Tuesday , November 5 2024
Home / Mike Norman Economics / Merijn Knibbe — Why, to the detriment of the economics profession, MiltonFriedman ignored Hyman Minsky’s advice

Merijn Knibbe — Why, to the detriment of the economics profession, MiltonFriedman ignored Hyman Minsky’s advice

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:

This could be interesting, too:

Robert Skidelsky writes Milton Friedman – economic visionary or scourge of the world?

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

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

Mike Norman
Mike Norman is an economist and veteran trader whose career has spanned over 30 years on Wall Street. He is a former member and trader on the CME, NYMEX, COMEX and NYFE and he managed money for one of the largest hedge funds and ran a prop trading desk for Credit Suisse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *