Bibliographic record
Abstract
this version: 2003 The primary question that I try to address here is: Why do government-issued, nominal bonds not circulate as a medium of exchange, while money does? A related question is: Why are such bonds sold for money at a discount, even if they bear no default risk? In the process of answering these questions, I integrate the microfoundation of monetary theory with the influential work of Lucas (1990). I examine two models of this integrated framework. In the first model, the government does not participate in the goods market. Then, there are a continuum of monetary equilibria where matured bonds circulate in the goods market as perfect substitutes for money. In the second model, the government participates in the goods market and accepts only money as payments for its goods, while private agents can trade among themselves using both money and bonds. This model has a unique equilibrium, and an arbitrarily small measure of government sellers is sufficient to drive matured bonds out of the circulation. In both models, newly issued bonds are sold at a discount for money and thus they bear positive interest. The effects of monetary policy differ in these two economies, some of which contrast sharply with the effects in traditional models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".