by Summary:
I’m talking about the 1962 Milton Friedman/Anna Schwarz article ‘Money and Business Cycles’ (the Minsky comments can be found in the same document). According to Friedman and Schwarz, the government and only the government indirectly creates money mainly via central bank interest and QE like bank-liquidity policies. Period. Which makes the government, and only the government, responsible for these deep depressions. Period.… The 64 trillion-dollar question is of course: why do Friedman and Schwarz discard modern monetary measurement and why do they stick to their CCA? Why don’t they mention Copeland and why don’t they even mention the Flow of Funds (which, again, is the cornerstone of modern monetary measurement)? Why didn’t they catch up with the developments in modern economic
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Milton Friedman
This could be interesting, too:
I’m talking about the 1962 Milton Friedman/Anna Schwarz article ‘Money and Business Cycles’ (the Minsky comments can be found in the same document). According to Friedman and Schwarz, the government and only the government indirectly creates money mainly via central bank interest and QE like bank-liquidity policies. Period. Which makes the government, and only the government, responsible for these deep depressions. Period.… The 64 trillion-dollar question is of course: why do Friedman and Schwarz discard modern monetary measurement and why do they stick to their CCA? Why don’t they mention Copeland and why don’t they even mention the Flow of Funds (which, again, is the cornerstone of modern monetary measurement)? Why didn’t they catch up with the developments in modern economic
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: Milton Friedman
This could be interesting, too:
Matias Vernengo writes The Forgotten Case Against Milton Friedman: Jacobin’s Interview with Tom Palley
Robert Vienneau writes On Equilibrium
Matias Vernengo writes Rational expectations, New Classicals, and Real Business Cycles Schools
Matias Vernengo writes The end of Friedmanomics?
I’m talking about the 1962 Milton Friedman/Anna Schwarz article ‘Money and Business Cycles’ (the Minsky comments can be found in the same document). According to Friedman and Schwarz, the government and only the government indirectly creates money mainly via central bank interest and QE like bank-liquidity policies. Period. Which makes the government, and only the government, responsible for these deep depressions. Period.…
The 64 trillion-dollar question is of course: why do Friedman and Schwarz discard modern monetary measurement and why do they stick to their CCA? Why don’t they mention Copeland and why don’t they even mention the Flow of Funds (which, again, is the cornerstone of modern monetary measurement)? Why didn’t they catch up with the developments in modern economic statistics taking place at the most important central banks of the world? Why did the bend over backwards to avoid any data and each author which hinted at, in the words of Minsky “a commercial loan monetary system … consistent with a debt deflation view of how major recessions are generated: a view in which the historically observed changes in the money supply, particularly those associated with deep depression, are a result of business behavior”?The more salient question is why anyone took their work seriously when they were clearly in the weeds considering that even the classical economists realize the key role of private credit?
Real-World Economics Review Blog
Why, to the detriment of the economics profession, MiltonFriedman ignored Hyman Minsky’s advice
Merijn Knibbe