{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01680672268907563, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.62037037037037, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
MONETARY POLICY IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORKS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

We compare two stylized frameworks for the implementation of monetary policy. The first framework relies only on standing facilities, whereas the second framework relies only on open-market operations. We show that the Friedman rule cannot be implemented when the central bank uses standing facilities only. For a given rate of inflation, we show that standing facilities unambiguously achieve higher welfare than just conducting open-market operations. We conclude that elements of both frameworks should be combined. Also, our results suggest that any monetary policy implementation framework should remunerate both required and excess reserves.