From the first paragraph of Paul Samuelson's Wikipedia: "When awarding the prize in 1970, the Swedish Royal Academies stated that he 'has done more than any other contemporary economist to raise the level of scientific analysis in economic theory'. Economic historian Randall E. Parker has called him the 'Father of Modern Economics', and The New York Times considers him to be the 'foremost academic economist of the 20th century'." I am tempted to challenge you to write a post praising the contributions of Paul Samuelson. Do you think his contributions outweighed his faults?
Mises said, in my words, that the claim that inflation is a price rise is a rationalization of the evasion of govt counterfeiting as inflation. Price rises are the result. He also said that govt counterfeiting shifts production from market-directed to politics-directed. And that this shift lowers production more than price rises.
Trash the Fed. Back to private commodity money, including money certificates redeemable in a commodity.
My meager understanding of the inflation model of the Keynesians is that it is caused by an increase in the demand for money, which is humored by the banking system. This would explain then, why they believe that price controls will decrease the demand, and end inflation.
From this model, though, wouldn't the statement "Inflation causes an increase in the supply of money and credit" be, if not reasonable, at least consistent?
Thanks in advance for any correction to my misunderstandings here.
I guess? In the abstract, it would seem so, though I keep reading that they think it starts with over-employment, which just baffles me, as so much of that school does.
Anyway, they definitely put a lot of stock in something called "demand-pull", caused by over-optimism from consumers who over-borrow and spend.
From the first paragraph of Paul Samuelson's Wikipedia: "When awarding the prize in 1970, the Swedish Royal Academies stated that he 'has done more than any other contemporary economist to raise the level of scientific analysis in economic theory'. Economic historian Randall E. Parker has called him the 'Father of Modern Economics', and The New York Times considers him to be the 'foremost academic economist of the 20th century'." I am tempted to challenge you to write a post praising the contributions of Paul Samuelson. Do you think his contributions outweighed his faults?
Mises said, in my words, that the claim that inflation is a price rise is a rationalization of the evasion of govt counterfeiting as inflation. Price rises are the result. He also said that govt counterfeiting shifts production from market-directed to politics-directed. And that this shift lowers production more than price rises.
Trash the Fed. Back to private commodity money, including money certificates redeemable in a commodity.
Is this Modern Monetary Theory?
My meager understanding of the inflation model of the Keynesians is that it is caused by an increase in the demand for money, which is humored by the banking system. This would explain then, why they believe that price controls will decrease the demand, and end inflation.
From this model, though, wouldn't the statement "Inflation causes an increase in the supply of money and credit" be, if not reasonable, at least consistent?
Thanks in advance for any correction to my misunderstandings here.
I.e., according to Keynesians inflation is caused by increased borrowing?
I guess? In the abstract, it would seem so, though I keep reading that they think it starts with over-employment, which just baffles me, as so much of that school does.
Anyway, they definitely put a lot of stock in something called "demand-pull", caused by over-optimism from consumers who over-borrow and spend.
I don't fully understand the mechanics, but doesn't increased borrowing have the effect of increasing the quantity of money in circulation?
Larry Summers' father-in-law.