Department of Economics University of Minnesota
Phone-(612) 625-0941 4-101 Hanson Hall (off 4-179) Fed
Phone (612) 204-5528 1925 Fourth Street South Fax: (612)
624-0209 Minneapolis, MN 55455
Homepage http://www.econ.umn.edu/~vr0j/index.html
http://www.caerp.com
Department of Economics, University of Minnesota,
Tue and Thursday 14:30-15:45 Hanson Hall 4-170. Off Hours:
Before and after class and by appointment.
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~vr0j/ec8501-14/, email:
vr0j@umn.edu,
Fax: (612) 624-0209
Fed Phone (612) 204-5528
TA, Eslami, Keyvan
eslam010@umn.edu The recitation is on Mondays,
5:30-6:45pm (HMH 1-108), and office hours are right after
that, 7:00-9:00pm on Mondays (HMH 3-125). 612.626.9248.
The 8108 final is Wednesday, May 13 at 8 AM in Hanson 4-170.
I described the course and discussed
some context of what are the main facts over which macro has
to be organized around:
output per capita has grown at
a roughly constant rate
the capital-output ratio (where
capital is measured using the perpetual inventory
method based on past consumption foregone) has
remained roughly constant
the capital-labor ratio has
grown at a roughly constant rate equal to the growth
rate of output
the wage rate has grown at a
roughly constant rate equal to the growth rate of
output
the real interest rate has been
stationary and, during long periods, roughly constant
labor income as a share of
output has remained roughly constant
hours worked per capita have
been roughly constant.
I discussed what restrictions do these facts pose on the models
that we use.
I also discussed what is the meaning of an equilibrium (a
mapping from environment to allocations) and then talked about
why the social planner problem may be a problem whose
solution is interesting (it is because it is the unique
equilibrium of the economy once we use the welfare and other
theorems). We talked of how an Arrow Debreu Equilibrium for
the growth model, supports the social planners solution
using the welfare theorems. I referred to
how to build a sequence of markets equilibrium out of an
Arrow-Debreu equilibrium (and viceversa) and argued that we
can then solve for Social Planner problem sometimes, but
that we do so using recursive methods (dynamic
programming). Why not then always recursive methods? This is
to define equilibria recursively.
March 26.
We defined Recursive Competitive
Equilibrium. We started with that of arbitrary expectations
and moved on to a rational expectations equilibria. I went
over equilibria with valued leisure emphasizing always what
are the state variables. We started talking about a
government that finances a public good.
March 31
I defined a Markovian stochastic process
with finite support. I defined recursive compet. eq. for a
stochastic economy emphasizing market completenes, and state
contingent markets to deliver capital. I continued to
describe equilibrium of economies where the welfare theorems
are of no use. A government financing a public good with
with capital income taxes and debt and how to deal with the
no Ponzi scheme condition in recursive environments.
April 2
We continued looking at environments where
the welfare theorems do not work. We looked at economies with
agents differing in wealth in a model without leisure, and
discussed how to write the model if agents differ in wealth
and in efficient units of labor. Then we looked at an economy
with two countries and what does this mean. We looked at
the necessary state variables in a deterministic economy,
and somebody point out that total capital and the share of
wealth was sufficient. I asked as a homework to include
aggregate shocks and to compare complete and incomplete
markets (for Arrow securities). In this case we need to
keep track of 3 state variables.
April 7
We finished standard RCE by looking at habit
formation and externalities (keeping-up, catching-up) and by
discussing the economy when there is a stock market and the
firms own land and install capital. I talked about the
Lucas tree posing special emphasis in how to price securities
and in how to get pricing formulae.
April 9
We discussed the Lucas tree with demand
contributing to productivity with competitive search. We
arrived at the equilibrium of this economy by constructing the
two functional equations that determine price and market
tightness.
April 14
We saw the optimality of Competitive search
equilibrium. I talked about Nash bargaining and what
equilibrium condition it implies. This rapped up the first
part of the course. We started measure theory.
April 16
We started industry equilibria. We defined
equilibria with exit decisions.
April 21
We finished industry equilibria
looking at adjustment costs. We started looking at
incomplete markets by looking at the farmer's problem. We saw
how the problem (when agents are impatient enough) generates a
unique stationary distribution of wealth and income.
April 23
Midterm.
April 29
We looked at how this isolated
economy can be made a part of an incomplete market economy
with multiple agents embodied in a growth model.
April 30
We started looking at growth. I went
summarily over the AK model, the externality model, and the
human capital model. I posed the Romer three sector growth model.
May 5
We finished the Romer three sector growth
model. We talked about how to think of OLG models recursively
as a tool to incorporate age in macroeconomics.
May 7
We finished the OLG model, we talked about
entrepreneurial choice in a version of the Aiyagari model. We
then talked about aggregate uncertainty in the Aiyagari
model. I said a few things about monetary economics. I
finished the course talking about the program and the
profession.
Course Description.
This course complements 8105-8107. In my view, the ultimate
goal of this course is to learn to use a variety of models
that can be used to give quantitative answers to
economic questions. The models can generate artificial data of
both allocations and prices that can be meaningfully related
to actual data. In this course most (if not all) of the
material will be studied from the strict point of view of the
theory, so we will not look at data in any serious manner nor
at solving the models with the computer. The emphasis is
on economic rigor, i.e. the target is to learn tools
that will be useful later. The course, then, is not a survey
of topics in macroeconomics. When some specific topic is
addressed the objective is not to give a review of known
results but rather to give an example of how an issue is
addressed and of how tools are used.
There will be recitations once a week. These will be used
either to introduce some mathematical apparatus that we need,
to solve homeworks, or to explore issues related to those
presented in class. The material covered in recitations
constitutes part of the required curriculum.
Homeworks and Grades
In the context of the course, I will assign some
homeworks: usually I will ask you to prove something during a
lecture, sometimes they will be posted in the homepage. These
problems are not required but will give you an idea of what is
expected for the exams, and especially for the prelim. The
grades will be based 30% on a midterm, 60% on a final that
will take place the last day of class and 10% on class
participation. Keyvan will give you feedback regarding the
homeworks.
He may post them on the web as well as post answers to it at a
later day. Or he may not. We will see about it.
Textbooks and papers
No special textbooks. There are notes from
previous years and Keyvan may post class notes of this year's
class. It never hurts to have the usual suspects, but I do not
dwell on them. Besides those used and recommended by my
colleagues, there is a good little book (out of print
actually) that is useful,
Harris,
[1987]. The papers that I cite (in a very incomplete form
below) are not to be read in general, although some students
may find them useful. A fantastic
book is being written now by Per Krusell. We will
ocassionally use bits of it.
First year is to learn tools, not to
read papers.
Preliminary List of Material to Cover
This list is of material that I
want to go over. The first few items you have seen in a very
similar way, so I will go very fast over it, but I find it
very useful to go over them again.
Competitive equilibrium in the
growth model. Taking advantage of the welfare theorems.
Stokey and Lucas,
[1989], Chapters 15 and 16; Harris, [1987], Chapters 3 and
4; Cooley and Prescott,
[1995].
A stochastic version of the
growth model. What are complete markets? What are one
period ahead Arrow-securities? How to define Competitive
equilibrium in stochastic growth model.
COOLEY, T. F., AND E. C. PRESCOTT (1995): "Economic Growth
and Business Cycles," in Frontiers of Business Cycle Research, ed. by
T. F. Cooley, chap. 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
HARRIS, M. (1987): Dynamic Economic Analysis. Oxford
University Press.
LUCAS, R. E. (1988): "On the Mechanics of Economic Development,"
22, 3-42.
ROGERSON, R., R. SHIMER, AND R. WRIGHT (2005):
"Search-Theoretic Models of the Labor Market: A Survey," Journal of
Economic Literature, 43, 959-988.
ROMER, P. M. (1986): "Increasing Return and Long-run Growth," 94,
1002-36.
(1990): "Endogenous Technological Change," 98, S71-S102.
STOKEY, N. L., AND E. C. LUCAS, R. E. WITH PRESCOTT
(1989): Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics. Harvard University
Press.
File translated from
T_{E}X
by
T_{T}H,
version 3.85. On 22 Mar 2013, 8:59.