This paper is motivated by a variety of empirical observations on the comovements of currency velocity, inflation, and the relative size of the “credit services” sector. By the credit services sector we mean the part of banking and credit sector which provides alternative means of transactions to using currency as well as other services which help people economize on currency. We incorporate the credit services sector into a monetary growth model. Our model makes two specific and new contributions. The first is to show that direct quantitative evidence on the welfare cost of low inflation using measures of the relative size of an appropriately defined credit services sector for the U.S.—essentially the cost incurred by banks and credit unions in providing demand deposit and credit card services—is consistent with the welfare cost measured using an estimated money demand curve following the classic analysis of Bailey (1956) and the more recent analysis of Lucas (1993). Both of these measures amount to about 0.5 percent of GNP. The second contribution is in providing welfare cost of inflation estimates over a range of inflation rates which have some new features. We find that the total welfare cost of inflation remains bounded at about 5 percent of consumption.

This paper is motivated by empirical observations on the comovements of currency velocity, inflation, and the relative size of the credit services sector. We document these comovements and incorporate into a monetary growth model a credit services sector that provides services that help people economize on money. Our model makes two new contributions. First, we show that direct evidence on the appropriately defined credit service sector for the United States is consistent with the welfare cost measured using an estimated money demand schedule. Second, we provide welfare cost of inflation estimates that have some new features.

We consider an environment in which risk-neutral firms must obtain external finance. They have access to two kinds of linear, stochastic investment opportunities. For one, return realizations are costlessly observed by all agents. For the other, return realizations are costlessly observed only by the investing firm; however, they can be (privately) observed by outsiders who bear a fixed verification cost. Thus, the second investment opportunity is subject to a standard costly state verification (CSV) problem of the type considered by Townsend (1979), Gale and Hellwig (1985), or Williamson (1986, 1987).

We examine the optimal allocations of investment between the two kinds of projects, as well as the optimal contract used to finance it. We show that the optimal contractual outcome can be supported by having firms issue appropriate (and determinate) quantities of debt and equity securities to outside investors.

The optimal debt-equity ratio necessarily depends (in part) on the firm’s asset structure. Investments in projects subject to CSV problems are associated (in a sense to be made precise) with the use of debt—as might be expected from the existing CSV literature. Investments in projects with publicly observable returns are associated with the use of external equity.

We examine in detail the relationship between the optimal asset and liability structure of the firm. We also describe conditions under which an increase in the cost of state verification shifts the composition of investment towards projects with observable returns, and reduces the optimal debt-equity ratio. Interestingly, the optimal debt-equity ratio is also shown to depend on factors that are irrelevant to asset allocations.

Finally, a large part of the interest in CSV environments has been due to the fact that they may result in equilibrium credit rationing. Our analysis has strong implications for the possibility of equilibrium credit rationing in more general CSV models.

Recent developments in monetary economics stress the nature of monetary injections, emphasizing that these have implications for the relationship between money and prices. In constrast, traditional approaches posit stable money demand functions that are independent of how money is injected. The former approach implies that certain proportionality relations between money and prices need not obtain. This permits the two approaches to be empirically distinguished, but only if an appropriate "experiment" is conducted. The colonial period is one such experiment. Colonial evidence suggests that the nature of injections is crucial to the effect on prices of changes in the money supply.

Using optimal control theory and a vector autoregressive representation of the relationship between money and interest rates one can derive a feedback control procedure which defines the best possible tradeoff between interest rate volatility and money supply fluctuations and which could be used to reduce both from their current levels.

The optimal choice of a monetary policy instrument depends on how tight and transparent the available instruments are and on whether policymakers can commit to future policies. Tightness is always desirable; transparency is only if policymakers cannot commit. Interest rates, which can be made endogenously tight, have a natural advantage over money growth and exchange rates, which cannot. As prices, interest and exchange rates are more transparent than money growth. All else equal, the best instrument is interest rates and the next-best, exchange rates. These findings are consistent with the observed instrument choices of developed and less-developed economies.

"These notes were... initially circulated as Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Working Paper 343, 1987."

In this paper, we use a simple model of money demand to characterize the behavior of monetary aggregates in the United States from 1960 to 2016. We argue that the demand for the currency component of the monetary base has been remarkably stable during this period. We use the model to make projections of the nominal quantity of cash in circulation under alternative future paths for the federal funds rate. Our calculations suggest that if the federal funds rate is lifted up as suggested by the survey of economic projections made by the members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), the fall in total currency demanded in the next two years ranges between 50 and 200 billion. Our discussion suggests that specific measures by the Federal Reserve to absorb that cash could be worth considering to make the future path of the price level consistent with the price stability mandate.

This paper considers four models in which immortal agents face idiosyncratic shocks and trade only a single risk-free asset over time. The four models specify this single asset to be private bonds, public bonds, public money, or private money respectively. I prove that, given an equilibrium in one of these economies, it is possible to pick the exogenous elements in the other three economies so that there is an outcome-equivalent equilibrium in each of them. (The term “exogenous variables” refers to the limits on private issue of money or bonds, or the supplies of publicly issued bonds or money.)

In "Open Market Operations in a Model of Regulated, Insured Intermediaries" [JPE, forthcoming] we show that once-for-all open market purchases need not be inflationary. Here we show this result can carry over to various stationary accommodation rules given stochastic deficits. In particular, the inflationary and deflationary effects of stochastic deficits are not offset by, nor welfare improved by, a monetary policy that leans toward monetarism. Moreover, a constant money growth rule is not in the class of stationary policies given the kind of stochastic deficit we analyze, which by itself is a serious indictment of the monetarist proposal.

I propose an equilibrium menu cost model with a continuum of sectors, each consisting of strategically engaged firms. Compared to a model with monopolistically competitive sectors that is calibrated to the same data on good-level price flexibility, the dynamic duopoly model features a smaller inflation response to monetary shocks and output responses that are more than twice as large. The model also implies (i) four times larger welfare losses from nominal rigidities, (ii) smaller menu costs and idiosyncratic shocks are needed to match the data, (iii) a U-shaped relationship between market concentration and price flexibility, for which I find empirical support.

A model of credit rationing based on asymmetrically informed borrowers and lenders is developed. In this context, sufficient conditions are derived for an appropriate government policy response to credit rationing to be a continuously open discount window. It is also demonstrated that such a policy can be deflationary, and that given a commitment to operate in this way, the monopoly issue of liabilities can Pareto dominate their competitive issuance.

In this paper, I revisit some recent work on the theory of the money supply, using a theoretical framework that closely follows Karl Brunner's work. I argue that had his research proposals been followed by the profession, some of the misunderstandings related to the instability of the money demand relationship could have been avoided.

The money demand literature presents much conflicting evidence on this question. For example, Lucas (1988) reports unrestricted money demand regressions which seem to imply that long-run money demand elasticities are highly unstable across subsamples. At the same time, he also presents evidence from money demand regressions with the income elasticity restricted to unity which seem to suggest stability. We conduct a formal analysis which weighs these apparently conflicting facts to determine which hypothesis is more plausible; the hypothesis that money demand is stable, or the hypothesis that money demand is unstable. We find that the stability hypothesis is the more plausible one. Thus, according to our data set, the answer to the question in the title is "yes".

We study models of credit with limited commitment, which implies endogenous borrowing constraints. We show that there are multiple stationary equilibria, as well as nonstationary equilibria, including some that display deterministic cyclic and chaotic dynamics. There are also stochastic (sunspot) equilibria, in which credit conditions change randomly over time, even though fundamentals are deterministic and stationary. We show this can occur when the terms of trade are determined by Walrasian pricing or by Nash bargaining. The results illustrate how it is possible to generate equilibria with credit cycles (crunches, freezes, crises) in theory, and as recently observed in actual economies.

We develop a new tractable model of banks' liquidity management and the credit channel of monetary policy. Banks finance loans by issuing demand deposits. Because loans are illiquid, deposit transfers across banks must be settled with reserves. Deposit withdrawals are random, and banks manage liquidity risk by holding a precautionary buffer of reserves. We show how different shocks affect the banking system by altering the trade-off between profiting from lending and incurring greater liquidity risk. Through various tools, monetary policy affects the real economy by altering that trade-off. In a quantitative application, we study the driving forces behind the decline in lending and liquidity hoarding by banks during the 2008 financial crisis. Our analysis underscores the importance of disruptions in interbank markets followed by a persistent decline in credit demand.