{"title":"货币与通货膨胀:失协整","authors":"A. Michl","doi":"10.18267/j.polek.1255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using a cointegration, we show that there is no long-term relationship between money in the economy M and real (and nominal) GDP and CPI (US data from 1959 to 2018). There is no empirical evidence to support the textbook claim that \"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon\". Only when we shorten the time series to the period before the crisis (1959-2008), there is a cointegration between CPI and M2, but only at the 10% significance level and only according to one of two co-integration tests. The relationship that existed before the crisis either had to fall apart or change. There are three possible explanations: (1) The growth of M in low-inflation economies (CPI below 10% annually) is distributed more equally between CPI and real GDP than in the event of significant changes in M. (2) The falling velocity of money after the crisis of 2008/2009. (3) The last possibility is an increase in the adequacy problem of inflation - the CPI does not adequately reflect the economic definition of inflation.","PeriodicalId":44220,"journal":{"name":"Politicka Ekonomie","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Money and Inflation: Lost Cointegration\",\"authors\":\"A. Michl\",\"doi\":\"10.18267/j.polek.1255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using a cointegration, we show that there is no long-term relationship between money in the economy M and real (and nominal) GDP and CPI (US data from 1959 to 2018). There is no empirical evidence to support the textbook claim that \\\"inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon\\\". Only when we shorten the time series to the period before the crisis (1959-2008), there is a cointegration between CPI and M2, but only at the 10% significance level and only according to one of two co-integration tests. The relationship that existed before the crisis either had to fall apart or change. There are three possible explanations: (1) The growth of M in low-inflation economies (CPI below 10% annually) is distributed more equally between CPI and real GDP than in the event of significant changes in M. (2) The falling velocity of money after the crisis of 2008/2009. (3) The last possibility is an increase in the adequacy problem of inflation - the CPI does not adequately reflect the economic definition of inflation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44220,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politicka Ekonomie\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politicka Ekonomie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18267/j.polek.1255\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politicka Ekonomie","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18267/j.polek.1255","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Using a cointegration, we show that there is no long-term relationship between money in the economy M and real (and nominal) GDP and CPI (US data from 1959 to 2018). There is no empirical evidence to support the textbook claim that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon". Only when we shorten the time series to the period before the crisis (1959-2008), there is a cointegration between CPI and M2, but only at the 10% significance level and only according to one of two co-integration tests. The relationship that existed before the crisis either had to fall apart or change. There are three possible explanations: (1) The growth of M in low-inflation economies (CPI below 10% annually) is distributed more equally between CPI and real GDP than in the event of significant changes in M. (2) The falling velocity of money after the crisis of 2008/2009. (3) The last possibility is an increase in the adequacy problem of inflation - the CPI does not adequately reflect the economic definition of inflation.