their expenses that they are making.

I believe that this current situation of Coronavirus must have taught a lot of them to stop relying on imported goods, and learn to make use of their locally made goods. The case might be different in developing countries, because their government are just some dumb fools and won't care about that as long as they are okay with the money they are stealing from citizens.

The main points analyzed in microeconomics are how to use the available production factors efficiently so that the prosperity of the community can be maximized? When human needs and desires are unlimited, while the ability of the factors of production to produce goods and services to meet the needs and desires of society is limited.

In order for the purpose of prospering the community, it is not only the strategy or economics that must be put forward, but the philosophy and normative elements of microeconomics must be the focus in developing a post-corona pandemic economy. Without norms, microeconomics will have difficulty achieving its goals. Each individual must work hand in hand to support the economic norms, namely the sense of humanity must be prioritized not the maximum profit-seeking factor. By prioritizing this value, slowly but surely the micro-economy will move and the economic foundation will be strong.

Post corona synergy between the government and the people is needed. The main task of the government is to realize and guarantee the welfare of its people the importance of meeting and prioritizing the people's needs and general welfare. Post-corona the government must be able to create labor-intensive projects so that people's needs for jobs are met and also the wheels of the economy begin to spin. The government must also ensure that it can rid the market of hoarding, monopoly, and other corrupt practices and then leave pricing to the forces of demand and supply. Hoarding is prohibited because the bias results in scarcity of goods and raising prices if the hoarding is done it will harm many people.

While as individuals we are responsible for the individuals around us. We have a factor of production and our neighbors can produce but if each individual aims to make the most profit then the goods produced cannot be absorbed by the surrounding individuals which ultimately causes the microeconomics not to rotate quickly which ultimately affects the macroeconomy.

In economics, everything is related, from the household to the government, and it's not detached. However, to make the study more manageable, it has to be divided into micro and macro, but that's just to easier the burden of students.

If the government want to reboot the economy, they always start with the businesses, both big and small, why? Because if the business recover, households can earn money (via employment) and spend it to move the economy further. It has nothing to do with the micro and macro branches.

However, to recover (or to operate in the optimum condition), businesses need a stable monetary policy. If the government made a mistake just like the great depression, businesses will get hit, and the household will follow.

Microeconomics and macroeconomics have a very broad definition, I agree that they can't be separated, microeconomocs focuses more on indivivdual and small firms or businesses while macroeconomics is the summation of all the microeconomics there is in a country, in my opinion, this pandemic plays a big factor on whether they will affect one another. For me, microeconomics will surely help macroeconomics because they help in the process of distribution of supply in a certain market, it may sound crazy but the pandemic helped microeconomy to be recognized in the global market.

Developing countries go for exports because they can't manage or handle the resources that they naturally gather. Most of the time, natural resources are mostly used not by developing countries but rather by developed countries, and what the developing country needs is the results of the products made by developed countries. Yes, I know it's kinda stupid but really, most of the time it works like that and that's why developing countries are still developing and developed ones just keep being developed more.

Anyway, Microeconomics have their own job and Macroeconomics also have their own job. Sadly, small business owners don't have enough economic effect to actually be taken notice of to the Macroeconomics department. It's like they concentrate on the big things since they are trying to concentrate on the economy of the entire country.

There's no divide between microeconomics and macroeconomics.They are one thing and separating them is just wrong.In my country,small and micro-businesses with less than 10 employees are 90% of the entire economy.Foreign trade IS NOT macroeconomics itself,it's a part of macroeconomics.
The export of most countries will be hit during the corona recession,but this will be temporary.The underdeveloped countries in Africa,Asia and Latin America can't compensate the decrease of export with increasing their domestic consumption.Those countries have huge foreign debt as well.

Yes!
Think logically, if people suddenly wake up and start to create something themselves, provide food for themselves and people around (for example, grow vegetables), then these people will be provided. And it will affect everyone else too. But this will only begin when each of us realizes our importance in participating.

Let's not prefer one over the other. We don't have to. Both microeconomics and macroeconomics are very important to any country's economic well-being. Disregard the other and the entire economic condition will somehow be crippled. In a way, microeconomics and macroeconomics define each other to a certain extent.

What the OP probably focuses on is the significance of small businesses in times of crisis, this current pandemic to be exact. And I somehow agree that small businesses on the ground are kind of forgotten in the government's efforts to salvage the entire economy, if not totally forgotten then least prioritized. This is a case-by-case basis, of course, depending on a particular country. However, it is true that multi-billion bailouts are released for rich companies. This is probably logical as certain companies have very vital roles to play in the overall national economy and that they cannot just be allowed to die.

However, small stores and shops, small farms, small-scale fishing operations, individual transportation businesses, and so on and so forth are left to fend for themselves. Many of which often end up losing and eventually dead.

Microeconomics is a field of economics that studies how individuals behave on a market. What you are referring to in your post is small business owners. How much do small owners affect the economy varies from country to country - in some countries the share of small business is 50% or even higher, in others it can be even lower than 20%. Also, it's not true that governments ignored small business during this epidemic, there was a lot of relief measures like tax relief, cheap loans, debt relief and so on. Again, this varies from country to country, so it's impossible to talk about it on a global scale.

Any country that neglect the micro businesses have missed the real sector of the economy. It is the micro businesses that even food the country from agriculture, down to providing raw materials that are turned into finished goods by the bigger factories or specialized factories. The micro is the engine room for the survival of the economy and a government that knkws what they are doing have them included in the yearly budget and therefore provide means of loan for small scale businesses.

There is a truth in there about how microeconomics "could" help macroeconomics during this period but there has been too much investment to macro hence I doubt that it would be inevitable by the banks and so forth. Normally when a country is a "developing" country level, as in they are not USA or China or any other major nation, but they are not Venezuela or Zimbabwe neither, they are in the middle somewhere.

The smartest decision has always been putting money into agriculture and resources they could produce and using that money they make from it to produce something or manufacture it and sell outside and make money.

Look at Germany for example, they became very big very quickly, why? Because they were able to sell stuff to other nations. If microeconomics could get the investment they need, they could become a sort of income that would allow you to have a base where you won't be poor, and you can invest rest towards macroeconomics. When nations focus only on macro and never focus on micro, they dig themselves in big debt.