03
May
2017
How Does Lucas Differ From Traditional Keynesian Stories on “Money Illusion”?
I sent an email to an expert but thought I’d also post my issue here:
For a paper I’m doing, I had to go back and re-read Lucas’ 1972 JET paper on the neutrality of money.
In it, he stresses that the agents in his model do not suffer from money illusion. He clarifies what this means in his conclusion:
“This paper has been at attempt to resolve the paradox [that money is a fluttering veil]. The resolution has been effected by postulating economic agents free of money illusion, so that the Ricardian hypothetical experiment of a fully announced, proportional monetary expansion will have no real consequences (that is, so that money is a veil). These rational agents are then placed in a setting in which the information conveyed by market prices…”
So here’s my question: In what sense do the traditional workers in a Keynesian theory behave differently from Lucas’ agents?
In the standard explanation, I think economists say something like: “The government can run the printing press and this allows employers to offer higher money wages to workers. At first the workers think they are earning a higher *real* wage rate; they think they are going to take those higher money balances and buy more real goods and services in the market place in the future. But when they get to store, they realize prices are higher than they expected. They regret having sold so much of their leisure time for money, because they didn’t realize that the high money wages was simply due to the monetary expansion.”
So, isn’t that exactly what happens in Lucas’ 1972 model? The young people see a high amount of money offered by the old people for their product, and so the young people decide to work more (selling more units of present leisure for what they think will be more units of future consumption). But then when 1 period passes and they become old, these people see higher prices than they expected. They regret having worked so much in the previous period, even though they made the ‘right decision’ at that time, based on the information they had.
Aren’t these compatible stories?
Another question is “In what sense does inflation work as ‘fully announced and proportional'”?
What Lucas adds is rational expectations right? With money illusion under Friedman it’s a “fool me once…” thing. With Lucas agents always have rational expectations so money is neutral in the long run because agents are correct in expectation, not because they change their calculations. They are never tricked in the short run, in other words, there’s just random error and the response to that error generates a Phillips Curve. In the long run the error averages out to zero.
It’s the core of the difference between New Classical and everything that came before it: he replaced adaptive expectations with rational expectations.
We were taught that the contribution of Lucas wasn’t to show this short-run/long-run difference which as you say seems pretty similar superficially to money illusion. It was to show that you didn’t need anything going on on the demand side to get an empirical short run Phillips Curve. It was “New Classical” precisely because everything was happening on the supply side again and there was nothing having to do with demand that you had to invoke to get the short-run behavior associated with the Phillips Curve.
To get this you needed RE. Then New Keynesians came along and said “fine we’ll keep your RE and show if you make things more reasonable on other dimensions aggregate demand becomes important again.
Daniel thank you for your replies. I agree with everything you say; I was taught similar things.
But as I’m thinking about it more, I don’t see that there’s that big of a gulf between the two positions. Look at the following statements and tell me if you see what I mean.
(A) Keynesians/Friedman talking about workers: “They incorrectly thought a boost in money wage rates was a real wage increase, because they didn’t know as much as economists.”
(B) Lucas talking about workers: “They incorrectly thought a boost in money wage rates was a real wage increase, because they lacked perfect information.”
Right I agree – insofar as they’re both incorrect in the short run it’s exactly the same. Both have a short-run Phillips Curve and no long-run Phillips Curve.
If the adaptive/rational expectations difference isn’t that big of a gulf the other big difference is that Lucas is all on the supply side (producers responding to prices) while Friedman and the Keynesians are all on the demand side. That’s the bigger practical gulf.
‘Friedman and the Keynesians are all on the demand side”
But isn’t distorted supply of labor central to the Friedman story ?
I think there is a sense in which people suffering from money illusion are acting irrationally. If they only drew the correct implication of changes in the money supply and other indicators they would not make labor supply decisions that they later regret (and that lead to deviations from optimal output levels in the economy).
While the math is inpenetrable to me I think Lucas claims to have written a model where everyone makes rational decision based on all available information and we still end up with monetary fluctuations leading to real output movements.
Yes everything you say is right Transformer, but my point is that in Lucas’ model, what happens actually seems very close to money illusion. The workers are making EXACTLY the mistake of the traditional workers who suffer from the illusion, it’s just that we don’t hold it against them because they lacked the relevant information when they made the decision.
To go the other way, why can’t we exonerate the traditional workers who suffer from money illusion, and say, “Sure they made a mistake, but it was an understandable mistake given their information set.” ?
Yes, I think the difference may be between workers “lacking the relevant information” and “having the relevant information but misinterpreting it” – but I agree this is very thin line.
From the introduction:
“In the particular framework presented
below, prices convey this information only imperfectly, forcing agents to
hedge on whether a particular price movement results from a relative
demand shift or a nominal (monetary) one. This hedging behavior results
in a nonneutrality of money, or broadly speaking a Phillips curve, similar
in nature to that which we observe in reality.”
It is this imperfect conveying of information that seems to be the problem.
My very uncertain thoughts are that the money illusion and imperfect conveying of information through prices, requiring hedging may be much the same thing?
“Some persons maintain that freedom from violence, or at least a great diminution of it, may be gained by the oppressed forcibly overturning the oppressive government and replacing it by a new one under which such violence and oppression will be unnecessary, but they deceive themselves and others, and their efforts do not better the position of the oppressed, but only make it worse. Their conduct only tends to increase the despotism of government. Their efforts only afford a plausible pretext for government to strengthen their power.”
“Even if we admit that under a combination of circumstances specially unfavorable for the government, as in France in 1870, any government might be forcibly overturned and the power transferred to other hands, the new authority would rarely be less oppressive than the old one; on the contrary, always having to defend itself against its dispossessed and exasperated enemies, it would be more despotic and cruel, as has always been the rule in all revolutions.”
“While socialists and communists regard the individualistic, capitalistic organization of society as an evil, and the anarchists regard as an evil all government whatever, there are royalists, conservatives, and capitalists who consider any socialistic or communistic organization or anarchy as an evil, and all these parties have no means other than violence to bring men to agreement. Whichever of these parties were successful in bringing their schemes to pass, must resort to support its authority to all the existing methods of violence, and even invent new ones.”
“The oppressed would be another set of people, and coercion would take some new form; but the violence and oppression would be unchanged or even more cruel, since hatred would be intensified by the struggle, and new forms of oppression would have been devised. So it has always been after all revolutions and all attempts at revolution, all conspiracies, and all violent changes of government. Every conflict only strengthens the means of oppression in the hands of those who happen at a given moment to be in power.”
…
“And of this mass of men so brutalized as to be ready to promise to kill their own parents, the social reformers–conservatives, liberals, socialists, and anarchists–propose to form a rational and moral society. What sort of moral and rational society can be formed out of such elements? With warped and rotten planks you cannot build a house, however you put them together. And to form a rational moral society of such men is just as impossible a task. They can be formed into nothing but a herd of cattle, driven by the shouts and whips of the herdsmen. As indeed they are.”
– Leo Tolstoy https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Kingdom_of_God_Is_Within_You/Chapter_VIII