What 1933 can teach us about coherent policies
In early 1933, output in the US had fallen 25 percent from its peak, deflation was averaging 7 percent a year, and the money supply dropped over 30 percent as waves of bank runs engulfed the financial system. In April 1933 Roosevelt abandoned the gold standard, converting what had been effectively real government debt into nominal government debt and opened the door to implementing an “unbacked fiscal expansion.” Jacobson and al. define “unbacked fiscal expansion” as one where people are convinced that a deficit today does not come with a promise of future surpluses to repay the debt. Soon after Roosevelt took these measures the deflation stopped and the price level rebounded.

Jacobson and al. argue that this was a coherent policy since it combined a monetary policy that pegged short-term nominal interest rates near zero and a fiscal policy that followed sound finance by balancing the regular budget, while running chronic deficits on the “emergency budget.” The lessons for today:
- Many countries now suffer from below-target inflation rates and tepid economic growth. Rather than relying on a joint monetary-fiscal attack on the problem, as Roosevelt did, these countries are leaning entirely on monetary policy. Central banks in the Euro Area, Sweden, Switzerland, and Japan have set policy interest rates below zero and undertaken large-scale asset purchases in an effort to reduce real interest rates and stimulate aggregate demand and inflation. But fiscal policies in these areas fluctuate between fiscal stimulus and fiscal austerity.
- A second lesson from the Roosevelt policies is that fiscal stimulus and fiscal sustainability need not be in conflict. When the aim is to raise inflation and economic growth, higher nominal government debt—if people are convinced it does not portend higher future taxes—can achieve both the macroeconomic objectives and the goal of stabilizing debt.
Recovery of 1933
Authors: Margaret M. Jacobson, Eric M. Leeper, Bruce Preston
From: Indiana University, University of Melbourne
Monetary policy in a highly unequal economy
Can monetary policy be conducted in a way that benefits all households in a world with substantial inequality? To answer that question, Bullard and DiCecio use the general equilibrium life-cycle framework of Bullard and Singh (2019) extended to include heterogeneous life-cycle productivity. Agents have homothetic preferences defined over consumption and leisure choices and are randomly assigned any one of a continuum of possible productivity profiles as they enter the economy. This creates substantial intra-cohort heterogeneity in addition to the inter-cohort heterogeneity emphasized in previous papers. This heterogeneity gives rise to a large private sector credit market where there is an important credit market friction because households participating in the credit market use non-state contingent nominal contracts (NSCNC). Their findings include:
- Nominal GDP targeting continues to characterize the optimal monetary policy in the economy with the massive heterogeneity;
- The optimal monetary policy repairs the distortion caused by the NSCNC
friction: despite the substantial heterogeneity, all households benefit from smoothly operating credit markets; - With respect to labor supply, their model predicts that under the optimal monetary policy, labor supply choices would depend on the stage of the life cycle and the household-specific productivity profile alone and not on the aggregate shock.
Optimal Monetary Policy for the Masses
Authors: James Bullard, Riccardo DiCecio
From: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis