Nick Rowe

@MacRoweNick

Amateur Mechanic. Professional Economist (retired). Better at fixing cars, because I can usually figure out what the designer intended.

Near Ottawa
Vrijeme pridruživanja: listopad 2015.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @MacRoweNick

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @MacRoweNick

  1. 2. velj

    I *think* (but I'm not sure) that brand names used to work better as a signal (reputations are valuable) of quality. I'm trying to think of a plausible explanation for why that signalling equilibrium might have become noisier. Where parts are made seems to matter.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  2. 2. velj

    Even a slightly crappy part, that lasts half as long as a good part, will still be worth $0, if the labour needed to replace it costs the same as the price of a good part. (Ignoring interest, and the risk that the car will be scrapped before the part wears out.)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. 2. velj

    Crappy car parts can have *negative* value (even if you don't crash). If you need to replace them immediately, their value is *minus* the value of the labour needed to replace them.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    1. velj

    7/ At which point you are into perpetual jubilees. At which point any private college with two neurons to rub together is going to *raise* their fees, secure in the knowledge the lending industry will help students meet the cost because we are all sure another jubilee is coming.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. 29. sij

    Anyway, I wrote this thread for especially, to try to explain why we (or at least I) sorta don't, but sorta do, teach the Cantillon effect in Macro. Back later, because I gotta go shopping with some new (to me) money. /end.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  6. 29. sij

    But the best way to think about these questions is to think about different central bank monetary policy targets and instruments. Because what matters is not just what the CB does today, but whether it was expected, and how it affects expectations.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. 29. sij

    If there's a lag between money growth & inflation, then new money will have big effects, regardless of where it enters. Sure, where it enters will matter too.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. 29. sij

    0.1% of NGDP is not nothing. But there are lots of other changes to fiscal policy happening all the time that can be bigger than that. And we can't easily say which of those changes should be attributed to the inflation tax/Cantillon effect.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. 29. sij

    BUT: unless we are talking Zimbabwean money growth & inflation rates, these Long Run "Cantillon effects" are small beer. Example: raise inflation target from 2% to 3%, assume currency/NGDP=10%, then 1%x10%=0.1% of NGDP for value of extra new money.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. 29. sij

    If the govt spends the seigniorage profits on apples, which it gives to the poor, then poor people who like apples gain, and apple producers gain, and relative prices change, etc. If it cuts some other tax then those who get that tax cut gain, etc. Etc.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. 29. sij

    Answer: The Central Bank gets the profits from printing new money, because it owns that new money. The Govt then gets those same profits because it owns the central bank. But where does the Govt spend those profits? And who gains when it spends them? Depends.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. 29. sij

    So in the "Long Run" case, where we are abstracting from any lag between money growth & inflation, who is it that actually profits/gains from the new money/seigniorage/inflation-tax-on-old-money?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. 29. sij

    We (or I) teach it differently because: 1. Who gets the new money matters *even if* there is no lag between money growth & inflation. 2. If there is a lag between money growth & inflation, new money matters *even if* everyone gets the same % of new money to old money.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. 29. sij

    Basic idea: It matters where new money enters. 1. Those who get the new money, and spend it before prices rise, gain. 2. Those who hold the old money lose when prices eventually rise, because it's worth less. 3. And relative prices change, if 1 & 2 are different.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. 29. sij

    I was actually taught the Cantillon effect in grad school, by David Laidler, but only briefly, and in History of Thought. Do we normally teach it? Yes/no. We don't call it that. And we teach it differently.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. 29. sij

    A thread on the Cantillon Effect 1/n (I blogged about it ages ago, but I'm not happy with the clarity of my old post.)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. 29. sij

    I'm using Windows 7 on an old Dell desktop. Do I really need to update, now that Microsoft has withdrawn support? Thanks.

    Poništi
  18. 28. sij

    The difference between those two perspectives on "research goals" didn't *ought* to be just personality; but I can't help wondering if it is. Are you one of those people who insists on a destination, and makes reservations, before starting a road trip?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. 28. sij

    "Start your research by defining your concepts." vs "Learning what concepts are useful, and how they should best be defined, is one of the results of your research."

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. 28. sij

    "How will you know whether you've got there, if you don't know where you want to go?" vs "How will you know where you want to go, if you don't know what's out there?"

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·