Mark Thoma o tem, kako so empirični testi ovrgli zmotno trditev neoklasične teorije, da monetarna politika nima vpliva na ekonomijo (glavni zagovornik nevtralnosti monetarne politike je bil nobelovec Robert Lucas):
Many people believe there has been no progress in economics, but that isn’t true. For example, one of the most important questions in the 1970s and 1980s was whether monetary policy could be used to stabilize the macroeconomy. One popular theoretical model, known as the New Classical model, implied that monetary policy could not affect output and employment, and hence was of no use in trying to offset cyclical fluctuations in these variables.
Economists call this “money neutrality.” A competing theoretical model, the Keynesian model, asserts that money is non-neutral. In these models, monetary policy is a useful tool to stabilize fluctuations in output and employment.
The economics profession was split between these two theoretical camps, and there was great passion on both sides. This left monetary policymakers in a quandary. If money was neutral, the best policy was to simply stabilize interest rates and the money supply to whatever extent possible. But if money was non-neutral, then interest rates and the money supply should be changed in response to macroeconomic conditions.
How can this question be settled? How can we decide which model is correct? By testing their implications against real world data using econometric techniques. If, in real world data, changes in monetary policy affect output and employment, then money is non-neutral, and if it doesn’t, it’s neutral.
When these tests were performed, the evidence pointed to non-neutrality, and today the passionate debate over this issue is all but over. There are still a few economists who, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, believe in neutrality, but they are a small minority.
Več v: Mark Thoma, Moneywatch, CBS