The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
April 12, 197S Mr. Allan Kieltxej^^ Department of Economies 302 JK'B Brigham Young University Provo, Utah 34602 Dear Allan; 1 appreciate your taking the time to send me the result* of your simulations using the DRI model. I must confess to some bewilderment as regards your interpretation of the results. The simulation of a one-time increase in M}, you say, " . . . shows lower inflation and higher real growth. In the final quarter of the projection period, however, your figures on the rate of inflation for the two simulations are almost Identical -- that is, 4 to 4-1/4 per cent. The level of real GNP in that quarter, moreover, is 2-1/2 per cent higher in the control simulation than in the simulation with a Urge one-shot increase in M^. My own view, however, is that either coarse of monetary action would be unwise. Z do not believe we could add $8-1/2 billion to the stock of money overnight and then return immediately to a 5-1/2 per cent growth of without creating havoc in financial m arkets. And a course of action that permitted growth in M} at an average rate of around 9 per cent over the next 5 quarters would endanger our future. Sincerely yours. A rth u r F . B u rn s L E G: A F B ; j r g ; gm m April 2, 1975 Dr. Arthur Burns, Chairman Board of Governors Federal Reserve System Washington, DC 20013 Dear Arthur: When we met at the White House about two weeks ago, you expressed interest in the effects of my proposal to increase M, by $8.5 billion. I have used the new DRI model to simulate the policy of increasing M, by $8.5 billion at the end of the first quarter and maintaining an approximately 5 1/2 per cent annual rate of increase in M, this year. The simulation has slightly more variable monetary growth than I would choose. The results can be compared to the control simulation of DRI. Both have a program of fiscal expansion slightly larger than the recently signed into law. There are also some assumptions about energy prices, including gradual deregulation and some small tax increase. The control simulation produces the same money stock in the fourth quarter of 1975 by having lower growth of money now and more later. I do not wish to overrate the accuracy of the assumptions or of the simulation. The comparison is of interest since it shows lower inflation and higher real growth may result from the proposed one-time increase. The simulation shows slightly higher real growth this year and no higher inflation. The GNP deflator rises less, and the CPI rises very little more. The control produces more real growth in 1976. The outlook for future inflation, and the problem of getting back to stability are the principal benefits of the one-time large increase. The control simulation requires much higher growth of money in late 1975 and early 1976. The effect on future inflation does not require elaboration. I will be at this address for the next two weeks, if you wish to reply. Sincerely, Is 3/13 cc: William Seidman Alan Greenspan Jkaanm£n1 ^ ^ Young Trnive"itv- p™ ™ TTtah S fi09- ffinn 4 a** Assuming $8.5 Billion Increase in Followed by 5.5% Annual Increase in Year and Quarter 1975 - 2 1975-3 1975 - 4 1976 - 1 1976 - i Money Growth % GNP (Billions) GNP 1958 $ Real GNP % Change Deflator % CPI % 5.7 1449.3 782.6 3.9 6.0 7.6 4.6 1503.8 797.2 7.7 7.4 7.0 6.1 1542.2 806.0 4.5 5.5 4.9 5.7 1561.8 807.1 0.6 4.5 4.4 5.4 1591.0 813.7 3.3 4.1 4.4 7.5 1538.1 815.1 4.9 4.8 4.3 10.1 1575.1 833.3 9.2 4.3 4.3 Control Simulation Money Growth GNP (Billions) GNP 1958 $ Real GNP % Change Deflator % CPI % 7.6 1421.5 780.2 -0.4 7.4 7.7 9.4 1445.6 789.5 4.9 6.7 6.6 10.3 1486.7 805.3 8.3 5.8 4.7