Skip to main content

Unemployment, Inflation, and the Phillips Curve

Read two articles tonight that seemed apparently contradictory. One was an article in the WSJ today about how the Fed is shifting its focus from the benign inflation readings of the past few weeks (somewhere in the 1 - 2% range) to future inflation because of low unemployment. Makes sense right? Low unemployment means higher demand which means higher prices which means inflation. I immediately read an editorial by Steve Forbes in Forbes magazine called "Do Bad Economic Ideas Ever Die?" where he talked about how for some reason people still think that the ecomonic trade-off between inflation and unemployment holds. Here's an excerpt from the Forbes article:
The current concern about inflation sadly confirms the staying power of bad ideas, in this case the notion that economic growth creates inflation. The Phillips curve, which posits that there is a tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, has long been discredited by events and academic research. Since Ronald Reagan became President in 1981, for example, the U.S. has had a fantastic expansion, and inflation virtually disappeared until recently. Yet the media are full of stories and pundit head shaking that global capacity for producing goods could soon run out.
Indeed, the Phillips Curve was on my final test for my Essentials of Economics class. In the short-run, there is definitely a trade-off between inflation and unemployment, but that trade-off just doesn't exist in the long-run. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia:
Most economists no longer use the Phillips curve in its original form because it was shown that it simply did not work. This can be seen in a cursory analysis of US inflation and unemployment data 1953-92. There is no single curve that will fit the data, but there are three rough aggregations—1955-71, 1974-84, and 1985-92—each of which shows a general, downwards slope, but at three very different levels with the shifts occurring abruptly. The data for 1953-54 and 1972-73 does not group easily and a more formal analysis posits up to five groups/curves over the period.

These days, however, a modified Phillips Curve is very prevalent. This new form incorporates inflationary expectations, pioneered by Edmund Phelps and Milton Friedman. This new view of the Phillips curve agrees that in the long run policy cannot affect unemployment, for it will always readjust back to its "natural rate." However, this new Phillips Curve does allow for short run fluctuations and the ability of a monetary authority such as the central bank to temporarily decrease unemployment for an increase in inflation, and vice versa.
So why am I pointing this out? Mostly just because I can't believe I actually knew what they were talking about. Education. Gotta love it.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Fortunate 400

So there's rich, and then there's super rich. I recently read an article in the WSJ about the top 400 taxpayers based on income. Pretty incredible statistics. Those top 400, or what they call the "Fortunate 400", pulled in $85.6 billion in income in 2005. That's over $200 million each ... in one year! Here's a quick graphic to drive that home: Very impressive. There's all the obvious jaw-dropping statistics to go with that. For instance, to make the cut to be in the 400 you had to pull in at least $100 million. With an average of $200 million, that means there's people pulling in well over that number. Obviously, quite crazy numbers, and generally speaking not necessarily anything to be concerned about. I'm all for capitalism. But one of the more disheartening statistics was that adjusting for inflation, the minimum income to make the cutoff into the Fortunate 400 has nearly tripled since 1992. That's probably not a good sign as I imagine that...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nine Prescriptions for Building the Duke Entrepreneurial Community

I think Duke can have one of the strongest entrepreneurial communities in the world. Are we there yet? Well, not yet. But there's a tremendous amount of momentum that I saw build in just the past two years while I was getting my MBA at Duke. While leading Duke's 10th annual business plan competition, the Duke Start-Up Challenge (DSC) , last year, I witnessed a near doubling of participation on campus in just a single year. The interest on the ground was clearly there and building rapidly. But now that I'm an alum, I'm looking back and wondering ... how do we rev-up the Duke entrepreneurial community even more? I read a great article by Daniel Isenberg, a professor of management at Babson, called " How to Start an Entrepreneurial Revolution " in the June edition of the Harvard Business Review. Isenberg outlines nine prescriptions for governments that want to create entrepreneurship ecosystems in their countries. Although he was focused on governments an...
3 comments
Read more

A Possible Solution to the Mortgage Crisis

Came across this one on Mankiw's blog as well (... someone has been stealing my WSJ's each morning before I can pick them up outside). Martin Feldstein, a professor at Harvard and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for Reagan, had an opinion article in the WSJ yesterday that outlined a possible solution to the mortgage crisis. Criteria for the plan is: don't shift burden to taxpayers, don't force banks to eat all the losses, and create an incentive for homeowners to stay in their homes. The idea is that the US government would provide loans to homeowners up to 20% of their mortgage amount, with a 15 year pay-back period and adjustable interest rate based on the two-year treasury note. The whole thing would be funded by selling more two-year treasury notes. This would obviously not stop anyone from walking away from their home if they have negative equity, but it might prompt those that are worried about that scenario happening to them in the future to sti...
Post a Comment
Read more