Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- DSGE model (1)
- boom-bust (1)
- business cycle (1)
- frequency domain (1)
- general equilibrium (1)
- lumpy investment (1)
- model comparison (1)
- model uncertainty (1)
- monetary policy rules (1)
- policy evaluation (1)
Motivated by the U.S. events of the 2000s, we address whether a too low for too long interest rate policy may generate a boom-bust cycle. We simulate anticipated and unanticipated monetary policies in state-of-the-art DSGE models and in a model with bond financing via a shadow banking system, in which the bond spread is calibrated for normal and optimistic times. Our results suggest that the U.S. boom-bust was caused by the combination of (i) too low for too long interest rates, (ii) excessive optimism and (iii) a failure of agents to anticipate the extent of the abnormally favorable conditions.
In this paper, I introduce lumpy micro-level capital adjustment into a sticky information general equilibrium model. Lumpy adjustment arises because of inattentiveness in capital investment decisions instead of the more common assumption of non-convex adjustment costs. The model features inattentiveness as the only source of stickiness. I find that the model with lumpy investment yields business cycle dynamics which differ substantially from those of an otherwise identical model with frictionless investment and are much more consistent with the empirical evidence. These results therefore strengthen the case in favour of the relevance of microeconomic investment lumpiness for the business cycle.
Optimal monetary policy studies typically rely on a single structural model and identification of model-specific rules that minimize the unconditional volatilities of inflation and real activity. In their proposed approach, the authors take a large set of structural models and look for the model-robust rules that minimize the volatilities at those frequencies that policymakers are most interested in stabilizing. Compared to the status quo approach, their results suggest that policymakers should be more restrained in their inflation responses when their aim is to stabilize inflation and output growth at specific frequencies. Additional caution is called for due to model uncertainty.
