什么是约翰·泰勒

约翰·泰勒（John Brian Taylor）出生于1946年12月8日，是美国斯坦福大学教授，胡佛研究所高级研究员；当代最知名的经济学家之一，《宏观经济手册》的主编。同时，泰勒教授也是最重视经济学原理教学的学者之一，他多年来坚持在斯坦福大学为本科生开设的经济学原理课程在全美享有盛誉。

约翰·泰勒曾担任过斯坦福大学的经济政策研究组成员，现已成为高级导师，他是斯坦福大学的介绍性经济学中心的主要创办人，泰勒目前是加利福尼亚州经济顾问委员会成员， 1996年至1998年他也在那里任职。1976年至1977年，他曾担任总统经济顾问委员会高级经济师，并从1989年至1991年成为总统经济顾问委员会成员。1995年至2001年，他也是美国国会预算办公室的经济顾问小组成员。

约翰·泰勒曾于2005年获得美国财政部亚历山大·汉密尔顿奖和2005年斯坦福大学乔治·舒尔茨公共服务奖。

泰勒的专业知识和学术领域主要为宏观经济、货币经济学和国际经济学。他对现代货币理论和政策的研究为中央银行和世界各地的金融市场分析奠定了基础。他在1993年所提出的货币政策规则“泰勒规则”，已为包括美联储在内的各国中央银行所奉行，其后的货币政策规则研究也主要是对其理论的发展，或是致力于参数的选取方面。该规则的核心是通过国内生产总值(GDP)、消费者物价指数(CPI)等宏观经济的当期数据，来定量地预期该国央行未来的货币政策行动的模型。从投资实务的角度而言，泰勒规则被广泛用于利率期货等投资的分析中。

John Brian Taylor (born December 8, 1946) is an economics professor at Stanford University.

Born in Yonkers, New York, he earned his A.B. from Princeton University in 1968 (obtained an education deferment) and Ph.D. from Stanford in 1973, both in economics. He taught at Columbia University from 1973–1980 and the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton from 1980–1984 before returning to Stanford. He has received several teaching prizes and currently teaches Stanford's introductory economics course. Taylor is mentioned as a potential recipient of the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

An expert on monetary policy, in a 1993 paper he proposed the Taylor rule, which provides a guide to central banks on how to determine interest rates. He has also been active in politics, serving as the Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs during the first term of the Bush Administration. He was also a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers during the Ford and George H. W. Bush administrations.

约翰·泰勒的贡献

Taylor contributed to the development of mathematical methods for solving macroeconomic models under the assumption of rational expectations. In 1977, Taylor and Edmund Phelps, simultaneously with Stanley Fischer, showed that monetary policy is useful for stabilizing the economy if wages are sticky, even when all workers and firms have rational expectations. This demonstrated that some of the earlier insights of Keynesian economics remained true under rational expectations. This was important because Thomas Sargent and Neil Wallace had argued that rational expectations would make macroeconomic policy useless for stabilization; the results of Taylor, Phelps, and Fischer showed that Sargent and Wallace's crucial assumption was not rational expectations, but perfectly flexible prices.

Taylor's model of overlapping wage contracts became one of the building blocks of the New Keynesian macroeconomics that rebuilt much of the traditional IS-LM model on rational expectations microfoundations. The New Keynesian economists went on to explore what types of monetary policy rules would most effectively reduce the societal costs of business cycle fluctuations: should central banks try to control the money supply, the price level, or the interest rate; and should these instruments react to changes in output, unemployment, asset prices, or inflation rates? Taylor's 1993 paper in the Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series proposed that a simple and effective central bank policy would manipulate short-term interest rates, raising rates to cool the economy whenever inflation or output growth becomes excessive, and lowering rates when either one falls too low. Taylor's interest rate equation has come to be known as the Taylor rule, and it is now widely accepted as an effective formula for monetary decision making. Some empirical estimates indicate that many central banks today act approximately as the Taylor rule prescribes, but had failed to act according to the Taylor rule during the inflationary spiral of the 1970s.

参考文献

1.0 1.1 危机“良医”最有望夺魁

"Thomson Reuters predicts the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences", Thomson Reuters, September 25, 2009

Blanchard, Olivier (2000), Macroeconomics, 2nd ed., Ch. 28, p. 543. Prentice Hall, ISBN 013013306X.

Clarida, Richard; Mark Gertler; and Jordi Galí (2000), 'Monetary policy rules and macroeconomic stability: theory and some evidence.' Quarterly Journal of Economics 115. pp. 147-180.