Should we be afraid of Friedman's rule?
Should one think of zero nominal interest rates as an undesirable liquidity trap or as the desirable Friedman rule? I use three different frameworks to discuss this issue. First, I restate Cole and Kocherlakota's (1998) analysis of Friedman's rule: short run increases in the money stock - whether through issuing spending coupons, open market operations or foreign exchange intervention - change nothing as long as the money stock shrinks in the long run. Second, two simple ``Keynesian'' models of the inflationary process with a zero lower bound on nominal interest rates imply either that deflationary spirals should be common or that a policy close to the Friedman rule and thus some deflation is optimal. Finally, a formal ``baby-sitting coop'' model implies multiple equilibria, but does not support the injection of liquidity to restore the good equilibrium, in contrast to Krugman (1998).
|Date of creation:||27 Jun 2000|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||Type of Document - .pdf; prepared on PC (TeX); to print on Acrobat Reader: print from there; pages: 55; figures: included. prepared for the TRIO conference in Japan, December 1999|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://188.8.131.52 |
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpma:0004016. 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.