"Inflation, in which all prices and wages in an economy rise, is mysterious. If a war breaks out in the Middle East, and the price of oil goes up, the mechanism is no great mystery-supply and demand often work pretty visibly. But if you ask the grocer why the price of bread is higher, he or she will blame the wholesaler, who will blame the baker, who will blame the wheat supplier, and so on. Perhaps the ultimate cause is a government printing more money, but there is really no way to know this for certain but to sit down in an office with statistics, armed with some decent economic theory. But current economic theory doesn't really explain why we haven't seen inflation for so long, and more and more economists think that current theory doesn't hold together, or provide much guidance for how central banks should behave if inflation does break out. Many also worry that central banks have much less power over the economy than they think they do, and much less understanding of the mechanism behind what power they do have. The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level is a comprehensive new approach to monetary policy. Economist John Cochrane argues that money has value because the government accepts it for tax payments. This insight, he argues, leads to a deep re-reading of monetary policy and institutions. Inflation comes when a government is unable to repay its debts, rather than from mismanagement of the split of debt between money and bonds. In the book, he will analyze institutional design, historical episodes, and compare fiscal theory to the Keynesian and new-Keynesian theory based on interest rate targets, and to monetarism. The book offers an overview and introduction to the range of contemporary monetary economics and history of thought as well as the fiscal theory"--

The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level (FTPL) is the claim that, in a popular class of theoretical models, the price level is sometimes determined by fiscal policy rather than monetary policy. The models where this claim has been established assume that all decisions are made by an infinitely-lived representative agent. We present an alternative, arguably more realistic model, populated by sixty-two generations of people. We calibrate our model to an income profile from U.S. data and we show that the FTPL breaks down. In our model, the price level and the real interest rate are indeterminate, even when monetary and fiscal policy are both active. Our findings challenge established views about what constitutes a good combination of fiscal and monetary policies.

The fiscal theory of the price level (FTPL) provides an update and revision of monetary theory to address puzzles raised by the failure of both the new Keynesian theory (commonly used by central bankers) and neoclassical monetarism (in particular, the quantity theory of money as interpreted by Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz)—puzzles such as the low inflation that followed the sustained expansionary monetary policies post-2008. We aim to summarize and explain the FTPL as developed by Eric Leeper, John Cochrane, and others. The FTPL builds on neoclassical monetarism by observing that government liabilities—bonds, notes, bills, and currency—derive their value from the assets that back these liabilities. These assets are chiefly the present value of future tax revenues, minus government spending other than that part of spending used to service the liabilities themselves. This net “profit” of the government is called the primary surplus. This primary surplus can be expressed in real terms (a quantity of goods and services, rather than a money amount). The total real value of the bonds is thus the total real value of the assets backing the bonds: the present value of all future real primary surpluses (which we shorten to PVFS, present value of future surpluses). In a very important sense, the FTPL harkens back to commodity-based theories of money, except now the “commodity” is the real value of future surpluses earned by the government. We can then solve for the price level. It is simply the nominal value of the bonds (the face value or number of bonds issued) divided by the real value of the bonds (the PVFS). If the nominal value of the bonds is held constant and the underlying asset (PVFS) becomes less valuable, prices go up. If the PVFS becomes more valuable, prices go down. We thus calculate the value of “money” (including government liabilities of all maturities) the way one would calculate the value of any security: through discounted cash flow analysis. Note that this approach is consistent with the QTM because, if money is defined in the traditional way as currency and demand deposits and we now hold the PVFS (the backing of the money) constant, then the price level is proportional to the amount of money in circulation. The FTPL is a more complete theory, however, because (1) it incorporates all government liabilities, not traditional money alone, and (2) because it is forward-looking and dynamic rather than considering only conditions in the present.

It is not common for an entire scholarly literature to be based on a fallacy, that is, 'on faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument'. The 'fiscal theory of the price level', recently re-developed by Woodford, Cochrane, Sims and others, is an example of a fatally flawed research programme. The source of the fallacy is an economic misspecification. The proponents of the fiscal theory of the price level do not accept the fundamental proposition that the government's intertemporal budget constraint is a constraint on the government's instruments that must be satisfied for all admissible values of the economy-wide endogenous variables. Instead they require it to be satisfied only in equilibrium. This economic misspecification has implications for the mathematical or logical properties of the equilibria supported by models purporting to demonstrate the properties of the fiscal approach. These include: overdetermined (internally inconsistent) equilibria; anomalies like the apparent ability to price things that do not exist; the need for arbitrary restrictions on the exogenous and predetermined variables in the government's budget constraint; and anomalous behaviour of the equilibrium' price sequences, including behaviour that will ultimately violate physical resource constraints. The issue is of more than academic interest. Policy conclusions could be drawn from the fiscal theory of the price level that would be harmful if they influenced the actual behaviour of the fiscal and monetary authorities. The fiscal theory of the price level implies that a government could exogenously fix its real spending, revenue and seigniorage plans, and that the general price level would adjust the real value of its contractual nominal debt obligations so as to ensure government solvency. When reality dawns, the result could be painful fiscal tightening, government default, or unplanned recourse to the inflation tax.

We demonstrate that the Fiscal Theory of the Price Level (FTPL) cannot be used to determine the price level uniquely in the overlapping generations (OLG) model. We provide two examples of OLG models, one with three 3-period lives and one with 62-period lives. Both examples are calibrated to an income profile chosen to match the life-cycle earnings process in U.S. data estimated by Guvenen et al. (2015). In both examples, there exist multiple steady-state equilibria. Our findings challenge established views about what constitutes a good combination of fiscal and monetary policies. As long as the primary deficit or the primary surplus is not too large, the fiscal authority can conduct policies that are unresponsive to endogenous changes in the level of its outstanding debt. Monetary and fiscal policy can both be active at the same time.