Logical Pitfalls of Assuming Bounded Solutions to Expectational Difference Equations
The precedent for solving expectational difference equations has been to solve converging equations backwards and diverging equations forward by assuming the solution is bounded. This precedent often leads to incorrect solutions and has less than rigorous foundations. More rigorous procedures would be to determine the terminal condition in a finite model and take the limit of that terminal condition as the horizon goes to infinity. Also, whether one solves forward or backwards depends on the context of the difference equation, not on convergence or divergence. These new procedures reveal Woodford’s (2003) model of a cashless economy to be incomplete.
|Date of creation:||20 Jan 2005|
|Note:||Type of Document - pdf. Shows limitations of Sargent's precedent for solving expectational difference equations. It also shows Woodford's use of Sargent's precedent to be inappropriate.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://econwpa.repec.org|
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.:
- Sargent, Thomas J & Wallace, Neil, 1975. ""Rational" Expectations, the Optimal Monetary Instrument, and the Optimal Money Supply Rule," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(2), pages 241-254, April.
- Aoki, Kosuke, 2001. "Optimal monetary policy responses to relative-price changes," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 55-80, August.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpge:0501002. 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: (EconWPA)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.