Article Analysis

aa.2015

brief-ch17-presentation6e2012_1.pptx

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Economics homework help >Article Analysis

N. Gregory Mankiw

Macroeconomics

Brief Principles of

Sixth Edition

The Short-Run Tradeoff Between Inflation and Unemployment

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.

Premium PowerPoint Slides by Ron Cronovich

2012 UPDATE

‹#›

In this chapter, look for the answers to these questions:

How are inflation and unemployment related in the short run? In the long run?

What factors alter this relationship?

What is the short-run cost of reducing inflation?

Why were U.S. inflation and unemployment both so low in the 1990s?

‹#›

Introduction

In the long run, inflation & unemployment are unrelated:

The inflation rate depends mainly on growth in the money supply.

Unemployment (the “natural rate”) depends on the minimum wage, the market power of unions, efficiency wages, and the process of job search.

One of the Ten Principles: In the short run, society faces a trade-off between inflation and unemployment.

‹#›

The Phillips Curve

Phillips curve: shows the short-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment

1958: A.W. Phillips showed that nominal wage growth was negatively correlated with unemployment in the U.K.

1960: Paul Samuelson & Robert Solow found a negative correlation between U.S. inflation & unemployment, named it “the Phillips Curve.”

‹#›

Deriving the Phillips Curve

Suppose P = 100 this year.

The following graphs show two possible outcomes for next year:

A. Agg demand low, small increase in P (i.e., low inflation), low output, high unemployment.

B. Agg demand high, big increase in P (i.e., high inflation), high output, low unemployment.

‹#›

“Suppose P = 100 this year” provides an anchor to the analysis in the graphs on the following slide.

At this point, remind students that output and unemployment are negatively related over business cycles (one of the “three facts about economic fluctuations” from the chapter entitled “Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply”).

Deriving the Phillips Curve

u-rate

inflation

A. Low agg demand, low inflation, high u-rate

B. High agg demand, high inflation, low u-rate

SRAS

AD1

AD2

103

105

‹#›

Assume P = 100 this year.

If aggregate demand next year is low—reflecting, for example, slow money growth—then outcome A will occur next year. In outcome A, P = 103 next year, so the inflation rate from this year to next equals 3%. Output (Y1) is relatively low, so unemployment is relatively high at 6%.

Instead, if aggregate demand next year is high—reflecting, for example, rapid money growth—then outcome B will occur next year. In outcome B, P = 105 next year, so the inflation rate from this year to next equals 5%. Output (Y2) is higher, so unemployment is lower (4%).

The Phillips Curve: A Policy Menu?

Since fiscal and mon policy affect agg demand, the PC appeared to offer policymakers a menu of choices:

low unemployment with high inflation

low inflation with high unemployment

anything in between

1960s: U.S. data supported the Phillips curve. Many believed the PC was stable and reliable.

‹#›

Evidence for the Phillips Curve?

Inflation rate (% per year)

Unemployment rate (%)

During the 1960s, U.S. policymakers opted for reducing unemployment at the expense of higher inflation

1961

‹#›

The data almost perfectly trace out a downward-sloping Phillips curve.

But what’s important here is not just the negative slope, but the economy’s movement over the years:

Fiscal policy was expansionary, in part to finance the Vietnam war. To keep interest rates low, the Fed made monetary policy expansionary as well. As a result, aggregate demand grew over the 1960s.

You can see this if you follow the points year by year: inflation gradually creeps up while unemployment is falling, which is exactly what was depicted on the graphs we used to derive the Phillips curve.

The Vertical Long-Run Phillips Curve

1968: Milton Friedman and Edmund Phelps argued that the tradeoff was temporary.

Natural-rate hypothesis: the claim that unemployment eventually returns to its normal or “natural” rate, regardless of the inflation rate

Based on the classical dichotomy and the vertical LRAS curve

‹#›

In the face of what many considered overwhelming evidence for the stability of the downward-sloping Phillips curve, Friedman and Phelps (working separately) boldly asserted that any tradeoff would be purely temporary.

Their logic? The Classical Dichotomy and the vertical LRAS curve.

The Vertical Long-Run Phillips Curve

u-rate

inflation

In the long run, faster money growth only causes faster inflation.

LRAS

AD1

AD2

Natural rate of output

Natural rate of unemployment

LRPC

low infla-tion

high infla-tion

‹#›

The greater the expansion of the money supply, the faster AD will shift to the right, resulting in a larger increase in prices—i.e., higher inflation.

But this higher inflation will not produce lower unemployment: in the long run, unemployment always goes to its natural rate whether inflation is high or low. In the long run, faster money growth only causes faster inflation.

Reconciling Theory and Evidence

Evidence (from ’60s): PC slopes downward.

Theory (Friedman and Phelps): PC is vertical in the long run.

To bridge the gap between theory and evidence, Friedman and Phelps introduced a new variable: expected inflation – a measure of how much people expect the price level to change.

‹#›

The Phillips Curve Equation

Short run Fed can reduce u-rate below the natural u-rate by making inflation greater than expected.

Long run Expectations catch up to reality, u-rate goes back to natural u-rate whether inflation is high or low.

Unemp. rate

Natural rate of unemp.

–

Actual inflation

Expected inflation

–

‹#›

This equation is essentially the equation for aggregate supply introduced in the “aggregate demand and aggregate supply” chapter.

The coefficient a is a positive number that measures the relationship between unexpected inflation and deviations of unemployment from its natural rate: A 1% increase in inflation causes the unemployment rate to fall by a (for given values of the natural rate and expected inflation).

Point out to students that this equation—and its coefficient a—are very similar to the equation for the aggregate supply curve in the chapter “Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply.”

If the Fed wants to reduce unemployment below the natural rate, it has to surprise people with higher-than-anticipated inflation. The result will be lower unemployment—but only until people adjust their expectations to the new reality of higher inflation.

Eventually, expectations catch up with reality—i.e., people see that inflation is higher than they’d expected, so they adjust their expectations upward.

How Expected Inflation Shifts the PC

Initially, expected & actual inflation = 3%, unemployment = natural rate (6%).

Fed makes inflation 2% higher than expected, u-rate falls to 4%.

In the long run, expected inflation increases to 5%, PC shifts upward, unemployment returns to its natural rate.

u-rate

inflation

PC1

LRPC

PC2

‹#›

When people adjust their inflation expectations upward, then the PC shifts up: each value of the u-rate is associated with a higher inflation rate.

Of course, we can extrapolate this: Suppose the Fed wants to PERMANENTLY keep unemployment at 4%. It must continually raise inflation above expectations. Expectations will keep adjusting upward, so the Fed will have to keep raising the inflation rate faster than expectations are adjusting. Inflation spirals upward as a result of the attempt to keep unemployment at 4%.

Before long, people will come to expect not only higher inflation but ever-increasing inflation, and they will factor this into their contracts. It will be extremely difficult for the Fed to continue this game.

Ultimately, unemployment has to return to the natural rate, yet the economy will end up with something approaching hyperinflation and the costs it imposes on society.

ACTIVE LEARNING 1 A numerical example

Natural rate of unemployment = 5% Expected inflation = 2% In PC equation, a = 0.5

A. Plot the long-run Phillips curve.

B. Find the u-rate for each of these values of actual inflation: 0%, 6%. Sketch the short-run PC.

C. Suppose expected inflation rises to 4%. Repeat part B.

D. Instead, suppose the natural rate falls to 4%. Draw the new long-run Phillips curve, then repeat part B.

‹#›

For many students, working a concrete numerical example helps make the concepts clearer. This exercise leads students to see for themselves how the Phillips curve shifts in response to changes in expected inflation and the natural rate of unemployment.

If you would like to get through the chapter more quickly, you can delete Part D of the question from this slide (and the corresponding parts of the answers on the next slide).

ACTIVE LEARNING 1 Answers

LRPCA

An increase in expected inflation shifts PC to the right.

PCD

LRPCD

PCB

PCC

A fall in the natural rate shifts both curves to the left.

‹#›

The subscript in each curve’s label refers to the corresponding part of the question. For example, the answer to part C is the downward-sloping dark red curve labeled PCC.

Parts A and B comprise a benchmark, an initial set of LR and SR Phillips curves, against which we will compare

- the effects of an increase in expected inflation (Part C)

- the effects of a fall in the natural rate (Part D)

The Breakdown of the Phillips Curve

Inflation rate (% per year)

Unemployment rate (%)

Early 1970s: unemployment increased, despite higher inflation.

Friedman & Phelps’ explanation: expectations were catching up with reality.

1961

‹#›

This chart adds a few additional years of data to the previous data chart.

From 1969 to 1973, inflation and unemployment BOTH INCREASE. People were adjusting their expectations of inflation upward, causing the Phillips curve to shift upward.

This is consistent with Friedman and Phelps’ work, which was looking increasingly convincing to economists and others.

Another PC Shifter: Supply Shocks

Supply shock: an event that directly alters firms’ costs and prices, shifting the AS and PC curves

Example: large increase in oil prices

‹#›

How an Adverse Supply Shock Shifts the PC

u-rate

inflation

SRAS shifts left, prices rise, output & employment fall.

Inflation & u-rate both increase as the PC shifts upward.

SRAS1

PC1

PC2

SRAS2

‹#›

In the chapter “Aggregate Demand and Aggregate Supply,” students learned that adverse supply shocks—like oil price increases—shift the SRAS curve to the left, causing “stagflation” (falling output and rising prices).

We see here that adverse supply shocks also shift the short-run Phillips curve to the right and worsen the tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

The 1970s Oil Price Shocks

The Fed chose to accommodate the first shock in 1973 with faster money growth.

Result: Higher expected inflation, which further shifted PC.

1979: Oil prices surged again, worsening the Fed’s tradeoff.

38.00

1/1981

32.50

1/1980

14.85

1/1979

10.11

1/1974

$ 3.56

1/1973

Oil price per barrel

‹#›

Data – the spot oil price of West Texas Intermediate

Original source: Dow Jones & Company

Where I found this data: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/

The 1970s Oil Price Shocks

Inflation rate (% per year)

Unemployment rate (%)

Supply shocks & rising expected inflation worsened the PC tradeoff.

1972

‹#›

From 1973–75, inflation and unemployment both rise sharply, reflecting the upward shifts of the PC in response to the first supply shock and the Fed’s accommodating monetary policy.

During the mid-1970s, oil prices were relatively stable for a couple years, and the economy began its self-correction process with SRAS shifting down. On the graph on this slide, we see inflation coming down in 1976 and unemployment falling slightly as the economy starts to come out of the recession.

From 1976–79, it appears that policy was being used to push the economy up its new, higher Phillips curve to a point with lower unemployment but higher inflation.

In 1979, the revolution in Iran and renewed OPEC activity led to a second huge spike in oil prices, which further worsened the unemployment-inflation tradeoff. From 1979 to 1981, the graph shows both unemployment and inflation rising.

The Cost of Reducing Inflation

Disinflation: a reduction in the inflation rate

To reduce inflation, Fed must slow the rate of money growth, which reduces agg demand.

Short run: Output falls and unemployment rises.

Long run: Output & unemployment return to their natural rates.

‹#›

Disinflationary Monetary Policy

Contractionary monetary policy moves economy from A to B.

Over time, expected inflation falls, PC shifts downward.

In the long run, point C: the natural rate of unemployment, lower inflation.

u-rate

inflation

LRPC

PC1

natural rate of unemployment

PC2

‹#›

The Cost of Reducing Inflation

Disinflation requires enduring a period of high unemployment and low output.

Sacrifice ratio: percentage points of annual output lost per 1 percentage point reduction in inflation

Typical estimate of the sacrifice ratio: 5

To reduce inflation rate 1%, must sacrifice 5% of a year’s output.

Can spread cost over time, e.g. To reduce inflation by 6%, can either

sacrifice 30% of GDP for one year

sacrifice 10% of GDP for three years

‹#›

Rational Expectations, Costless Disinflation?

Rational expectations: a theory according to which people optimally use all the information they have, including info about govt policies, when forecasting the future

Early proponents: Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent, Robert Barro

Implied that disinflation could be much less costly…

‹#›

Rational Expectations, Costless Disinflation?

Suppose the Fed convinces everyone it is committed to reducing inflation.

Then, expected inflation falls, the short-run PC shifts downward.

Result: Disinflations can cause less unemployment than the traditional sacrifice ratio predicts.

‹#›

The Volcker Disinflation

Fed Chairman Paul Volcker

Appointed in late 1979 under high inflation & unemployment

Changed Fed policy to disinflation

1981–1984:

Fiscal policy was expansionary, so Fed policy had to be very contractionary to reduce inflation.

Success: Inflation fell from 10% to 4%, but at the cost of high unemployment…

‹#›

By the end of the 1970s, the Phillips curve had shifted far to the right, substantially worsening the Fed’s short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

Volcker knew that monetary policy had to change.

The Volcker Disinflation

Inflation rate (% per year)

Unemployment rate (%)

Disinflation turned out to be very costly

u-rate near 10% in 1982–83

1979

‹#›

Volcker succeeded in bringing inflation down but at the cost of the deepest recession since the Great Depression.

Imagine a downward-sloping line going through the points from 1980 to 1982 or 1983. This imaginary line is the short-run Phillips curve at its highest level. The Fed pursued a policy that took the economy on a path very similar to that shown in the diagram a few slides back on a slide entitled “Disinflationary Monetary Policy.”

The Greenspan Era

1986: Oil prices fell 50%.

1989–90: Unemployment fell, inflation rose. Fed raised interest rates, caused a mild recession.

1990s: Unemployment and inflation fell.

2001: Negative demand shocks created the first recession in a decade. Policymakers responded with expansionary monetary and fiscal policy.

Alan Greenspan Chair of FOMC, Aug 1987 – Jan 2006

‹#›

The Greenspan Era

Inflation rate (% per year)

Unemployment rate (%)

Inflation and unemployment were low during most of Alan Greenspan’s years as Fed Chairman.

1987

2000

‹#›

In this period, inflation and unemployment were lower and less variable than previous periods.

A few highlights:

1990–92: Rising unemployment that resulted from the first recession of this period.

1992–98: Unemployment falls without a corresponding increase in inflation; in fact, inflation edged lower.

1998–2000: Small increase in inflation while unemployment continues its downward march.

2001–2003: Rising unemployment following the second recession of this period

2003–2006: Expansionary fiscal and monetary policy reduce unemployment, at a cost of slightly higher inflation.

The Phillips Curve During the Financial Crisis

The early 2000s housing market boom turned to bust in 2006

Household wealth fell, millions of mortgage defaults and foreclosures, heavy losses at financial institutions

Result: Sharp drop in aggregate demand, steep rise in unemployment

Ben Bernanke Chair of FOMC, Feb 2006 – present

‹#›

The Phillips Curve During the Financial Crisis

Inflation rate (% per year)

Unemployment rate (%)

2006

The financial crisis caused aggregate demand to plummet, sharply increasing unemployment and reducing inflation

2007

2008

2009

4.6 4.6 5.8 9.3 3.211490041245805 2.9 2.1 1.2

CONCLUSION

The theories in this chapter come from some of the greatest economists of the 20th century.

They teach us that inflation and unemployment are

unrelated in the long run

negatively related in the short run

affected by expectations, which play an important role in the economy’s adjustment from the short-run to the long run

‹#›

SUMMARY

The Phillips curve describes the short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.

In the long run, there is no tradeoff: inflation is determined by money growth, while unemployment equals its natural rate.

Supply shocks and changes in expected inflation shift the short-run Phillips curve, making the tradeoff more or less favorable.

‹#›

SUMMARY

The Fed can reduce inflation by contracting the money supply, which moves the economy along its short-run Phillips curve and raises unemployment. In the long run, though, expectations adjust and unemployment returns to its natural rate.

Some economists argue that a credible commitment to reducing inflation can lower the costs of disinflation by inducing a rapid adjustment of expectations.

‹#›

02468100246810

unemployment rate

inflation rate

02468100246810