In recent decades, in developed economies, slack on the product and labor markets has fluctuated a lot over the business cycle, while inflation has been very stable. At the same time, these economies have been prone to enter long-lasting liquidity traps with stable positive inflation and high unemployment. Motivated by these observations, this paper develops a simple policy-oriented business-cycle model in which (1) fluctuations in aggregate demand and supply lead to fluctuations in slack but not in inflation; and (2) the aggregate demand structure is consistent with permanent liquidity traps. The model extends the money-in-the-utility-function model by introducing matching frictions and including real wealth into the utility function . Matching frictions allow us to represent slack and to consider a general equilibrium with constant inflation. Wealth in the utility function enriches the aggregate demand structure to be consistent with permanent liquidity traps. We use the modelto study the effects of various aggregate demand and supply shocks, and to analyze several stabilization policies---such as conventional monetary policy , helicopter drop of money, tax on wealth , and government spending .
This paper develops a new model of business cycles. The model is economical in that it is solved with an aggregate demand-aggregate supply diagram, and the effects of shocks and policies are obtained by comparative statics. The model builds on two unconventional assumptions. First, producers and consumers meet through a matching function. Thus, the model features unemployment, which fluctuates in response to aggregate demand and supply shocks. Second, wealth enters the utility function , so the model allows for permanent zero-lower-bound episodes. In the model, the optimal monetary policy is to set the interest rate at the level that eliminates the unemployment gap. This optimal interest rate is computed from the prevailing unemployment gap and monetary multiplier (the effect of the nominal interest rate on the unemployment rate). If the unemployment gap is exceedingly large, monetary policy cannot eliminate it before reaching the zero lower bound, but a wealth tax can .
R
In recent decades, in developed economies, slack on the product and labor markets has fluctuated a lot over the business cycle, while inflation has been very stable. At the same time, these economies have been prone to enter long-lasting liquidity traps with stable positive inflation and high unemployment. Motivated by these observations, this paper develops a simple policy-oriented business-cycle model in which (1) fluctuations in
This paper develops a new model of business cycles. The model is economical in that it is solved with an aggregate demand-aggregate supply diagram, and the effects of shocks and policies are obtained by comparative statics. The model builds on two unconventional assumptions. First, producers and consumers meet through a matching function. Thus, the model features unemployment, which fluctuates in response to
R
lead to fluctuations in slack but not in inflation; and (2) the aggregate demand structure is consistent with permanent liquidity traps. The model extends the money-in-the-utility-function model by introducing matching frictions and including real wealth into
shocks. Second, wealth enters
R
. Matching frictions allow us to represent slack and to consider a general equilibrium with constant inflation. Wealth in the utility function enriches the aggregate demand structure to be consistent with permanent liquidity traps. We use the modelto study the effects of various aggregate demand and supply shocks, and to analyze several stabilization policies---such as conventional monetary policy , helicopter drop of money, tax on wealth , and government spending
, so the model allows for permanent zero-lower-bound episodes. In the model, the optimal monetary policy is to set the interest rate at the level that eliminates the unemployment gap. This optimal interest rate is computed from the prevailing unemployment gap and monetary multiplier (the effect of the nominal interest rate on the unemployment rate). If the unemployment gap is exceedingly large, monetary policy cannot eliminate it before reaching the zero lower bound, but a wealth tax can