aren't they the same thing? targeting to a price signal X == measuring inflation rate with the reference set to X?
There are 2 components to Nash’s argument: a/ Any non-zero “target rate” (e.g. 2%) of inflation is arbitrary, regardless of the index used. It should be made zero. b/ What is the ideal index for inflation targeting? an intl. apolitical price signal, not a locally-sourced CPI.
-
-
its only b. You don't need a. A is subtly that is difficult to understand and express properly. And you don't need "not a locally sourced cpi" because an "intl apolitical price signal excludes the possibility of using a locally cpi (and locally excludes "apolitical".
-
I include (a) because I think in the quoted text, when Nash talked about zero inflation here he meant “inflation” in the traditional sense, i.e., CPI-based inflation. Or is that not correct?pic.twitter.com/M7x3r2qNWa
-
It's a very nuanced argument and I think he is saying we need to end the practice of having an x% target and determining x. Use an international price as a peg and have 0%
-
Rather than using an apolitical price like bitcoin and then targeting 2% inflation versus bitcoin.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How’s this^?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

E.g. if your currency has a one-to-one peg to a price signal X, doesn’t that mean a zero rate of inflation w.r.t. X?