exciting panel on inflation panel at Sintra, with @Isabel_Schnabel chairing.
Charles Goodhart: we are in an extraordinary moment, we dont have a general theory of inflation.
we used to have two - monetarist and Phillips Curve - but none has performed well.
we also have the expectations theory of inflation - but that doesnt work either, since inflationary expectations are backwards looking and adaptive
oh, Goodhart is now literally reading 'the controversial and disruptive' Fed paper
Goodheart: it was the general availability & weakness of labour over past thirty years that kept inflationary pressures down.
it is the supply side shifts in labour that matter, and @Lagarde ignored it, particularly demographic decline
he also wonders about the wisdom of including owner occupied housing price into consumer price, may generate tightening pressures
hmm, we've returned to Friedman and PC
third speaker giving us some micro foundations for the 'central banks are in control' punchline
pity he's speaking after Goodheart, who's just demolished most of his key assumptions
is there a name for the New Keynesian condition of miscalculating slides to time ratio?
jaja, Charles Goodheart just called inflationary expectations theory 'extremely weak lark'
also, he's brining in a critical issues, globalisation, for which my new macro students should be grateful
the New Keynesian is, unsurprisingly, not impressed with the Fed paper 'if you dont have anything formal, how can you be criticised'
ok, definitely on team Goodheart, who's getting attacked because 'we solved the backwards expectation problem 30 years ago'
New Keynesians, if you come at King Goodhart you better come prepared, cause he was a central banker 30 years ago, and savaged you after Lehman
this is even better
in this brave new world, IMF Chief Economist is calling for workers of the world Unite and ask for higher wages :)
Goodhart: the trust in central bankers being able to raise nominal rates will lead to a sharp recession, worsen fiscal positions, deflate asset bubbles.
you cant raise without coordinating with fiscal
Andrew Bailey @bankofengland - I wouldnt agree Charles on irrelevance of expectations, but we certainly need better modelling to understand 'rational inattention'
love that mainstream macro modelling is again coping with its inattention to the world by blaming the regular human (the agent that ignores inflation when it should notice it)
and Yannis Stournaras brings us back to globalisation, very fittingly
what a gracious chair @Isabel_Schnabel is, excellent panel, one takeaway is that Fed paper ruffled a lot of (New Keynesian) feathers!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am also puzzled by the collective terror of worker power, only a couple of months ago central bankers and IMF chief economists were clamouring for exactly that.
workers of the world unite, just a bit below the inflation target?
first, Quantity Theory of Money is, to cite Charles Goodhart, weak lark, imposing a monetarist causality on an identity.
holding that against MMT is not a serious intellectual effort.
fair enough, they recognize money multiplier (critical to QTM/monetarism) is nonsense
fascinating WEF conversation on private equity as the new climate warriors:
- PE increasingly home for high carbon assets as less regulatory scrutiny and disclosure requirements
one bold claim: PE business model can reduce carbon footprint
PE make money on way out, when they sell companies to another party
if PE inherits a certain ESG/carbon footprint, if it can reduce it in 5 years time, it can create value.
ergo, PE ultimate climate warriors.
of course, 'value' is keyword, and claims that PE will have to green their companies because there are reputational costs are nonsense - Blackstone shrugged off @leilanifarha critique of their practices as institutional landlords
'70% of world’s population is fed by diverse network of small-scale producers and peasants - this group uses less than 25 percent of resources necessary in agricultural production.
industrial food chain feeds only 30% of world, while using over 75 percent of resources'
when fiscal hawks at BIS randomly choose 1995 as year of 'look how much we'd pay in debt service' counterfactual but make no reference to imperative of green public investment
after 15 months of close fiscal-monetary coordination, if fiscal hawks want to make a theoretical case for austerity, they need to do better than 'instability trap'.
Hawkish Alice in Fiscalaland: when you claim that central bank purchases of government debt are actually bad for fiscal position, despite the graph on previous page demonstrating the contrary.