Únase a getAbstract para acceder al resumen.

The US Phillips Curve

Únase a getAbstract para acceder al resumen.

The US Phillips Curve

Back to the ’60s?

Peterson Institute for International Economics,

5 mins. de lectura
5 ideas fundamentales
Audio y Texto

¿De qué se trata?

Economist Olivier Blanchard revisits a 1960s monetary policy favorite, the Phillips Curve, and offers a Mad Men twist to central bankers’ arsenals.

audio autogenerado
  • 0.5×
  • 0.75×
  • 1×
  • 1.25×
  • 1.5×
  • 1.75×
1×
audio autogenerado

Editorial Rating

7

Qualities

  • Innovative
  • Inspiring

Recommendation

It has been a long-held article of faith among central bank policy makers that there is no such thing as a free lunch – because monetary policy that aims for lower unemployment will result in higher inflation. Crunching the numbers leads economist Olivier Blanchard to revisit a policy favorite of the 1960s, the Phillips Curve, and to offer a Mad Men twist to central bankers’ arsenals. He posits that a free lunch may be possible, at least for a while, as long as the economy resists the temptations of gluttony. getAbstract recommends this thought-provoking contribution to discussions on monetary policy to economists and financial services professionals.

Summary

The conduct of US monetary policy is challenging central bankers: Inflation’s behavior since the 2008 global financial crisis has been atypical of previous trends. The policies the Federal Reserve pursued in the 1960s and 1970s adhered to the principle of a trade-off between higher inflation and lower unemployment, as quantified by the Phillips Curve. That period taught that this lever of monetary policy couldn’t produce a lasting change in joblessness and that a stronger recession later would offset any additional up-front growth.

But the shape of the Phillips Curve has changed over time. While...

About the Author

Olivier Blanchard, formerly research director at the International Monetary Fund, is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Comment on this summary