Well, not quite, but it was worth it for the headline. In this post, John Taylor cites recent work by Erceg and Levin at the Board of Governors, pointing out that headine unemployment rates are a bad indicator of true labour market slack in the US, because the contraction has discouraged a large share of the labour force from even trying to look for work. So true unemployment (or under-employment) is much worse than headline unemployment. [One reason why it’s helpful to use the property of sticky price models, if you believe in them, that the inflation rate can also tell you about the amount of slack in the economy]. John Taylor does not, however, draw the conclusion that, after all, the loose monetary policy he has been criticising is warranted. Why not, I cannot fathom. The output gap is the unobserveable variable he told central banks to feed into their interest rate rules in 1993. Surely any sensible model of that unobserveable would conclude that the output gap was greater, having formally digested the result that participation was highly cyclical? In which case policy should be looser than previously thought? (If not, what procedure should we be using to estimate the output gap?) Instead JT alludes to why activity is weaker. I am putting words in his mouth here, but reconstructing from other things he has written, he thinks that activity is weak because of corrosive fiscal policy wars, caused ultimately by the Democrats breaking with what he (incorrectly in my view) sees as a tradition of not doing fiscal stimulus. And to be corrected by tighter fiscal policy. Something I noted before to be counter-intuitive.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Simon Price on Should Mervyn recuse himself f… gardinerams on New piece in Prospect on vacci… Dipper on How a Brexit transition end an… theuxbridgegraduate on Fiscal rules have been rightly… Christine Mcconnell on New Statesman Post on that Cum… Archives
- October 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- October 2020
- July 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
I think you’re drawing conclusion on the output gap too fast here. Flexible price,real frictions, models of unemployment would simply draw the conclusion that unemployment is more cyclical, without implying it’s because of the output gap, defined as the component of output movements that can be dealt with by standard monetary policy (e.g pick any real business cycle model with unemployment- directed search, bargaining , whatever ).
Great observation. With flexible prices, changing participation could still happen, yet this would not signal the need for a policy change. However, with sticky prices and or wages, I think my point would still go through.