On the Distributional Consequences of Responding Aggressively to Inflation
![decorative photo: curled up shopping receipt with the word price at that top.](https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/LSE_2024_HANK-aggressive-inflation_delnegro_460.jpg?w=920)
This post discusses the distributional consequences of an aggressive policy response to inflation using a Heterogeneous Agent New Keynesian (HANK) model. We find that, when facing demand shocks, stabilizing inflation and real activity go hand in hand, with very large benefits for households at the bottom of the wealth distribution. The converse is true however when facing supply shocks: stabilizing inflation makes real outcomes more volatile, especially for poorer households. We conclude that distributional considerations make it much more important for policy to take into account the tradeoffs between stabilizing inflation and economic activity. This is because the optimal policy response depends very strongly on whether these tradeoffs are present (that is, when the economy is facing supply shocks) or absent (when the economy is facing demand shocks).
On the Distributional Effects of Inflation and Inflation Stabilization
![decorative photo: curled up shopping receipt with the word price at that top.](https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/07/LSE_2024_HANK-IRFs_delnegro_460_18bb85.jpg?w=920)
This post and the next discuss the distributional effects of inflation and inflation stabilization through the lenses of a theoretical model—a Heterogeneous Agent New Keynesian (HANK) model. This model combines the features of New Keynesian models that have been the workhorse for monetary policy analysis since the work of Woodford (2003) with inequality in wealth and income at the household level following the seminal contribution of Kaplan, Moll, and Violante (2018). We find that while inflation hurts everyone, it hurts the poor in particular. When the source of inflation is a supply shock, fighting inflation aggressively hurts the poor even more, however, while the opposite is true for demand shocks, as discussed in the companion post.
Exploring the TIPS‑Treasury Valuation Puzzle
![Decorative image: Treasury Department](https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/06/LSE_2024_TIPS-treasury_roussellet_460.jpg?w=920)
Since the late 1990s, the U.S. Treasury has issued debt in two main forms: nominal bonds, which provide fixed-cash scheduled payments, and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities—or TIPS—which provide the holder with inflation-protected payments that rise with U.S. inflation. At the heart of their relative valuation lie market participants’ expectations of future inflation, an object of interest for academics, policymakers, and investors alike. After briefly reviewing the theoretical and empirical links between TIPS and Treasury yields, this post, based on a recent research paper, explores whether market perceptions of U.S. sovereign credit risk can help explain the relative valuation of these financial instruments.