Chapter 18: Inflation, the Phillips Curve, and Central Bank Commitment
bank behaviour and the behaviour of the public generates the equilibrium rate of
CLASSROOM DISCUSSION TOPICS
Public discussion periodically focuses on whether the Bank of Canada should be given
less discretion. This topic was given more attention during the 1970s and early 1980s
when the Bank of Canada allowed the rate of inflation become higher than what the
public was willing to tolerate. On the one hand, if the Bank of Canada is charged only
with controlling the rate of inflation and given clear performance standards, theory
suggests the rate of inflation will remain closer to its preferred level. On the other hand,
discretion may be needed for the Bank of Canada to respond properly to macroeconomic
disturbances. How do students feel about giving the Bank of Canada less discretion? How
does the answer to this question depend on students’ judgments about the validity of
competing theories of the business cycle?
There is some conflict between the Friedman-Lucas money surprise model of the Phillips
curve and the assumed properties of central bank preferences. In particular, the model
assumes that the central bank always prefers higher output. However, if the Friedman-
Lucas model is correct, then aggregate output can be above trend only when workers are
fooled into working more hours than they would actually prefer. Can increases in output
due to erroneous decisions be welfare improving? Is it possible that a more Keynesian-
style model of the Phillips curve is a better justification for these preferences? Are there
other factors that might cause the socially optimal level of aggregate output to be higher
than the level of output consistent with equality between actual inflation and expected
inflation? What might these factors be?
Most countries’ tax systems are not perfectly indexed for inflation. They impose taxes on
nominal, not real, returns on investments (bonds and stocks), which distorts the prices on
those assets. Also, capital gains are taxed in nominal terms, so investors may pay a big
tax on assets whose value has not increased in real terms.
To see this in a simple example (with the simplifying assumption that the real return, not
the after-tax real return, is fixed), consider two cases in which there is a 30% tax rate.