We claim that the stock market encourages business creation, innovation, and growth by allowing the recycling of “informed capital”. Due to incentive and information problems, start-ups face larger costs of going public than mature firms. Sustaining a tight relationship with a monitor (bank, venture capitalist) allows them to finance their operations without going public until profitability prospects are clearer or incentive problems are less severe. However, the earlier young firms go public, the quicker monitors' informed capital is redirected towards new start-ups. Hence, when informed capital is in limited supply, factors that lower the costs for start-ups to go public encourage business creation. Technological spill-overs associated with business creation and thick market externalities in the young firms segment of the stock market provide prima facie cases for encouraging young firms to go public.

We consider a version of the Solow growth model where technological progress can be investment specific or investment neutral. The labour market is subject to search frictions, and the existing productive units may fail to adopt the most recent technological advances. Technological progress can lead to the destruction of technologically obsolete jobs and cause unemployment. We calibrate the model to replicate the high persistence that characterizes the dynamics of firms' neutral technology and the frequency of firms' capital adjustment. We find that neutral technological advances increase job destruction and job reallocation and reduce aggregate employment. Investment-specific technological advances reduce job destruction, have mild effects on job creation, and are expansionary. Hence, neutral technological progress prompts Schumpeterian creative destruction, while investment-specific technological progress operates essentially as in the standard neoclassical growth model. Using structural VAR models, we provide support to the key dynamic implications of the model.

We study the effects of monetary announcements when agents face Knightian uncertainty about the commitment capacity of the monetary authority. Households are ambiguity averse and differentially exposed to inflation due to differences in wealth. In response to the announcement of a future monetary loosening, only wealthy households (creditors) act as if the announcement will be fully implemented, due to the potential wealth losses from future inflation. As a result the economy responds as if aggregate net wealth falls, which attenuates the effects of the announcement. Redistributing from super-wealthy to middle-wealthy households makes the announcement more expansionary, in the extreme as expansionary as under a fully credible announcement.