This is Nick Rowe's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Nick Rowe's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Nick Rowe
Recent Activity
Thanks Brad. I'm on board with this. On your 3: plus, even if we did accept their argument about the risk of low interest rates, the longer we postpone recovery, and postpone expected recovery, the longer rates will stay low. (Upward-sloping or dynamic IS curve).
1 reply
Nah. Just a way to keep them off all the other students.
1 reply
Dan: "And what I am proposing is that that would only be the case if the barter economy was so small that these kinds of coordination problems could all be easily solved, but that in a more complex barter economy they might not get solved and the economy could remain stagnant." Totally agreed. A real world complex barter economy would be a total mess. (Unless someone sets up a centralised exchange, which mimics money). Worse than even the worst monetary policy. It takes an absolutely terrible monetary policy before more than a few people resort to barter (but we did see some do it in the US in the 1930's and Greece etc recently). My thought-experiment is of a purely hypothetical frictionless barter economy. A good monetary system ought to run approximately like an imaginary perfect barter system. My argument is that, since an excess of savings (for example) would not cause unemployment in an imaginary perfect barter system, it would not cause unemployment in a good real world monetary system. People would be unable to find a good outlet for their savings (everybody would want to lend and nobody would want to borrow), but that wouldn't stop them working and buying goods. The problem is that people can save by holding money. If that excess of saving spills over into an excess demand for money, then we get a recession.
1 reply
Nathanael: suppose there is a terrible drought in an agricultural economy. Output, and probably employment too, would drop a lot, and there is nothing monetary policy can do to prevent a drop. Even a hypothetical perfect frictionless barter economy, with no coordination problem, would see a drop in output. But would it have *all* the symptoms of a recession, where it is hard to sell things for money and easy to buy things with money? I don't call it a "recession" unless it has that symptom. Maybe I am "cheating" a little, by defining "recession' differently. (No true Scotsman fallacy.) But I think mine is a useful definition. The OPEC crisis was a bit of both.
1 reply
Sorry Dan. My fault for not explaining myself more clearly. Just frustrated, and taking it out on you.
1 reply
Dan: "Well, that might happen in an economy consisting of only three people who can easily solve any economic coordination problems they might be facing with only a minute or two of cooperative chit-chat. But in a real-world economy consisting of many millions of individuals peopling a complex system of production and market exchange, there is no simple way for those millions of people to make a coordinated leap forward out of their relaitively low-production and low-exchange equilibrium into a new equilibrium with higher levels of production and exchange." Of course there isn't! That was precisely MY point. Except I thought it was too obvious to need spelling out. And that's why we use MONEY. And that's why we need a GOOD MONETARY SYSTEM, to help solve precisely that coordination problem. My imaginary world, where it is easy for the 3 women to meet, is a METAPHOR for a good monetary system. It's the classic metaphor, the Wicksellian triangle, with no double coincidence of wants. Way to totally miss my point!
1 reply
Sketch of a response to Brad: What is a "root cause" of a recession? I say it is always and everywhere an excess demand for the medium of exchange. In a barter economy, the Keynesian shortage of savings vehicles, or the Minskyian disruption of borrowing and lending, could cause problems, but they would never cause a recession. The unemployed hairdresser who wants her nails done, the unemployed manicurist who wants a massage, and the unemployed masseuse who wants a haircut, would all get together and do a 3-way barter deal. But in a monetary economy, where there's an excess demand for money, neither will spend unless the others agree to spend too. The excess demand for money is the root (essential?) cause. Almost anything could cause an excess demand for money. Some of those things could be bad things. Like robbers, who steal cows, but who can't steal money, which is easier to hide. And hiring more police, not printing more money, is the first-best solution. The central bank can't stop the robbers, but it can stop the recession. Back to Metzler and Minsky: If M and B are perfect substitutes, an OMO of M for B won't work. But an OMO of M for J would work. Think of a continuum of other assets, some more and some less like money, so that the central bank is always at the ZLB for some assets. As it expands M, it moves the ZLB along the continuum, by buying more and more assets. Still thinking, as always, in response to your posts.
1 reply
Metzler, short version: in a world where there are no nominal bonds, and all prices are flexible, helicopter money will be neutral, because M/P will not change. But if the central bank is owned by a foreigner, who issues new money by buying shares, money will be non-neutral. Proof by contradiction: assume it is neutral, so M/P is unchanged. But the real stock of shares in public hands will be smaller, because the foreigner now owns some. So it is exactly as if the foreigner stole some of the shares, which will have real effects, including, in general, on the rate of interest. The first paragraph on page 112 gives the intuition, where he compares an open market operation to a capital levy.
1 reply
Re-reading Metzler, after many decades. Typo? "Such expansions of B would drive the interest rate i down [should be *up*?] further, and with enough bonds the interest rate would be high enough..."
1 reply
Owen: "Let's make government spending decline over time, until the threat of recession is past" Is that fiscal "stimulus", or "austerity"? Woodford says it is stimulus. Would you agree? Or can't you see the difference? You need to make up your mind about this, Owen, and stop ducking the question.
Toggle Commented Jul 25, 2014 on Links for 7-24-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
Which policy? What united state action? Increase G? Or reduce Gdot? When you Old Keynesian and New Keynesian guys figure it out, let us know. And explain why the other policy is wrong.
Toggle Commented Jul 25, 2014 on Links for 7-24-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
djb: "so where does rowe get this from" I get it straight from the New Keynesian IS curve. In the Old Keynesian IS equation, the *level* of private demand (consumption and investment) is a negative function of the real rate of interest. Which means the natural rate of interest is a positive function of the level of government spending. Which agrees perfectly with what you are saying. But in the New Keynesian IS equation, the *expected growth rate* of private demand is a *positive* function of the real rate of interest. So you get a very different result.
Toggle Commented Jul 24, 2014 on Links for 7-24-14 at Economist's View
1 reply
Rubenstein and Piccione miss the time inconsistency point. The Hobbesian jungle equilibrium is the "discretion" equilibrium. What we call "society" is the "rules" equilibrium. We draw some line in the sand where we are both better off staying our own side of that line rather than wasting resources by discretionary self-cancelling pushes against each other, and we enforce that line by following rules like tit for tat. [But the "rules" equilibrium is *not* Pareto-preferred over the "discretion" equilibrium.]
1 reply
Canadian unemployment rate is currently 6.9%. But we measure it differently to the US. It would be lower if we used the US definition. (I saw the exact number recently, and think it was below 6%, but I can't remember exactly.) Our (Conservative) government increased infrastructure investment during the recession. (And gave subsidies to municipalities and universities etc to do the same. My university grabbed the cash and built two new large buildings). Now the recession is mostly over they are tightening up fiscal policy again. It is not obvious (to me) whether we need more or less infrastructure investment. But I think it was obviously right to have done the extra spending we did during the recession. You don't have to be a keynesian to argue you should invest more when real interest rates are very low and builders are cheap.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2013 on Links for 12-14-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
Women live longer than men. And if these studies are to be believed, an extra dollar spent on men's health will have a bigger effect than an extra dollar spent on women's health. Both equity and efficiency argue we should therefore spend more on men's health relative to our spending on women's health. Men should go to the front of the line at the doctor's office.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2013 on Links for 12-14-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
Andy Harless' post = Samuelson 58 + assets differ in risk. My post = Samuelson 58 + assets differ in liquidity. The two posts are complementary and closely related.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2013 on Links for 12-14-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
Chris: "But I'm trying to get at something here - that we're not just products of our genes and/or class, but also of our age." Hang on. There's age, and cohort. And a big multicolinearity problem distinguishing the two. I think you are talking about cohort.
Matt: you missed the point of my post. My title was ironic. And it's got nothing to do with heteroskedasticity of anything. And if money *did* have high(er) utility, that would make it *more* likely inflation would fall.
Toggle Commented Nov 29, 2013 on Links for 11-29-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
YEP! It's working! A big THANKS to whoever did that for me. BTW, the people I really ought to be blaming for all this are the spammers. Why can't some of those teenage hackers do something socially useful for once, like taking down all the spammers?
1 reply
Hang on! Something's happened! I think maybe Typepad have whitelisted me, or something! Because I managed to post a comment on Mark Thoma's blog. And now just managed to post one here, under Nick Rowe with a space! (And I think I managed to re-set my Google password! Fingers crossed...
1 reply
Testing.
Toggle Commented Nov 4, 2013 on Links for 11-04-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
My thoughts too. It takes a helluva lot of monetary and fiscal profligacy to destroy a currency completely. Robert Mugabe succeeded, but the UK would have to do a helluva lot worse to match his success.
Toggle Commented Oct 22, 2013 on Links for 10-22-2013 at Economist's View
1 reply
OK. But the Old Keynesian deep inside me is struggling to get out and yell: "No! It is NOT OK just to assume an eventual return to full employment! We need to understand what, if anything, would lead the economy back to full employment (somehow defined)! There is no more important question in the whole of macro, and it's not one we can duck!" And the policymaker inside me is yelling: "No! Either the New Keynesian model is right, and there really are multiple equilibria, so we get to full employment only if we believe we will get there, in which case we need to start sacrificing some goats fast, on prime time TV, and make sure everyone believes that everyone else believes....that sacrificing goats will work. Or else the New Keynesian model is wrong, and the present and future stock of money really does matter, and it's not just all about interest rates, and we should totally change the way central banks do their work, stop them messing around with useless things like interest rates, and communicate that to the public. And fiscal policy won't work either, unless it's the government buying goats for sacrifice."
1 reply
Thanks for the link Brad. But the post on Mark Carney was by my co-blogger at WCI Livio Di Matteo. (Only the monetary policy is not interest rate policy post was mine.)
1 reply