« Has Canada's female employment rate maxed out? | Main | Bicycle Disequilibrium Theory »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

That was quick! Well done!

The first thing that caught my eye was the second graph. If I'm interpreting it correctly, and with the benefit of hindsight, Governing Council did better, by adding its own judgement to staff projections, than if it had simply followed staff projections in setting the overnight rate target. It loosened more quickly than staff projections recommended, but still not quickly enough, in hindsight.

We get a similar sort of story in the 4th graph. Staff projections were telling Governing Council to tighten, which it did at first, then wisely (in hindsight) decided not to tighten further, despite staff projections recommending it do so.

If I understand them correctly (I may not) staff projections for the output gap are actually a bit less interesting. Because the staff projections ask the question "what would the policy rate need to do to bring inflation back to the 2% target roughly 2 years from now?" And that normally requires bringing output back to potential over the same sort of horizon. So a closing output gap is baked into the cake (if I've got that right). It's the projection for the policy rate that contains the important information. It's like solving the model backwards.

I like how detailed these graphs are.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad