<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Elitist Case Against Bernanke</title>
	<atom:link href="http://elidourado.com/blog/elitist-case-against-bernanke/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://elidourado.com/blog/elitist-case-against-bernanke/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:48:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eli</title>
		<link>http://elidourado.com/blog/elitist-case-against-bernanke/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>Eli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elidourado.com/?p=224#comment-29</guid>
		<description>That is a fair point, and it underscores how bad monetary policy has been.  But look at it in expectational terms: had Bernanke done his job, I think there would have been full employment in 2010.  Probably a lot of other people thought this would be the case as well.  Telling people in 2008 that a fiscal stimulus will hit in 2010, when they &lt;em&gt;expect&lt;/em&gt; to be back at full employment, does no good.  It creates no additional motive for investment, because entrepreneurs expect to be fully crowded out.  Only if they expect less than full employment in 2010 will a stimulus scheduled for 2010 be stimulating in 2008.  So while I am happy to cede the point that &lt;em&gt;ex post&lt;/em&gt; the fiscal stimulus will be spent before a return to full employment, that does not diminish the fact that the timeliness of fiscal stimulus is a problem, both in general and in this recession.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is a fair point, and it underscores how bad monetary policy has been.  But look at it in expectational terms: had Bernanke done his job, I think there would have been full employment in 2010.  Probably a lot of other people thought this would be the case as well.  Telling people in 2008 that a fiscal stimulus will hit in 2010, when they <em>expect</em> to be back at full employment, does no good.  It creates no additional motive for investment, because entrepreneurs expect to be fully crowded out.  Only if they expect less than full employment in 2010 will a stimulus scheduled for 2010 be stimulating in 2008.  So while I am happy to cede the point that <em>ex post</em> the fiscal stimulus will be spent before a return to full employment, that does not diminish the fact that the timeliness of fiscal stimulus is a problem, both in general and in this recession.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: apikoros</title>
		<link>http://elidourado.com/blog/elitist-case-against-bernanke/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>apikoros</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elidourado.com/?p=224#comment-28</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Much of the recent fiscal stimulus will not be spent until after the economy returns to full employment.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I have to disagree here.  The current stimulus package will all be spent by the end of 2010.  I know of no one who is forecasting unemployment below 8% by then and many who are forecasting unemployment above 8% until 2012-14.  If you know of someone who is predicting a return to full employment (however you want to define that) by the end of 2010, I&#039;d love to see it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Much of the recent fiscal stimulus will not be spent until after the economy returns to full employment.</p></blockquote>
<p>I have to disagree here.  The current stimulus package will all be spent by the end of 2010.  I know of no one who is forecasting unemployment below 8% by then and many who are forecasting unemployment above 8% until 2012-14.  If you know of someone who is predicting a return to full employment (however you want to define that) by the end of 2010, I&#8217;d love to see it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eli</title>
		<link>http://elidourado.com/blog/elitist-case-against-bernanke/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Eli</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elidourado.com/?p=224#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Pietro, there are multiple stories for why keeping nominal GDP on a stable trajectory is a good idea. The simplest one is that it&#039;s a good heuristic. NGDP = [monetary base] * [how fast the monetary base is spent]. One of the characteristics of a recession is usually that the velocity of money decreases because 1) there aren&#039;t good investment projects and 2) some people hoard cash. If you are keeping NGDP on a stable trajectory, then you&#039;ve got to increase the monetary base when velocity falls, and decrease it when velocity rises. This is a pretty good, if not perfect, rule.

I agree that relative prices also matter, and in a perfect world they would reflect people&#039;s genuine preferences. But I think that an explicit NGDP target would not actually be that damaging to relative prices, particularly if it were rigorously adhered to. Even Hayek argued that stabilizing NGDP is important, and some modern Austrian economists, who are clearly sensitive to the relative prices issue, endorse the idea. The real problem for relative prices comes when you try to get a little boost from a monetary surprise, above and beyond the stated NGDP target.

I think the idea you&#039;re referring to is a liquidity trap. The simple version of the liquidity trap story is that during a bad recession, money demand becomes highly elastic. Injections of money just get hoarded and never make it to the loanable funds market, so interest rates don&#039;t go down. There is a related story in which nominal interest rates are already at zero and cannot go lower. If monetary policy can&#039;t affect the interest rate, the argument goes, then it is ineffective. I don&#039;t buy either of these stories. First, the hoarding argument is overstated. A more sophisticated version is that people invest in lower risk assets, which I think is probably true. But even this is not that important because, second, interest rates are not the only channel through which monetary policy affects the economy. If the Fed printed a billion dollars and gave it to me, I would spend some money, regardless of what interest rates are. The reality is that the Fed has lots of tools to stimulate the economy, even if the injections don&#039;t go directly to the market for loanable funds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pietro, there are multiple stories for why keeping nominal GDP on a stable trajectory is a good idea. The simplest one is that it&#8217;s a good heuristic. NGDP = [monetary base] * [how fast the monetary base is spent]. One of the characteristics of a recession is usually that the velocity of money decreases because 1) there aren&#8217;t good investment projects and 2) some people hoard cash. If you are keeping NGDP on a stable trajectory, then you&#8217;ve got to increase the monetary base when velocity falls, and decrease it when velocity rises. This is a pretty good, if not perfect, rule.</p>
<p>I agree that relative prices also matter, and in a perfect world they would reflect people&#8217;s genuine preferences. But I think that an explicit NGDP target would not actually be that damaging to relative prices, particularly if it were rigorously adhered to. Even Hayek argued that stabilizing NGDP is important, and some modern Austrian economists, who are clearly sensitive to the relative prices issue, endorse the idea. The real problem for relative prices comes when you try to get a little boost from a monetary surprise, above and beyond the stated NGDP target.</p>
<p>I think the idea you&#8217;re referring to is a liquidity trap. The simple version of the liquidity trap story is that during a bad recession, money demand becomes highly elastic. Injections of money just get hoarded and never make it to the loanable funds market, so interest rates don&#8217;t go down. There is a related story in which nominal interest rates are already at zero and cannot go lower. If monetary policy can&#8217;t affect the interest rate, the argument goes, then it is ineffective. I don&#8217;t buy either of these stories. First, the hoarding argument is overstated. A more sophisticated version is that people invest in lower risk assets, which I think is probably true. But even this is not that important because, second, interest rates are not the only channel through which monetary policy affects the economy. If the Fed printed a billion dollars and gave it to me, I would spend some money, regardless of what interest rates are. The reality is that the Fed has lots of tools to stimulate the economy, even if the injections don&#8217;t go directly to the market for loanable funds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pietro Poggi-Corradini</title>
		<link>http://elidourado.com/blog/elitist-case-against-bernanke/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Pietro Poggi-Corradini</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:16:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://elidourado.com/?p=224#comment-26</guid>
		<description>There&#039;s something fundamental I don&#039;t understand. Why does keeping nominal GDP on track make things better during a recession? What if prices are all out of whack relative to one another? And what about the theory that during a recession all the instruments (monetary or whatnot) that you thought you had before, all of a sudden start to malfunction?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There&#8217;s something fundamental I don&#8217;t understand. Why does keeping nominal GDP on track make things better during a recession? What if prices are all out of whack relative to one another? And what about the theory that during a recession all the instruments (monetary or whatnot) that you thought you had before, all of a sudden start to malfunction?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 2/7 queries in 0.050 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 277/281 objects using disk: basic

Served from: elidourado.com @ 2012-02-07 14:24:30 -->
