NGDP targeting with a futures market

Scott Sumner has been advocating nominal GDP targeting by the Fed for some time now.  He's recently added more meat to that idea by tying the target to a Fed-backed futures market.

This is a slight twist on inflation targeting, which seems theoretically sound but requires a credible commitment by the Fed to keep monetary policy loose well after the economy recovers.  That could be a tough commitment to make, especially with Ron Paul as the new overseer.

I don't know that I fully understand Scott's idea, but I think it basically takes care of the commitment problem by creating huge arbitrage opportunities to the market if a target NGDP isn't reach.  Which basically means we'll either get the inflation or we'll get the growth, and probably a little of each, since it is very hard for me to see how we won't get a lot of real aggregate demand growth with a bit more inflation.  This is because, with a bit of inflation, nominal debt burdens will decline, asset values will increase (re, houses) and people will be able to spend more, in real terms.  If we reach the target in real terms, well that's obviously good news too.

In other words, good bye business cycle.

On the surface, it seems like a compelling idea. It seems like there should be a gaping hole in this somewhere.  But I can't figure out what it is.

The Fed would still have a management job of gradually adjusting target NGDP according to growth in economic potential.  But that seems like a pretty easy thing to do and the policy would be fully transparent.

A few links:
Sumner
Brad Delong [1, 2]
Bill Woolsey
Arnold Kling

Kling's skepticism doesn't strike me as compelling. Some of the other commentary looks very intelligent, but I have to think a lot more to understand them, and I don't have time for that right now  %-)

Somehow I think this idea is going to bubble around for a while.  It makes some sense and has the air of a nice ideological compromise.  (Unlike the not-so-nice, hold-your-breath Money for Everyone! compromise that Obama just signed.)  It would provide necessary stimulus, which appeals to liberals, but fairly modest and nearly automated government management of the money supply.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields Under Climate Change

Image
It's been a long haul, but my coauthor Wolfram Schlenker and I have finally published our article with the title of this blog post in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . We've been told that it would show up on the early-edition website this week. It hasn't shown up there yet so I guess it will come out tomorrow [Friday 8/28], probably late afternoon EST. UPDATE: You can find the article here . We set out to develop a better statistical model linking weather and U.S. crop yields for corn, soybeans and cotton, the largest three crops in the U.S. in production value. Our major new finding is that (by far) the best predictor of yield is a measure of extreme heat: how much temperatures exceed about 29C (84F) during the growing season. The threshold varies somewhat by crop--29C is the threshold for corn. Below this threshold, warmer temperatures are more beneficial for yields, but the damaging effects of temperatures much above 29C are staggeringly large. A
Read more

Commodity Prices and the Fed

I think Mark Thoma nails this .  What he describes is exactly the way I think about the issue but have been unable to articulate. To answer the question in the title of this post, it's useful to think of an island with only two goods. One of the goods is non-renewable, but highly desirable. The other good is less preferred, but it is renewable (thinking of renewable and non-renewable energy resources, for example). The key is to distinguish between changes in prices that reflect changes in the relative scarcity of the two goods, and changes driven by increases in the money supply. Over time, as the stock of the more desired good falls due to consumption, the price of this good will rise relative to the renewable good. Consumers will be hit by increases in the cost of living -- the same basket of the two goods purchased last year now costs more. But is this the kind of increase in prices the Fed should respond to? No, the price increase -- and the increase in the c
Read more