<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Jerry L. Jordan | Macro Paper Warehouse</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/jerry-l.-jordan/</link><description>Jerry L. Jordan</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en-us</language><atom:link href="https://macropaperwarehouse.com/authors/jerry-l.-jordan/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Monetary and Fiscal Actions: A Test of Their Relative Importance in Economic Stabilization</title><link>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/monetary-and-fiscal-actions-a-test-of-their-relative-importance-in-economic-stabilization/</link><guid>https://macropaperwarehouse.com/papers/monetary-and-fiscal-actions-a-test-of-their-relative-importance-in-economic-stabilization/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;This 1968 Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review article by Leonall Andersen and Jerry Jordan — later known as the &amp;ldquo;St. Louis equation&amp;rdquo; — tests three commonly held propositions that fiscal actions have a larger, more predictable, and faster influence on economic activity than monetary actions, using reduced-form regressions of quarterly changes in GNP (1952:Q1-1968:Q2) on changes in the money stock or monetary base and on high-employment government expenditures and receipts. None of the three propositions is confirmed by the evidence: coefficients on money and the monetary base are consistently larger, more statistically reliable (higher t-values and partial coefficients of determination, ranging .38-.53 versus near-zero for expenditures), and no slower to appear than those on fiscal measures, while high-employment expenditure and tax-receipt coefficients are mostly small and statistically insignificant. In an illustrative simulation suggested by Milton Friedman, a $1 billion increase in government spending financed by borrowing or taxation raises GNP by only $170 million after four quarters, whereas an equal $1 billion increase in the money stock (holding the budget position fixed) raises GNP by $5.8 billion — and financing the same $1 billion spending increase entirely through money creation produces the identical $5.8 billion permanent GNP increase, which the authors attribute entirely to the monetary expansion. The paper explicitly frames these findings as &amp;ldquo;not proven true&amp;rdquo; in a strict scientific sense — only &amp;ldquo;not refuted&amp;rdquo; by the test period&amp;rsquo;s evidence — but argues they nonetheless support placing substantially greater reliance on monetary rather than fiscal actions for economic stabilization, including a set of GNP projections under alternative money-growth-rate assumptions for 1968-69.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>