1: Does Money Matter? ( Alan Dunne, Junior Sophister, 1994 )
2: Chapter 14: Modern Macroeconomics and Monetary Policy ( some time in the 1990s)
3: Monetary Neutrality Revisited (G. Mankiw, Essentials of Economics)
According to classical economic theory, money is neutral. That is, changes in the quantity of money affect nominal variables such as the price leve but not real variables such as output. Earlier in this chapter, we noted that most economists accept this conclusion as a description of how the economy works in the long run but not in the short run. With the model of AD and AS, we can illustrate this conclusion and explain more fully.
Suppose that the Federal Reserve reduces the quantity of money in the economy. What effect does this change have? As we discussed, the money supply is one determinant of AD. The reduction in the money supply shifts the AD curve to the left.
The analysis looks like Figure 8. Even though the cause of the shift in AD is different, we would observe the same effects on output and the price level. In the short run, both output and the price level fall. The economy experiences a recession. But over time, the expected price level falls as well. Firms and workers respond to their new expectations by, for instance, agreeing to lower nominal wages. As they do so, the short-run AS curve shifts to the right. Eventually, the economy finds itself back on the long-run AS curve.
Figure 8 shows when money matters for real variables and when it does not. In the long run, money is neutral, as represented by the movement of the economy from point A to point C. But in the short run, a change in the money supply has real effects, as represented by the movement of the economy from A to point V. An old saying summarizes the analysis: "Money is a veil, but when the veil flutters, real output sputters."
4: Post Keynesian Monetary Economics: A Critical Survey (Allin Cottrell, Fall 1992)
(... ...) [L]et me offer a brief account of the main distinguishing features of post Keynesian monetary economics.[5]
I suggest that there are two such features. First, and most generally, there is a stance that can be roughly indicated by the phrase 'money matters'. (...) [I]t refers to the integral role of money in a market, capitalist economy existing in historical time and facing an uncertain fuutre. It signals the view that one cannot first analyse the economy in purely 'real' terms and then add on one's monetary theory 'afterwards'. This idean is common ground for most varieties of post Keynesianism, although it has been developed in various different ways.
Second, many post Keynesians place great emphasis on the endogeneity (and causal passivity) of the quantity of money in modern economies. (...) If this is conjoined with the first stance, one has the idea that while money matters(qualitatively, analytically), the actual ^quantity^ of the stuff in existence at any moment does not. (...)
Section 2 and 3 of the paper survey these two themes--that money matters, and that modern money is essentially endogenous--in turn.
2. 'Money matters'
'Money matters.' 'Money is non-neutral, even in the long run.' Such phrases recur frequently in the post Keynesian literature.[7] Somewhat confusingly, they are not the direct contraries of the propositions that 'money doesn't matter' and that 'money is neutral', as these have been understood by the economists who have from time to time asserted them.
First, 'Money doesn't matter', in the Radcliffe sense,[8] means that the nominal stock of money has little or no independent causal role to play in the economy, and cannot be expected to bear a reliably close relationship with other macroeconomic variables of greater intrinsic interest. Its direct contrary is the statement that 'money matters' in the sense of Milton Friedman(1968), i.e. that variations in the nominal money stock ^do^ have an important role, in causing fluctuations in output and employment (in the short run) and in governing the rate of inflation (in the medium to long term).
Secondly, 'neutrality of money' in the predominant modern sense of the term means that exogenous changes in the nominal money stock will have strictly temporary effect (if any) on real variables, and that the long-run response to such shocks will simply be a proportional re-scaing of nominal variables. 'Non-neutraity of money', within the same framework, means that exogenous changes in money stock have effects on real variables that persist into the long-run: such shocks are not fully dissipated in nominal re-scalings. This is typically coupled with the idea that some obstacle('friction') stands in the way of such re-scaling.
Now when post Keynesian say that money matters, they are neither rejecting Radcliffe nor agreeing with Friedman; and when they say that money is non-neutral they are not (for the most part) saying that exogenous changes in the stock of money have permanent real effects--many would say that the latter thought experiment is misconceived as there is no such thing as an exogenous shock to nominal money supply in a modern credit-money system. (... ...)
5: Milton Friedman and the Money Matters Controversy
6: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2/cj16n2-6.pdf
7: New Evidence That Fully Anticipated Monetary Changes Influence Real Output After All (Robert J. Gordon, 1979)
8:
(... ...) [L]et me offer a brief account of the main distinguishing features of post Keynesian monetary economics.[5]
I suggest that there are two such features. First, and most generally, there is a stance that can be roughly indicated by the phrase 'money matters'. (...) [I]t refers to the integral role of money in a market, capitalist economy existing in historical time and facing an uncertain fuutre. It signals the view that one cannot first analyse the economy in purely 'real' terms and then add on one's monetary theory 'afterwards'. This idean is common ground for most varieties of post Keynesianism, although it has been developed in various different ways.
Second, many post Keynesians place great emphasis on the endogeneity (and causal passivity) of the quantity of money in modern economies. (...) If this is conjoined with the first stance, one has the idea that while money matters(qualitatively, analytically), the actual ^quantity^ of the stuff in existence at any moment does not. (...)
Section 2 and 3 of the paper survey these two themes--that money matters, and that modern money is essentially endogenous--in turn.
2. 'Money matters'
'Money matters.' 'Money is non-neutral, even in the long run.' Such phrases recur frequently in the post Keynesian literature.[7] Somewhat confusingly, they are not the direct contraries of the propositions that 'money doesn't matter' and that 'money is neutral', as these have been understood by the economists who have from time to time asserted them.
First, 'Money doesn't matter', in the Radcliffe sense,[8] means that the nominal stock of money has little or no independent causal role to play in the economy, and cannot be expected to bear a reliably close relationship with other macroeconomic variables of greater intrinsic interest. Its direct contrary is the statement that 'money matters' in the sense of Milton Friedman(1968), i.e. that variations in the nominal money stock ^do^ have an important role, in causing fluctuations in output and employment (in the short run) and in governing the rate of inflation (in the medium to long term).
Secondly, 'neutrality of money' in the predominant modern sense of the term means that exogenous changes in the nominal money stock will have strictly temporary effect (if any) on real variables, and that the long-run response to such shocks will simply be a proportional re-scaing of nominal variables. 'Non-neutraity of money', within the same framework, means that exogenous changes in money stock have effects on real variables that persist into the long-run: such shocks are not fully dissipated in nominal re-scalings. This is typically coupled with the idea that some obstacle('friction') stands in the way of such re-scaling.
Now when post Keynesian say that money matters, they are neither rejecting Radcliffe nor agreeing with Friedman; and when they say that money is non-neutral they are not (for the most part) saying that exogenous changes in the stock of money have permanent real effects--many would say that the latter thought experiment is misconceived as there is no such thing as an exogenous shock to nominal money supply in a modern credit-money system. (... ...)
5: Milton Friedman and the Money Matters Controversy
6: http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2/cj16n2-6.pdf
7: New Evidence That Fully Anticipated Monetary Changes Influence Real Output After All (Robert J. Gordon, 1979)
8:
글
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기