tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post2708488613645700021..comments2023-11-22T00:49:32.887-08:00Comments on Reflections on Monetary Economics: Expectations and the Infinite FutureNick Edmondshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15342983814699700396noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-18646010655085887132015-08-10T21:17:19.781-07:002015-08-10T21:17:19.781-07:00QP=MV is an accounting statement and says absolute...QP=MV is an accounting statement and says absolutely nothing about causality.Nathan Tankushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16298104991209885385noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-43829103233009333322015-08-10T04:39:07.477-07:002015-08-10T04:39:07.477-07:00QP=MV is deeply misunderstood. The causality flow...QP=MV is deeply misunderstood. The causality flows from MV (V being measure of ex-ante money demand). The two residuals are Prices (including wages and asset prices) and Employment (as the supply curve is fixed ex-ante by the available real capital, the only variable businesses' control in determining output is Employment). <br /><br />What this means is that expectations have no bearing on the Future, but rather, are just another dimension describing the present. In other words, price expectations reduce income growth expectations in the current period thus determining the ex-ante desired supply and demand for money. Due to banking and the exogenous nature of the monetary base, there is no requirement that ex-ante desired money supply and demand should equal. Such ex-ante imbalance causes fluctuations in current output and prices as to enforce the ex-post identify QP=MV.H. Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16019756383734059819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-16601866294875916252015-07-28T07:49:44.790-07:002015-07-28T07:49:44.790-07:00I'm not sure if you are challenging what I'...I'm not sure if you are challenging what I'm saying. On the whole, I think are views are aligned.Nick Edmondshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15342983814699700396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-52379722882179296172015-07-25T01:56:13.037-07:002015-07-25T01:56:13.037-07:00"There are other significant ‘anomalies’ that..."There are other significant ‘anomalies’ that have challenged the old as well as the new mainstream approaches. While theories place great store by the role of interest rates as the pivotal variable that has significant causal force, empirically they seem far less powerful in explaining business cycles or developments in the economy than theory would have it. In empirical work, interest rate variables often lack explanatory power, significance or the ‘right’ sign. When a correlation between interest rates and economic growth is found, it is not more likely to be negative than positive. 6 Interest rates have also not been able to explain major asset price movements (on Japanese land prices, see Asako, 1991; on Japanese stock prices, see French and Poterba, 1991; on the US real estate market see Dokko et al., 1990), nor capital flows (Ueda, 1990; Werner, 1994) – phenomena that in theory should be explicable largely through the price of money (interest rates). Furthermore, in terms of timing, interest rates appear as likely to follow economic activity as to lead it." <br /><br />http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/339271/1/Werner_IRFA_QTC_2012.pdf<br />Postkeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11747509012748106827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-24352725910012455722015-07-22T18:45:39.867-07:002015-07-22T18:45:39.867-07:00"Expectations" --> untestable, unscie..."Expectations" --> untestable, unscientific, metaphysics. "Infinite Future" --> never reached. "Monetarism" --> no empirical evidence that the quantity theory of money has any predictive capacity, at best it's only a historical, backwards looking accounting identity. <br /><br />Prove me wrong. Cite me an econometrics study that shows a central bank has influence over an economy. At best, with a mere 60% confidence, monetarism works says this econometrics study: Martin Eichenbaum, Charles Evan, "The Effects of Monetary Policy Shocks: Evidence from the Flow of Funds", Review of Economics and Statistics, February 1996, 78-1, cited in Olivier Blanchard "Macroeconomics", 2nd edition., p. 96, 5-6, 'Does the IS-LM Model Actually Capture What Happens in the Economy?' Shows for data 1960 to 1990, that a 1% increase in Fed funds rate shows over 4-8 quarters a decrease in sales, decrease in output, decrease in employment, increase in unemployment rate up to 6 quarters (then a decrease after 8 to original level). However, the "confidence band” is only 60% probability! (not the usual 95% confidence interval).<br /><br />Again, prove me wrong. I work a lot with lawyers who claim without lawyers society would fall apart, that you need a special class of people skilled in law to argue cases and make society work. I doubt it, but that's their deeply held belief. What are your priors Sir?Ray Lopezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134761834999705305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-77442877102457022532015-07-21T00:09:20.402-07:002015-07-21T00:09:20.402-07:00Thank you.
Endogenous and exogenous are just prop...Thank you.<br /><br />Endogenous and exogenous are just properties of models, not the real world. We can make what we like exogenous in a model - we just need to be careful in how we then interpret the results.Nick Edmondshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15342983814699700396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-91819323362081497622015-07-20T02:57:54.752-07:002015-07-20T02:57:54.752-07:00This touches an interesting point what should be t...This touches an interesting point what should be treated as endogenous. I find it elusive. On the long run all (like CB policy) economic variables can be thought to be endogenous, so there economics seems to approach/depend on other social sciences (e.g. democracy implications in the post). And the short run is always messed up because of the vague division of short / long and the long run expectations effects. But yes, maybe we have some useful fictions - yet many times there are many of them giving totally different results.<br /><br />Thank you, very good post as always.Jussinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-57198002684447954272015-07-17T00:51:47.701-07:002015-07-17T00:51:47.701-07:00Thank you. Yes, there is often a big difference i...Thank you. Yes, there is often a big difference in these models between the impact of a permanent and a temporary measure. And, in most cases, I think it's just not realistic to talk about taking permanent measures. What the interest rate is in 100 years time is unlikely to depend to any material extent on what is decided on monetary policy now. And rational people will understand that.Nick Edmondshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15342983814699700396noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5362801348602268473.post-49057459828308638372015-07-16T19:28:09.398-07:002015-07-16T19:28:09.398-07:00Excellent post! But isn't this the problem wit...Excellent post! But isn't this the problem with policy derived from most DSGE models, where seemingly small changes have large effects because most of the action is happening at distant horizons.For example, increasing inflation from 2 to 3 or even 5% (assuming it is even possible) is not going to make anyone change their decisions unless it is permanent.Srininoreply@blogger.com