The Fed Tightened Into an Energy Shock: A Policy Error Explanation of the Global Financial Crisis
This interpretation challenges the standard NK narrative that the GFC was the result of exogenous financial frictions or regulatory failure alone (Bernanke, Gertler & Gilchrist 1999). Instead, it suggests that monetary policy itself was a causal amplifier of crisis dynamics.
....by tightening into a negative real-income shock, the Fed mechanically reduced household liquidity, which led to rising delinquency and default rates—first in adjustable-rate subprime mortgages and later system-wide as refinancing options collapsed (Gorton 2008).
...By relying on CPI-based inflation signals that masked energy cost dynamics and by ignoring balance-sheet fragility, the Fed tightened into a supply shock—an error similar in structure to the policy tightening that deepened the recessions following the oil shocks of the 1970s (Hamilton 1983; Blanchard & Galí 2007).
Oil Shock, Fed Tightening, Debt Service Stress, and Mortgage Defaults, 2000–2010
This figure shows that the rise in U.S. inflation during 2004–2007 coincided with a global oil price shock rather than domestic demand pressures. The Federal Reserve responded by raising the federal funds rate seventeen times, which increased household debt service ratios (DSR) and tightened refinancing conditions.
Statistical Confirmation
Appendix A. Statistical Evidence Supporting the Balance-Sheet Transmission of the GFC
Lead–Lag Cross-Correlation Peaks
Granger Causality Tests
Regression Chain Estimation
This empirical sequence is inconsistent with the New Keynesian “exogenous financial shock” view and supports the balance-sheet transmission hypothesis: the crisis emerged endogenously when policy amplified a cost shock within a saturated private-debt system.
References
@threadreaderapp
unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Appendix C. Triangulation and Hierarchy of Evidence: Debt, Assets, and the Monetary Function of the Balance Sheet
"Across all tests, posterior belief that financial assets perform the monetary function exceeds 99.5 %, satisfying the “decisive evidence” threshold."
The Three Axes of Empirical Proof
This establishes the creation mechanism of effective money.
Nominal purchasing power arises not from central-bank base money but from private and public credit issuance.
Balance-Sheet Structure (Ω): Assets as Money’s Internal Equivalent
Assets Are Effective Money: Empirical and Theoretical Evidence from Balance-Sheet Dynamics
This paper argues and demonstrates empirically that financial assets are effective money: their expansion drives aggregate demand, profits, and inflation with measurable lags and with statistical precision that far exceeds the explanatory capacity of conventional monetary aggregates (M1, M2, or base money).
@russellwadey Inflation as the Price-Level Representation of Claim Dilution
"If equity exists on the macro balance sheet, then inflation is the logical and empirical representation of claim dilution — i.e., the price-level adjustment that reconciles expanding nominal claims with real output."
@russellwadey When the total stock of nominal claims expands more rapidly than real output, the purchasing power of each existing claim declines.
@russellwadey Thus, if equity exists on the balance sheet, inflation is the arithmetic reconciliation of nominal claim expansion with real output.
@russellwadey From Ex-Post Income Identity to Ex-Ante Balance-Sheet Dynamics
The income-expenditure identity is descriptive; it records how GDP is distributed.
The balance-sheet identity is causal; it explains how GDP is created.
@russellwadey The identity therefore tells us how income was spent, not why it changed.
@russellwadey Thus, to generate additional spending in aggregate, one sector must expand its balance sheet.
This converts the income-expenditure framework into a flow-of-funds mechanism: