The Choice among Monetary Aggregates as Targets and Guides for Monetary Policy: Criteria for Useful Targeting: Money versus the Base and Other Variables: Comment
评论了Cagan和Fellner两篇关于货币总量作为货币政策目标的研究，比较了它们的方法和贡献，帮助读者判断是否值得阅读原文。
My comments will be limited to the Cagan and Felluer papers, which represent empirical inquiries into the monetary target and indicator problem, as originally specified by Brunner and Meltzer [1, 2]. Initially, there were questions as to whether this was a subject of academic interest, but as Cagan's extensive bibliography demonstrates these doubts were not well founded. A vast amount of research has been devoted to the target and indicator problem and the results of this work have dramatically altered the discussion of monetary policy. Whether the actual conduct of policy has also been affected is less clear. Against this background it is interesting to compare the Cagan and Fellner papers. Both are largely empirical efforts to determine which monetary aggregate is the most useful target for monetary policy. However, the methodology employed in the two studies is markedly different. Cagan considers a long list of potential targets and evaluates their performance on the basis of one principal criterion: the stability of the quarter-to-quarter growth rates in their GNP velocities (the ratio of GNP to the different aggregates). In contrast, Fellner looks at only two aggregates M1B and the monetary base but uses a variety of tests to determine which is the most appropriate target. This review first examines the procedures used by each author. It then considers the extent to which the two studies add to our knowledge of the costs and benefits associated with the use of alternative targets and indicators of the thrust of monetary policy.