DOCSLIB.ORG

Debt-Led Growth and Its Financial Fragility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Debt-Led Growth and Its Financial Fragility Debt-led growth and its financial fragility Joana David Avritzer December 30, 2020 Abstract This paper discusses the financial sustainability of demand-led growth models. We assume a supermultiplier growth model in which household consumption is the autonomous component of demand that drives growth. We show that for positive rates of growth the model converges to an equilibrium where worker households are accumulating debt and not wealth. We also show that when the economy is growing at a rate that is positive, but not too high, the dynamics of the model also implies that households will not be able to service their debt at equilibrium. We then conclude that this household debt-financed consump- tion pattern of economic growth generates an internal dynamic that leads to financial instability. Keywords: household wealth dynamics, debt-financed consumption, growth and financial fragility; JEL Classification: E11, E12, E21, O41. 1 1 Introduction This paper discusses the financial sustainability of demand-led growth models, in which household debt-financed consumption is the autonomous component of de- mand that drives growth. It is composed of three sections, besides this introduction and a conclusion. In the first section we present a literature review of demand-led growth theories focusing on those models that incorporate household debt-financed consumption. We discuss the models presented both by the neo-Kaleckian and the su- permultiplier theory. We see that while in the neo-Kaleckian model the debt-financed component of consumption must be determined by current income, as investment is autonomous, in the supermultiplier literature credit-financed consumption can be autonomous from current income. These models also allow us to think about the financial sustainability of these patterns of growth from the perspective of the work- ing households as they accumulate debt so as to maintain consumption. In the second section of this paper we present our own model for the consumption function of the working household. We argue that workers consumption is deter- mined by a wealth target, as is suggested in Dutt (2006). However, we also suggest that their wealth target cannot be fully explained by their current income. Conse- quently, their consumption becomes partially autonomous from current income. We then develop a surpermultiplier model of growth in which household consumption, which can be financed through debt or accumulated wealth, becomes the autonomous component of demand that drives growth. Finally, in the third section of this paper we discuss the long run dynamics of our model. We find that for positive rate of economic growth the long run stability of our model require households to accumulate debt. We also find that for positive, but not too high, rates of economic growth, the dynamics of our model leads households 2 to accumulate a level of debt is not financially sustainable to them as their debt servicing becomes higher than their wages. 2 Demand-led growth and household debt-financed consumption The neo-Kaleckian approach assumes that capitalist investment is autonomous from current income as it follows the function described in Bhaduri and Marglin (1990). In these models household debt dynamics has been incorporated through the defini- tion of a workers consumption function that allows them to consume beyond their income as they accumulate debt. However, since this approach assume an exogenous investment function, this accumulation of debt must always become, for some reason or another, determined by current income. Dutt (2005, 2006) suggests that worker’s consumption, CW , and capitalists consump- 1 tion, CΠ, is given by the following two equations : dD CW = (1 − π)Y − rD + ; dt (1) CΠ = (1 − s)(πY + rD) Where Y is income, r is the interest rate, π is profit share, s is the fraction of income that household save and D is the stock of debt. It is also assumed that household accumulate a stock of debt that is given by a desired level of new borrowing, which is then determined by current income: dD (2) dt = B = Bd = β[(1 − π)Y − rD] 1The notation of the model has been slightly modified from the original contribution for consis- tency of notation through out the paper 3 Where β is the borrowing to net income ratio. Since the accumulation of new loan is a function of workers current income, total consumption becomes entirely determined I by current income and we can then assume that capital accumulation, K , follows a typical Kaleckian function as developed by Bhaduri and Marglin (1990). Another attempt of incorporating household debt-financed consumption into a neo-Kaleckian framework has been done by Setterfield and Kim (2016, 2017, 2018). In their model total income Y is divided into: Y = WP N + WSαN + Π (3) Where WP is the real wage of production workers, N is the number of production workers employed, WS is the real wage of supervisory workers, α < 1 denotes the necessary ratio of managers to production workers and Π denotes total profits. It is further assumed that WS = φWP , supervisor work get a constant portion of production workers. Additionally, total consumption, C, is given by2: _ C = CW + CR + D; _ T D = β(C − CW ); β > 0; T C = ηCR − !s;!s = tΠ; (4) CW = cW WP N; CR = cπ[φαWP N + (1 − t)Π + rDR] Where CW is consumption by working households, CR is consumption by rentier households and D_ is the borrowing by working households to finance additional consumption. Household borrowing is then determined by a targeted level of con- 2The notation of the model has been slightly modified from the original contribution for consis- tency of notation through out the paper. 4 sumption, CT , which, in its turn is determined by η, the emulation (keeping up with the Joneses) effect, minus the !s, social wages (social welfare system). Finally, DR = D − DW is the part of workers’ debt that is owned by the rentiers households for which they must pay an interest rate r. Palley (2010) and Pariboni (2016) emphasize that both models above require that B I D = K , in other words, that the stock of capital and the stock of debt grow at the same rate. This means that the pace of total consumption (induced plus credit financed) must be determined by the rate of capital accumulation. In Dutt (2005, 2006) this is done through the assumption that the desired level of borrowing Bd is determined by current income, as Bd = b[(1 − σ)Y − rD]. In this way the demand B I for loans grow in line with income and output and condition D = K is satisfied. In the model of Setterfield and Kim (2016, 2017, 2018) we must also have that the rate of accumulation determines the rate of growth of aggregate demand. This is done through assuming an endogenous consumption target. 2.1 The supermultiplier approach Under the supermultiplier approach, since investment is not autonomous from cur- rent income, we can assume that consumption is split into an induced component and an autonomous component such that:3 a Ct = c(1 − t)Yt + Ct + Et (5) a Where c is the marginal propensity to consume, t is the tax rate, Ct is worker’s autonomous consumption financed out of endogenous credit money and Et is cap- 3The notation of the model has been slightly modified from the original contribution for consis- tency of notation through out the paper. 5 italists’ autonomous consumption expenditure. Consequently we can sum all the autonomous expenditures which are neither financed by income nor affect the pro- duction capacity of the capitalist sector as: a Zt = Et + Ct + Gt (6) Where Gt is government expenditure. In this model, we must have investment It being determined by current income, such that: It = htYt; (7) _ with h = htγ(ut − un) Where ht is the marginal propensity to invest, which is determined by the adjustment _ of the rate of capacity utilization, ut, to its normal level, un: h = htγ(ut − un). We can then see that, in this model, the short run equilibrium output is determined by the autonomous component of demand, Zt, such that: Zt Yt = (8) s − ht _ with s = 1 − c(1 − t). This means that, under steady state, as ut = un, h =u _ = 0, the rate of growth is given by the rate of growth of the autonomous component of demand: ∗ g = gZ (9) W Pariboni (2016) then suggests we assume that workers’ consumption, Ct , has an induced part and a credit-finance part, Bt, which is autonomous from current income Π and that capitalists’ consumption, Ct , is entirely determined by current income. In 6 this model we have that: W Ct = cw[(1 − π)Yt − (r + φ)Dt] + Bt; Π C = cππYt; t (10) a Ct = Bt − cw(r + φ)Dt; a ) Yt = Yt[cw(1 − Π) + cΠΠ + ht] + Ct Where Dt is the stock of accumulated debt, r is the interest rate, φ is the percentage of the D that is paid off in each period. In this version of the supermultiplier a model Zt = Ct , in other words, the autonomous component of demand is household debt-financed consumption. It is also possible to show that, in this case, we have that g∗ = gCa , where gCa is the exogenously given rate of growth of debt-financed consumption.“[T]his result implies that, given enough time, demand and output will tend to evolve at the rate of growth of the autonomous components of demand; in this case, workers’ autonomous consumption." (Pariboni, 2016, p. 224) Finally, it is also important to mention the work of Brochier and Silva (2018), which suggests a stock flow consistent Supermultiplier model where non-capacity creating autonomous component of demand is households’ consumption out of wealth.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • AP Macroeconomics: Vocabulary 1. Aggregate Spending (GDP)
    AP Macroeconomics: Vocabulary 1. Aggregate Spending (GDP): The sum of all spending from four sectors of the economy. GDP = C+I+G+Xn 2. Aggregate Income (AI) :The sum of all income earned by suppliers of resources in the economy. AI=GDP 3. Nominal GDP: the value of current production at the current prices 4. Real GDP: the value of current production, but using prices from a fixed point in time 5. Base year: the year that serves as a reference point for constructing a price index and comparing real values over time. 6. Price index: a measure of the average level of prices in a market basket for a given year, when compared to the prices in a reference (or base) year. 7. Market Basket: a collection of goods and services used to represent what is consumed in the economy 8. GDP price deflator: the price index that measures the average price level of the goods and services that make up GDP. 9. Real rate of interest: the percentage increase in purchasing power that a borrower pays a lender. 10. Expected (anticipated) inflation: the inflation expected in a future time period. This expected inflation is added to the real interest rate to compensate for lost purchasing power. 11. Nominal rate of interest: the percentage increase in money that the borrower pays the lender and is equal to the real rate plus the expected inflation. 12. Business cycle: the periodic rise and fall (in four phases) of economic activity 13. Expansion: a period where real GDP is growing. 14. Peak: the top of a business cycle where an expansion has ended.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics 2 Professor Christina Romer Spring 2019 Professor David Romer LECTURE 20 PLANNED AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE and OUTPUT Ap
    Economics 2 Professor Christina Romer Spring 2019 Professor David Romer LECTURE 20 PLANNED AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE AND OUTPUT April 11, 2019 I. OVERVIEW OF SHORT-RUN FLUCTUATIONS II. THE KEY ROLE OF DEMAND A. Terminology B. Evidence C. Source III. PLANNED AGGREGATE EXPENDITURE (PAE) A. Components B. Short run versus long run IV. DETERMINANTS OF EACH COMPONENT OF PAE p A. Planned investment (I ) B. Government spending (G) and net exports (NX) C. Consumption (C) 1. Factors that affect consumption 2. The “consumption function” V. DETERMINANTS OF OUTPUT IN THE SHORT RUN A. 45-degree line (Y = PAE) B. Expenditure line (PAE) C. Equilibrium and how the economy gets there D. Short-run versus long-run equilibrium VI. SHIFTS IN THE EXPENDITURE LINE A. Crucial determinant of short-run fluctuations B. Example: A decline in autonomous consumption C. The multiplier effect Economics 2 Christina Romer Spring 2019 David Romer LECTURE 20 Planned Aggregate Expenditure and Output April 11, 2019 Announcements • We have handed out Problem Set 5. • It is due at the start of lecture on Thursday, April 18th. • Problem set work session Monday, April 15th, 6:00–8:00 p.m. in 648 Evans. • Research paper reading for next time. • Romer and Romer, “The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes.” I. OVERVIEW OF SHORT-RUN FLUCTUATIONS Real GDP in the United States, 1948–2018 Source: FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data); data from Bureau of Economic Analysis. Short-Run Fluctuations • Times when output moves above or below potential (booms and recessions). • Recessions are costly and very painful to the people affected. Deviation of GDP from Potential and the Unemployment Rate Unemployment Rate Percent Deviation of GDP from Potential Source: FRED; data from Bureau of Labor Statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • AGGREGATE DEMAND and ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS Principles of Economics in Context (Goodwin, Et Al.), 2Nd Edition
    Chapter 24 AGGREGATE DEMAND AND ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS Principles of Economics in Context (Goodwin, et al.), 2nd Edition Chapter Overview This chapter first introduces the analysis of business cycles, and introduces you to the two stylized facts of the business cycle. The chapter then presents the Classical theory of savings-investment balance through the market for loanable funds. Next, the Keynesian aggregate demand analysis in the form of the traditional "Keynesian Cross" diagram is developed. You will learn what happens when there’s an unexpected fall in spending, and the role of the multiplier in moving to a new equilibrium. Chapter Objectives After reading and reviewing this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Describe how unemployment and inflation are thought to normally behave over the business cycle. 2. Model consumption and investment, the components of aggregate demand in the simple model. 3. Describe the problem that “leakages” present for maintaining aggregate demand, and the classical and Keynesian approaches to leakages. 4. Understand how the equilibrium levels of income, consumption, investment, and savings are determined in the Keynesian model, as presented in equations and graphs. 5. Explain how, in the Keynesian model, the macroeconomy can equilibrate at a less-than-full-employment output level. 6. Describe the workings of “the multiplier,” in words and equations. Key Terms Okun’s “law” behavioral equation “full-employment output” (Y*) marginal propensity to consume aggregate expenditure (AE) marginal propensity to save accounting identity paradox of thrift Chapter 24 – Aggregate Demand and Economic Fluctuations 1 Active Review Fill in the Blank 1. The macroeconomic goal that involves keeping the rate of unemployment and inflation at acceptable levels over the business cycle is the goal of .
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomic Implications of Consumption: State-Of-Art and Prospects for the Heterodox Future Research
    The macroeconomic implications of consumption: state-of-art and prospects for the heterodox future research Lídia Brochier1 and Antonio Carlos Macedo e Silva2 Abstract The recent US economic scenario has motivated a series of heterodox papers concerned with household indebtedness and consumption. Though discussing autonomous consumption, most of the theoretical papers rely on private investment-led growth models. An alternative approach is the so-called Sraffian supermultipler model, which treats long-run investment as induced, allowing for the possibility that other final demand components – including consumption – may lead long-run growth. We suggest that the dialogue between these approaches is not only possible but may prove to be quite fruitful. Keywords: Consumption, household debt, growth theories, autonomous expenditure. JEL classification: B59, E12, E21. 1 PhD Student, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil. [email protected] 2 Professor at University of Campinas (UNICAMP), São Paulo, Brazil. [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Following Keynes’ famous dictum on investment as the “causa causans” of output and employment levels, macroeconomic literature has tended to depict personal consumption as a well-behaved and rather uninteresting aggregate demand component.3 To be sure, consumption is much less volatile than investment. Does it really mean it is less important? For many Keynesian economists, the answer is – or at least was, until recently – probably positive. At any rate, the American experience has at least demonstrated that consumption is important, and not only because it usually represents more than 60% of GDP. After all, in the U.S., the very ratio between consumption and GDP has been increasing since the 1980s, in spite of the stagnant real labor income and the growing income inequality.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4.Pmd
    Chapter4 Determination of Income and Employment We have so far talked about the national income, price level, rate of interest etc. in an ad hoc manner – without investigating the forces that govern their values. The basic objective of macroeconomics is to develop theoretical tools, called models, capable of describing the processes which determine the values of these variables. Specifically, the models attempt to provide theoretical explanation to questions such as what causes periods of slow growth or recessions in the economy, or increment in the price level, or a rise in unemployment. It is difficult to account for all the variables at the same time. Thus, when we concentrate on the determination of a particular variable, we must hold the values of all other variables constant. This is a stylisation typical of almost any theoretical exercise and is called the assumption of ceteris paribus, which literally means ‘other things remaining equal’. You can think of the procedure as follows – in order to solve for the values of two variables x and y from two equations, we solve for one variable, say x, in terms of y from one equation first, and then substitute this value into the other equation to obtain the complete solution. We apply the same method in the analysis of the macroeconomic system. In this chapter we deal with the determination of National Income under the assumption of fixed price of final goods and constant rate of interest in the economy. The theoretical model used in this chapter is based on the theory given by John Maynard Keynes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sraffian Supermultiplier and the Stylized Facts
    Texto para Discussão 005 | 2019 Discussion Paper 005 | 2019 Stagnation and unnaturally low interest rates: a simple critique of the amended New Consensus and the Sraffian supermultiplier alternative Franklin Serrano Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Ricardo Summa Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Vivian Garrido Moreira Universidade Estadual do Centro Oeste - UNICENTRO This paper can be downloaded without charge from http://www.ie.ufrj.br/index.php/index-publicacoes/textos-para-discussao Stagnation and unnaturally low interest rates: a simple critique of the amended New Consensus and the Sraffian supermultiplier alternative1 March. 2019 Franklin Serrano Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Ricardo Summa Instituto de Economia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro Vivian Garrido Moreira Universidade Estadual do Centro Oeste – UNICENTRO Abstract This paper argues that the amended versions (financial wedge and secular stagnation) of the simple pragmatic New Consensus model are as open to theretical criticism as the original one. We show that: (1) the real natural rate of interest is unlikely to be negative and (2) it (inconsistently) depends on the neoclassical investment function drawn at a position of full employment, in a model which the economy is demand constrained; (3) both investment and full employment saving are induced by the trend of demand in the longer run and this challenges the usefulness of the notion of a natural or neutral rate of interest, which (4) are also subject to the sraffian capital critique. This is then constrasted to an alternative simple Sraffian Supermultiplier model in which the interest rate and the financial wedge are distributive instead of allocative variables, and there is no natural rate of interest since in the longer run there is no trade-off between consumption and investment and also no full employment of labor.
    [Show full text]
  • Joana David Avritzer Debt-Led Growth and Its Financial Fragility: An
    Joana David Avritzer Debt-led growth and its financial fragility: an investigation into the dynamics of a supermultiplier model March 2021 Working Paper 06/2021 Department of Economics The New School for Social Research The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the New School for Social Research. © 2021 by Joana David Avritzer. All rights reserved. Short sections of text may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit is given to the source. Debt-led growth and its financial fragility: an investigation into the dynamics of a supermultiplier model Joana David Avritzer1 This paper discusses the financial sustainability of demand-led growth models. We assume a supermultiplier growth model in which household consumption is the autonomous component of demand that drives growth and discuss the financial sustainability of such dynamics of growth from the perspective of the working households. We show that for positive rates of growth the model converges to an equilibrium where worker households are accumulating debt and not wealth. We also show that when the economy is growing at a rate that is positive, and between 2% and 4.4%, the dynamics of the model also implies that households will not be able to service their debt at the point of full long run equilibrium. We then conclude that this household debt-financed consumption pattern of economic growth generates an internal dynamic that leads to financial instability. Keywords: household debt dynamics, debt-financed consumption, growth and financial fragility; JEL Classification: E11, E12, E21, O41. 1 Connecticut College and IRID-UFRJ, email: [email protected]; 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Way Brands Work: Consumers' Understanding of the Creation and Usage of Brands
    The Way Brands Work: Consumers' understanding of the creation and usage of brands Bertilsson, Jon 2009 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Bertilsson, J. (2009). The Way Brands Work: Consumers' understanding of the creation and usage of brands. Lund Business Press. Total number of authors: 1 General rights Unless other specific re-use rights are stated the following general rights apply: Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Read more about Creative commons licenses: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. LUND UNIVERSITY PO Box 117 221 00 Lund +46 46-222 00 00 Download date: 06. Oct. 2021 The way brands work Consumers’ understanding of the creation and usage of brands Jon Bertilsson Lund Institute of Economic Research School of Economics and Management Lund Business Press Lund Studies in Economics and Management 114 Lund Business Press Lund Institute of Economic Research P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consumption Function: a New Perspective
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Consumption Function: A New Perspective Foster, John School of Economics, University of Queensland 6 February 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/84383/ MPRA Paper No. 84383, posted 06 Feb 2018 12:38 UTC The Consumption Function: A New Perspective John Foster1 The School of Economics The University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland 4072 Australia [email protected] Abstract The behaviour of aggregate consumption is conventionally understood from the perspective of the permanent income and life cycle hypotheses. Both of these hypotheses are deduced from the theory of constrained optimization as applied to a ‘representative agent’ that consumes and saves. An alternative way of understanding aggregate consumption expenditure is to see it as primarily a systemic outcome of the adoption of widely upheld rules (‘meso-rules’) that enable trading and contracting in a complex economic system. Such systems require order to function but they must also adapt and evolve. Correspondingly, aggregate consumption can be viewed as being determined by two contrasting historical processes: one involves an aggregation of pre-committed, rule-bound choices and the other open-ended aspirational choices of novel products. Both of these processes are influenced by economic incentives. This is the domain of neoclassical economic theory and it is found that such theorising can tell us a great deal once it is set in its proper historical context. Although a modern complex system perspective derived from the natural sciences is adopted, it is embedded in economic thinking. For example, connections are made to the insights and intuitions of Alfred Marshall, Joseph Schumpeter, Simon Kuznets, Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumption and Investments As Determination of Aggregate Demand
    Consumption and Investments as Determination of Aggregate Demand 3 Unit highlights: Relationship between income and consumption MPc, APc Life-cycle hypothesis Permanent income hypothesis Non-income determinants of consumption Salient features of investment Descounting and present value of Bangladesh Open University Lesson 1: Consumer Spending and Income are closely related Lesson objectives: After studying this lesson, you will be able to w see why understanding consumer behavior is important for shortrun stabilization as well as for long run growth. w understand why high-income families on the average save more than low- income families. w see what MPC and MPS measure and how they are related to each other. w interpret the saving function in relation to the consumption function. Lesson 1: Consumer Spending and Income are closely related Macroeconomics is a policy science. One kind of policy has to do with short-run stabilization i.e. to keep the national output and employment as close as possible Studying the to their potential levels. The system of national income accounts provides us with determinants of consumer the data necessary to see whether and how far the national product has deviated spending is from the potential (full employment) output in particular years. Having seen what important for has happened, the task of theory is to provide an explanation so that appropriate short run stabilization policies may be initiated wherever necessary. Where to look for an explanation? The natural starting point would be to look at the GDP identity from the expenditure side. GDP = C + I + G + NX There are four component on the right-hand side of the above identity, representing together the aggregated demand for GDP produced in a given period.
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomic Implications of Consumption: State-Of-Art and Prospects for the Heterodox Future Research
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Macroeconomic Implications of Consumption: State-of-Art and Prospects for the Heterodox Future Research Brochier, Lidia and Macedo e Silva, Antonio Carlos University of Campinas July 2017 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/92672/ MPRA Paper No. 92672, posted 21 Mar 2019 09:38 UTC The Macroeconomic Implications of Consumption: State-of-Art and Prospects for the Heterodox Future Research As Implicações Macroeconômicas do Consumo: Perspectivas para a Pesquisa Heterodoxa Lídia Brochier* Antonio Carlos Macedo e Silva** Abstract: The recent US economic scenario has motivated a series of heterodox papers concerned with household indebtedness and consumption. Though discussing autonomous consumption, most of the theoretical papers rely on private investment- led growth models. An alternative approach is the so-called Sraffian supermultipler model, which treats long-run investment as induced, allowing for the possibility that other final demand components – including consumption – may lead long-run growth. We suggest that the dialogue between these approaches is not only possible but may prove to be quite fruitful. Keywords: Consumption. Household debt. Growth theories. Autonomous expenditures. Resumo: O cenário econômico recente dos Estados Unidos motivou uma série de artigos de cunho heterodoxo preocupados com o endividamento das famílias e com o consumo. Apesar de discutirem o consumo autônomo, a maioria dos artigos teóricos se baseia em modelos de crescimento liderado pelo investimento privado. Uma abordagem alternativa é a do chamado supermultiplicador “sraffiano”, que aborda o investimento de longo prazo como induzido, permitindo que outros componentes da demanda final – incluindo o consumo – possam assumir a liderança do crescimento de longo prazo.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 19 : Quantity Theory, Inflation, and the Demand for Money
    Econ 330: Money and Banking Spring 2015, Handout 9 Chapter 19 : Quantity Theory, Inflation, and the Demand for Money A. Quantity Theory of Money • The velocity of money is defined as the average number of times per year that a dollar is spent in buying the total amount of goods and services produced in the economy P × Y V = M • The equation of exchange M × V = P × Y • Demand for money 1 M = × PY V M d = k × PY Demand for money is a function of income, and is not affected by interest rates. • From the Equation of Exchange to the Quantity Theory of Money In the short run, velocity is constant, so that V = V . P × Y = M × V • Quantity Theory and the Price Level In the short run, Y could be treated as reasonably constant, and thus Y = Y . V¯ P = M × Y¯ Changes in the quantity of money M lead to proportional changes in the price level P . • Quantity Theory and Inflation M × V = P × Y 4M 4V 4P 4Y + = + M V P Y %4M + %4V = %4P + %4Y π = %4M + %4V − %4Y Since we assume velocity is constant, its growth rate is zero, so π = %4M − %4Y The inflation rate equals the growth rate of the money supply minus the growth rate of aggregate output. 1 B. Keynesian Theories of Money Demand • Motives behind the demand for money 1. Transactions Motive – As a medium of exchange 2. Precautionary Motive – As a cushion against unexpected wants 3. Speculative Motive – As a store of wealth, and its opportunity cost relative to holding other assets, such as bonds, is the nominal interest rate on bond, i.
    [Show full text]