Heller complained of a 'lack of symmetry'(pg. 27). This sounds very familiar to some dustups between Sumner, Mark Sadowski and Keynesians.
"Milton has heard all of this before, and he always has an answer— flexible exchange rates. Parenthetically, I fully understand that it’s much easier to debate Milton in absentia than in person! Yet, suffice it to note that however vital they are to the workings of his money-supply peg, floating exchange rates are not just around the corner. As my heavenly reference suggested, then, in the real world, Milton and the monetarists are quite safe. Their theory and policy prescriptions won’t be put to the test of application, so there will be no chance to disprove them."
"Eighth, and finally, if the monetarists showed some small willingness to recognize the impact of fiscal policy— which has played such a large role in the policy thinking and action underlying the great expansion of the 1960’s— one might be a little more sympathetic to their views. This point is, I must admit, not so much a condition as a plea for symmetry. The “new economists,” having already given important and increasing weight to monetary factors in their policy models, are still waiting for signs that the monetarists will admit fiscal factors to theirs. The 1964 tax cut pointedly illustrates what I mean. While the "new economists” fully recognize the important role monetary policy played in facilitating the success of the tax cut, the monetarists go to elaborate lengths to "prove” that the tax cut— which came close to removing a $13 billion full-employment surplus that was overburdening and retarding the economy— had nothing to do with the 1964-65 expansion. Money-supply growth did it all. Apparently, we were just playing fiscal tiddlywinks in Washington."
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/monetary_fiscal_friedman_1969.pdf
If Scott Sumner came across this passage I have little doubt that he'd start with pointing out how wrong Heller was about the impossibility of floating exchange rates.
However, the gist of it shows that the debate of the Keynesians-of all stripes-and the Market Monetarists-Monetarists of all stripes-sounds very similar in a lot of the detials. It makes me think of a good point by Michael Lind: there aren't nearly so many new ideas as we think.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/06/michael-lind-on-lack-of-new-ideas-in.html
Still, I think the idea that ideas don't change is more true in economics than social issues-which is what conservatives really object to.
Then again, the question of the Uber Economy is a new one that requires some innovative and new thinking.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-on-uber-economy.html
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/speaking-of-labor-regulations-in-uber.html
Certainly though in reading this fascinating debate of 1968 many of the same issues debated then about monetary policy seem very familiar today.
"Milton has heard all of this before, and he always has an answer— flexible exchange rates. Parenthetically, I fully understand that it’s much easier to debate Milton in absentia than in person! Yet, suffice it to note that however vital they are to the workings of his money-supply peg, floating exchange rates are not just around the corner. As my heavenly reference suggested, then, in the real world, Milton and the monetarists are quite safe. Their theory and policy prescriptions won’t be put to the test of application, so there will be no chance to disprove them."
"Eighth, and finally, if the monetarists showed some small willingness to recognize the impact of fiscal policy— which has played such a large role in the policy thinking and action underlying the great expansion of the 1960’s— one might be a little more sympathetic to their views. This point is, I must admit, not so much a condition as a plea for symmetry. The “new economists,” having already given important and increasing weight to monetary factors in their policy models, are still waiting for signs that the monetarists will admit fiscal factors to theirs. The 1964 tax cut pointedly illustrates what I mean. While the "new economists” fully recognize the important role monetary policy played in facilitating the success of the tax cut, the monetarists go to elaborate lengths to "prove” that the tax cut— which came close to removing a $13 billion full-employment surplus that was overburdening and retarding the economy— had nothing to do with the 1964-65 expansion. Money-supply growth did it all. Apparently, we were just playing fiscal tiddlywinks in Washington."
https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/monetary_fiscal_friedman_1969.pdf
If Scott Sumner came across this passage I have little doubt that he'd start with pointing out how wrong Heller was about the impossibility of floating exchange rates.
However, the gist of it shows that the debate of the Keynesians-of all stripes-and the Market Monetarists-Monetarists of all stripes-sounds very similar in a lot of the detials. It makes me think of a good point by Michael Lind: there aren't nearly so many new ideas as we think.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/06/michael-lind-on-lack-of-new-ideas-in.html
Still, I think the idea that ideas don't change is more true in economics than social issues-which is what conservatives really object to.
Then again, the question of the Uber Economy is a new one that requires some innovative and new thinking.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-on-uber-economy.html
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/speaking-of-labor-regulations-in-uber.html
Certainly though in reading this fascinating debate of 1968 many of the same issues debated then about monetary policy seem very familiar today.
No comments:
Post a Comment