martes, 30 de octubre de 2012
lunes, 29 de octubre de 2012
domingo, 28 de octubre de 2012
sábado, 27 de octubre de 2012
jueves, 25 de octubre de 2012
Misunderstanding financial crises. Entrevista a Gary Gorton
Aca
"We know from the data that when there is less government debt outstanding, the private sector creates private “safe” substitutes. If there is more government debt outstanding, the privately-created “safe” debt shrinks. This is because of the demand in the economy for “safe” assets.
Privately-produced safe debt can be created without being vulnerable to bank runs with the right regulation. It would be better for the government to oversee the creation of privately-produced safe debt than to try to create enough government debt to meet the demand."
Reseña del libro de Gorton
"We know from the data that when there is less government debt outstanding, the private sector creates private “safe” substitutes. If there is more government debt outstanding, the privately-created “safe” debt shrinks. This is because of the demand in the economy for “safe” assets.
Privately-produced safe debt can be created without being vulnerable to bank runs with the right regulation. It would be better for the government to oversee the creation of privately-produced safe debt than to try to create enough government debt to meet the demand."
Reseña del libro de Gorton
miércoles, 24 de octubre de 2012
lunes, 22 de octubre de 2012
Es el dinero una burbuja?
Noah Smith critica a Stephen Williamson. Brad DeLong y Paul Krugman tambièn
David Andolfatto y Stephen Williamson responden
David Glasner
Nick Rowe
JP Koning. Nick Rowe
David Andolfatto y Stephen Williamson responden
David Glasner
Nick Rowe
JP Koning. Nick Rowe
viernes, 19 de octubre de 2012
jueves, 18 de octubre de 2012
miércoles, 17 de octubre de 2012
martes, 16 de octubre de 2012
lunes, 15 de octubre de 2012
Nobel de Shapley y Roth
sábado, 13 de octubre de 2012
What do people mean by helicopter money?
Simon Wren-Lewis
Más de Wren-Lewis. Y David Beckworth
Martin Wolf: The case for helicopter money:
"Those convinced hyperinflation is around the corner believe that banks expand their lending in direct response to their holdings of reserves at the central bank. Under a gold standard, reserves are indeed limited. Banks need to look at them rather carefully.
Under fiat (that is, government-made) money, however, the supply of reserves is potentially infinite. True, central banks can pretend reserves are limited. In practice, however, central banks will advance reserves without limit to any solvent bank (and, as we have seen, to insolvent ones). With central banks able to supply reserves at will, the constraints on lending are solvency and profitability. Expanding banking reserves is an ineffective way to increase lending, not a
dangerous one.
...
First, it is impossible to justify the conventional view that fiat money should operate almost exclusively via today’s system of private borrowing and lending. Why should state-created currency be predominantly employed to back the money created by banks as a byproduct of often irresponsible lending? Why is it good to support the leveraging of private property, but not the supply of public infrastructure? I fail to see any moral force to the idea that fiat money should only promote private, not public, spending.
Martin Wolf: The case for helicopter money:
"Those convinced hyperinflation is around the corner believe that banks expand their lending in direct response to their holdings of reserves at the central bank. Under a gold standard, reserves are indeed limited. Banks need to look at them rather carefully.
Under fiat (that is, government-made) money, however, the supply of reserves is potentially infinite. True, central banks can pretend reserves are limited. In practice, however, central banks will advance reserves without limit to any solvent bank (and, as we have seen, to insolvent ones). With central banks able to supply reserves at will, the constraints on lending are solvency and profitability. Expanding banking reserves is an ineffective way to increase lending, not a
dangerous one.
...
First, it is impossible to justify the conventional view that fiat money should operate almost exclusively via today’s system of private borrowing and lending. Why should state-created currency be predominantly employed to back the money created by banks as a byproduct of often irresponsible lending? Why is it good to support the leveraging of private property, but not the supply of public infrastructure? I fail to see any moral force to the idea that fiat money should only promote private, not public, spending.
viernes, 12 de octubre de 2012
Brad DeLong sobre la equivalencia entre Hicks y Fisher
Aca
Back in 1937 John Hicks pointed out a symmetry between Fisherian monetary approaches and Wicksellian financial approaches to macroeconomics. Fisherian monetary approaches looked at how people divided their income between accumulating or decumulating liquidity and spending on other commodities in the context of an interest rate r that is determined someplace else. It was thus an incomplete theory. Wicksellian financial approaches looked at how people divided their income between accumulating or decumulating savings vehicles (including outside money) and spending on currently-produced goods and services in the context of an interest rate r that is determined someplace else.
First, it's a mistake, Hicks said, to complain that finance is absent from a Fisherian monetary approach--for finance is what determines the real interest rate r needed to make sense of MV(r+π) = PY.
And, second, Hicks said, it is a mistake to complain that money is absent from a Wicksellian financial framework--for money is what determines the nominal interest rate i needed to make sense of S(Y) = I(i-π, r*) + (G-T).
Back in 1937 John Hicks pointed out a symmetry between Fisherian monetary approaches and Wicksellian financial approaches to macroeconomics. Fisherian monetary approaches looked at how people divided their income between accumulating or decumulating liquidity and spending on other commodities in the context of an interest rate r that is determined someplace else. It was thus an incomplete theory. Wicksellian financial approaches looked at how people divided their income between accumulating or decumulating savings vehicles (including outside money) and spending on currently-produced goods and services in the context of an interest rate r that is determined someplace else.
First, it's a mistake, Hicks said, to complain that finance is absent from a Fisherian monetary approach--for finance is what determines the real interest rate r needed to make sense of MV(r+π) = PY.
And, second, Hicks said, it is a mistake to complain that money is absent from a Wicksellian financial framework--for money is what determines the nominal interest rate i needed to make sense of S(Y) = I(i-π, r*) + (G-T).
miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2012
martes, 9 de octubre de 2012
Underestimating fiscal policy multipliers
lunes, 8 de octubre de 2012
viernes, 5 de octubre de 2012
miércoles, 3 de octubre de 2012
martes, 2 de octubre de 2012
lunes, 1 de octubre de 2012
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)