2009
DOI: 10.1007/s00199-009-0459-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stationarity without degeneracy in a model of commodity money

Abstract: We develop a model of macroeconomic heterogeneity inspired by the Kiyotaki-Wright (1989) formulation of commodity money, with the addition of linear utility and idiosyncratic shocks to savings. We consider two environments. In the benchmark case, the consumer in a meeting is chosen randomly. In the auctions case, the individual holding more money can be selected to be the consumer. We show that in both environments socially optimal trading decisions (that are individually acceptable) are stationary and solve a… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

2
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 16 publications
(21 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, for a wide class of random matching models with a continuum population, it is not possible to capture the relevant attributes of all the agents in a finite type space. This is the case, e.g., for the models described in Cavalcanti and Puzzello (2010), Green and Zhou (2002), Lagos and Wright (2005), Molico (2006), Shi (1997), Zhu (2005), where there are no upper bounds on money holdings or money holdings are perfectly divisible, or those described in Hofbauer et al (2008), Oechssler and Riedel (2002), Sandholm (2001), van Veelen and Spreij (2009), where infinite strategy sets matter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, for a wide class of random matching models with a continuum population, it is not possible to capture the relevant attributes of all the agents in a finite type space. This is the case, e.g., for the models described in Cavalcanti and Puzzello (2010), Green and Zhou (2002), Lagos and Wright (2005), Molico (2006), Shi (1997), Zhu (2005), where there are no upper bounds on money holdings or money holdings are perfectly divisible, or those described in Hofbauer et al (2008), Oechssler and Riedel (2002), Sandholm (2001), van Veelen and Spreij (2009), where infinite strategy sets matter.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%