注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

TheMoneyIllusion货币幻觉

美国本特利大学经济学教授斯科特·萨姆纳(Scott Sumner)

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我
Sumner  

美国本特利大学经济学教授

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

That’s “former central bankers”  

2009-05-20 09:14:39|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

A few days ago I posted a discussion of the apparent conflict between a well-publicized Fed study of the Taylor Rule’s policy implications, and the traditional Keynesian view of the SRAS.  The study claimed that we needed Fed policy to be expansionary enough to reduce interest rates by 5%.  The clear implication (since nominal rates are near zero) was that we needed at least 5% inflation expectations.  I claimed this made no sense, as the SRAS is generally assumed to be fairly flat in a deep recession, and that with very high unemployment, NGDP increases in the 5-8% range would almost certainly be expected to consist mostly of real output gains, with only mild inflation. 

I also noted that Krugman and Mankiw linked to the Fed study, but I clearly indicated that there was no sign they endorsed the findings.  Since then, a commenter named Charlie has sent me a Krugman post that seems (to me at least) to clearly suggest that he does endorse the implicit message in the Fed study, which is that in the current environment monetary policy could only work by creating high inflation expectations.  See what you think:

Greg Mankiw says yes. Since that was the answer I arrived at for Japan more than a decade ago, I have to say that it makes sense in principle.

But here’s why it won’t work now, at least not yet: we’re talking about making a credible commitment to fairly high inflation over the medium term, yet you still have distinguished central bankers appalled at the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target.

I simply cannot see any way of interpreting the second paragraph other than that by “fairly high inflation” Krugman means at least 5% or more.  You are free to disagree, but if Krugman meant simply 2-3% inflation it would be a very odd way of making his point.  First, because that sort of inflation is normal for the US, and second, because the term “yet” suggests that a 2% target would fall far short of what is needed.

So let me repeat my assertion.  I think this represents a fundamental error.  The 5% number only makes sense in a backward-looking Taylor rule model.  But what if the Fed is targeting the forecast?  What if the Fed policy is expansionary enough to produce 5-8% NGDP growth?  You tell me (Keynesian readers)—what sort of expected inflation would you expect from that sort of nominal GDP growth in a deep recession?  I say that the traditional Keynesian answer is 2-3% inflation at most, and the rest would be RGDP growth.  This is one of the few times when I think the traditional Keynesian answer is exactly right.  [In IS-LM terms I believe this can be explained by the fact that a monetary policy expansionary enough to produce rapid NGDP growth will also shift the IS curve.]

BTW, check out how many “central bankers” in the article that Krugman links to actually support 2% inflation, and how many oppose 2% inflation.  I count two in favor, zero against.  Each day the objections to monetary stimulus grow less and less persuasive.

[P.S.  Why do I keep linking to Krugman?  Because although there are many fine Keynesian bloggers; his grasp of the theoretical issues seems way ahead of almost anyone else (Keynesian or non-Keynesian.)  And he holds the currently fashionable view that monetary policy ran out of ammunition last year.  I seem to recall that in wartime soldiers were told to shoot at the opposing general, in the hope that if he fell off his horse the soldiers would lose hope, and run for the hills.  Old-style Keynesians are constantly bombarded with criticism from "fresh water economists" about how their model is hopelessly out of date.  I am sure they take solace from the fact that someone as smart as Krugman defends their views.  If I can undercut Krugman's central argument, then I'm hoping that all the other old-style Keynesians will abandon their blogs and run for the hills.]

http://blogsandwikis.bentley.edu/themoneyillusion/?p=1320

 

  评论这张
 
阅读(669)| 评论(1)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017