Group 1: FTPL Theory Overview - The Fiscal Theory of the Price Level (FTPL) posits that fiscal policy dominates macroeconomic control, determining economic fluctuations and price trends, while monetary policy plays a supportive role[1] - FTPL contrasts with the Ricardian equivalence theory, suggesting that government debt value is recognized by the market and can be reduced through inflation rather than future tax commitments[6] - The optimal policy combination is active monetary policy and prudent fiscal policy, ensuring inflation control and sustainable debt levels[2] Group 2: Model Analysis and Implications - In the FTPL model (a=1, γ=0.01), monetary policy approaches ineffectiveness (a<1), leading to a loss of fiscal discipline and potential debt growth, with inflation rising continuously[2] - The Taylor rule requires a>1 for effective inflation control, while γ>r-g (where r=0.0101 and g=0) is necessary for fiscal discipline and sustainability[2] - Historical cases, such as post-World War I France and Germany, illustrate FTPL's principles, where excessive debt led to hyperinflation as governments resorted to money printing[10][11] Group 3: DSGE Model Findings - The DSGE model indicates that under a policy combination of active fiscal and passive monetary policies, inflation pressure is significant, and controlling it takes a prolonged period (up to 400 time units) even with reduced money supply[22] - Comparing fiscal and monetary shocks reveals that deficit monetization significantly increases inflation, validating the FTPL theory[26] - The model's results emphasize that only combinations of active monetary or fiscal policies can stabilize the economy, while both passive lead to instability[18]

Group 1: Economic Theory and Models - The Ricardian equivalence theory is increasingly evident in China, where rising government deficit rates reduce residents' marginal propensity to consume[1] - The RBC model is utilized to simulate the impact of fiscal spending on household consumption and consumption propensity[1] - Labor supply elasticity is identified as a key factor influencing changes in household consumption propensity, with values of -0.12 and 0.8 showing that higher elasticity leads to lower consumption propensity and fiscal multipliers[1] Group 2: Fiscal Spending and Consumption Relationship - Fiscal spending has a crowding-out effect on household consumption, with an average APC of 41% since the reform and a tax rate (τ) of 19.76%, indicating that a 1% increase in τ results in a 1.53% decrease in consumption[1] - In scenarios where private consumption propensity declines, increased fiscal spending is recommended to stabilize consumption levels[1] - The relationship between fiscal spending (τ) and APC indicates that if APC decreases, fiscal spending must increase to maintain consumption levels[1] Group 3: Implications of Government Debt - Concerns over high government debt can lead to reduced consumption as residents anticipate future tax increases to balance fiscal requirements[1] - The sustainability of fiscal policy is crucial; unsustainable debt levels can lead to reduced consumer spending and economic growth potential[1] - Investment growth can suppress overall consumption levels, highlighting the balance needed between investment and consumption[1] Group 4: Simulation Results - The RBC model simulations show that increased government purchases lead to higher output but also result in decreased household consumption due to increased taxation[1] - Higher labor supply elasticity results in a faster decline in household consumption propensity following fiscal shocks, indicating a smaller fiscal multiplier[1]