Logical Pitfalls of Assuming Bounded Solutions to Expectational Difference Equations
David Eagle () and
Additional contact information
Elizabeth Murff: Eastern Washington University
GE, Growth, Math methods from University Library of Munich, Germany
The precedent for solving expectational difference equations has been to solve converging equations backwards and diverging equations forward by assuming the solution is bounded. This precedent often leads to incorrect solutions and has less than rigorous foundations. More rigorous procedures would be to determine the terminal condition in a finite model and take the limit of that terminal condition as the horizon goes to infinity. Also, whether one solves forward or backwards depends on the context of the difference equation, not on convergence or divergence. These new procedures reveal Woodford’s (2003) model of a cashless economy to be incomplete.
Keywords: expectational difference equations; infinite horizons; Woodford's cashless economy; price indeterminacy; pegging interest rates (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: E10 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-mac
Note: Type of Document - pdf. Shows limitations of Sargent's precedent for solving expectational difference equations. It also shows Woodford's use of Sargent's precedent to be inappropriate.
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wpa:wuwpge:0501002
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in GE, Growth, Math methods from University Library of Munich, Germany
Bibliographic data for series maintained by EconWPA ().