Marcus Nunes ha tenido la amabilidad de contestarme a mi post anterior aquí. Yo le he replicado diciendo que creo que cuando una contracción se ve acompañada de una fuerte desestabilización del mercado de capital (activos e inversión) las cosa no son iguales: la confianza no se restablece tan pronto como en una recesión normal.
Él me dice que mi gráfico no demuestra nada, pues en 1987 la bolsa se pegó un morronazo, pero la economía apenas se perturbó gracias a que la FED mantuvo estable el PIBN.
Yo creo que detrás de eso hay más cosas, y como indicio (que no prueba definitiva) digo que ahora el estacazo a la confianza ha sido mucho más gordo, como demuestra un índice de volatilidad, que uso como aproximación a la incertidumbre. Como pueden ver en el gráfico, el VIX (volatilidad) del S&P 500 ha sido en la crisis 2007-2011 mucho más alto que en la crisis de 1987. En los picos ha sido 3 veces más alto. Y los mínimos son más altos que la media del periodo.
La confianza en la crisis bursátil de 1987 se restableció pronto. En esta no. Él dice que es porque la política monetaria fue mejor entonces que ahora. Yo creo que hay factores que afectan a los mercados financieros que no se pueden restablecer fácilmente. Aunque estoy de acuerdo con él (y los markets monetarists) en que Bernanke (y los demás banqueros centrales) actuó muy tarde, como ya he dicho antes en el post anterior.
No es que no crea en lo que dicen; es que creo que hay condicionantes distintos.
PS:
Marcus, I recommend you
http://cemf.u-bourgogne.fr/z-outils/documents/communications%202009/Howels.pdf
Where it is demonstrated that income velocity is not the same that transactions velocity; That the differences correlate to financial transactions; So, that the ecuation MV=PY is not a so good proxy for the original MV=PT as it used to be until 1976.
That what accelerate the velocity in growth fases is capital markets, correlated with financial credit.
From the text:
“We might expect spending on intermediate goods to change only slowly with
trends in the degree of vertical integration in production (which is presumably the
basis for the widely held view that short-run divergence between PT and PY are
unlikely). But the purchase of existing dwellings, is a category that has increased
substantially over the last fifty years and become extremely volatile in the last thirty,
while financial transactions, whose motive we might describe (in broad terms) as
speculative has also increased dramatically and become more volatile.”
That is a result that we had must expected, since the growing importance of capital goods in NGDP has change dramatically the composition of NGDP.
That is a result that we had must expected, since the growing importance of capital goods in NGDP has change dramatically the composition of NGDP.
Where it is demonstrated that income velocity is not the same that transactions velocity; That the differences correlate to financial transactions; So, that the ecuation MV=PY is not a so good proxy for the original MV=PT as it used to be until 1976.
That what accelerate the velocity in growth fases is capital markets, correlated with financial credit.
from the text:
So, we can say that monetarism is not false, but is a lot more complicated than 50 yeras ago. Specially when the crisis has battered the dwellings sector.
Él me dice que mi gráfico no demuestra nada, pues en 1987 la bolsa se pegó un morronazo, pero la economía apenas se perturbó gracias a que la FED mantuvo estable el PIBN.
Yo creo que detrás de eso hay más cosas, y como indicio (que no prueba definitiva) digo que ahora el estacazo a la confianza ha sido mucho más gordo, como demuestra un índice de volatilidad, que uso como aproximación a la incertidumbre. Como pueden ver en el gráfico, el VIX (volatilidad) del S&P 500 ha sido en la crisis 2007-2011 mucho más alto que en la crisis de 1987. En los picos ha sido 3 veces más alto. Y los mínimos son más altos que la media del periodo.
No es que no crea en lo que dicen; es que creo que hay condicionantes distintos.
PS:
Marcus, I recommend you
http://cemf.u-bourgogne.fr/z-outils/documents/communications%202009/Howels.pdf
Where it is demonstrated that income velocity is not the same that transactions velocity; That the differences correlate to financial transactions; So, that the ecuation MV=PY is not a so good proxy for the original MV=PT as it used to be until 1976.
That what accelerate the velocity in growth fases is capital markets, correlated with financial credit.
From the text:
“We might expect spending on intermediate goods to change only slowly with
trends in the degree of vertical integration in production (which is presumably the
basis for the widely held view that short-run divergence between PT and PY are
unlikely). But the purchase of existing dwellings, is a category that has increased
substantially over the last fifty years and become extremely volatile in the last thirty,
while financial transactions, whose motive we might describe (in broad terms) as
speculative has also increased dramatically and become more volatile.”
That is a result that we had must expected, since the growing importance of capital goods in NGDP has change dramatically the composition of NGDP.
That is a result that we had must expected, since the growing importance of capital goods in NGDP has change dramatically the composition of NGDP.
Where it is demonstrated that income velocity is not the same that transactions velocity; That the differences correlate to financial transactions; So, that the ecuation MV=PY is not a so good proxy for the original MV=PT as it used to be until 1976.
That what accelerate the velocity in growth fases is capital markets, correlated with financial credit.
from the text:
So, we can say that monetarism is not false, but is a lot more complicated than 50 yeras ago. Specially when the crisis has battered the dwellings sector.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario