A Household’s Preferences Vary Depending on Whether Incomes Are Permanent or Temporary: A Solution to the Time-Inconsistency Problem and Equity-Premium Puzzle

Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.57017/jaes.v18.1(79).02

Author(s):

Taiji HARASHIMA Department of Economics, Kanazawa Seiryo University, Japan

Abstract:

A household’s preferences are usually assumed not to vary temporally or depending on the objects to which they are applied, but this assumption is often inconsistent with empirical estimates, for example, with the time-inconsistency problem of the time preference rate and the equity-premium puzzle. I show that these inconsistencies are generated because a household’s preferences vary depending on whether they are applied to permanent or temporary incomes. Preferences applied to permanent incomes are anchored to the steady state or a balanced growth path, but those for temporary incomes are not. Hence, the former is fixed and unchanged, but the latter can take various values depending on conditions.

How to cite:

Harashima, T. 2023. A Household’s Preferences Vary Depending on Whether Incomes Are Permanent or Temporary: A Solution to the Time-Inconsistency Problem and Equity-Premium Puzzle. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume XVIII, Spring, 1(79): 11 – 20. https://doi.org/10.57017/jaes.v18.1(79).02

References:

[1] Barro, R. J. (1999). Ramsey Meets Laibson in the Neoclassical Growth Model, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(4), 1125-1152. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355399556232

[2] Becker, G. S. and Mulligan, C. (1997). The Endogenous Determination of Time Preference, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(3), 729–758. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555334

[3] von Böhm-Bawerk, E. (1889). Capital and Interest, Reprinted by Libertarian Press, South Holland, IL, 1970.

[4] Brock, W. and Mirman, L. (1972). Optimal Economic Growth and Uncertainty: The Discounted Case, Journal of Economic Theory, 4(3), 479–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(72)90135-4

[5] Brown, S. J. and Goetzmann, W. N. (1995). Performance Persistence, The Journal of Finance, 50(2), 679–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1995.tb04800.x

[6] Constantinides, G. M. (1990). Habit Formation: A Resolution of the Equity Premium Puzzle, Journal of Political Economy, 98(3), 519-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00147-2

[7] DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field, Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315-372. DOI: 10.1257/jel.47.2.315

[8] Fisher, I. (1930). The Theory of Interest, Macmillan, New York.

[9] Harashima, T. (2004). A More Realistic Endogenous Time Preference Model and the Slump in Japan, EconWPA Working Papers, ewp-mac0402015.

[10] Harashima, T. 2009. Depression as a Nash Equilibrium Consisting of Strategies of Choosing a Pareto Inefficient Transition Path, MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper No. 18987.

[11] Harashima, T. (2014). Time Preference Shocks, MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper No. 60205.

[12] Harashima, T. (2016). The Cause of the Great Recession: What Caused the Downward Shift of the GDP Trend in the United States? MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper No. 69215.

[13] Harashima, T. (2018a). Depression as a Nash Equilibrium Consisting of Strategies of Choosing a Pareto Inefficient Transition Path, in Japanese, Journal of Kanazawa Seiryo University, 51(2), 71 – 101.

[14] Harashima, T. (2018b). Do Households Actually Generate Rational Expectations? “Invisible Hand” for Steady State, MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper No. 88822.

[15] Harashima, T. (2019a). A Pareto Inefficient Path to Steady State in Recession, Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume XIV, Fall, 3(65), 842-850.

[16] Harashima, T. (2019b). Do Households Actually Generate Rational Expectations? “Invisible Hand” for Steady State, in Japanese, Journal of Kanazawa Seiryo University, 52(2), 49 – 70.

[17] Harashima, T. (2020a). The Correlation between Time Preference and Incomes Is Spurious: They Are Bridged by Fluid Intelligence, Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume XV, Spring, 1(67), 107-123.

[18] Harashima, T. (2020b). Why Is Risk Aversion Essentially Important for Endogenous Economic Growth? Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume XV, Fall, 3(69), 556-569.

[19] Harashima, T. (2021a). The Cause of the Great Recession: What Caused the Downward Shift of the GDP Trend in the United States? in Japanese, Journal of Kanazawa Seiryo University, 54(2), 55 – 67.

[20] Harashima, T. (2021b). Consequence of Heterogeneous Economic Rents under the MDC-based Procedure, Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Volume XVI, Summer, 2(72), 185-190.

[21] Harashima, T. (2022a). A Theory of Inflation: The Law of Motion for Inflation under the MDC-based Procedure, MPRA (The Munich Personal RePEc Archive) Paper No. 113161.

[22] Harashima, T. (2022b). A Theory of Inflation: The Law of Motion for Inflation under the MDC-based Procedure, in Japanese, Journal of Kanazawa Seiryo University, 56(1).

[23] Kocherlakota, Narayana R. (1996). The Equity Premium: It’s Still a Puzzle, Journal of Economic Literature, 34(1), 42–71.

[24] Laibson, D. (1997). Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 443–477. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253

[25] Lawrance, E. C. (1991). Poverty and the Rate of Time Preference: Evidence from Panel Data, Journal of Political Economy, 99(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1086/261740

[26] McGrattan, Ellen R. and Prescott, E. C. (2003). Average Debt and Equity Returns: Puzzling? American Economic Review, 93(2), 392-397. DOI: 10.1257/000282803321947407

[27] Mehra, R., and Prescott, E. C. 1985. The Equity Premium: A Puzzle, Journal of Monetary Economics, 15, 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(85)90061-3

[28] Parkin, M. (1988). A Method for Determining Whether Parameters in Aggregative Models Are Structural, Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 29(1), 215–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2231(88)90014-0

[29] Pollak, R. A. (1968). Consistent Planning, The Review of Economic Studies, 35(2), 201-208. https://doi.org/10.2307/2296548

[30] Rietz, T. A. 1988. The Equity Risk Premium a Solution, Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3932(88)90172-9

[31] Strotz, R. H. (1955). Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization, The Review of Economic Studies, 23(3), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295722