MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110263521 · doi:10.1515/bejm-2012-0002

Organizational learning and optimal fiscal and monetary policy

2014· article· en· W2110263521 on OpenAlexafffund
Bidyut Talukdar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe B E Journal of Macroeconomics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsEconomicsMonetary economicsShock (circulatory)Monetary policyNew Keynesian economicsRecessionProductivityMonopolistic competitionMacroeconomicsMicroeconomicsMonopoly

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study optimal fiscal and monetary policy in a Ramsey economy where firms learn from their production experience and incur a real cost in changing their prices. Two central results emerge from our study. First, optimal tax policy is counter-cyclical – tax rates fall during recession and rise during boom. This finding contrasts with pro-cyclical tax results obtained in standard sticky price Ramsey models. In presence of learning-by-doing (LBD) mechanism, the Ramsey planner finds it relatively more costly to raise taxes in response to a negative technology shock. Higher taxes would reduce hours, output, and hence future level of organizational capital which will magnify the shock further by lowering future productivity. Hence, in response to a negative productivity shock, the planner finds it optimal to lower taxes in order to raise the after tax return to work and minimize the welfare-reducing effects of the shock. Second, optimal inflation is very stable and persistent over the business cycle. We show that while a dynamic link between current production and future productivity generates the inflation persistence, the real cost of price adjustment is the key factor behind the very low volatility in optimal inflation. Both of these mechanisms work through the monopolistic firms’ optimal pricing condition – namely the New Keynesian Philips Curve.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe B E Journal of MacroeconomicsSame topicEconomic theories and modelsFrench-language works237,207