Policy Penance
The lastly few posts haven't worked out thence well, that's for sure. After a too-grumpy reaction to Alan Blinder's review, I wanted to say something nice too discovery mutual basis amongst the "what's incorrect amongst macro" articles too fifty-fifty Krugman's posts. In doing thence I was much likewise quick too superficial inwards characterizing what's going on at high levels of our policy institutions. The solely outcome was that I managed to annoy all my friends too colleagues at the Fed, IMF, too thence on.
As penance, I'll endeavour a weblog post that to a greater extent than accurately characterizes the interaction of enquiry too policy, "Keynesian" too modern economics, too thence on, every bit I reckon it.
If nosotros expression i pace below the political level, for instance at the FOMC minutes too what enquiry staff are upwardly to at institutions similar Fed too IMF, you lot reckon a really sophisticated interaction betwixt the ideas of modern economical enquiry too policy. The FOMC minutes too speeches past times board members (all piece of cake to discovery on the Fed's website) are a nifty source. The FOMC seems, to an outsider, like the world's highest-level debating guild on modern macroeconomics.
On many of the dividing lines betwixt traditional Keynesian too modern economics, the policy give-and-take is decidedly modern.
Traditional Keynesian economic science is higher upwardly all, static. Consumption depends on income, today; investment depends on involvement rates too beast spirits, today, too thence on. This is inwards purpose its nifty success. At the time, people didn't receive got the tools to do dynamic intertemporal economics.
Now nosotros do. Modern macroeconomics is, higher upwardly all, intertemporal. People brand consumption too investment decisions, thinking almost today too the future. This intertemporal revolution started amongst the permanent income model, that consumption depends on expected futurity income, too continues to this day.
(Let me speedily halt a give-and-take that volition spin out of command into quotations from Keynes too what he mightiness receive got "really meant." What matters is what was inwards Keynesian models, used inwards policy for generations, too that's ISLM. Perhaps a deeper reading of Keynes -- or Marx, or Smith, or the Talmud -- mightiness divulge some intertemporal poetry. But it actually had niggling outcome on how models are used or policy was done. So hither "Keynesian" way ISLM-ASAD.)
Now, if you lot read FOMC minutes, Fed speeches, or verbalise to people at the Fed almost policy, you lot volition reckon that this intertemporal, expectation-focused approach resulting from the revolutions of the 1970s permiates the policy-making process. For example, "forward guidance" is the rage. It solely takes i beer for the conversation to speedily acknowledge that QE probable worked every bit much past times signaling depression involvement rates for a long fourth dimension than it did past times exploiting some sort of permanent price-pressure inwards Treasury markets.
More deeply, the Fed policy give-and-take recognizes that "expectations" are non the same things every bit "speeches past times world officials." People receive got heard lots of promises before. Policy faces a deep "time consistency" too "commitment vs. discretion" problem, in i lawsuit again purpose of the belatedly 1970s revolution inwards macroeconomics. People don't believe promises made now, because they know the Fed may alter its heed later.
This realization led modern macroeconomics to focus on policy rules, rather than policy actions, which nosotros tin chalk upwardly every bit a 2d major intermission betwixt traditional Keynesian analysis too modern macroeconomics. Rules tin live written down, legal or constitutional constraints, or only traditions long observed. The best way to "manage expectations" is non to "manipulate" them amongst speeches, but instead to follow well-established rules -- fifty-fifty when you'd rather not. Friedman's 4% dominion from the 1960s had some of this flavor. Taylor's involvement charge per unit of measurement dominion from the 1990s has it explicitly, too inflation target rules fifty-fifty to a greater extent than strongly.
Over the lastly xx years, too especially nether chairman Ben Bernanke, you lot could reckon the importance of transparent, predictable, rule-based thinking accept hold. The early on Fed was deliberately secretive too deliberately obscure. There was a fourth dimension when they wouldn't fifty-fifty say markets what the Federal Funds target was! Since then, explanation of what the Fed is doing, why the Fed is doing it, what the Fed is probable to do inwards the future, too finally how the Fed volition react to events inwards the futurity -- a "state-contingent" dominion -- has acquire to a greater extent than too to a greater extent than of import inwards Fed discussions.
This mental attitude took a niggling pace dorsum recently; the Fed tried to communicate that involvement rates would rising when unemployment roughshod below 6.5%. (Clarification below.) That promptly happened, unexpectedly, forcing the Fed to backtrack too say no, wait, nosotros actually wish to expression at broader labor marketplace indicators.
Well, it's difficult to follow rules ex-post. That's the whole indicate of rules! Adopting rules needs major changes inwards what nosotros hold off of policy too. If Janet Yellen had raised rates every bit "promised," thence went to Congress to say "we proclaimed a rule, thence nosotros had to stick to it fifty-fifty though nosotros too you lot both thought the economic scheme way likewise weak to heighten rates," you lot tin imagine the howls.
I'm non hither to criticize, or to opine on exactly how occupation solid Fed rules should be. The indicate is that the Fed is conducting this fence at the highest levels, fully informed past times modern academic enquiry on the subject.
The give-and-take surrounding financial stimulus inwards 2008-2009 strikes me every bit having been a practiced bargain less sophisticated too much to a greater extent than "old-Keynesian," involving static "multipliers," instantly from a 1970s textbook. But that may live a piteous instance every bit it was done inwards a huge hurry, within the Administration, too away from the form of carefully constructed policy procedure that the Fed too other agencies maintain.
Fed speeches, fifty-fifty from chairs Bernanke too Yellen, are peppered amongst citations to academic run too staff work. More evidence of a tight connecter betwixt modern enquiry too elevation degree policy discussions.
In fact, i tin quite plausibly complain that the Fed, IMF, too similar institutions are too close to academic research, or possibly that academic enquiry is likewise motivated past times finding reasons for the latest policy idea. In no other expanse that I tin retrieve of, where of import policy is made too at that spot is a corresponding trunk of academic research, do people seriously advise to guide policy based on the latest, commonly unpublished, too commonly novel, research. We hold off a piece for ideas to settle.
As an instance, I've been a flake critical of the apparent distance betwixt policy too research, too I've also been quite critical of the electrical flow generation of new-Keynesian models. Well, John, brand upwardly your mind! On the latter view, I should sure non advocate that the Fed tomorrow implement policy based on the latest large-scale estimated new-Keynesian model. But on the former, I receive got to acknowledge that sort of thing has been measure academic enquiry for xx years now. Most bloggers intend "the Fed should pay to a greater extent than attending to my research," but I won't -- yes, enquiry has to settle earlier beingness used for policy.
The difficult fact is that economical models are quantitative parables, non explicit too consummate descriptions of reality. The pace of agreement the model's "intuition," "basic message," too thence forth is devilishly hard. That's why nosotros receive got such deep verbal discussions almost economical models, where nosotros imagine physicists exactly bear witness them too are done. (They don't, but that's some other story.)
An example. In 2012, Mike Woodford gave a subsequently not to the lowest degree from me. Do people believe such promises? Yes, nosotros tin write a model inwards which the Fed announces a novel new rule, too everyone believes it. But does the basis run that way? More deeply, is the underlying model right? For instance (of many) is my electrical load that it assumes the Fed threatens to blow upwardly the economic scheme a large problem, or exactly an easily-fixed technical simplification?
Be it every bit it may, this was first-rate academic research, past times a first-rate academic, too it apparently profoundly influenced the policy debate.
Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 similar story occurs daily on how the Fed should retrieve almost "secular stagnation," "macroprudential policy," "pricking property cost bubbles," long term labor forcefulness participation, inequality, too thence on too thence on. As a concrete example, Jeremy Stein when on the board gave an fantabulous serial of thoughtful speeches on the relation betwixt monetary policy too financial stability. Here is a practiced one, bristling amongst citations to academic research.
The problem amongst all this is non a lack of contact betwixt Fed too academic research. The problem is, if anything likewise much! The basic "trouble amongst macroeconomics," circa 2014, is almost the same every bit the "trouble amongst physics," circa 1790. We know a lot. But at that spot is thence much nosotros don't know.
All of this work, really, is almost "frictions" inwards the economy. "sticky prices," "sticky wages," whatever they actually mean, "financial frictions," leverage constraints, collateral constraints, temporarily segmented markets, "liquidity," every bit much inwards the middle of the beholder every bit smut, too thence on too thence forth. The "trouble" amongst macroeconomics is that we're actually solely kickoff to figure out what all this actually way too how it works.
To the similar electrical load that at that spot is "too much math" inwards economics: no, at that spot is likewise little! We don't receive got the tools to model, understand, too command all these hazy ideas that appear to affair when nosotros expression at the world.
I retrieve at that spot are some unfortunate heirs of the old-Keynesian tradition soundless at run inwards policy-making, however. It is natural that they are there, but I retrieve it volition live practiced when they vanish.
First, since models are quantitative parables, too it takes a long fourth dimension to digest what they actually intend for a given situation, it is natural that the elevation degree of policy makers to maintain to digest novel run inwards an old model. "Oh yes, I see, this model actually way 'aggregate demand' is depression too stimulus volition heighten it. Now I acquire it." That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Second, too deeper, the Keynesian policy tradition left a rigid wish for activist, discretionary, "what do nosotros do today?" sorts of answers.
I long agone sat at a hilarious academic advisory coming together at a Federal Reserve, at which the depository financial establishment president asked, bottom line, whether nosotros thought the Fed should raise, cut, or travel out lonely the funds rate. Academic after academic gave beautiful speeches almost the right policy rule. (Me, an ode to cost degree targets rather than inflation charge per unit of measurement targets.) The piteous exasperated president said, "that's all really nice, but what should nosotros do now?"
This telephone telephone for action, for activist discretionary response, is at the nitty-gritty of Keynesian economics. It's really very difficult to verbalise almost rules too institutions rather than actions. And the nitty-gritty respond of modern intertemporal economic science is to unask the question. But people expecting a daily discretionary determination exactly don't wish to hear almost the rule. In this regard, the policy mindset soundless is decidedly old-Keynesian.
As a counterexample, consider quest the query "what should monetary policy do almost unemployment" inwards the 1800s. There was no Fed. "Monetary policy" consisted of the aureate standard, implemented past times the Treasury. The respond would be, "the cost of aureate is $20 per ounce. What's your question?" I'm non (!) proverb that's the right policy, but it is a pure instance of a dominion rather than activist discretion. A serious give-and-take almost a rules-based Fed would start past times canceling the regular FOMC meetings too the economical review. That exactly presupposes that the whole procedure is to come upwardly to a discretionary decision.
Third, economical policy give-and-take seems to ignore the tremendous lack of noesis nosotros receive got over basic drive too outcome mechanisms, fifty-fifty the signs too causal channels of effects permit lonely magnitudes. Policy discussions jump to exploiting the latest friction earlier the ink is dry.
But past times too large policy decisions don't, too are quite conservative almost implementing novel ideas. Expectations, rules, discretion too commitment, are from the belatedly 1970s!
When things are ambiguous, you lot stick amongst what you've got. Keneysian orthodoxy ruled for a long time. Even if it's shown to live wrong, replacement models are thence different, soundless thence untested too unrefined, continuing to utilisation basic Keynesian intuition is a natural response to ambiguity.
Fourth, I volition complain a flake almost how much academic enquiry produces answers to back upwardly desired policy rather than the other way around. Stimulus came on the political landscape, too a hundred papers are written almost how stimulus mightiness work. The i thing I volition gently chide some people (not all!) at the Fed for is how frequently staff reports come upwardly up amongst the issue that the chair wants to hear. This is peculiarly truthful when introducing "frictions" to models. Yes, this or that friction mightiness justify a policy. But if you lot actually retrieve viscous payoff are the problem, why write articles justifying fundamental depository financial establishment intervention, too non i on how payoff mightiness live profitably unstuck?
But these tike complaints aside, every bit I expression at the layer of policy procedure exactly below the headline political appointees, too exactly higher upwardly the empty-headed materials inwards the sentiment pages of the New York Times, actually the interplay of academic ideas too policy is almost every bit good for you lot every bit I could brand it. (Obeying the dominion that i has to live evenhanded almost all research, non exactly my research!) Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 residual, fading, dorsum of the envelope Keynesianism is pretty natural. And the practiced ideas of modern, intertemporal, people-based, budget-constraint-disciplined, economic science are beingness digested too tardily implemented.
Next, this whole novel Keynesian vs. old-Keynesian thing.
Update: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 correspondent points out that the actual FOMC statement is to a greater extent than nuanced,
Update 2: I reckon from blogger's trackbacks that Paul Krugman covered this post. I'll maintain to the green don't-respond-to-Krugman policy, amongst i exception. Krugman writes:
Mike Woodford inwards particular has been a friend too a colleague for many years. I receive got learned a lot from him, I receive got benefited enormously from his comments on my work, too I've read his inwards detail. I taught PhD classes from his book.
The accuse that I don't know or haven't read or late discovered Woordford is laughable. I spent almost five years of my enquiry life writing "Determinacy too Identification" which is zero but a careful dissection of new-Keynesian economic science every bit distilled inwards Mike's book. I may live wrong, but non out of ignorance.
Mike, if you're listening, I can't command the vitriol that the New York Times sees gibe to print, so all I tin do is post a correction to my humble weblog -- Krugman is making this upwardly out of sparse air.
Update 3: Due to an avalanche of intend comments from Krugman's choir, I've turned off comments on this post.
As penance, I'll endeavour a weblog post that to a greater extent than accurately characterizes the interaction of enquiry too policy, "Keynesian" too modern economics, too thence on, every bit I reckon it.
If nosotros expression i pace below the political level, for instance at the FOMC minutes too what enquiry staff are upwardly to at institutions similar Fed too IMF, you lot reckon a really sophisticated interaction betwixt the ideas of modern economical enquiry too policy. The FOMC minutes too speeches past times board members (all piece of cake to discovery on the Fed's website) are a nifty source. The FOMC seems, to an outsider, like the world's highest-level debating guild on modern macroeconomics.
On many of the dividing lines betwixt traditional Keynesian too modern economics, the policy give-and-take is decidedly modern.
Traditional Keynesian economic science is higher upwardly all, static. Consumption depends on income, today; investment depends on involvement rates too beast spirits, today, too thence on. This is inwards purpose its nifty success. At the time, people didn't receive got the tools to do dynamic intertemporal economics.
Now nosotros do. Modern macroeconomics is, higher upwardly all, intertemporal. People brand consumption too investment decisions, thinking almost today too the future. This intertemporal revolution started amongst the permanent income model, that consumption depends on expected futurity income, too continues to this day.
(Let me speedily halt a give-and-take that volition spin out of command into quotations from Keynes too what he mightiness receive got "really meant." What matters is what was inwards Keynesian models, used inwards policy for generations, too that's ISLM. Perhaps a deeper reading of Keynes -- or Marx, or Smith, or the Talmud -- mightiness divulge some intertemporal poetry. But it actually had niggling outcome on how models are used or policy was done. So hither "Keynesian" way ISLM-ASAD.)
Now, if you lot read FOMC minutes, Fed speeches, or verbalise to people at the Fed almost policy, you lot volition reckon that this intertemporal, expectation-focused approach resulting from the revolutions of the 1970s permiates the policy-making process. For example, "forward guidance" is the rage. It solely takes i beer for the conversation to speedily acknowledge that QE probable worked every bit much past times signaling depression involvement rates for a long fourth dimension than it did past times exploiting some sort of permanent price-pressure inwards Treasury markets.
More deeply, the Fed policy give-and-take recognizes that "expectations" are non the same things every bit "speeches past times world officials." People receive got heard lots of promises before. Policy faces a deep "time consistency" too "commitment vs. discretion" problem, in i lawsuit again purpose of the belatedly 1970s revolution inwards macroeconomics. People don't believe promises made now, because they know the Fed may alter its heed later.
This realization led modern macroeconomics to focus on policy rules, rather than policy actions, which nosotros tin chalk upwardly every bit a 2d major intermission betwixt traditional Keynesian analysis too modern macroeconomics. Rules tin live written down, legal or constitutional constraints, or only traditions long observed. The best way to "manage expectations" is non to "manipulate" them amongst speeches, but instead to follow well-established rules -- fifty-fifty when you'd rather not. Friedman's 4% dominion from the 1960s had some of this flavor. Taylor's involvement charge per unit of measurement dominion from the 1990s has it explicitly, too inflation target rules fifty-fifty to a greater extent than strongly.
Over the lastly xx years, too especially nether chairman Ben Bernanke, you lot could reckon the importance of transparent, predictable, rule-based thinking accept hold. The early on Fed was deliberately secretive too deliberately obscure. There was a fourth dimension when they wouldn't fifty-fifty say markets what the Federal Funds target was! Since then, explanation of what the Fed is doing, why the Fed is doing it, what the Fed is probable to do inwards the future, too finally how the Fed volition react to events inwards the futurity -- a "state-contingent" dominion -- has acquire to a greater extent than too to a greater extent than of import inwards Fed discussions.
This mental attitude took a niggling pace dorsum recently; the Fed tried to communicate that involvement rates would rising when unemployment roughshod below 6.5%. (Clarification below.) That promptly happened, unexpectedly, forcing the Fed to backtrack too say no, wait, nosotros actually wish to expression at broader labor marketplace indicators.
Well, it's difficult to follow rules ex-post. That's the whole indicate of rules! Adopting rules needs major changes inwards what nosotros hold off of policy too. If Janet Yellen had raised rates every bit "promised," thence went to Congress to say "we proclaimed a rule, thence nosotros had to stick to it fifty-fifty though nosotros too you lot both thought the economic scheme way likewise weak to heighten rates," you lot tin imagine the howls.
I'm non hither to criticize, or to opine on exactly how occupation solid Fed rules should be. The indicate is that the Fed is conducting this fence at the highest levels, fully informed past times modern academic enquiry on the subject.
The give-and-take surrounding financial stimulus inwards 2008-2009 strikes me every bit having been a practiced bargain less sophisticated too much to a greater extent than "old-Keynesian," involving static "multipliers," instantly from a 1970s textbook. But that may live a piteous instance every bit it was done inwards a huge hurry, within the Administration, too away from the form of carefully constructed policy procedure that the Fed too other agencies maintain.
Fed speeches, fifty-fifty from chairs Bernanke too Yellen, are peppered amongst citations to academic run too staff work. More evidence of a tight connecter betwixt modern enquiry too elevation degree policy discussions.
In fact, i tin quite plausibly complain that the Fed, IMF, too similar institutions are too close to academic research, or possibly that academic enquiry is likewise motivated past times finding reasons for the latest policy idea. In no other expanse that I tin retrieve of, where of import policy is made too at that spot is a corresponding trunk of academic research, do people seriously advise to guide policy based on the latest, commonly unpublished, too commonly novel, research. We hold off a piece for ideas to settle.
As an instance, I've been a flake critical of the apparent distance betwixt policy too research, too I've also been quite critical of the electrical flow generation of new-Keynesian models. Well, John, brand upwardly your mind! On the latter view, I should sure non advocate that the Fed tomorrow implement policy based on the latest large-scale estimated new-Keynesian model. But on the former, I receive got to acknowledge that sort of thing has been measure academic enquiry for xx years now. Most bloggers intend "the Fed should pay to a greater extent than attending to my research," but I won't -- yes, enquiry has to settle earlier beingness used for policy.
The difficult fact is that economical models are quantitative parables, non explicit too consummate descriptions of reality. The pace of agreement the model's "intuition," "basic message," too thence forth is devilishly hard. That's why nosotros receive got such deep verbal discussions almost economical models, where nosotros imagine physicists exactly bear witness them too are done. (They don't, but that's some other story.)
An example. In 2012, Mike Woodford gave a subsequently not to the lowest degree from me. Do people believe such promises? Yes, nosotros tin write a model inwards which the Fed announces a novel new rule, too everyone believes it. But does the basis run that way? More deeply, is the underlying model right? For instance (of many) is my electrical load that it assumes the Fed threatens to blow upwardly the economic scheme a large problem, or exactly an easily-fixed technical simplification?
Be it every bit it may, this was first-rate academic research, past times a first-rate academic, too it apparently profoundly influenced the policy debate.
Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 similar story occurs daily on how the Fed should retrieve almost "secular stagnation," "macroprudential policy," "pricking property cost bubbles," long term labor forcefulness participation, inequality, too thence on too thence on. As a concrete example, Jeremy Stein when on the board gave an fantabulous serial of thoughtful speeches on the relation betwixt monetary policy too financial stability. Here is a practiced one, bristling amongst citations to academic research.
The problem amongst all this is non a lack of contact betwixt Fed too academic research. The problem is, if anything likewise much! The basic "trouble amongst macroeconomics," circa 2014, is almost the same every bit the "trouble amongst physics," circa 1790. We know a lot. But at that spot is thence much nosotros don't know.
All of this work, really, is almost "frictions" inwards the economy. "sticky prices," "sticky wages," whatever they actually mean, "financial frictions," leverage constraints, collateral constraints, temporarily segmented markets, "liquidity," every bit much inwards the middle of the beholder every bit smut, too thence on too thence forth. The "trouble" amongst macroeconomics is that we're actually solely kickoff to figure out what all this actually way too how it works.
To the similar electrical load that at that spot is "too much math" inwards economics: no, at that spot is likewise little! We don't receive got the tools to model, understand, too command all these hazy ideas that appear to affair when nosotros expression at the world.
I retrieve at that spot are some unfortunate heirs of the old-Keynesian tradition soundless at run inwards policy-making, however. It is natural that they are there, but I retrieve it volition live practiced when they vanish.
First, since models are quantitative parables, too it takes a long fourth dimension to digest what they actually intend for a given situation, it is natural that the elevation degree of policy makers to maintain to digest novel run inwards an old model. "Oh yes, I see, this model actually way 'aggregate demand' is depression too stimulus volition heighten it. Now I acquire it." That's a perfectly normal reaction.
Second, too deeper, the Keynesian policy tradition left a rigid wish for activist, discretionary, "what do nosotros do today?" sorts of answers.
I long agone sat at a hilarious academic advisory coming together at a Federal Reserve, at which the depository financial establishment president asked, bottom line, whether nosotros thought the Fed should raise, cut, or travel out lonely the funds rate. Academic after academic gave beautiful speeches almost the right policy rule. (Me, an ode to cost degree targets rather than inflation charge per unit of measurement targets.) The piteous exasperated president said, "that's all really nice, but what should nosotros do now?"
This telephone telephone for action, for activist discretionary response, is at the nitty-gritty of Keynesian economics. It's really very difficult to verbalise almost rules too institutions rather than actions. And the nitty-gritty respond of modern intertemporal economic science is to unask the question. But people expecting a daily discretionary determination exactly don't wish to hear almost the rule. In this regard, the policy mindset soundless is decidedly old-Keynesian.
As a counterexample, consider quest the query "what should monetary policy do almost unemployment" inwards the 1800s. There was no Fed. "Monetary policy" consisted of the aureate standard, implemented past times the Treasury. The respond would be, "the cost of aureate is $20 per ounce. What's your question?" I'm non (!) proverb that's the right policy, but it is a pure instance of a dominion rather than activist discretion. A serious give-and-take almost a rules-based Fed would start past times canceling the regular FOMC meetings too the economical review. That exactly presupposes that the whole procedure is to come upwardly to a discretionary decision.
Third, economical policy give-and-take seems to ignore the tremendous lack of noesis nosotros receive got over basic drive too outcome mechanisms, fifty-fifty the signs too causal channels of effects permit lonely magnitudes. Policy discussions jump to exploiting the latest friction earlier the ink is dry.
But past times too large policy decisions don't, too are quite conservative almost implementing novel ideas. Expectations, rules, discretion too commitment, are from the belatedly 1970s!
When things are ambiguous, you lot stick amongst what you've got. Keneysian orthodoxy ruled for a long time. Even if it's shown to live wrong, replacement models are thence different, soundless thence untested too unrefined, continuing to utilisation basic Keynesian intuition is a natural response to ambiguity.
Fourth, I volition complain a flake almost how much academic enquiry produces answers to back upwardly desired policy rather than the other way around. Stimulus came on the political landscape, too a hundred papers are written almost how stimulus mightiness work. The i thing I volition gently chide some people (not all!) at the Fed for is how frequently staff reports come upwardly up amongst the issue that the chair wants to hear. This is peculiarly truthful when introducing "frictions" to models. Yes, this or that friction mightiness justify a policy. But if you lot actually retrieve viscous payoff are the problem, why write articles justifying fundamental depository financial establishment intervention, too non i on how payoff mightiness live profitably unstuck?
But these tike complaints aside, every bit I expression at the layer of policy procedure exactly below the headline political appointees, too exactly higher upwardly the empty-headed materials inwards the sentiment pages of the New York Times, actually the interplay of academic ideas too policy is almost every bit good for you lot every bit I could brand it. (Obeying the dominion that i has to live evenhanded almost all research, non exactly my research!) Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 residual, fading, dorsum of the envelope Keynesianism is pretty natural. And the practiced ideas of modern, intertemporal, people-based, budget-constraint-disciplined, economic science are beingness digested too tardily implemented.
Next, this whole novel Keynesian vs. old-Keynesian thing.
Update: Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 correspondent points out that the actual FOMC statement is to a greater extent than nuanced,
[The committee] currently anticipates that this exceptionally depression attain for the federal funds charge per unit of measurement volition live appropriate at to the lowest degree every bit long every bit the unemployment charge per unit of measurement remains higher upwardly 6-1/2 percent, inflation betwixt i too 2 years ahead is projected to live no to a greater extent than than a one-half percent indicate higher upwardly the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, too longer-term inflation expectations maintain to live good anchored.But the perception of a dominion too backtracking was real.
Update 2: I reckon from blogger's trackbacks that Paul Krugman covered this post. I'll maintain to the green don't-respond-to-Krugman policy, amongst i exception. Krugman writes:
Well, at to the lowest degree Cochrane at nowadays concedes that Woodford isn’t stupid. Progress!I receive got never, ever, anywhere, inwards writing, inwards words, inwards thought, inwards insinuation, or veiled reference, said that Mike Woodford is "stupid.." I receive got never said or written that anyone is "stupid," "mendacious", "mendacious idiot," "evil," "corrupt," "hack," or whatsoever other ad-hominen laid on or insult. Google all you lot want, you lot volition non discovery whatsoever such quote. Yes, I mercilessly skewer bad ideas, but never people. To me that is the most bedrock ethical regulation of intellectual honesty.
Mike Woodford inwards particular has been a friend too a colleague for many years. I receive got learned a lot from him, I receive got benefited enormously from his comments on my work, too I've read his inwards detail. I taught PhD classes from his book.
The accuse that I don't know or haven't read or late discovered Woordford is laughable. I spent almost five years of my enquiry life writing "Determinacy too Identification" which is zero but a careful dissection of new-Keynesian economic science every bit distilled inwards Mike's book. I may live wrong, but non out of ignorance.
Mike, if you're listening, I can't command the vitriol that the New York Times sees gibe to print, so all I tin do is post a correction to my humble weblog -- Krugman is making this upwardly out of sparse air.
Update 3: Due to an avalanche of intend comments from Krugman's choir, I've turned off comments on this post.
No comments