Churches and Central Banks

If a social scientist wanted to understand what happens in church, he could ask the churchgoers themselves for an account of what they do in church. But the social scientist's account of what happens in church need not be the same as the churchgoers' account.

If an economist wanted to understand what happens in a central bank, he could ask the central bankers themselves for an account of what they do in the central bank. But the economist's account of what happens in central banks need not be the same as the central bankers' account.

It's not that the churchgoers are necessarily insincere or mistaken when they provide their own theories to describe what they are doing; it's that the churchgoers' theories might just be beside the point from the social scientist's own theoretical perspective. Same with central bankers and economists.

Just because churchgoers explain what they are doing as the communal worship of God, doesn't mean that a theory based on evolutionary psychology, organisational theory, or maintaining the patriarchy (or whatever) is ipso facto wrong. It's the same with central bankers and economic theories of monetary policy.

It's usually easier for social scientists to maintain their distance from churchgoers' own theories of what happens in church than it is for economists to maintain their distance from central bankers' own theories of what happens in central banks. The churchgoer will probably provide a religious theory of churchgoing; the social scientist probably won't. Both economist and central banker will probably have an economic theory of central banking.

It is normally prudent and useful to listen to practitioners' theories of their own activities, but their privilege is limited; practitioners don't have veto power over theoretical accounts of their behaviour.

In microeconomics there was a raging controversy between two schools of thought on what monopolists do. The "Quantity Theorists" said that monopolists set output where MC=MR=P(1-(1/E)). The "Price Theorists" insisted to the contrary that monopolists set price where P=MC/(1-(1/E)). (E is elasticity of demand). To prove they were right, the Price Theorists asked some monopolists; and the monopolists said they set price, not output.

I just made that up, of course. But my fable is no different from the debate in macroeconomics between those who think of central banks setting the money supply and those who insist that modern central banks set the rate of interest.

The Bank of Canada says that it sets the rate of interest, and looks at many indicators, including the exchange rate, when it does so. Sometimes I find it useful to think of the Bank of Canada as setting the exchange rate, and looking at many indicators, including the interest rate, when it does so. That's like accusing churchgoers of heretical practices -- Catholics of ritual cannibalism. But all I've done is invert the Bank of Canada's reaction function.

This was supposed to be a post on Neo-Chartalism (I just coined that word), but I side-tracked myself.

Comments

[edeast]

You might be a little ambitious with the word coining. deletable comment.

[Gary Marshall]

Hello Mr. Rowe,

If one wish to learn what goes on in a church, then all he need do is ask the various people attending on some particular day what they saw or heard or did. Not everyone will be situated in exactly the same spot observing the events with an identical apparatus of the senses, but the experience should be pretty much the same. It is sort of like being at a ballgame. The spectators will generally agree upon what occurred, though with some variation in detail due to different angles of observation and with senses tuned a little differently.

Now ask those same people what they thought of what they saw, then you will probably obtain as many opinions and 'theories' as there are spectators.

Now if you could just tell us what the central bank actually does in the overnight markets, then we might be able to answer the question upon central bank function.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[Nick Rowe]

edeast: good find. Ah well, it was too good a name for it to be new.

Gary: A visitor from a culture very different from ours, from another planet maybe, who had exactly the same eyes and ears as we have, but who had no understanding of the rules, or even the concept of a game of sports, would have no idea what was going on when watching a hockey game. He wouldn't know who won, or who got a penalty, or who was fighting, because he wouldn't even have these concepts, or know when to apply them. Take even a Brit to a hockey game and you will see what I mean: you have to *tell* them what is happening, because their eyes aren't enough. We watch hockey through theory-laden eyes. Same with a central bank.

[Ramanan]

Hi Nick,

I think CBs around the world discover work. They try tactics so that their jobs are safe.

They failed to control monetary aggregates like M2/M3 and then they tried their hands on "inflation targeting" which James Galbraith calls an "innocent fraud".

I think if you read the minutes of meetings of CBs, you wont find any talk of targeting the Ms just an interest rate target. In my readings they seemed to have mentioned targets for the Ms until about 20-25 years back.

Cbankers think that they do a terrific job! They claim to have achieved price stability and is a silly claim.

Nice analogy but here is what I think. You can do crazy psychological tests on a person working in a church having having them stoned in drugs and the 'truth' will come out. However this may not be the case with central bankers !

[Ramanan]

PS: I came to this site after having read a comment from JKH on another blog about you writing a post on attacking Chartalism. Waiting!

[Gary Marshall]

Hello Mr. Rowe,

Take any alien or foreigner to a hockey game and sit right beside them and they will sense almost exactly what you do with some variation due to physical impairment or weaknesses.

The understanding of what that person senses or what they think of feel about what is going on will certainly differ, but the objects striking the sensory apparatus will be pretty much the same.

These conclusions are derived from the labours of the great British empiricist David Hume, whose works I believe you know from previous quotes.

So supply an account of what the Bank of Canada is actually doing in the overnight markets and all should have the information to work out the rest.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[Too Much Fed]

Reference about what's happening:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091105/bs_nm/us_usa_economy_16

""Heightened productivity, the shrinkage of unit labor costs improves prospects for hiring over the near term. It points toward wider profit margins, faster earnings growth and more hiring activity," said John Lonski, chief economist at Moody's Investors Service in New York.

Productivity in manufacturing rose at a record 13.6 percent rate in the third quarter, likely driven by automakers ramping up production to rebuild depleted stocks after the popular "cash for clunkers" program boosted sales.

Compensation per hour jumped at a 3.8 percent pace, but after adjustment for inflation it was up only 0.2 percent -- pointing to sluggish growth in incomes."

[Too Much Fed]

Reference about what's happening:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_productivity_3;_ylt=Amp7P2QUS9.IHb8M5Xx5fkmb.HQA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2b2s5dDhtBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDZXYtanVtcGlucHJv

"Companies across the economy are finding ways to do more with fewer workers, dimming hopes that hiring will take off anytime soon.

Employers became leaner and more efficient in the third quarter. Wages, meantime, remain flat or falling. The result is that productivity — output per hour of work — jumped at the fastest pace in six years.

The good news for companies, though, is bad news for the jobless. As long as companies can get their workers to produce more, they have little reason to hire — at least until consumer spending picks up. And the squeeze on incomes could depress consumer spending, putting the economic recovery at risk."

And, "Productivity is the key ingredient to rising living standards. It lets companies pay their workers higher wages. The increases are financed by the increased output rather than higher costs for products.

But companies this year, struggling to cope with the longest recession since the 1930s, have boosted output while continuing to lay off workers. The falling labor costs also reflect that many workers still fortunate enough to have jobs have seen their wages squeezed as companies struggle to bolster their bottom lines."

And, "The concern is that consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of economic activity, could falter in coming months if households continue to be squeezed by layoffs, stagnant wages and depleted savings."

[Too Much Fed]

Reference about what's happening:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091105/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy;_ylt=AsxOPgtjPrD6aaM2pAkB.Atv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTJkZnY0Z3IwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMTA1L3VzX2Vjb25vbXkEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDcHJvZHVjdGl2aXR5

"Companies across the economy are finding ways to do more with fewer workers, dimming hopes that hiring will take off anytime soon.

Employers became leaner and more efficient in the third quarter. Wages, meantime, remain flat or falling. The result is that productivity — output per hour of work — jumped at the fastest pace in six years.

The good news for companies, though, may be bad news for the jobless. As long as companies can get their workers to produce more, they have little reason to hire — at least until consumer spending picks up. And the squeeze on incomes could depress consumer spending, putting the economic recovery at risk."

And, "Some economists were encouraged by the productivity report, saying that eventually companies will have to add jobs, rather than simply push their existing work forces harder."

[Too Much Fed]

After reading those, will the churchgoers and the social scientists ever be able to agree whether positive productivity growth raises employment or lowers employment?

After reading those, will the churchgoers and the social scientists ever be able to agree whether positive productivity growth raises wage income or lowers wage income?

After reading those, will the churchgoers and the social scientists ever be able to agree whether positive productivity growth is temporary or permanent?

Is there such a thing as "forced" productivity because of corporations' desire to maintain excess corporate profits?

[Nick Rowe]

Ramanan: welcome! Hope you don't have too long to wait, and that I don't disappoint you.

Too much Fed: You are way off-topic.

[Adam P]

Nick, good lord man, get some sleep!

[RebelEconomist]

If a modern eminent economist wanted to know what was going on in church (or more realistically, wanted to publish a paper on the subject in a prestigious journal), he would probably take a quick look to get a rough idea what was going on, and then attempt to model it mathematically, ideally in such a way as to yield a closed form solution to the question of, for example, why people go to church. Following this, there would be years of discussion among economists, few of whom would take the time to study a church themselves, and in a language inaccessible to churchgoers, about whether a certain approximation to churchgoer behaviour was best represented by a quadratic or exponential function. You seem to be a relatively practical economist, Nick, but even you write here about monetary economics despite occasionally having admitted to not knowing much about central bank market operations (until recently perhaps). Macroeconomics as a field of study is crippled by its insular and inefficient discussion of stylised and detached questions, with the result that most academic macroeconomists are poor at explaining to the public how the economy works.

[Adam P]

But good that you're not being glib Rebel!

[Nick Rowe]

Adam P.: Thanks. I did. Temporary insomnia. Better to do a few minutes blogging than lie there. Better now.

Rebel: What I am questioning is whether central bankers' own accounts of what they are doing (or practitioners' accounts generally) are necessarily privileged.

For example, suppose central bankers switched from doing everything with paper and ink to doing everything with computers. Anyone with eyes and ears but no economic perspective would observe that what is "really" happening at the central bank has changed totally. But the central bankers would say they are "really" doing exactly the same thing (e.g. open market operations), just on the computer, which is an irrelevant difference.

What I'm trying to say is that all accounts of what "really" happens at central banks are theory-laden. There is no "real" independent of theory. I'm arguing philosophy of social sciences.

[Nick Rowe]

Where's Don the Libertarian Democrat when I need him? He would understand what I'm trying to say (I think).

[Nick Rowe]

Let me try it another way. Could central bankers' accounts of what they are doing (assume they are being honest) ever be wrong? The central bank of Zimbabwe, and the old Reichsbank, I think, described what they were doing during the hyperinflation as trying desperately to keep the supply of currency rising in line with the soaring need for currency.

I should have made some of these points in the original post. Which just shows again how much you learn from commenters' feedback.

[Nick Rowe]

Another example: one of Bagehot's central theme's was that the Bank of England was acting as a central bank, directly contradicting the account the governors of the BoE gave of what they were doing - acting just like another commercial bank. Does that contradiction mean that Bagehot was wrong? No.

[RebelEconomist]

I do think that central bankers collectively know what they are supposed to be doing, although there might not be one individual who really understands the whole picture - on another post, I mentioned the different contributions of economists, dealers and settlement staff to monetary operations - so it should be possible for an outsider to understand how a central bank works with enough observation. As I argue on the other post, however, it may be a weak mechanism that would break if its controllers tried to exert much force with it, but they choose, perhaps unwittingly, an objective that requires little force to reach. If they did know that though, I doubt that senior central bankers would admit it, especially if they claim to be pursuing an objective which, because it is unreachable or unsustainable, will result in a form of breakdown (eg inflation) that is not unwelcome to the people they serve (a country with net own-currency debt).

[edeast]

nick @ 2:30
Not sure if you need more resources but pg 69-84 is on chartalism.

[Nick Rowe]

edeast: again, nice find. Thanks.

By the way, I didn't totally side-track myself from Neo-Chartalism. This post is really part of the theoretical underpinning of my look at Neo-Chartalism. It underpins my disagreement with anyone (Neo-Chartalist or not) who says "But what central banks *really* do is X, because X is what central bankers say they do."

[scott sumner]

Nick, Very interesting as usual.

Maybe central banks set an expected inflation target, and both i and M are endogenous.

And maybe when they try to figure what policy stance is most likely to lead to their hoped for inflation figure, they find it easier to infer what the market thinks is the appropriate value of i, than what the market thinks is the appropriate level of M. Even if in some deep sense M is the "cause" of P.

[Nick Rowe]

Scott: thanks!

This is also a lead-up to a post I have been meaning to write on fiscal multipliers. But you are to blame for my delay in writing that post, because when I saw your very good post on the same subject, I shelved my own post ;). But I'm going to come back to it, from the Neo-Chartalist angle.

Yes, sometimes I think that in the very short run (hours) the base is fixed; over weeks i is fixed (horizontal LM), over a slightly longer run maybe the LM is vertical in real Y space, and over a longer run still (2 years) the LM curve is horizontal again in {inflation, anything else} space.

"And maybe when they try to figure what policy stance is most likely to lead to their hoped for inflation figure, they find it easier to infer what the market thinks is the appropriate value of i, than what the market thinks is the appropriate level of M. Even if in some deep sense M is the "cause" of P." I've been thinking about a closely related theme. Whether the BoC sets i watching E (the exchange rate) or sets E watching i may seem equivalent mathematically (just invert the reaction function). But it might make a difference to the information-content of what they watch. My colleague Ehsan Choudhri made this point to me (if I understood him right).

[edeast]

I didn't totally side-track myself from Neo-Chartalism.
ya I know, you had to ease into it, because you announced a post ahead of time. Kind of taking a position prior. At least this second source explains that it isn't about legal tender laws but hierarchy of debt which could be similar to your thinking. I just found out about chartalism thanks to original anon, and i find it tempting, so your thoughts on it will be usefull.

[edeast]

For instance in a previous comment, i talked about exploring the edges of A's system, and the competition, between currencies. Ending with thinking of barter as use of discrete currencies. But even still, why barter when you can steal. So if you think of self-organizing agents offering mutual protection, legal property rights. The agent's IOU to the collective is in exchange for the IOU of protection from the collective.

And I went to a talk by Tyler Cowen a couple of weeks ago, and he was adamant that the Us$ would remain the reserve currency because of stability of the states. States have nukes, Europe a mess, sdr's are a joke.

Chartalism seems like a good way of bringing power into economics.

[Richard]

Professor Rowe,

Are you suggesting that BoC acts like a monopoly? Sets exchange rate by controlling the interest rate and targeting inflation the way it sees fit? And that marginal cost of producing additional currency can be met by controlling the variable mentioned above?

To support your idea I would like to also say that Boc controls unemployment rate and uses inflation as an indicator (thank Philips curve)

[Gary Marshall]

Hello Mr. Rowe,

You are confusing 2 things here: what is actually happening and one's interpretation of what is happening.

In the matter of the central bank operations one wishes to know what the central bank is doing, what are its actions in the financial markets. If the central bank were to put out a sell order for a portion of its bond holdings, is this action to be accounted any differently by an observer whether the order is completed by computer or pen and paper and a telephone?

The alien may describe the events at a hockey game in peculiar language by utterances or by email, but his report will not differ from another's. The score will not be any different among the observers, nor will the number of penalties handed out, nor will the length of the game.

How one feels about the game, how one interprets the events, how one understands the game, may be entirely different, especially if one is a fan of the losing team or the winning team.

Remember Dragnet: "Just give us the facts, ma'am." Give us the actions of the central bank in the overnight markets. What did it buy? What did it sell? To whom did it sell? From whom did it buy?

This is not a theoretical question. This does not rest upon one's understanding. Just tell us what you saw and heard?

Who, what, when, and where. The why's and wherefore's can be left until later.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[RebelEconomist]

I hope you have not given up on your asymmetry of central banks post, Nick, where my argument that the Bank of Canada cannot beat Warren Buffett if he picks the "right" interest rate awaits your inspection. If you withdraw from the debate, I might become as frustrated as Gary Marshall.

[Gary Marshall]

Hello RebelEconomist,

I do like your posts.

I am not so much frustrated anymore. The theory taught in classrooms in no way corresponds with what occurs in the market place. There is no way for a small player in the markets to control them. How does a small car dealer control autodealers far larger than himself? It cannot happen or at least endure.

Its as if the economists were still teaching the geocentric theory, completely unworkable, with contradictory evidence all around them. It does not matter how they sophisticated their argument is. It is erroneous and always shall be.

Mr. Rowe's evasiveness and attempts to muddy the waters are just further proof.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[Gary Marshall]

Hello RebelEconomist,

I do like your posts.

I am not so much frustrated anymore. The theory taught in classrooms in no way corresponds with what occurs in the market place. There is no way for a small player in the markets to control them. How does a small car dealer control autodealers far larger than himself? It cannot happen or at least endure.

Its as if the economists were still teaching the geocentric theory, completely unworkable, with contradictory evidence all around them. It does not matter how they sophisticated their argument is. It is erroneous and always shall be.

Mr. Rowe's evasiveness and attempts to muddy the waters are just further proof.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[Nick Rowe]

Rebel, and Gary: I will respond to any comments I feel like, and ignore any comments I feel like. I do not have time to respond to all comments; sometimes I have nothing useful to add (we just have to agree to disagree); and I am under no obligation to respond to any comments in any case. Among others, I have not responded to recent comments by himaginary, and MikeSproul, and they are better comments and more deserving of a response. Some bloggers respond to (nearly) all comments. Other bloggers respond to none. I respond to some.

Gary: And for you to accuse me of "evasiveness and attempts to muddy the waters" is beyond the pale. I have answered your substantive points, and indeed have given you far more attention than the quality of your comments deserves. If you do not understand or like my answers, too bad. I have seen through your tactic of clamouring for attention by accusing me and Stephen of being unable to explain what you don't understand. I have warned you about this tactic before. Please find someone else to bother.

[Nick Rowe]

edeast: it looks like I need another 2 posts! One on (Paleo)-Chartalism on the role of the state in money; and a second on (Neo)-Chartalism's approach to fiscal policy, which seems to borrow heavily on Abba Lerner's Functional Finance. Not sure I'm up to it, but will try.

Richard. I think you are reading too much into my discussion of monopoly here. I was just using it as an analogy in this post, to show that certain controversies in macro would look silly to microeconomists, and the microeconomics of monopolies was the easiest example to use.

But nevertheless, the Bank of Canada does have monopoly power. I discussed this more in my post on "why do central banks have assets".

[RebelEconomist]

I am not accusing you of anything, Nick, but that's fine. It's your blog. Pick it up and take it home.

[Nick Rowe]

Rebel: no, you weren't. But Gary was. BTW, I have responded to your comment.

[Gary Marshall]

Hello Mr. Rowe,

This reads more like a Socratic dialogue nearing its end.

If you had given me substantive answers, I would not now be clamouring for attention.

Your perplexing answers may suffice in the classroom where you do exert great control over the grades your students receive, but not here.

The central bank only has monopoly power over the creation of currency, 4% of the stock. However, currency creation is the one tool that a central bank is very cautious in using, dispensing it on a demand basis only because it is highly inflationary, 20 times more so than the creation of ethereal money. In effect, it cannot create currency willfully, meaning its monopoly power is greatly constrained.

It is rare that an economist has said that currency is the central bank's weapon of choice in the overnight markets as you did. As soon as this unwieldy currency were issued by the central bank, it would return asap. Imagine all the time and effort required to print up or collect from the vault some $200 million in bills, count and convey them with some manpower some distance to the lender in shortfall, who then accepts, counts, and redirects them some distance to settle the errant account with the initial and inconvenienced lender, who accepts, counts, and returns the unneeded currency to the central bank for redemption in ethereal money transferred at an instant. What a sluggish expedient in the fast moving overnight market!

Contrary to your belief, the central bank uses easily transferable government securities to fund or influence the overnight markets. Except many have extremely liquid government securities which they employ in funding or obtaining financing in the overnight markets. Therefore, the Bank of Canada has lots of competition.

The Bank of Canada charges elevated fees and makes onerous rules that make its official rate a small fraction of its true cost of borrowing. This is why so few borrow from the Bank of Canada.

Now how does the Bank of Canada's influence in the overnight market compel changes in the far larger money markets of medium and longer terms?

These markets consist of much greater flows of money. When the forces of supply and demand have settled market interest rates, how does the BofC induce changes in them?

The only way is by bond sales or purchases. The BofC has only $45 billion worth of government securities, the limit of their ability to change interest rates or influence exchange rates. The BofC rarely sells them. The figures confirm it. As the BofC is almost fully invested, it cannot buy any more bonds than it already possesses. They will not dare issue currency to buy them because of the inflationary forces inherent within it. A review of the figures of their balances sheet confirms this.

This is the way it is. These are the facts. I have not heard any such explanation from you because either you do not know the answers or more likely revealing the truth would compromise everything you have said hitherto on monetary economics. It is all very fine to sit and lecture in a classroom like the geocentric theorists that dominated astronomy and physics so many centuries ago, but it is not doing anyone any good. Monetary theory may be cute and wonderful to behold, and you may enjoy teaching it, but it has no hold on reality.

Milton Friedman never understood how a detached and minor player in the overnight money market could dominate it as well as the medium and long term markets. He has much company.

The only reason I came to this blog was because one of your colleagues audaciously accused a discerning woman of ignorance in a national newspaper. Its a baseless accusation, and Mr. Gordon remains a rigid impenitent.

I shall try to ease my combativeness. When you want me to go, just say so.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[RebelEconomist]

Gary, for my interest, do you have a reference in which Milton Friedman expressed his doubts about the ability of a central bank to control interest rates?

[RebelEconomist]

Nick, thanks for the discussion on the other post. I think we were at least able to agree that if the central bank can move the representative interest rate away from the natural rate, the policy will eventually prove unsustainable because it will result in inflation deviating from the central bank's target. The relevance to this post is the implication that a good inflation forecast should immediately reveal that the central bank has taken action that will lead to a deliberate miss of the target. Naturally, the central bank will not like to admit this, so that the monetary policy makers will put pressure on the internal forecasters to choose assumptions that ensure that their published forecast of inflation stays on target. This would be a case where observing the central bank's actions and asking the central bankers what they are doing would yield different answers. For that reason, I am suspicious of central banks that "target the forecast".

[Gary Marshall]

Hello Rebel,

Sorry about the blunder. It was late and I had Milton on the brain.

The person was in fact Galbraith who published the criticism late in his life. It was called the Economics of Innocent Fraud.

Milton did have some doubts about Fed policies in his Lag article way back when. The effects of the Fed's policies by empirical study seemed distant and variable. He concluded that the Fed should just try to focus on a steady goal in money growth and abandon direct intervention given its wayward and unpredictable results.

One might say that such distant and variable results came about because the markets were already heading in that direction and the Fed may have simply mirrored them in its tardy and awkward ways.

I see you had a good discussion with Mr. Rowe on the other post. I shall have to go and take a look. It seems to center around the production of currency, the most harmful form of money if taken in larger than prescribed doses.

Regards,
Gary Marshall

[edeast]

I don't know where to comment anymore!
I don't want to distract the other conversations, but for the paleo-post(chartalism pt 2) and state role in money. Barkley Rosser, who I've mentioned before. has a new paper, exploring the alternative currency in Switzerland, Wirtschaftsring. Finding that it is counter cyclical, and increases with unemployment. It might lend credence to Scot Sumner's tight money. Or whatever, use it if you can. The key part of the conclusion I got from it was.

The counter-cyclical nature of WIR may help answer a basic question within macroeconomic theory—whether macro-instability is more due to price rigidity, or to instability in money and credit. Keynes (1936) recognized that both conditions can lead to instability. Macroeconomists like (Colander, 1996) and Colander, 2006 In: D. Colander, Editor, Post Walrasian Macroeconomics: Beyond the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium Model, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006).(Colander, 2006) stress monetary and credit conditions. The consensus, however, as represented by Mankiw (1993), puts the blame more on rigid prices. Our model is clearly in the monetary camp, with a recession due to the “wrong” level and distribution of M2—which can be counteracted by WIR turnover and its more precise targeting of credit

[edeast]

whoops the paper is by james stodder, mr rosser just drew attention to it.

[Nick Rowe]

Whoops! In any case, I'm really interested to hear about it.

[edeast]

Sorry, I got too excited. I'm going to a talk with Alan Greenspan, for lunch, and by luck it looks like, I'm going to get a chance to talk with him, so I'm trying to get all this stuff in my brain, so I can ambush him with a target the forecast question, or tight money 08, or maybe no question anyway I'll enjoy the food.

[edeast]

Nevermind. My inexperience with these things is telling. My friend happened on some tickets to the greenspan talk, which were vip and included a meet and greet after. However the only redeeming feature of the meet and greet was the alcohol. Otherwise there was a christmas storyesque line to get a picture taken with Dr. Greenspan. The only way I could have done anything useful is I had written NGDP on my chest. But ya he didn't stick around after to meet and greet.