tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post9192899411989787717..comments2024-02-14T03:21:37.506-05:00Comments on Monetary Freedom: GDP for the First QuarterBill Woolseyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06330232724290161369noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-71266316103750673022016-11-05T21:47:14.338-04:002016-11-05T21:47:14.338-04:00I don’t think too many people can say it’s entirel...I don’t think too many people can say it’s entirely bad but obviously everyone expect more and the reason is obvious too, but nothing can be perfect or within our expectations. I just like to go ahead on my way and make sure I trade with simple and straight forward approach. I find it extremely easier with the solid features and facilities present having lowest possible spread from 0.1 pips to high leverage up to 1.500 and much more, it’s all so easy!Warretnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-55247899867144154022011-05-15T12:48:56.134-04:002011-05-15T12:48:56.134-04:00There are actually benefits to the 3% from 2007 gr...There are actually benefits to the 3% from 2007 growth path, but those are based on the current price level and standard estimate of the output gap. The reason to have money expenditures growth path targeting is to get away from worrying about either of those things. (I will look at them again and post on it when I get a chance.)<br /><br />Adjusting the quantity of money to the nominal demand for money is problematic because the price level impacts the nominal demand for money. I believe the monetary order needs to be tied down by fixing some nominal quantity somehow. <br /><br />I agree that at some point, "rebasing" is the only answer. Obviously, I am proposing some rebasing (and disinflation) from the 1984-2007 trend of GDP growth.Mayor Bill Woolseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15439136665155575382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-16629307421578214942011-05-13T21:57:26.227-04:002011-05-13T21:57:26.227-04:00i think dlr raises an interesting question. I hve ...i think dlr raises an interesting question. I hve wondered about it myself: at what point is it better for a central bank to accept a new expectations equilibrium for the growth path of gdp, instead of trying to get onto the old expected growth path? and, more interestingly to me, how does one go about to determine the answer to this question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8897997766931633186.post-3402829812304537692011-05-06T09:39:32.992-04:002011-05-06T09:39:32.992-04:00It seems like you are arbitrarily picking the &quo...It seems like you are arbitrarily picking the "right" level of NGDP based on either a long-lost trend or your preferred trend, ceteris paribus. But shouldn't the right level be the level at which there is no excess demand for money? Plainly that level doesn't exist abstractly, since current NGDP alone isn't determinative, but that's the whole point. It might be that your 3%-from-2007 target is sufficient or it might be that this results in a quasi-equilibrium with a persistent excess demand for money and an output gap. We might reach that level and believe that there is still an excess demand for money. Whether you choose 3% or 5% is a relatively minor matter once you're back near full equilibrium, but talking in those terms (what the right level current NGDP ought to be) when you're well into a quasi-equilibrium with an excess demand for money doesn't seem too useful. Admittedly, it might have been useful immediately after the initial drop when you could assume reverting to the previous trend would be curative, but at this point it seems a little capricious.dlrnoreply@blogger.com