Twitxy Saved

Lars Christensen

@MaMoMVPY

Co-founder, CEO, and Head of Analysis at PAICE. Economist, "Money Doctor" - Everything data and AI

Foredrag: Globaletanker.dk
Copenhagen, Denmark marketmonetarist.com Joined March 2011
10K Following 38K Followers 62K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

Lars Christensen @MaMoMVPY
WHAT WOULD ALAN GREENSPAN SAY ABOUT US MONETARY POLICY RIGHT NOW?

At the FOMC meeting on 17 November 1992, Fed chair Alan Greenspan said:

“I’m basically arguing that we are really in a sense using [unintelligible] a nominal GDP goal of which the money supply relationships are technical mechanisms to achieve that.”

Greenspan never wrote the rule down. But from the 1990s onwards the Fed de facto followed an implicit target for nominal demand. Whenever it strayed from that target for long, things went wrong.

Today I present The Forgotten Greenspan Rule. The idea is Greenspan’s, the formulation is mine, and this is the first time it is presented publicly.

The implicit target is the inflation target plus trend growth in real GDP. In the US that is 2% + 2.6% = 4.6%. The rule then asks three questions, in this order:

1) Is nominal demand growing at least 1 percentage point faster or slower than the implicit target - without the gap narrowing?
2) Is the 10-year yield moving away from the implicit target - a sign the market does not believe the central bank?
3) Is the policy rate far from neutral?

The first yes decides whether to hike or cut. Otherwise, hold. Unlike the Taylor rule, it says nothing about the level of rates - only direction and timing.

Since 2015, across 19 central banks, the rule has called the direction of rates 12 months ahead in 61% of quarters. A naive rule manages 43%. For the Fed alone the hit rate is 68%, and the rule was ahead of the Fed at 9 of 13 turning points.

In May 2008 the rule said cut, but the Fed held at 2% until October. Once rates hit zero, quantitative easing was the right policy - but by then the Fed had hesitated for too long. In May 2021 the rule said hike, and the Fed waited until March 2022.

Right now US nominal demand is growing at 5.9% against an implicit target of 4.6%, according to the BEA. 10-year yields are above the target and have moved higher this year. The rule has said hike three quarters in a row.

This has nothing to do with the labour market or energy prices. It is about the one thing the Fed actually controls - nominal demand.

Globally, 12 of 19 central banks should hike. Monetary policy is too easy almost everywhere, and we are going to see many more rate hikes.

Last week eight central banks made rate decisions, and five followed the rule. The ECB has already followed it, hiking to 2.50% in June and September.

The Riksbank has started - it hiked to 2% on 4 November, but that is still below the neutral level. Of the banks where the rule said hike, only Norges Bank did not listen. It left rates unchanged with nominal demand at 4.7% against a target of 3.4%. It will have to hike if it wants inflation down.

In Denmark the rule said hike in 2021 - Danmarks Nationalbank waited until July 2022.

Looking ahead, the rule says seven of the next eight central banks should hike - including the Fed on 9 December and the ECB on 17 December.

Watch the film and tell me what you think.
7:04
3 replies 1 reposts 8 likes 1.3K views View on X
Lars Christensen @MaMoMVPY
"Without Jensen, Nvidia falters, the US loses to China on AI."

If this is correct Nvidia's share price should collapse - even with out the latest news - as it means the company is extremely fragile. He will - like everybody else - die one day.
Steve Hou Verified account @stevehou 17h
Jensen clearly made a mistake here. We all do. But he will overcome and bounce back stronger. Have no illusion. Without Jensen, Nvidia falters, the US loses to China on AI. So everyone needs to root for Jensen. Like Trump said, everyone spies on everyone. No reason to be histrionic. Get a grip.
View quoted post on X
1 replies 0 reposts 8 likes 1.3K views View on X
Lars Christensen @MaMoMVPY
ONLY and ONLY if the central banks plays along: marketmonetarist.com/2026/10/09/kal…
marketmonetarist.com Kalecki is back from the dead – the Fed invited him, and profits took off For almost six decades the US labour share hardly moved. Measured as wages’ share of net national income at factor cost and adjusted for the business cycle using my own estimates, it averaged 78.4%…
Khazbi Budunov Verified account @foscaecon 1d
The Kalecki–Levy Profit Equation:

Π = I + Cπ − Sw + (G − T) + NX

Where:

Π = Capitalist profits
I = Investment
Cπ = Capitalist consumption
Sw = Workers’ savings
G − T = Government deficit
NX = Net exports

This is a macroeconomic accounting identity: aggregate profits equal investment plus capitalist consumption, the government deficit, and net exports, minus workers’ savings.

One sector’s profits are determined by spending and saving decisions across the economy.
View quoted post on X