Cause and Cure of the Crisis
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Global Financial Crisis: a Minskyan Interpretation of the Causes, the Fed’S Bailout, and the Future
Working Paper No. 711 Global Financial Crisis: A Minskyan Interpretation of the Causes, the Fed’s Bailout, and the Future by L. Randall Wray Levy Economics Institute of Bard College March 2012 *This paper reports research undertaken as part of a Ford Foundation project, “A Research And Policy Dialogue Project On Improving Governance Of The Government Safety Net In Financial Crisis.” The author thanks June Carbone for comments and Andy Felkerson and Nicola Matthews for assistance. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants. The purpose of the series is to disseminate ideas to and elicit comments from academics and professionals. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. Levy Economics Institute P.O. Box 5000 Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000 http://www.levyinstitute.org Copyright © Levy Economics Institute 2012 All rights reserved ISSN 1547-366X ABSTRACT This paper provides a quick review of the causes of the Global Financial Crisis that began in 2007. There were many contributing factors, but among the most important were rising inequality and stagnant incomes for most American workers, growing private sector debt in the United States and many other countries, financialization of the global economy (itself a very complex process), deregulation and desupervision of financial institutions, and overly tight fiscal policy in many nations. -
Global Financial Crisis: a Minskyan Interpretation of the Causes, the Fed's Bailout, and the Future
A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Wray, L. Randall Working Paper Global Financial Crisis: A Minskyan interpretation of the causes, the Fed's bailout, and the future Working Paper, No. 711 Provided in Cooperation with: Levy Economics Institute of Bard College Suggested Citation: Wray, L. Randall (2012) : Global Financial Crisis: A Minskyan interpretation of the causes, the Fed's bailout, and the future, Working Paper, No. 711, Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/56974 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu Working Paper No. 711 Global Financial Crisis: A Minskyan Interpretation of the Causes, the Fed’s Bailout, and the Future by L. -
C:\Working Papers\11147.Wpd
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHY INFLATION ROSE AND FELL: POLICYMAKERS’ BELIEFS AND US POSTWAR STABILIZATION POLICY Giorgio E. Primiceri Working Paper 11147 http://www.nber.org/papers/w11147 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 February 2005 This paper is a revised version of the second chapter of my Ph.D. dissertation at Princeton University. I am deeply indebted to Chris Sims and Mark Watson for their guidance and advice. I am also grateful to Larry Christiano, Martin Eichenbaum, Jean-Philippe Laforte, Eric Leeper (my discussant at the EF&G research meeting), Francesco Lippi (my discussant at the workshop on Dynamic Macroeconomics), Guido Lorenzoni, Ulrich Mueller, Jonathan Parker, Bruce Preston, Lars Svensson, Lawrence Uren, Noah Williams, Michael Woodford, seminar participants at Princeton University, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, University of Chicago, Northwestern University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, University of Michigan, Columbia University, the Federal Reserve Board, University of California, San Diego, the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, Bocconi University, the Bank of Italy, the European Central Bank, the workshop on Dynamic Macroeconomics, the NBER Monetary Economics and Economic Fluctuations and Growth groups for their comments, and especially to Alejandro Justiniano, Andrea Tambalotti and Thijs van Rens for countless discussions about my work. Remaining errors are my own. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. © 2005 by Giorgio E. Primiceri. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. -
BPEA and Monetary Policy Over 50 Years
BPEA Conference Drafts, March 25, 2021 BPEA and Monetary Policy over 50 Years Alan S. Blinder, Princeton University Conflict of Interest Disclosure: The author did not receive financial support from any firm or person for this article or from any firm or person with a financial or political interest in this paper. They are currently not an officer, director, or board member of any organization with an interest in this paper. BPEA SP21 Blinder Alan S. Blinder Princeton University BPEA and Monetary Policy over 50 Years Prepared for the Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Spring Conference, March 25, 2021 [Conference draft as of March 4, 2021] 1 BPEA SP21 Blinder In the beginning.... In thinking about the historic role the Brookings Panel has played as an intermediary/incubator of ideas between the academic world and the world of actual monetary policy, it is critical to remember both the intellectual and policy settings when BPEA began in 1970. On the intellectual front, academic macroeconomics was far less theoretical and far more grounded in reality than it has been in recent decades. Giant econometric models, built rather loosely on a Keynesian theory that was itself loose, roamed the earth. In fact, one such dinosaur inhabited the Brookings Institution. The theoretical looseness was tolerated in those days. While the Keynesian paradigm dominated the policy world, the monetarist-Keynesian wars were raging--both in academia and in some central banking circles. A lively debate on the subject between Milton Friedman and Walter Heller (1969) had taken place at NYU in November 1968, the same year that Karl Brunner (1968) coined the term “monetarism.” The then-famous Andersen-Jordan (1968) paper, which purported to show empirically that money growth mattered for GDP but fiscal variables did not, had sparked controversy and consternation both in the academy and outside it. -
National Bank of Belgium
Economic Review June 2015 © National Bank of Belgium All rights reserved. Reproduction of all or part of this publication for educational and non‑commercial purposes is permitted provided that the source is acknowledged. ISSN 1780 ‑ 664X Contents ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS FOR BELGIUM – SPRING 2015 7 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ECONOMIC GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT 31 DECOMPOSITION OF THE DYNAMICS OF SOVEREIGN YIELD SPREADS IN THE EURO AREA 51 ANALYSIS OF POLICIES FOR RESTORING SOUND BELGIAN PUBLIC FINANCES 73 DEFLATION IN JAPAN, ABENOMICS AND LESSONS FOR THE EURO AREA 95 SUMMARIES OF ARTICLES 119 ABSTRACTS FROM THE WORKING PAPERS SERIES 123 CONVENTIONAL SIGNS 127 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 129 June 2015 ❙ CONTENTS ❙ 5 Economic projections for Belgium – Spring 2015 Introduction by a period of great volatility in early May when bond prices plummeted and equity prices underwent a limited Since the cut‑off date for the autumn forecasts published correction, both in Europe and elsewhere. The euro has in December 2014, the external environment for the also appreciated slightly since mid‑April. These recent de‑ Belgian economy has substantially changed. For instance, velopments may suggest that the financial markets’ initial oil prices have not bottomed out as expected, but have reaction to the ECB’s quantitative easing was somewhat continued to fall even more steeply. Despite the upward exaggerated, but they may also indicate a gradual rise in trend since early spring, oil prices, both in US dollars and market expectations regarding future growth and inflati‑ in euros, are now significantly cheaper than expected in on in the euro area compared to other regions. The recent the autumn forecasts on the basis of forward contracts movements in interest rates and the euro exchange rate, on the international markets at that time. -
Why Has U.S. Inflation Become Harder to Forecast?
JAMES H. STOCK MARK W. WATSON Why Has U.S. Inflation Become Harder to Forecast? We examine whether the U.S. rate of price inflation has become harder to forecast and, to the extent that it has, what changes in the inflation pro- cess have made it so. The main finding is that the univariate inflation pro- cess is well described by an unobserved component trend-cycle model with stochastic volatility or, equivalently, an integrated moving average process with time-varying parameters. This model explains a variety of recent uni- variate inflation forecasting puzzles and begins to explain some multivariate inflation forecasting puzzles as well. JEL codes: C53, E37 Keywords: Phillips curve, trend-cycle model, moving average, great moderation. THE RATE OF price inflation in the United States has become both harder and easier to forecast, depending on one’s point of view. On the one hand, inflation (along with many other macroeconomic time series) is much less volatile than it was in the 1970s or early 1980s, and the root mean squared error of na¨ıve inflation forecasts has declined sharply since the mid-1980s. In this sense, inflation has become easier to forecast: the risk of inflation forecasts, as measured by mean squared forecast errors (MSFE), has fallen. On the other hand, the improvement of standard multivariate forecasting models, such as the backward-looking Phillips curve, over a univariate benchmark has been less in percentage terms since the mid- 1980s than before. This point was forcefully made by Atkeson and Ohanian (2001) We thank Jonas Fisher for bringing several of the issues discussed in this paper to our attention in a 1999 conversation; Luca Benati for (more recent) helpful suggestions; and Matthew Shapiro, Robert Gordon, and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier draft.