tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713178645208582139.post6224536186077491037..comments2024-03-22T02:37:15.030-05:00Comments on Macro Musings Blog: Recommended ReadingsDavid Beckworthhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04577612979801459194noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713178645208582139.post-83487850385876270842010-03-30T10:52:15.310-05:002010-03-30T10:52:15.310-05:00David:
I have been wrestling with that very issue...David:<br /><br />I have been wrestling with that very issue. On one hand, level-targeting NGDP makes sense for cases like the early 1930s when spending fell by 50%. On the other hand, it makes less sense for 2003 when credit growth and leverage where taking off. That is why I am not 100% convinced level targeting is correct. Now If you looked at the growth rate of NGDP during 2003-2005 it is David Beckworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04577612979801459194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5713178645208582139.post-91062875562438050482010-03-30T09:57:09.299-05:002010-03-30T09:57:09.299-05:00David,
The Bill Woosley piece you linked to raise...David,<br /><br />The Bill Woosley piece you linked to raises a question that you may be able to answer. Woosley argues that, in effect, the Fed's 2003 asymmetrical policy was consistent with NGDP level targeting. By implication, if something results in returning to trend level NGDP, then it can't be a cause of NGDP crashing.<br /><br />The question arises from how nominal spending David Pearsonnoreply@blogger.com