I'm currently reading his book 'The Theory of Money and Credit' and I have to say, it's the first I've read him and I'm pretty impressed so far. He's a very good writer at least. I find him very digestible as opposed to Alfred Marshall-I still haven't finished his 'Principles of Economics.' I will at some point but I have to say it drags a little for my taste. In a way his strength is a curse-his relentless empiricism can be slow going.
Because of how theoretical-but non-mathematical Mises is-Marshall was un-mathemtical as well at least up to where I read-I find his prose very readable. However, he's now getting to the parts about inflation and I got to say this little snippet on hyperinflation got me thinking.
"The collapse of the inflation policy carried to its extreme-as in the United States in 1781 and in Rance in 1796-does not destroy the monetary system, but only the credit or fiat money system of the state that has overestimated the effectiveness of its own policy. The collapse emancipates commerce from etatism and establishes metallic money again"
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Money-Credit-LvMI-ebook/dp/B004GHNMT4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1390409325&sr=1-1&keywords=mises+the+theory+of+money+and+credit
I'm reading this on Kindle but it's about pg. 119 or 'location 3600 of 8539/'
What do the two examples he uses-U.S. (1781) and France (1796) have in common? Yes-political stability. Those who hew to the Quantity Theory of Money-Sumner always says that Zimbabwe was caused by wild money printing can't explain why every single case of hyperinflation-as opposed to run of the mill higher inflation-comes with political instability.
Correlation doesn't by itself prove causation-though Sumner forgets that when he celebrates MM 'passing Krugman's test' back in 2013 but it's certainly striking that you can't name one case of HI that doesn't have a backdrop of PI.
Because of how theoretical-but non-mathematical Mises is-Marshall was un-mathemtical as well at least up to where I read-I find his prose very readable. However, he's now getting to the parts about inflation and I got to say this little snippet on hyperinflation got me thinking.
"The collapse of the inflation policy carried to its extreme-as in the United States in 1781 and in Rance in 1796-does not destroy the monetary system, but only the credit or fiat money system of the state that has overestimated the effectiveness of its own policy. The collapse emancipates commerce from etatism and establishes metallic money again"
http://www.amazon.com/Theory-Money-Credit-LvMI-ebook/dp/B004GHNMT4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1390409325&sr=1-1&keywords=mises+the+theory+of+money+and+credit
I'm reading this on Kindle but it's about pg. 119 or 'location 3600 of 8539/'
What do the two examples he uses-U.S. (1781) and France (1796) have in common? Yes-political stability. Those who hew to the Quantity Theory of Money-Sumner always says that Zimbabwe was caused by wild money printing can't explain why every single case of hyperinflation-as opposed to run of the mill higher inflation-comes with political instability.
Correlation doesn't by itself prove causation-though Sumner forgets that when he celebrates MM 'passing Krugman's test' back in 2013 but it's certainly striking that you can't name one case of HI that doesn't have a backdrop of PI.
I can explain hyperinflation many times over:
ReplyDeletehttp://howfiatdies.blogspot.com/2013/09/hyperinflation-explained-in-many.html
TK for stopping by Vincent. However, I believe you've recently lost a bet which suggests you don't have all the answers either.
DeleteIf you're going to explain anything to me I'd rather you explain to me what you think of my recent post about Sumner and Cantillion effects.