The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level: A Critique
Abstract
This paper argues that the ‘fiscal theory of the price level' (FTPL) has feet of clay. The source of the problem is a fundamental economic misspecification. The FTPL confuses two key building blocks of a model of a market economy: budget constraints, which must be satisfied identically, and market clearing or equilibrium conditions. The FTPL asssumes that the government's intertemporal budget constraint needs to be satisfied only in equilibrium. This economic misspecification has far‐reaching implications for the mathematical properties of the equilibria supported by models that impose the structure of the FTPL. It produces a rash of contradictions and anomalies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Price-level determinacy without control of a monetary aggregate
Woodford, M. (1995) · Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy · doi:10.1016/0167-2231(95)00038-0 · Cited by 472
Cited by
Social Trust and Fractionalization: A Possible Reinterpretation
Bjornskov, C. (2008) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jcn004 · Cited by 230
Metadata
- Authors
- Buiter, W. H.
- Venue
- The Economic Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-07-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 481
- Pages
- 459-480
- ISSN
- 0013-0133 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0297
- OpenAlex
- W2140347937
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 33.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
