Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we reconsider the link between tight money policies and inflation in the spirit of Sargent and Wallace’s (1981) influential paper, ‘Some unpleasant monetarist arithmetic.’ A standard neoclassical model with capital, bonds, and return‐dominated currency is used. The potential for tight‐money policies to be inflationary (unpleasant arithmetic) exists, even when the real interest rate is below the growth rate of the economy. Additionally, the likely observability of unpleasant arithmetic in real world economies is shown to depend crucially on the type of monetary policy rule that is used. JEL Classification: E52, E63 Un autre coup d’œil sur la relation entre politiques monétaires restrictives et inflation. Ce mémoire ré‐examine la relation entre politiques monétaires restrictives et inflation dans l’esprit du travail de Sargent et Wallace (1981) ‘Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic’. Les auteurs utilisent un modèle néo‐classique standard avec capital, débentures et une monnaie dont les rendements sont dominés par ceux d’autres réservoirs de valeur. La possibilité que les politiques monétaires restrictives soient inflationnistes existe même quand le taux d’intérêt réel est plus petit que le taux de croissance de l’économie De plus on montre que l’obtention de ces résultats déplaisants dans les économies concrètes dépend fondamentalement du type de règle monétaire qu’on utilise.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".