You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: lectures/cons_smooth.md
+20-18Lines changed: 20 additions & 18 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -18,14 +18,16 @@ kernelspec:
18
18
19
19
In this lecture, we'll study a famous model of the "consumption function" that Milton Friedman {cite}`Friedman1956` and Robert Hall {cite}`Hall1978`) proposed to fit some empirical data patterns that the original Keynesian consumption function described in this QuantEcon lecture {doc}`geometric series <geom_series>` missed.
20
20
21
-
In this lecture, we'll study what is often called the "consumption-smoothing model" using matrix multiplication and matrix inversion, the same tools that we used in this QuantEcon lecture {doc}`present values <pv>`.
21
+
We'll study what is often called the "consumption-smoothing model."
22
+
23
+
We'll use matrix multiplication and matrix inversion, the same tools that we used in this QuantEcon lecture {doc}`present values <pv>`.
22
24
23
25
Formulas presented in {doc}`present value formulas<pv>` are at the core of the consumption-smoothing model because we shall use them to define a consumer's "human wealth".
24
26
25
27
The key idea that inspired Milton Friedman was that a person's non-financial income, i.e., his or
26
-
her wages from working, could be viewed as a dividend stream from that person's ''human capital''
27
-
and that standard asset-pricing formulas could be applied to compute a person's
28
-
''non-financial wealth'' that capitalizes the earnings stream.
28
+
her wages from working, can be viewed as a dividend stream from ''human capital''
29
+
and that standard asset-pricing formulas can be applied to compute
30
+
''non-financial wealth'' that capitalizes that earnings stream.
29
31
30
32
```{note}
31
33
As we'll see in this QuantEcon lecture {doc}`equalizing difference model <equalizing_difference>`,
@@ -48,13 +50,13 @@ from collections import namedtuple
48
50
49
51
The model describes a consumer who lives from time $t=0, 1, \ldots, T$, receives a stream $\{y_t\}_{t=0}^T$ of non-financial income and chooses a consumption stream $\{c_t\}_{t=0}^T$.
50
52
51
-
We usually think of the non-financial income stream as coming from the person's salary from supplying labor.
53
+
We usually think of the non-financial income stream as coming from the person's earnings from supplying labor.
52
54
53
-
The model takes a non-financial income stream as an input, regarding it as "exogenous" in the sense of not being determined by the model.
55
+
The model takes a non-financial income stream as an input, regarding it as "exogenous" in the sense that it is determined outside the model.
54
56
55
-
The consumer faces a gross interest rate of $R >1$ that is constant over time, at which she is free to borrow or lend, up to limits that we'll describe below.
57
+
The consumer faces a gross interest rate of $R >1$ that is constant over time, at which she is free to borrow or lend, up to limits that we'll describe below.
56
58
57
-
To set up the model, let
59
+
Let
58
60
59
61
* $T \geq 2$ be a positive integer that constitutes a time-horizon.
60
62
* $y = \{y_t\}_{t=0}^T$ be an exogenous sequence of non-negative non-financial incomes $y_t$.
@@ -128,7 +130,10 @@ By **smoother** we mean as close as possible to being constant over time.
128
130
129
131
The preference for smooth consumption paths that is built into the model gives it the name "consumption-smoothing model".
130
132
131
-
Let's dive in and do some calculations that will help us understand how the model works.
133
+
We'll postpone verifying our claim that a constant consumption path is optimal when $\beta R=1$
134
+
by comparing welfare levels that comes from a constant path with ones that involve non-constant paths.
135
+
136
+
Before doing that, let's dive in and do some calculations that will help us understand how the model works in practice when we provide the consumer with some different streams on non-financial income.
132
137
133
138
Here we use default parameters $R = 1.05$, $g_1 = 1$, $g_2 = 1/2$, and $T = 65$.
We promised to justify our claim that a constant consumption play $c_t = c_0$ for all
480
-
$t$ is optimal.
484
+
We promised to justify our claim that when $\beta R =1$ as Friedman assumed, a constant consumption play $c_t = c_0$ for all $t$ is optimal.
481
485
482
486
Let's do that now.
483
487
@@ -597,7 +601,7 @@ plt.show()
597
601
598
602
We can even use the Python `np.gradient` command to compute derivatives of welfare with respect to our two parameters.
599
603
600
-
We are teaching the key idea beneath the **calculus of variations**.
604
+
(We are actually discovering the key idea beneath the **calculus of variations**.)
601
605
602
606
First, we define the welfare with respect to $\xi_1$ and $\phi$
603
607
@@ -656,14 +660,12 @@ plt.show()
656
660
657
661
## Wrapping up the consumption-smoothing model
658
662
659
-
The consumption-smoothing model of Milton Friedman {cite}`Friedman1956` and Robert Hall {cite}`Hall1978`) is a cornerstone of modern macro that has important ramifications for the size of the Keynesian "fiscal policy multiplier" described briefly in
663
+
The consumption-smoothing model of Milton Friedman {cite}`Friedman1956` and Robert Hall {cite}`Hall1978`) is a cornerstone of modern economics that has important ramifications for the size of the Keynesian "fiscal policy multiplier" that we described in
660
664
QuantEcon lecture {doc}`geometric series <geom_series>`.
661
665
662
-
In particular, it **lowers** the government expenditure multiplier relative to one implied by
663
-
the original Keynesian consumption function presented in {doc}`geometric series <geom_series>`.
666
+
The consumption-smoothingmodel **lowers** the government expenditure multiplier relative to one implied by the original Keynesian consumption function presented in {doc}`geometric series <geom_series>`.
664
667
665
-
Friedman's work opened the door to an enlightening literature on the aggregate consumption function and associated government expenditure multipliers that
666
-
remains active today.
668
+
Friedman's work opened the door to an enlightening literature on the aggregate consumption function and associated government expenditure multipliers that remains active today.
667
669
668
670
669
671
## Appendix: solving difference equations with linear algebra
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: lectures/tax_smooth.md
+12-12Lines changed: 12 additions & 12 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -24,13 +24,13 @@ By renaming variables, we obtain a a version of a model "tax-smoothing model"
24
24
The government chooses a tax collection path that minimizes the present value of its costs of raising revenue.
25
25
26
26
27
-
The government minimize those costs by varying tax collections little over time.
27
+
The government minimizes those costs by smoothing tax collections over time and by issuing government debt during temporary surges in government expenditures.
28
28
29
29
30
30
The present value of government expenditures is at the core of the tax-smoothing model,
31
31
so we'll again use formulas presented in {doc}`present value formulas<pv>`.
32
32
33
-
We'll use the matrix multiplication and matrix inversion tools that we used in {doc}`present value formulas <pv>`.
33
+
We'll again use the matrix multiplication and matrix inversion tools that we used in {doc}`present value formulas <pv>`.
34
34
35
35
36
36
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ We require it to satisfy two **boundary conditions**:
74
74
* it must equal an exogenous value $B_0$ at time $0$
75
75
* it must equal or exceed an exogenous value $B_{S+1}$ at time $S+1$.
76
76
77
-
The **terminal condition** $B_{S+1} \geq 0$ requires that it not end with negative assets.
77
+
The **terminal condition** $B_{S+1} \geq 0$ requires that the government not end up with negative assets.
78
78
79
79
(This no-Ponzi condition ensures that the government ultimately pays off its debts -- it can't simply roll them over indefinitely.)
@@ -410,29 +410,29 @@ Now we assume a permanent increase in government expenditures of $L$ in year 21
410
410
Again we can study positive and negative cases
411
411
412
412
```{code-cell} ipython3
413
-
# Positive permanent expenditure shift L = 0.5 when t >= 21
413
+
# Positive temporary expenditure shift L = 0.5 when t >= 21
414
414
G_seq_pos = np.concatenate(
415
-
[np.ones(21), 1.5*np.ones(25), np.zeros(20)])
415
+
[np.ones(21), 1.5*np.ones(25), np.ones(20)])
416
416
417
417
plot_ts(tax_model, B0, G_seq_pos)
418
418
```
419
419
420
420
```{code-cell} ipython3
421
-
# Negative permanent expenditure shift L = -0.5 when t >= 21
421
+
# Negative temporary expenditure shift L = -0.5 when t >= 21
422
422
G_seq_neg = np.concatenate(
423
-
[np.ones(21), .5*np.ones(25), np.zeros(20)])
423
+
[np.ones(21), .5*np.ones(25), np.ones(20)])
424
424
425
425
plot_ts(tax_model, B0, G_seq_neg)
426
426
```
427
427
428
-
#### Experiment 3: delayed spending
428
+
#### Experiment 3: delayed spending surge
429
429
430
430
Now we simulate a $G$ sequence in which government expenditures are zero for 46 years, and then rise to 1 for the last 20 years (perhaps due to demographic aging)
0 commit comments