Lars Christensen had some interesting comments and responses on market monetarism.
I pushed him on how far market monetarists departed from traditional monetarists in admitting that money creation was endogenous, not exogenous. ie. determined by the central bank. If this is indeed the case, than the market monetarists stand nearer to the middle of the historic currency vs. banking school divide than Milton Friedman did. The latter would be considered a pure currency school theorist. Same with Mises and the traditional Austrians, although the Austrian free-bankers are surely not currency school theorists.
The fact that market monetarists, according to Christensen, are willing to think about money endogenously, just as the banking school theorists did, is a healthy improvement.
I pushed him on how far market monetarists departed from traditional monetarists in admitting that money creation was endogenous, not exogenous. ie. determined by the central bank. If this is indeed the case, than the market monetarists stand nearer to the middle of the historic currency vs. banking school divide than Milton Friedman did. The latter would be considered a pure currency school theorist. Same with Mises and the traditional Austrians, although the Austrian free-bankers are surely not currency school theorists.
The fact that market monetarists, according to Christensen, are willing to think about money endogenously, just as the banking school theorists did, is a healthy improvement.
Related Posts
- Is the Fed breaking the law by paying too much interest?
- Mises, Smith, and the origins of money
- Does the zero lower bound exist thanks to the government's paper currency monopoly?
- Rudolph Havenstein, independent central banker during the Weimar inflation
- You say hot potato, he says endogenous
- Do credit-induced asset price bubbles show up in GDP?
Subscribe Our Newsletter