The text is now available of the discussion of of “Inflation targeting does not anchor inflation expectations: Evidence from firms in New Zeland” by Saten Kumar, Hassan Afrouzi, Olivier Coibion, and Yuriy Gorodnichenko at the Fall 2015 Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, Washington, DC, September 10-11, 2015.
Panel discussion, “Optimal Design for Monetary Policy in the Post Crisis Period” (slides), at the conference “Monetary Policy Implementation and Transmission in the Post-Crisis Period,” Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC, November 12-13, 2015.
Excel sheet used in slide 5 for the simple example of a cost-benefit analys of leaning against the wind.
Discussion (slides) of Adair Turner, “The Case for Monetary Finance – An Essentially Political Issue,” at the 16th IMF Annual Research Conference, “Unconventional Monetary and Exchange Rate Polices,” November 5-6, 2015, IMF, Washington, DC.
Video (my discussion starts 25 minutes into the session).
A more rigorous and analytical treatment of the issue is available in this paper by Willem Buiter.
The paper discusses how monetary and macroprudential policies can be distinguished, how appropriate goals for the two policies can be determined, whether the policies are best conducted separately or coordinately and by the same or different authorities and how they can be coordinated when desired. The institutional frameworks in Canada, Sweden and the UK are brieﬂy compared. The Swedish example of monetary policy strongly “leaning against the wind” and the subsequent policy turnaround is summarized, as well as what estimates have been found of the costs and beneﬁts of leaning against the wind. Continue reading
A second discussion (slides) of the paper “Financial Stability and Optimal Interest-Rate Policy” by Andrea Ajello, Thomas Laubach, David López-Salido, and Taisuke Nakata, Federal Reserve Board, at the conference “Monetary Policy Lessons from the Financial Crisis,” Swiss National Bank Research Conference, September 24-26, 2015.
A previous (and different) discussion of this paper is here.
Monetary policy should stick to its core mandate of price stability, and should deviate from its traditional role only if the benefits to the economy outweigh the costs, according to a new study from the International Monetary Fund, “Monetary Policy and Financial Stability.”
The question is whether monetary policy should be altered to contain financial stability risks. Should it lend a hand by temporarily raising interest rates more than warranted by price and output stability objectives?
Based on our current knowledge, and in present circumstances, the answer is generally no.
Discussion (text) of “Inflation targeting does not anchor inflation expectations: Evidence from firms in New Zeland” by Saten Kumar, Hassan Afrouzi, Olivier Coibion, and Yuriy Gorodnichenko at the Fall 2015 Brookings Panel on Economic Activity, Washington, DC, September 10-11, 2015. Published in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2015, 212-219.
Previous version presented at the Bank of England-Hong Kong Monetary Authority-International Monetary Fund conference on Monetary, Financial and Prudential Policy Interactions in the Post-Crisis World held at Bank of England, London, June 16-17, 2015.
An interview of me by IMF Survey.
- Monetary policy is not suitable for managing housing booms and rising household debt
- Not all housing booms pose a problem
- Identifying problem cases requires deep and complex analysis
“A simple cost-benefit analysis of using monetary policy for financial-stability purposes,” in Blanchard, Olivier J., Raghuram Rajan, Kenneth S. Rogoff, and Lawrence H. Summers, eds., Progress and Confusion: The State of Macroeconomic Policy, MIT Press, forthcoming.
Contribution to the conference Rethinking Macro Policy III: Progress or Confusion?, Washington, DC, April 15-16, 2015.
Matthew Klein has published an FT Alphaville post with many errors, “Sweden’s inflation record is less interesting than you think.” Its main point is that “the harshest criticisms [of the Riksbank] seem to be unjustified” and that “A reevaluation of the Riksbank’s recent record looks to be in order.” But the post’s reasoning and conclusion do not stand up to scrutiny. Continue reading
Update of previous post, now with data through March 2015 and with HICP inflation. CPIF inflation has an upward bias, since it excludes the effect on inflation of mortgage rates trending down but includes the effect of housing prices trending up. Nevertheless, counter to what is sometimes argued, the Riksbank’s target achievement does not look better with either CPIF and CPIX inflation, or with HICP inflation.