Skip to content

Commit 87cadb9

Browse files
Tom's first edits of June 18 in main repo
1 parent c70d0b6 commit 87cadb9

File tree

2 files changed

+99
-79
lines changed

2 files changed

+99
-79
lines changed

lectures/_static/quant-econ.bib

Lines changed: 8 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -3,6 +3,14 @@
33
Note: Extended Information (like abstracts, doi, url's etc.) can be found in quant-econ-extendedinfo.bib file in _static/
44
###
55
6+
@book{cochrane2023fiscal,
7+
title={The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level},
8+
author={Cochrane, John H},
9+
year={2023},
10+
publisher={Princeton University Press},
11+
address={Princeton, New Jersey}
12+
}
13+
614
@incollection{sargent1982ends,
715
title={The ends of four big inflations},
816
author={Sargent, Thomas J},

lectures/cagan_ree.md

Lines changed: 91 additions & 79 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -30,6 +30,11 @@ import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
3030
<!-- #region -->
3131
We'll use linear algebra first to explain and then do some experiments with a "fiscal theory of the price level".
3232

33+
A fiscal theory of the price level was described by Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace in chapter 5 of
34+
a 1981 article title "Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic". The theory has been extended, criticized, and applied by John Cochrane in {cite}`cochrane2023fiscal`.
35+
36+
In another lecture, we'll describe some historical episodes in which the elemental forces at work in the fiscal theory help to explain some early twentieth century hyperinflations that occurred in the wake of World War I.
37+
3338

3439
According to this model, when the government persistently spends more than it collects in taxes and prints money to finance the shortfall (the "shortfall" is called the "government deficit"), it puts upward pressure on the price level and generates
3540
persistent inflation.
@@ -368,6 +373,86 @@ This is because the reduction in $\mu$ at $T_1$ has been foreseen from the start
368373
While the log money supply portrayed in the bottom panel has a kink at $T_1$, the log price level does not -- it is "smooth" -- once again a consequence of the fact that the
369374
reduction in $\mu$ has been foreseen.
370375
376+
To set the stage for our next experiment, we want to study the determinants of the price level a little more.
377+
378+
379+
### The log price level
380+
381+
We can use equations {eq}`eq:caganmd` and {eq}`eq:ree`
382+
to discover that the log of the price level satisfies
383+
384+
$$
385+
p_t = m_t + \alpha \pi_t
386+
$$ (eq:pformula2)
387+
388+
or, by using equation {eq}`eq:fisctheory1`,
389+
390+
$$
391+
p_t = m_t + \alpha \left[ (1-\delta) \sum_{s=t}^T \delta^{s-t} \mu_s + \delta^{T+1-t} \pi_{T+1}^* \right]
392+
$$ (eq:pfiscaltheory2)
393+
394+
In our next experiment, we'll study a "surprise" permanent change in the money growth that beforehand
395+
was completely unanticipated.
396+
397+
At time $T_1$ when the "surprise" money growth rate change occurs, to satisfy
398+
equation {eq}`eq:pformula2`, the log of real balances jumps
399+
**upward* as $\pi_t$ jumps **downward**.
400+
401+
But in order for $m_t - p_t$ to jump, which variable jumps, $m_{T_1}$ or $p_{T_1}$?
402+
403+
404+
### What jumps?
405+
406+
What jumps at $T_1$?
407+
408+
Is it $p_{T_1}$ or $m_{T_1}$?
409+
410+
411+
If we insist that the money supply $m_{T_1}$ is locked at its value $m_{T_1}^1$ inherited from the past, then formula {eq}`eq:pformula2` implies that the price level jumps downward at time $T_1$, to coincide with the downward jump in
412+
$\pi_{T_1}$
413+
414+
An alternative assumption about the money supply level is that as part of the "inflation stabilization",
415+
the government resets $m_{T_1}$ according to
416+
417+
$$
418+
m_{T_1}^2 - m_{T_1}^1 = \alpha (\pi^1 - \pi^2)
419+
$$ (eq:eqnmoneyjump)
420+
421+
By letting money jump according to equation {eq}`eq:eqnmoneyjump` the monetary authority prevents the price level from **falling** at the moment that the unanticipated stabilization arrives.
422+
423+
In various research papers about stabilizations of high inflations, the jump in the money supply described by equation {eq}`eq:eqnmoneyjump` has been called
424+
"the velocity dividend" that a government reaps from implementing a regime change that sustains a permanently lower inflation rate.
425+
426+
#### Technical details about whether $p$ or $m$ jumps at $T_1$
427+
428+
We have noted that with a constant expected forward sequence $\mu_s = \bar \mu$ for $s\geq t$, $\pi_{t} =\bar{\mu}$.
429+
430+
A consequence is that at $T_1$, either $m$ or $p$ must "jump" at $T_1$.
431+
432+
We'll study both cases.
433+
434+
#### $m_{T_{1}}$ does not jump.
435+
436+
$$
437+
\begin{align*}
438+
m_{T_{1}}&=m_{T_{1}-1}+\mu_{0}\\\pi_{T_{1}}&=\mu^{*}\\p_{T_{1}}&=m_{T_{1}}+\alpha\pi_{T_{1}}
439+
\end{align*}
440+
$$
441+
Simply glue the sequences $t\leq T_1$ and $t > T_1$.
442+
443+
#### $m_{T_{1}}$ jumps.
444+
445+
We reset $m_{T_{1}}$ so that $p_{T_{1}}=\left(m_{T_{1}-1}+\mu_{0}\right)+\alpha\mu_{0}$, with $\pi_{T_{1}}=\mu^{*}$.
446+
447+
Then,
448+
449+
$$
450+
m_{T_{1}}=p_{T_{1}}-\alpha\pi_{T_{1}}=\left(m_{T_{1}-1}+\mu_{0}\right)+\alpha\left(\mu_{0}-\mu^{*}\right)
451+
$$
452+
453+
We then compute for the remaining $T-T_{1}$ periods with $\mu_{s}=\mu^{*},\forall s\geq T_{1}$ and the initial condition $m_{T_{1}}$ from above.
454+
455+
We are now technically equipped to discuss our next experiment.
371456
372457
#### Experiment 2: an unforeseen sudden stabilization
373458
@@ -390,7 +475,7 @@ To capture a "completely unanticipated permanent shock to the $\{\mu\}$ process
390475
that emerges under path 2 for $t \geq T_1$ to the $\mu_t, \pi_t$ path that had emerged under path 1 for $ t=0, \ldots,
391476
T_1 -1$.
392477
393-
We can do the MIT shock calculations entirely by hand.
478+
We can do the MIT shock calculations mostly by hand.
394479
395480
Thus, for path 1, $\pi_t = \mu_0 $ for all $t \in [0, T_1-1]$, while for path 2,
396481
$\mu_s = \mu^*$ for all $s \geq T_1$.
@@ -399,7 +484,7 @@ We now move on to experiment 2, our "MIT shock", completely unforeseen
399484
sudden stabilization.
400485
401486
We set this up so that the $\{\mu_t\}$ sequences that describe the sudden stabilization
402-
are identical to those for experiment 1, the foreseen suddent stabilization.
487+
are identical to those for experiment 1, the foreseen sudden stabilization.
403488
404489
The following code does the calculations and plots outcomes.
405490
<!-- #endregion -->
@@ -523,17 +608,17 @@ ax[2].plot(T_seq, m_seq_1 - p_seq_1,
523608
ax[2].set_ylabel(r'$m - p$')
524609
525610
ax[3].plot(T_seq, m_seq_2_regime1,
526-
label=r'Unforseen (Insist on $m_{T_1}$)')
611+
label=r'Unforeseen (Smooth $m_{T_1}$)')
527612
ax[3].plot(T_seq, m_seq_2_regime2,
528-
label=r'Unforseen (Reset $m_{T_1}$)')
613+
label=r'Unforeseen ($m_{T_1}$ jumps)')
529614
ax[3].plot(T_seq, m_seq_1,
530615
label='Foreseen shock')
531616
ax[3].set_ylabel(r'$m$')
532617
533618
ax[4].plot(T_seq, p_seq_2_regime1,
534-
label=r'Unforseen (Insist on $m_{T_1}$)')
619+
label=r'Unforeseen (Smooth $m_{T_1}$)')
535620
ax[4].plot(T_seq, p_seq_2_regime2,
536-
label=r'Unforseen (Reset $m_{T_1}$)')
621+
label=r'Unforeseen ($m_{T_1}$ jumps)')
537622
ax[4].plot(T_seq, p_seq_1,
538623
label='Foreseen')
539624
ax[4].set_ylabel(r'$p$')
@@ -550,79 +635,6 @@ plt.show()
550635
551636
+++ {"user_expressions": []}
552637
553-
### The log price level
554-
555-
We can use equations {eq}`eq:caganmd` and {eq}`eq:ree`
556-
to discover that the log of the price level satisfies
557-
558-
$$
559-
p_t = m_t + \alpha \pi_t
560-
$$ (eq:pformula2)
561-
562-
or, by using equation {eq}`eq:fisctheory1`,
563-
564-
$$
565-
p_t = m_t + \alpha \left[ (1-\delta) \sum_{s=t}^T \delta^{s-t} \mu_s + \delta^{T+1-t} \pi_{T+1}^* \right]
566-
$$ (eq:pfiscaltheory2)
567-
568-
At time $T_1$ when the "surprise" regime change occurs, to satisfy
569-
equation {eq}`eq:pformula2`, the log of real balances jumps
570-
**upward* as $\pi_t$ jumps **downward**.
571-
572-
But in order for $m_t - p_t$ to jump, which variable jumps, $m_{T_1}$ or $p_{T_1}$?
573-
574-
575-
### What jumps?
576-
577-
What jumps at $T_1$?
578-
579-
Is it $p_{T_1}$ or $m_{T_1}$?
580-
581-
582-
If we insist that the money supply $m_{T_1}$ is locked at its value $m_{T_1}^1$ inherited from the past, then formula {eq}`eq:pformula2` implies that the price level jumps downward at time $T_1$, to coincide with the downward jump in
583-
$\pi_{T_1}$
584-
585-
An alternative assumption about the money supply level is that as part of the "inflation stabilization",
586-
the government resets $m_{T_1}$ according to
587-
588-
$$
589-
m_{T_1}^2 - m_{T_1}^1 = \alpha (\pi^1 - \pi^2)
590-
$$ (eq:eqnmoneyjump)
591-
592-
By letting money jump according to equation {eq}`eq:eqnmoneyjump` the monetary authority prevents the price level
593-
from **falling** at the moment that the unanticipated stabilization arrives.
594-
595-
In various research papers about stabilizations of high inflations, the jump in the money supply described by equation {eq}`eq:eqnmoneyjump` has been called
596-
"the velocity dividend" that a government reaps from implementing a regime change that sustains a permanently lower inflation rate.
597-
598-
#### Technical details about whether $p$ or $m$ jumps at $T_1$
599-
600-
We have noted that with a constant expected forward sequence $\mu_s = \bar \mu$ for $s\geq t$, $\pi_{t} =\bar{\mu}$.
601-
602-
A consequence is that at $T_1$, either $m$ or $p$ must "jump" at $T_1$.
603-
604-
We'll study both cases.
605-
606-
#### $m_{T_{1}}$ does not jump.
607-
608-
$$
609-
\begin{align*}
610-
m_{T_{1}}&=m_{T_{1}-1}+\mu_{0}\\\pi_{T_{1}}&=\mu^{*}\\p_{T_{1}}&=m_{T_{1}}+\alpha\pi_{T_{1}}
611-
\end{align*}
612-
$$
613-
Simply glue the sequences $t\leq T_1$ and $t > T_1$.
614-
615-
#### $m_{T_{1}}$ jumps.
616-
617-
We reset $m_{T_{1}}$ so that $p_{T_{1}}=\left(m_{T_{1}-1}+\mu_{0}\right)+\alpha\mu_{0}$, with $\pi_{T_{1}}=\mu^{*}$.
618-
619-
Then,
620-
621-
$$
622-
m_{T_{1}}=p_{T_{1}}-\alpha\pi_{T_{1}}=\left(m_{T_{1}-1}+\mu_{0}\right)+\alpha\left(\mu_{0}-\mu^{*}\right)
623-
$$
624-
625-
We then compute for the remaining $T-T_{1}$ periods with $\mu_{s}=\mu^{*},\forall s\geq T_{1}$ and the initial condition $m_{T_{1}}$ from above.
626638
627639
628640
#### Experiment 3

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)