MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888395661 · doi:10.4337/roke.2019.02.06

On the normality of negative interest rates

2019· article· en· W2888395661 on OpenAlex
Matheus R. Grasselli, Alexander Lipton

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Keynesian Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic theories and models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsInterest rateZero lower boundMonetary policyPost-Keynesian economicsStock (firearms)Monetary economicsForward guidanceNormalityNominal interest rateReal interest rateKeynesian economicsInflation targetingCredit channelMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We argue that a negative interest-rate policy (NIRP) can be an effective tool for macroeconomic stabilization. We first discuss how implementing negative rates on reserves held at a central bank does not pose any theoretical difficulty, with a reduction in rates operating in exactly the same way when rates are positive or negative, and show that this is compatible with an endogenous-money point of view. We then propose a simplified stock–flow consistent macroeconomic model where rates are allowed to become arbitrarily negative and present simulation evidence for their stabilizing effects. In practice, the existence of physical cash imposes a lower bound for interest rates, which in our view is the main reason for the lack of effectiveness of negative interest rates in the countries that adopted them as part of their monetary policy. We conclude by discussing alternative ways to overcome this lower bound, in particular the use of central-bank digital currencies.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.196 · 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