Monetary Policy during the Past 30 Years with Lessons for the Next 30 Years
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 30th anniversary of the Cato Institute's monetary conference series provides an excellent opportunity to take stock of what we have learned about monetary policy in the past 30 years and to draw lessons for the next 30 years. Considering the overall performance of the American economy, the past 30 years divide naturally into two parts. During the first part--roughly the first two-thirds--economic performance was quite good, but during the second part it was quite poor. In terms of monetary policy, there is a corresponding natural division with a steadier rules-based approach to policy in the first part and a much less predictable discretionary approach to policy in the second. The policy implication of this experience thus jumps out at you. To be sure, however, one needs to work carefully through the facts and follow the relationship between economic performance and monetary policy. Economic Performance Let's start with some charts which illustrate the key facts. Figure 1 shows the growth rate of real GDP from quarter to quarter in the United States. It is like an EKG for the American economy. It shows that the volatility of GDP growth declined markedly in the 1980s and 1990s. This period of greater economic stability is called the Great Moderation by many economists and is marked off by two vertical dashed lines in the chart. During this period expansions with positive growth were long, and recessions with negative growth were short. Following the back-to-back early 1980s recessions, there were only two recessions during this period and both were mild in comparison with other periods in American history. Figure 2 shows the unemployment rate. It too declined during the period of the Great Moderation with relatively small ups mad downs corresponding to the two mild recessions. The 1980s and 1990s were especially good compared with late the 1960s and 1970s, when unemployment was rising. Of course, it is equally obvious from Figures 1 and 2 that the good economic performance did not last. The Great Moderation came to an abrupt end with the Great Recession. And the poor performance has continued with an extraordinarily weak recovery compared to the recoveries from previous deep recessions with financial crises in the United States as shown by Bordo and Haubrieh (2012). The recovery from the deep 1981-82 recession was more than twice as fast as the recent recovery as shown by the circled areas in Figure 1. And the unemployment rate again went into double digits and has come down more slowly than in the early 1980s. [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Monetary Policy During much of the same time period in the 1980s and 1990s and until recently, monetary policy was more predictable, less discretionary, and more steadily focused on the goal of price stability, especially compared with the 1970s. During this period the Fed largely avoided go-stop changes in money growth and interest rates that had caused boom-bust cycles in the past. However, for the past decade or so, there has been a large deviation from the type of monetary policy that worked well in the 1980s and 1990s. It appears that the policy reversal started during 2003-05 when interest rates were held abnormally low, and it has continued during the more recent period of large-scale purchases of mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and longer-term Treasuries and of Fed statements that interest rates will be held at zero for several years into the future. [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] Much as economic theory would predict, when monetary policy became more rule-like and focused, the performance of the macro-economy improved, and when policy reversed so did economic performance. Figure 3 is one way to show the charges in policy. (1) It plots the inflation rate, which declined from the peaks reached during the great inflation of the late 1960s and 1970s. To illustrate the shifts in monetary policy, I have drawn a line at 4 percent inflation. …
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it