Two monetary models with alternating markets : [Version 28 October 2013]

We present a thought-provoking study of two monetary models: the cash-in-advance and the Lagos and Wright (2005) models. We report that the different approach to modeling money — reduced-form vs. explicit role — neither induces theoretical nor quantitative differences in results. Given conformity of preferences, technologies and shocks, both models reduce to one difference equation. The equations do not coincide only if price distortions are differentially imposed across models. To illustrate, when cash prices are equally distorted in both models equally large welfare costs of inflation are obtained in each model. Our insight is that if results differ, then this is due to differential assumptions about the pricing mechanism that governs cash transactions, not the explicit microfoundation of money

The Risk Premium and Long-Run Global Imbalances

Our paper investigates whether the valuation effect caused by a large risk premium and a low risk-free rate can help to explain the enormous US current account and trade deficit observed in the past decade. To answer this question, we set up an endowment growth model in which investors are endowed with heterogeneous trading technologies. In our model, the average US investors load up more aggregate risk by investing in a risky asset abroad and issuing a risk-free asset. Thanks to the large risk premium as well as the low risk-free rate, the US can sustain a long-run trade deficit even as a debtor country. Quantitatively, we find that the valuation effect caused solely by the high risk premium and the low risk-free rate in our model, which is calibrated to match the external assets and liabilities of US economy, can account for more than half of the observed trade deficit and current account deficit. Our results suggest that the current US trade deficit might not necessarily lead to net export increases or dollar depreciation in the future.Global Imbalances; External Account; Risk Premium; Asset Pricing; Limited Participation

Understanding the distributional impact of long-run inflation

The impact of fully anticipated inflation is systematically studied in heterogeneous agent economies with an endogenous labor supply and portfolio choices. In stationary equilibrium, inflation nonlinearly alters the endogenous distributions of income, wealth, and consumption. Small departures from zero inflation have the strongest impact. Three features determine how inflation impacts distributions and welfare: financial structure, shock persistence, and labor supply elasticity. When agents can self-insure only with money, inflation reduces wealth inequality but may raise consumption inequality. Otherwise, inflation reduces consumption inequality but may raise wealth inequality. Given persistent shocks and an inelastic labor supply, inflation may raise average welfare

Two monetary models with alternating markets

We present a thought-provoking study of two monetary models: the cash-in-advance and the Lagos and Wright (2005) models. The different approaches to modeling money-reduced form versus explicit role-induce neither fundamental theoretical nor quantitative differences in results. Given conformity of preferences, technologies, and shocks, both models reduce to equilibrium difference equations that coincide unless price distortions are differentially imposed on cash prices, across models. Equal distortions support equally large welfare costs of inflation. Performance differences stem from unequal assumptions about the pricing mechanism that governs cash transactions, not the differential modeling of the monetary exchange process

Why Tax Capital?

We study optimal capital income taxation with a Ramsey problem and relate this optimal taxation problem to the question that has been asked in the asset pricing literature, which is why the risk free interest rate is too low. We show that the Ramsey planner chooses the optimal level of capital stock to be one that satisfies the modified golden rule in the steady state under some conditions. The conditions include suffcient government tax instruments and ability to issue bonds. We argue that the optimal capital level is different from that chosen in a competitive equilibrium unless the competitive equilibrium risk free interest rate is same as the time discount rate in the steady state. This difference in the choice of capital motivates imposing a positive capital income tax (or subsidy) on households to induce them to invest at the socially optimal amount. As examples, we investigate optimal capital taxation in a decentralized economy with limited commitment and one with private information. However, the result still holds in various types of economies with risk free interest rate that is too low.