tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post2652381204484475910..comments2024-02-14T03:21:37.506-05:00Comments on Monetary Freedom: Selgin and Measures of SpendingBill Woolseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06330232724290161369noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-30958013196776818952016-04-07T19:40:47.744-04:002016-04-07T19:40:47.744-04:00Frankly speaking, these are the concern that almos...Frankly speaking, these are the concern that almost everyone has; we just need to be careful that we don’t do anything silly. I work with OctaFX broker and with them, I get excellent bonus which is up to 50% on deposit, this is also use able making it even better and that’s why I can be relaxed even with the toughest and probably the most challenging situations. Also, we can get great analysis and news updates daily from them for free.Lousynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-38341814453435956362012-09-22T10:38:31.415-04:002012-09-22T10:38:31.415-04:00If you look back at past posts, you will find that...If you look back at past posts, you will find that I advocate a "Reagan-Volcker" recovery in spending on output, and then a 3 percent target growth path for spending on output going out into the future. I see this as creating a new Great Moderation, but one with price stability.<br /><br />It is simply wrong that a more rapid trend growth in spending on output requires loose money and is responsible for booms and busts. <br /><br />But shifting between growth paths is disruptive and should be avoided.<br /><br />Trying to offset shifts in inflation caused by shifts in productivity are disruptive. Selgin was right about that. On the other hand, the notion that the only trend for nominal GDP growth that avoids disruption is one that generates deflation equal to productivity growth is mistaken.<br /><br />Mayor Bill Woolseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439136665155575382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-46154049969966226972012-09-21T10:16:21.225-04:002012-09-21T10:16:21.225-04:00Why should we be slavish to the 5% trend? Isn'...Why should we be slavish to the 5% trend? Isn't it possible that they've done a reasonable job moving spending back to a trend that is excessive and produces easy money, especially during periods of productivity growth? <br /><br />What about Less Than Zero? If it's just about "sticky wages", than why not adjust to a path like 2 or 3% growth so that we don't get productivity norm deflation? And given where we're at now, many years beyond the fall in spending, is now perhaps a GOOD time to adjust to a new path and announce that new path so that new labor agreements can be modified (I guess for teachers unions, because I don't know who else operates with such contracts outside of detroit)? Are there really a significant number of people being kept out of work by labor agreements still in force today from over 5 years ago causing those still employed to snag more income at the expense of the unemployed?<br /><br />It's hard for me to believe, on its face, that we should target a trend simply because it is a trend, especially when there's been waves of booms and busts during this lovely trend. John Papolahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11186935861240788317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-17022706223041725582012-09-20T13:13:36.099-04:002012-09-20T13:13:36.099-04:00George
1998-2000 was a mistake, with the Fed letti...George<br />1998-2000 was a mistake, with the Fed letting NGDP rise above trend. Then it undershot in 2001-03, after which it managed to bring NGDP back to trend without overshooting.<br />And Bernanke "messed it up".João Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13658264244033012660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-2845912982667136572012-09-20T12:51:05.034-04:002012-09-20T12:51:05.034-04:00"Nominal GDP is not perfect, but it is better..."Nominal GDP is not perfect, but it is better than Final Sales to Domestic Purchasers or Final Sales of Domestic Product. In my opinion, as much as we honor Bill Niskanen as a pioneer, Market Monetarists have made some progress on these issues".<br />I agree<br />http://thefaintofheart.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/50-years-of-us-growth-and-inflation-history-from-a-market-monetarist-perspective/<br />João Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13658264244033012660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-11048640288396245802012-09-18T23:40:37.241-04:002012-09-18T23:40:37.241-04:00insightful and impressive post.
Nevertheless, righ...insightful and impressive post.<br />Nevertheless, right now I would argue in favor of overshooting on the stimulus side. People need jobs, small businesses need income and profits.<br /><br />Secondly, I think the USA has been inoculated against inflation in the last 40 years. International trade, the death of unions, the rise of competitive retail markets. The 1970s inflation was an unusual situation of cost-push inflation marrying an expansive money supply. Even then we did not get hyperinflation, just double digit inflation. <br /><br />I don't know of any business today that thinks it has been pricing leverage. Unit labor costs have been flat to down for years. <br /><br />The phobia about inflation is mysterious. Benjamin Colehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14001038338873263877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-58359670544445634482012-09-18T13:09:17.601-04:002012-09-18T13:09:17.601-04:00Thanks for your thoughtful response, Bill. To rep...Thanks for your thoughtful response, Bill. To reply: you say that 2004-7 was just "making up" for 2000-2003; but may one not claim with equal justice that 2000-2003 was itself "making up" for 1998-2000? In that case, 2004-2007 becomes, once again, a period of excessive spending growth. <br /><br />That is to say, turning to your level plots, that I have grave doubts concerning the assumption that the 2007 peak-boom level of spending should itself be regarded as consistent with a healthy trend rather than considerably above it. George Selginnoreply@blogger.com