A general-equilibrium closed-form solution to the welfare costs of inflation (Forthcoming, Revista Brasileira de Economia)

This work presents closed-form solutions to Lucasís (2000) generalequilibrium expression for the welfare costs of ináation, as well as to the di§erence between the general-equlibrium measure and Baileyís (1956) partial-equilibrium measure. In Lucasís original work only numerical solutions are provided.

Two additions to Lucas's "inflation and welfare"

This work adds to Lucas (2000) by providing analytical solutions to two problems that are solved only numerically by the author. The first part uses a theorem in control theory (Arrow' s sufficiency theorem) to provide sufficiency conditions to characterize the optimum in a shopping-time problem where the value function need not be concave. In the original paper the optimality of the first-order condition is characterized only by means of a numerical analysis. The second part of the paper provides a closed-form solution to the general-equilibrium expression of the welfare costs of inflation when the money demand is double logarithmic. This closed-form solution allows for the precise calculation of the difference between the general-equilibrium and Bailey's partial-equilibrium estimates of the welfare losses due to inflation. Again, in Lucas's original paper, the solution to the general-equilibrium-case underlying nonlinear differential equation is done only numerically, and the posterior assertion that the general-equilibrium welfare figures cannot be distinguished from those derived using Bailey's formula rely only on numerical simulations as well.

On uniqueness of equilibrium in the Kyle Model

A longstanding unresolved question is whether the one-period Kyle Model of an informed trader and a noisily informed market maker has an equilibrium that is different from the closed-form solution derived by Kyle (1985). This note advances what is known about this open problem.

An ordering of measures of the welfare cost of inflation in economies with interest-bearing deposits

This paper builds on Lucas (2000) and on Cysne (2003) to derive and order six alternative measures of the welfare costs of inflation (five of which already existing in the literature) for any vector of opportunity costs. The ordering of the functions is carried out for economies with or without interestbearing deposits. We provide examples and closed-form solutions for the log-log money demand both in the unidimensional and in the multidimensional setting (when interest-bearing monies are present). An estimate of the maximum relative error a researcher can incur when using any particular measure is also provided.

Welfare costs of inflation when interest-bearing deposits are disregarded: a calculation of the bias

Most estimates of the welfare costs of in ation are devised considering only noninterest- bearing assets, ignoring that since the 80s technological innovations and new regulations have increased the liquidity of interest-bearing deposits. We investigate the resulting bias. Suscient and necessary conditions on its sign are presented, along with closed-form expressions for its magnitude. Two examples dealing with bidimensional bilogarithmic money demands show that disregarding interest-bearing monies may lead to a non-negligible overestimation of the welfare costs of in ation. An intuitive explanation is that such assets may partially make up for the decreased demand of noninterest-bearing assets due to higher in ation.

Divisia indexes, money and welfare

We suggest the use of a particular Divisia index for measuring welfare losses due to interest rate wedges and in‡ation. Compared to the existing options in the literature: i) when the demands for the monetary assets are known, closed-form solutions for the welfare measures can be obtained at a relatively lower algebraic cost; ii) less demanding integrability conditions allow for the recovery of welfare measures from a larger class of demand systems and; iii) when the demand speci…cations are not known, using an index number entitles the researcher to rank di¤erent vectors of opportunity costs directly from market observations. We use two examples to illustrate the method.