Partially Professional

Archive

Posts Tagged ‘monetary policy’

Milton Friedman: Real and Pseudo Gold Standards

August 13th, 2009 Josh Fields View Comments

by Milton Friedman
Mont Pelerin Society
September 1961

International monetary arrangements have held a consistently important place among the topics discussed at the meetings of our [Mont Pelerin] Society. This is eminently fitting, since there is probably no other major facet of economic policy with respect to which liberals (in the sense of our Society) reach such divergent conclusions from the same underlying principles.

One group, of which Philip Cortney is a distinguished member, favors a continuation of the formal linking of national currencies to gold, rigid exchange rates between different national currencies, a doubling or more than doubling of the official price of gold in terms of national currencies, and an abandonment of governmental measures designed to evade the discipline of gold. This group is apparently indifferent about whether gold circulates as coin; it is satisfied with a gold bullion standard.

A second group, represented by the Economists’ National Committee on Monetary Policy, also favors a continuation of the formal linking of national currencies to gold together with rigid exchange rates between different national currencies. But it emphasizes the importance of gold coinage and of a widespread use of gold coin as money in national as well as international payments. Apparently, this group believes there is no need for a change in present official prices of gold, or, at least, in the Unites States price.

A third group, of which I count myself a member, favors a separation of gold policy from exchange-rate policy. It favors the abandonment of rigid exchange rates between national currencies and the substitution of a system of floating exchange rates determined from day to day by private transactions without government intervention.

With respect to gold, there are some differences, but most of us would currently favor the abandonment of any commitment by governments to buy and sell gold at fixed prices and of any fixed gold reserve requirements for the issue of national currency as well as the repeal of any restrictions on private dealings in gold.

I have stated and defended my own policy views elsewhere at some length. Hence, I would like to use this occasion instead to explore how it is that liberals can reach such radically different conclusions. Read more…

Paul Krugman’s many flaws

May 22nd, 2009 Josh Fields View Comments

krugmanthecontraryindicatorPaul Krugman, a Nobel winning economists, has found himself as the new voice of Keynesianism; a form of economics which supports the idea that government spending indeed helps to lead to economic prosperity. Krugman supposedly has a track record of predicting economic crisis while maintaining his Keynesian mantra. He is a staunch supporter of government spending and has even said on February 2, 2008, that:

“One thing I’ve written about a number of times, but becomes especially worth emphasizing now that John McCain is the presumptive Republican nominee, is the myth of runaway federal spending under the Bush administration… But one thing he thinks he knows is that the Bush administration has been spending like a drunken sailor. Has it?

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.”

He then went on to state on February 19th, 2008, that:

Bush is right about something

Hate to say this, but he’s right when he says

I think actually the spending in the war might help with jobs…because we’re buying equipment, and people are working. I think this economy is down because we built too many houses and the economy’s adjusting.

In fact, I’d say that the sources of the economy’s expansion from 2003 to 2007 were, in order, the housing bubble, the war, and — very much in third place — tax cuts.

Of course, we could have gotten just as much or more stimulus by spending $10 billion a month on actually useful stuff– think how much domestic infrastructure could have been built or repaired for the cost of this miserable war. But the war was what we got.

Read more…


Your Ad Here