This is...it's...I mean...ah, what's the use?
Still I'll try: monetary expansion DOES create wealth when it prevents what would otherwise be a shortage of exchange media. Such a shortage can result in recession and unemployment. That is, it can destroy wealth. Monetary expansion adds to wealth by preventing that outcome.
Economists of practically all schools have long understood this exception to the rule that monetary expansion only causes inflation. I mean economists going back to G. Poulett Scrope and John Stuart Mill! It is not just a "Keynesian" idea, though he shared it.
(Keynes himself was no inflationist, by the way. The contrary claim is another piece of cut-rate-Austrian-econ-balderdash.) You can't understand many historical economic crises, including the recent ones, without recognizing the possibility of money shortages...
... and the capacity of monetary easing to alleviate them. Of course this is seldom the whole story; and excessive monetary expansion has contributed to crises as well. But one needn't choose between these causes, as certain tin-foil hat Austrians would have people believe.
It's a shame that so much bad monetary economics is marching under the Austrian economics banner. FWIW: I think Mises' *Theory of Money and Credit* one of the greatest works in the field. He was a great monetary economist. The same can't be said for many self-styled Misesians.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with George Selgin

George Selgin Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GeorgeSelgin

13 Apr
Thread: I have great respect for @dandolfa. But I think that here he, like many other proponents of CBDC, too readily assumes that it can be viewed as a "public option," that is, something costless to a public that doesn't have to use it if it doesn't wish to.
That perspective is misleading for several reasons. First, and most obviously, it overlooks the fact that CBCD is seen by many of its advocates as a substitute for official paper currency, not a supplement to it. Rogoff famously views it so. amazon.com/Curse-Cash-Lar…
So do many central bankers who view the switch as a means for assisting negative interest rate policy, among other things.theblockcrypto.com/post/84516/deu…
Read 21 tweets
2 Apr
My first, and most complete effort to explain why a stable NGDP path is better than a stable P path is here: amazon.com/Less-Than-Zero…
Don't let the title mislead you: when I write it in the 90s I was responding to the then-popular Monetarist ideal of a stable price level. So I compared it to a policy that had NGDP grow steadily with weighted factor input. That would mean deflation roughly = -TFP growth rate.
Read 10 tweets
1 Apr
Some fun facts you probably didn't know about the gold standard:

(1) It's heyday was the the middle ages:
(2) It was abolished by the Federal Reserve Act:
Read 12 tweets
28 Mar
Sometimes I welcome a tweet despite heartily disagreeing with it. This one serves the very useful purpose of exemplifying just where many bitcoiners' understanding of monetary economics goes awry.
Basically, whether an asset serves *any* of the three listed "monetary" roles has NOTHING to do with its market value. I repeat: Nothing; nada, zilch, diddly-squat.
Of course, an asset has to retain or gain value over time to be a decent store of value. But an asset can achieve an arbitrarily high value yet fail to meet this requirement. That's as obvious as saying that, no matter how high it's price gets, it might yet fall.
Read 8 tweets
27 Mar
Especially in its post-1970s US revival, Austrian economics has been identified with free-market ideology. This identification explains both its popular success and its poor reception by the academy and among professional economists generally.
It also explains why self-styled "Austrian economists" are now a dime a dozen. To successfully market oneself as such among the booboisee, one need only denounce the Fed and gov't generally, and sing the praises of AU or BTC; no need to know much economics, Austrian or otherwise.
The difference between Austrians economists who have earned the right to refer to themselves as such and the rest is as great as that between qualified surgeons and peddlers of snake oil.
Read 8 tweets
26 Mar
(1) "Near zero" isn't zero; therefore (2) the question remains whether the SLR requirement with reserves exempted is or isn't sufficiently high. It isn't true, therefore, that the case for reverting to the old formula is a no-brainer. 1/2
In fact there are plenty of studies suggesting that the social or welfare costs of bank capital requirements aren't zero. See, e.g., sciencedirect.com/science/articl… and piie.com/system/files/d… (I could offer many other sources).
Finally, unless debt and equity finance are perfect substitutes for banks, more capital invested in banks means less capital invested elsewhere. This surely is a potentially relevant social cost of minimum capital requirements that's distinct from any reduction in bank lending.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!