The Quantity Theory of Money is Valid. The New Keynesians are Wrong!
We test the quantity theory of money (QTM) using a novel approach and a large new sample. We do not follow the usual approach of first differentiating the logarithm of the Cambridge equation to obtain an equation relating the growth rate of real GDP, the growth rate of money and inflation. These variables must then again be ‘integrated’ by averaging in order to obtain stable relationships. Instead we suggest a much simpler procedure for testing directly the stability of the coefficient of the Cambridge equation. For 125 countries and post-war data we find the coefficient to be surprisingly stable. We do not select for high inflation episodes as was done in most empirical studies; inflation rates do not even appear in our data set. Much work supporting the QTM has been done by economic historians and at the University of Chicago by Milton Friedman and his associates. The QTM was a foundation stone of the monetarist revolution. Subsequently belief in it waned. The currently dominant New Keynesian School, implicitly or explicitly denies the validity of the QTM. We survey this history and argue that the QTM is valid and New Keynesians are wrong.
|Date of creation:||30 Oct 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstr. 28, 80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: http://www.vwl.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jürgen von Hagen, 2004. "Hat die Geldmenge ausgedient?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 5(4), pages 423-453, November.
- Milton Friedman, 1961. "The Lag in Effect of Monetary Policy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69, pages 447-447.
- Olivier J. Blanchard, 2008.
"The State of Macro,"
NBER Working Papers
14259, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Giordani Paolo, 2003. "On Modeling the Effects of Inflation Shocks: Comments and Some Further Evidence," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-15, January.
- V. V. Chari & Patrick J. Kehoe & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2009.
"New Keynesian Models: Not Yet Useful for Policy Analysis,"
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics,
American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 242-266, January.
- V.V. Chari & Patrick J. Kehoe & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2008. "New Keynesian Models: Not Yet Useful for Policy Analysis," NBER Working Papers 14313, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- V. V. Chari & Patrick J. Kehoe & Ellen R. McGrattan, 2008. "New Keynesian models: not yet useful for policy analysis," Staff Report 409, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Ellen R. McGrattan & Patrick J. Kehoe & V. V. Chari, 2008. "New Keynesian models: not yet useful for policy analysis," Working Papers 664, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Fair Ray C, 2002.
"On Modeling the Effects of Inflation Shocks,"
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics,
De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-21, April.
- Gerald P. Dwyer & R. W. Hafer, 1999. "Are money growth and inflation still related?," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, issue Q2, pages 32-43.
- R. W. Hafer, 2001. "What remains of monetarism?," Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, issue Q4, pages 13-33.
- George T. McCandless & Warren E. Weber, 1995. "Some monetary facts," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, issue Sum, pages 2-11.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lmu:muenec:6987. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Tamilla Benkelberg)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.