DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES On the Welfare and Cyclical Implications of Moderate Trend Inflation
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES On the Welfare and Cyclical Implications of Moderate Trend Inflation
复制标题
经济系讨论论文系列：温和趋势通胀的福利和周期性影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
--
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ginters Bušs
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ginters Bušs
我们对温和的通货膨胀趋势的福利和周期性影响进行了全面的评估。在一个中等规模的新凯恩斯主义模型的扩展版本中，最近提出的将通货膨胀趋势从2%提高到4%的建议将产生基于非随机稳态的3.7%的消费等效福利损失，以及基于随机平均值的6.9%。这种规模的福利成本是由四个主要因素驱动的：i）多阶段名义工资收缩，ii）投资专用和中性技术的趋势增长，iii）美国生产结构的迂回性，以及iv）通货膨胀趋势与投资边际效率（MEI）冲击之间的相互作用，只要这种类型的冲击足够持久。此外，温和的通货膨胀趋势具有重要的周期性影响。它与MEI冲击的相互作用要比与生产率或货币冲击的相互作用强得多。MEI冲击影响了投资品转化为生产资本的过程。这种冲击与投资的相对价格是正交的。一种可能的解释得到了Justiniano、Primiceri和Tambalotti（2011）证据的支持，即它代表了金融部门将家庭储蓄的流动转化为新的生产性资本的效率。他们的证据表明，MEI冲击是商业周期波动的主要原因，而投资特定技术冲击对周期波动并不重要。我们的模型特征在于IST过程中的确定性增长，以解释投资相对价格的长期下降趋势和对投资边际效率的随机冲击作为主要的商业周期冲击。
We offer a comprehensive evaluation of the welfare and cyclical implications of moderate trend inflation. In an extended version of a medium-scale New Keynesian model, recent proposals to increase trend inflation from 2 to 4 percent would generate a consumption-equivalent welfare loss of 3.7 percent based on the non-stochastic steady state and of 6.9 percent based on the stochastic mean. Welfare costs of this magnitude are driven by four main factors: i) multiperiod nominal wage contracting, ii) trend growth in investment-specific and neutral technology, iii) roundaboutness in the U.S. production structure, and iv) and the interaction between trend inflation and shocks to the marginal efficiency of investment (MEI), insofar that this type of shock is sufficiently persistent. Moreover, moderate trend inflation has important cyclical implications. It interacts much more strongly with MEI shocks than with either productivity or monetary shocks. The MEI shock affects the process by which investment goods are transformed into productive capital. This shock is orthogonal to the relative price of investment. A possible interpretation, supported by evidence in Justiniano, Primiceri, and Tambalotti (2011), is that it is a proxy for the effectiveness with which the financial sector channels the flow of household savings into new productive capital. Their evidence suggests MEI shocks account for the bulk of business cycle fluctuations, while investment-specific technology shocks are unimportant for cyclical fluctuations. Our model features deterministic growth in the IST process to account for the downward secular trend in the relative price of investment and stochastic shocks to the marginal efficiency of investment as a major business cycle shock.