Wallace Neutrality... don't fight the Fed

Miles Kimball gave me some help on understanding Wallace Neutrality, which in turn might help me understand more where Stephen Williamson is coming from when he says QE is irrelevant. I asked Miles:

I'm not sure if I entirely understand the Wallace neutrality argument.

If I may paraphrase, does it mean something like... the Fed could buy a bunch of stocks on the NYSE, and they might be able to push their prices up (their dividend rates down). But if they did so, the price of these stocks would rise above their intrinsic value and profit-seeking agents would immediately take the opposite side of the trade, thereby pushing the purchased stocks' value back to their intrinsic value. So in order for the Fed to permanently increase stock prices above their intrinsic value, there must be some sort of "friction" that prevents profit-seeking agents from taking the other side of the trade. Is that what it means?

Miles:

Yes... You said it very well.

That's a relief. Sometimes I have troubles translating the somewhat Spockian language of formal economics into words that are more comfortable to me, that being the daily lingua of the marketplace, trading, and investing.

To further re-translate, I'd say the idea of Wallace Neutrality falls in the same boat as the old trader's adage... don't fight the Fed. If traders believe the Fed is all-powerful and too strong to trade against, then the Fed can effectively change assets prices above or below what they should otherwise be. If traders think they can fight the Fed, then the Fed can't change asset prices - traders will collectively take the other side of any Fed action, canceling out any Fed-induced price changes. What "friction" motivates traders to believe they can or can't fight the Fed?

Here is my older post on Stephen Williamson's QE irrelevance. The frictions I point to in that post are the Fed's size relative to other actors in asset markets and the Fed's ambivalence to profits/losses in a environment in which all other actors are hypersensitive to profits/losses. In other words... don't fight the Fed. It's massively big and doesn't care if it loses on the trade.

Brad DeLong had a comment on the idea of Wallace Neutrality here. Miles goes into the idea of Wallace Neutrality again here.

Comments

Stock as a medium of exchange

American Depository Receipt (ADR) for Sony Corp You've heard the story before. It goes something like this. There's one unique good in this world that serves as a universal vehicle by which we conduct every one of our economic transactions. We call this good "money". Quarrels often start over what items get lumped together as money, but paper currency and deposits usually make the grade. If we want to convert the things that we've produced into desirable consumption goods (or long-term savings vehicles like stocks), we need to pass through this intervening "money" medium to get there. This of course is fiction—there never has been an item that served as a universal medium of exchange. Rather, all valuable things serve to some degree or other as a medium of exchange; or, put differently, everything is money. What follows are several examples illustrating this idea. Rather than using currency/deposits as the intervening medium to get to their desired final...

Yap stones and the myth of fiat money

At first glance, the large circular discs that circulated on the island of Yap in the South Pacific certainly seem quite odd. Too big to be easily transported, the stones are often seen in photos resting against their owner's houses. So much for velocity. Yap stones have been considered significant enough that they have become a recurring motif in monetary economics. Macroeconomics textbooks, including Baumol & Blinder , Miles & Scott ( pdf ), Stonecash/Gans/King/Mankiw , Williamson , and Taylor all have stories about Yap stone money. Why this fascination? Part of it is probably due to the profession's obsession with the categorical divide between "money" and "non-money". In dividing the universe of goods into these two bins, only a few select goods end up in the money bin. That an object so odd and unwieldy as a three meter wide stone could join slim US dollar bills and easily portable silver coins in the category of money is pleasantly counterintu...

Chain splits under a Bitcoin monetary standard

The recent bitcoin chain split got me thinking again about bitcoin-as-money, specifically as a unit of account . If bitcoin were to serve as a major pricing unit for commerce on the internet, we'd have to get used to some very strange macroeconomic effects every time a chain split occurred. In this post I investigate what this would look like. While true believers claim that bitcoin's destiny is to replace the U.S. dollar, bitcoin has a long way to go. For one, it hasn't yet become a generally-accepted medium of exchange. People who own it are too afraid to spend it lest they miss out on the next boom in its price, and would-be recipients are too shy to accept it given its incredible volatility. So usage of bitcoin has been confined to a very narrow range of transactions. But let's say that down the road bitcoin does become a generally-accepted medium of exchange. The next stage to becoming a full fledged currency like the U.S. dollar involves becoming a unit of account...

Typography

Search This Blog