A couple of things
1) All Keynesian models assume the same basic dyanmics in the background. Whether we choose IS-LM, or IS-MP, or IS-PC-MR or what I am pushing here, BL-MP, is really just about terminology and helping us easily relate what happens in the real world to what happens in the picture. The deep underlying models are all the same.
2) By focusing our attention on bank lending we can see a couple of things
- A liquidity trap is better described as no worthwhile lending opportunities rather than animal spirits causing a drop in borrowing. This is because the risk premium is so high. This could be because of real factors or it could be because bank balance sheets are all torn up and they cannot afford to take risks.
- Government borrowing changes the game not because of marginal propensities to consume but because the government is a different type of borrower. The government is always a good credit risk. Indeed, in a world where reserves are swapped for government bonds the government can’t not be a good credit risk. Thus I rise in government borrowing suddenly makes overall lending safer and the BL curve moves out.
- Governments which may directly default (rather than inflate) lose traction on the BL curve. It is not at all clear that Greece can move the BL curve.
- Banks have a special role in the economy such that a trillion dollar loss by banking institutions is a much different thing then a trillion dollar loss by households. Dot-Com vs Subprime.
3) Raising inflation expectations works by making lending safer and pushing out the BL curve. Holding the Fed Funds rate constant higher inflation means that each borrower is more likely to be able to pay back any loan at any given interest rate for any give project.
I like this because it helps nominalize our thinking. Too much thinking – in my opinion – is done in real terms. What’s the real interest rate? What’s the real return on investment?
Does this actually matter in the world we live in? The opportunity cost of funds simply is the federal funds rate. As long as the overnight lending market is functioning, nothing in the real economy can change that. Thus an expanding nominal economy – what ever the source of the expansion – makes it a better idea to lend.
There are some other things I think could be worked out but this is the basic idea.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Saturday ~ October 8th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Donald A. Coffin
“Too much thinking – in my opinion – is done in real terms.”
I’m re-reading Leijonhufvud’s “On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes.” And I just read, in a footnote, the argument that what adjusting to “real” values “…amounts to…cancelling…the means of payment function of money.” (p. 80, fn. 27).
So you’re not even ahead of your times…
Saturday ~ October 8th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Brad DeLong
Very nicely put…
Saturday ~ October 8th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Nick Rowe
You sure that BL curve slopes down? I would say it slopes up. Higher employment and income means safer lending opportunities, and greater investment demand for bank loans, and safer investment too. So banks could lend with higher interest rates. All you need for an upward-sloping BL curve is that the demand for safe loans from the banks increase more strongly with employment than the supply of loans to the banks. Which seems plausible.
Sunday ~ October 9th, 2011 at 1:56 pm
ezra abrams
just starting to learn economics, very uninformed
is there any data to support a particular shape to any of these curves, and any data to support actual values on the axis?
I find these data less theoretical constructs highly offensive; true, they are similar to allometric scaling laws in biology, but in that case the law is derived from a lot of data.
As a scientist, I also am amazed that econ people produce graphs without properly labeled axis; certainly, were any of the college interns under my supervision to produce such a graph, I would let them know that it needed to be corrected;
I guess Fed Funds rate, but it could be nominal or real or probably something else; employment has a lot of diff meanings, and they have, I think very diff consequences
Tuesday ~ October 11th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Alex Arnon
- This is a blog. Thoughts quickly laid out are not always neat or orderly.
- The federal funds rate is a nominal rate. That is part of the definition of the federal funds rate.
- The goal here is not to show how many extra work-hours we get for one point drop in the interest rate. That’s impossible. If that data ever really exists, it changes from hour to hour.
- Sometimes you need to have some (or several) model(s) in mind when you approach macro data, which is poorly measured and fraught causality issues. Without some basic structure in mind you won’t know where to begin or what to do with your data and will end up seeing all kinda crazy things.
- This is a badass restatement of a classic. Read a textbook, then show some respec’.
- Don’t be so easily offended.
Cheers!
Saturday ~ April 7th, 2012 at 3:20 am
Will Spending Cuts Improve Confidence? The Arithmetic Probably Goes the Wrong Way | FavStocks
[...] Karl (2011). “More on BL-MP”, blog post on Modeled Behavior, 8 October [...]