IMF Annual Research Conference on “Cross-Border Spillovers”

The proceedings start tomorrow (Thursday).

My colleague Charles Engel covers Policy Cooperation, Incomplete Markets and Risk Sharing, while other topics include ECB monetary policy spillovers, Fed policy and foreign bond yields, linkages across sovereign bond yields, fiscal shock effects, capital controls, currency unions and capital markets, and input trade linkages. The Mundell-Fleming lecture will be given by Hélène Rey, “Monetary Policy and International Capital Flows”.

Here is the program.

And here is my take on spillovers (with Joshua Aizenman and Hiro Ito), “Monetary Policy and the Trilemma in the New Normal”. See also “Global Spillovers and Domestic Monetary Policy:,” BIS Working Paper 436 (December 2013).

12 thoughts on “IMF Annual Research Conference on “Cross-Border Spillovers”

    1. westslope

      Darren. Thanks for the extremely annoying comment.

      I would like t suggest that the comment says more about you than anybody else. Here is what I am thinking: you are innumerate and cannot read nor comprehend the papers being offered.

      Moreover, you cannot think independently. You require others to think for you.

    2. genauer

      Hmmm, in the Fed’s IDEAS / Repec list of registered 41995 authors , Menzie Chinn has position 415, the poor guy just barely made it into the upper 1%.

      Whereas some Mark Perry is nowhere to be found

        1. Menzie Chinn Post author

          Robert Hurley: To be fair to Professor Perry, it was Darren who made the comparison. He has been previously apprised of the metrics involved, and yet continues to comment thusly, so your point is completely relevant to his remarks.

  1. Ricardo

    From the conference home page:

    “Registered attendees will be required to present photo identification on entering the IMF at 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C.”

    Have you ever heard anything as racist in your whole life?

    1. Menzie Chinn Post author

      Ricardo: Two observations: (1) To the best of my knowledge, the right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution. A right to free access to all meetings (or to fly on an airline) is not in the Constitution. (2) The issue with voter ID laws is not race, but access for students, the poor, and other groups that would be disenfranchised by such laws. The fact that you fixate on race to the exclusion of other groups tells me a lot.

    2. Joseph

      “To the best of my knowledge, the right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution.”

      Well, that’s not quite certain under the current Supreme Court. In Bush vs. Gore the majority stated that “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States” in denying the recount.

      Justice Scalia, in striking down the Voting Rights Act described it as “perpetuation of a racial entitlement” which should be abolished. So don’t get any uppity ideas about being entitled to vote.

      One could say, that with the current court, that the right to vote is more tenuous than ever.

  2. Anonymous

    “From Prof. Mark J. Perry, an Economics Professor considerably more distinguished than Menzie Chinn :”


    I’ve been critical of Menzie’s belief in technocratism and have reduced my commentary here by 95% since he decided to inform his blog’s followers of the name of the company whose IP addresses I post from occasionally (in attempt to subtly threaten my job for disagreeing with him). That being said, whoever is more distinguished doesn’t matter. A comment like that makes you look childish and doesn’t advance the your position. Mr. Jonathan Gruber, who Menzie strangely has no comment on, is a highly distinguished economist, yet for some reason, we know we can’t take his arguments seriously.

    As adults we need to stick to debating the merits of the argument, and not make childish personal attacks.

    1. JBH


      As is often the case with your comments, you raise an interesting question. Is it possible to win an argument you would win on a fair and level playing field free of omission, deception and misinformation, when your opponent plays on a gruberized field believing the end always justifies the means? If so, I would be interested in the general rule how. If not, what might the alternative rule be?

Comments are closed.