<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">TEL</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Theoretical Economics Letters</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2162-2078</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/tel.2013.33028</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">TEL-32753</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Business&amp;Economics</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  A Study on Lucas’ “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money”—II
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>asayuki</surname><given-names>Otaki</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sub>1</sub></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>ohtaki@iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>07</day><month>06</month><year>2013</year></pub-date><volume>03</volume><issue>03</issue><fpage>168</fpage><lpage>170</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>April</day>	<month>12,</month>	<year>2013</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>May</day>	<month>17,</month>	<year>2013</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>June</day>	<month>10,</month>	<year>2013</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
   My preceding paper on this topic (Otaki [1]) explored whether the equilibrium existence proof in Lucas [2] is truly complete. We showed that the proof is incomplete that some additional conditions are required to complete the job. In this paper, we explore another ambiguity in Lucas’s model, which has been pointed out by Grammond (see Lucas [3]): can the model transform the joint probability density function of the exogenous environment into one that which includes market equilibrium information? This problem is peculiar to the signal extraction problem compatible with the market equilibrium condition. The result indicates that although Lucas [3] was fundamentally correct in refuting Grammond’s critique, the model contains another crucial assumption concerning the property of the equilibrium function, namely, one-to-one correspondence from the environmental variable to the equilibrium price, which has not been proved by Lucas [2] to date. 
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Signal Extraction Problem Compatible with the Market Equilibrium; Transformation of the Joint Distribution Function; One-to-One Correspondence from the Environmental Variable to the Equilibrium Price</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>The essence of Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] is a signal extraction problem, which is compatible with the market equilibrium condition. This paper attempts to solve a related and very difficult problem. The functional form of equilibrium price is inseparably connected with the results of signal extraction. In other words, whenever individuals try to induce relevant information about their environment through market mechanisms, they need to have exact knowledge of the equilibrium price function.</p><p>This fact implies that information on the exogenous environment, which is indispensable for optimal decision making, is never extracted without using the equilibrium price function. Mathematically, although it can never be directly observable, the probability distribution of the economic environment (i.e., money supply per capita and population of young generation) can be fixed by assumption. However, the joint and/or conditional distribution of the environment and equilibrium price cannot be defined without an equilibrium function given a-priori (although it must be consistent with the rational expectations equilibrium (REE)). Thus, as suggested by Grammond, there emerges a room of multiplicity in the endogenously determined environment/equilibrium-price probability distribution.</p><p>We have succeeded in showing that the joint distribution of the environment/equilibrium-price necessarily becomes multiple as asserted by Grammond, and that the conditional distribution of these variables is free from the specification of the equilibrium price function. In other words, the unique conditional density function, independent of the shape of the equilibrium price function, is consistently obtained in using Lucas’ model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>]. At this point, the transformation between the probability distribution functions in Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] is verified under an additional assumption, that is, one-to-one correspondence in the equilibrium price function.</p><p>This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 clarifies the theoretical problem, and establishes the theorem concerning the existence of the unique conditional probability function. Section 3 contains brief concluding remarks.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Necessary Modifications</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Problem to Be Clarified</title><p>Lucas’ original maximization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] is expressed as</p><disp-formula id="scirp.32753-formula141294"><label>(1)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="8-1500348\0a4bc8f8-23e4-4a01-b45d-30632a389ba6.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where the left-hand-side (1) presents the marginal utility derived from current consumption, and the right-handside, that from future consumption. That is, (1) is the compounded Euler equation with the market clearing condition in Lucas’ model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>]. Each individual maximizes lifetime utility using currently available information<img src="8-1500348\db22f9ec-c22e-46aa-8986-c61833c3ea69.jpg" />.</p><p>Lucas specifies the equilibrium-price function as</p><disp-formula id="scirp.32753-formula141295"><label>(2)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="8-1500348\bc663dfb-8e71-4cec-89c6-879302db84af.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Substituting (2) into (1) gives the following equation according to Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>]:</p><disp-formula id="scirp.32753-formula141296"><label>(3)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="8-1500348\ffeb1baa-be09-48d8-9a82-4243ee976673.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>where <img src="8-1500348\2b23e816-a3d6-44af-9d88-fd4b0ccb2c72.jpg" /> is the current additional money supply unknowable to individuals. The random variable <img src="8-1500348\e736fd51-8aa4-44a9-9908-6efd864eb02c.jpg" /> should be strictly distinguished from<img src="8-1500348\c5ab51b2-950c-4a49-92a9-104ce6499986.jpg" />, which means the realized value of <img src="8-1500348\6b9850b5-db47-41d8-b94a-8ee1aa422faf.jpg" /><sup>1</sup>. Clearly, the imperfect informational structure of the model, which is the backbone of the Lucas’ model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>], requires urgent correction.</p><p>The main issue, this article deals with, is whether the transformation from (1) to (3) is independent of the functional form of (2). Since<img src="8-1500348\8dc7e70c-c388-41ed-8afd-6d2679ef2cfc.jpg" /> and <img src="8-1500348\c0699fda-0aac-4c4e-8364-008431df7471.jpg" /> are assumed to follow independently identically distributed (i.i.d.) processes, the problem thus converges to whether the conditional probability distribution function <img src="8-1500348\724cb9e9-1cee-49d0-9f66-34cf9d9f01d3.jpg" /> can be defined independently of the form of the tentatively fixed equilibrium-price function in (2), as expressed by (3).</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Theorem</title><p>In this subsection, using Lucas’ model [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>], we disprove Grammond’s critique and provide a positive answer to the question posed in the previous section. That isTheorem 1. The conditional cumulative distribution function <img src="8-1500348\3fd6f635-04b9-40cb-8c38-ae8708ceda06.jpg" /> is invariant with the form of the arbitrarily fixed equilibrium-price function <img src="8-1500348\2d7a0411-44f8-4b24-9e31-3914801211b4.jpg" />, if <img src="8-1500348\35200f05-fa04-4b57-94f9-49b9caee7fbb.jpg" /> is a one-to-one correspondence between <img src="8-1500348\c5af7439-70e9-427c-99c7-8dd8e1e34ecf.jpg" /> and <img src="8-1500348\108ae68f-08b1-4c7f-bfb4-14ebcce5958b.jpg" />, where <img src="8-1500348\c7efbbbd-fb50-4e04-8f6f-4791590f0768.jpg" /> is the domain of<img src="8-1500348\2861677c-db40-449b-8498-0d98d5187b94.jpg" />.</p><p>Proof. Since <img src="8-1500348\81effe72-6cbd-48a3-bf87-158b2be4214f.jpg" /> are i.i.d. processes and are thereby independent of <img src="8-1500348\27d54901-8ad2-4412-8ed3-e1de2f8c5148.jpg" />, we should focus on the relationship between the exogenously given joint density function <img src="8-1500348\40631c65-ae07-418f-a235-56ce1a4ffbe8.jpg" />and<img src="8-1500348\65c33e78-0374-46dd-8558-8602f516bc9c.jpg" />. <img src="8-1500348\d70c5bd3-fc9e-464e-a389-62dbef058155.jpg" />denotes the density function of<img src="8-1500348\368df334-27fc-4e31-b061-fe21896e647d.jpg" />.</p><p>By definition and using the formula of transformation of the distribution function, we obtain</p><disp-formula id="scirp.32753-formula141297"><label>(4)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="8-1500348\1d099301-c9f4-4d34-a872-dc8e13e2286b.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Thus, the transformation between joint distribution functions depends on the shape of <img src="8-1500348\0c6c74d9-2349-4735-afa1-91c239b34ef2.jpg" /> as suggested by Grammond. However, since the Jacobean of <img src="8-1500348\34c1abcb-d99c-41d8-9d56-9206075bbb6a.jpg" /> does not contain<img src="8-1500348\c2052a8f-c0b6-4fc7-ad1c-ee95986809e9.jpg" />, the conditional distribution function of <img src="8-1500348\6ced6884-2994-4e14-a642-6f88d8242577.jpg" /> becomes</p><disp-formula id="scirp.32753-formula141298"><label>(5)</label><graphic position="anchor" xlink:href="8-1500348\98daa5c7-76da-4442-8188-f698a45a4071.jpg"  xlink:type="simple"/></disp-formula><p>Hence, as long as the inverse function of <img src="8-1500348\1405f901-a10b-4f74-ad4c-35830bc05875.jpg" /> is well-defined (i.e., <img src="8-1500348\78d35a9f-8838-45b4-ba22-e48cdb84f7b1.jpg" />is a one-to-one correspondence), as shown by (5), <img src="8-1500348\48ebf878-8640-402c-915e-6ac93a39884d.jpg" /> is independent of the functional form of <img src="8-1500348\87a1345c-d91f-44db-9011-a448a09dd1a8.jpg" />.</p><p>Accordingly, we have succeeded in validating Lucas’ transformation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] between (1) and (3).</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Caveat</title><p>Despite the validity of Lucas’ transformation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>], a caveat is necessary. He defines operator in a Banach space with supnorm <img src="8-1500348\c6eed203-6037-45d5-ab9b-a74936fe9271.jpg" /> as <img src="8-1500348\c97ed329-37b9-4edf-a745-749d6f6d7fee.jpg" /></p><p>where <img src="8-1500348\77b0a6d1-8e78-4aea-a144-cd1e36b54616.jpg" /> is the inverse function of <img src="8-1500348\56b910ef-c52d-4131-b215-a4915dfb4a09.jpg" /> and <img src="8-1500348\8fa3a28e-ea37-4971-bd6c-6ab3e2873964.jpg" />. Under an additional restrictive condition proposed by Otaki [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref1">1</xref>], <img src="8-1500348\3551388b-485e-437e-8ec4-530ce5cb37ac.jpg" /> becomes a contraction mapping in <img src="8-1500348\2bfa8698-81cc-4251-9944-9f93b6643363.jpg" />.</p><p>Nevertheless, we must note that there is no guarantee that the corresponding image <img src="8-1500348\9109c76b-3c32-4901-a3f1-e6a1627329ea.jpg" /> is also invertible, for any fixed invertible <img src="8-1500348\4aafee04-2159-4727-8c89-095336f18847.jpg" />. Consequently, the existence proof of Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] remains incomplete.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Concluding Remarks</title><p>This article examined whether Lucas’ signal extraction problem [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] under general equilibrium has been properly formulated. The results are as follows.</p><p>First, Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] rigorously induced the conditional distribution function compatible with market equilibrium. This compatibility means that the objective conditional distribution function concerning relevant environmental information is not affected by the form of arbitrarily chosen equilibrium price function. In this sense, Grammond’s critique, which was also mentioned in Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref3">3</xref>], is not a serious problem.</p><p>However, the invertibility of the equilibrium-price function is crucial to infer signals correctly. The results also indicate that Lucas [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.32753-ref2">2</xref>] failed to consider whether this property is preserved within the functional operator<img src="8-1500348\9b0d6705-b184-4f54-a03d-546379176751.jpg" />.</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>REFERENCES</title></sec><sec id="s5"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.32753-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">M. Otaki, “A Study on Lucas’ ‘Expectations and the Neutrality of Money’,” Theoretical Economics Letters, Vol. 2, No. 5, 2012, pp. 438-440. doi:10.4236/tel.2012.25081</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.32753-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R. E. Lucas Jr., “Expectations and the Neutrality of Money,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1972, pp. 103-124. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(72)90142-1</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.32753-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">R. E. Lucas Jr., “Corrigendum on ‘Expectations and the Neutrality of Money’,” Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1983, pp. 197-199.  
doi:10.1016/0022-0531(83)90031-5</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>