The Experts below are selected from a list of 240 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Roger E. Backhouse - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Macroeconomics of Margaret Thatcher
    Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2002
    Co-Authors: Roger E. Backhouse
    Abstract:

    The government of Margaret Thatcher forms a revealing case study of how economic ideas become entwined with the political and economic history of any country where attempts are made to apply them. As each of the papers in this symposium points out, Thatcher and her government became inextricably associated with “Monetarism.†They were influenced by a range of economists, including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, but the policies that went under the label of Monetarism ended up being very different from what one would expect from reading the academic literature on Monetarism. Though it shared important features, Monetarism came to mean something very diferent from, for example, Friedman's quantity theory. More significantly, the meaning of Monetarism and the way it was applied changed signi cantly during the government's period in office. Many of these changes were in response to specific economic problems that the government was forced to confront. To understand the way economic ideas developed, and why Monetarism was interpreted in the way it was, therefore, it is important to understand the macroeconomic history of the period. That is the purpose of this paper.

Allan Meltzer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Monetarism Revisited
    2018
    Co-Authors: Allan Meltzer
    Abstract:

    Thomas Mayer and Patrick Minford's retrospective on Monetarism offers a useful summary of some of the main issues in the 1960s and 1970s debate over monetary theory and policy. I agree with much, but not all, of what they say and especially with a main conclusion that they draw: currently most of the issues then in dispute are now regarded as settled. Much of monetarist analysis now forms a central part of what is (strangely) called the neo-Keynesian model.

  • The Deficit: A Monetarist's Perspective
    2018
    Co-Authors: Allan Meltzer
    Abstract:

    There is no "monetarist position" on the budget deficit. Monetarism is mainly about the effects of money on inflation. Deficits have an effect on inflation—defined as the maintained rate of price change—only if they are financed by issuing money. Argentina, Bolivia, and Brazil are recent examples of inflations financed by money issued to pay for government spending. In these or other countries with budget deficits equal to 15 per cent of GNP or more, people observe that the government is unwilling to raise taxes or reduce spending; they expect inflation, so they resist holding domestic money. There is a flight from money, rapid money growth, and rising inflation. When the budget deficit was reduced Argentina and Bolivia were able to reduce money growth and inflation.

  • On Keynes and Monetarism
    2018
    Co-Authors: Allan Meltzer
    Abstract:

    It is an honor to be invited to speak at a conference honoring Keynes. His work has probably stimulated more pages of analysis, discussion and controversy than the work of any other economist.* Many of the controversies proved sterile, but others have had lasting effects and some continue to shape economics. The particular controversy about which I have been asked to speak - the monetarist controversy - remains one of the more productive controversies. The controversy stimulated developments in micro and macro economics, in econometrics, in the theory of expectations and the relation of expectations to econometrics and to micro and macro economics. At times, some disputants ignore these gains and appear to see only retrogression where there is progress. Kaldor (1982) is one example, but an example familiar to this audience. Other economists, who undertake to read the literature - though highly critical of recent developments and distressed by their policy implications - recognize that the monetarist controversy has caused them to rethink and change their views - Modigliani (1977) - and, more importantly, has caused lasting changes in economic theory - Tobin (1981, pp. 41-2). I take as given and obvious that both Monetarism and our understanding of Keynes1 theory continue to change, the former because it is part of economic science, the latter to considerable degree as a result of the excellent volumes containing Keynes' papers and letters produced for the Royal Economic Society

  • Karl Brunner, Monetarist
    2018
    Co-Authors: Allan Meltzer
    Abstract:

    An introduction to some of Karl Brunner's many papers on monetary or macroeconomic topics provides a welcome opportunity to reconsider some of his contributions to theory, research, and policy in this area. Brunner's (1968) essay, that gave Monetarism its name, concentrated on the role of money in the economy and on assessing monetary policy. Later, in "The Disarray in Macroeconomics," written in 1986 and reprinted here, he referred to Monetarism as a "more or less unfortunate label" (1989, p. 197). Although Brunner was alert to new developments in economics, and he changed his interpretations and beliefs when analysis or facts warranted, his dissatisfaction with the term Monetarism did not represent a belated recantation of his long-standing views.

  • Monetarist, Keynesian and Quantity Theories
    2018
    Co-Authors: Allan Meltzer
    Abstract:

    In economics as in other developing sciences, change erodes the value of popular terminology. Monetarism is a name that has been given to a particular set of propositions at a particular point of time. Like Keynesianism, fiscalism, or the "Treasury view," the particular set of propositions called Monetarism does not fully describe the body of thought accepted by a loosely knit group of practicing economists anymore than terms like Chicago, Cambridge or Austrian School describe the thought of all to whom the terms are applied. In the humanities, such connections are the subject of treatises; most economists are usefully employed at other, no less valuable, occupations.

Robert L. Hetzel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • What Remains of Milton Friedman's Monetarism?, Working Paper 17-09
    2017
    Co-Authors: Robert L. Hetzel
    Abstract:

    From the early 1960s until the early 1970s with the emergence of rational expectations, under the rubric of Monetarism, Milton Friedman defined macroeconomic debate. Although the Keynesian consensus that he challenged has disappeared, the current academic literature makes little reference to monetarist ideas. What happened to them? The argument here is that those ideas remain relevant but require translation into terms expressible in modern macroeconomic models and in the monetary policies of central banks, neither of which contain any obvious references to money. Moreover, the Friedman and Schwartz methodology for identifying shocks retains relevance.

  • What Remains of Milton Friedman's Monetarism?
    2017
    Co-Authors: Robert L. Hetzel
    Abstract:

    From the early 1960s until the early 1970s with the emergence of rational expectations, under the rubric of Monetarism, Milton Friedman defined macroeconomic debate. Although the Keynesian consensus that he challenged has disappeared, the current academic literature makes little reference to monetarist ideas. What happened to them? The argument here is that those ideas remain relevant but require translation into terms expressible in modern macroeconomic models and in the monetary policies of central banks, neither of which contain any obvious references to money. Moreover, the Friedman and Schwartz methodology for identifying shocks retains relevance.

  • Does Monetarism Retain Relevance
    Economic Quarterly, 2012
    Co-Authors: Robert L. Hetzel
    Abstract:

    Implicitly, central banks reject the propositions of Monetarism. They do not characterize themselves as creators of money, but instead emphasize their role in influencing financial intermediation. They do not discuss monetary policy in terms of a rule, but instead use the language of discretion. They refer to the low level of interest rates to characterize monetary policy as stimulative despite low rates of growth of money and nominal gross domestic product. The question arises of whether monetarist ideas retain any relevance for central banks

De Vroey Michel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Brunner versus Friedman : Diverging Aspirations for the Monetarist Project
    'MIT Press - Journals', 2020
    Co-Authors: Clerc Pierrick, De Vroey Michel
    Abstract:

    The aim of this paper, written for a conference in homage to Karl Brunner organized by the Swiss National Bank, is to compare Brunner’s vision of Monetarism with that of Milton Friedman, the most prominent figure of the monetarist school. Over a time span of half a century, Brunner and Meltzer wrote a huge number of articles, books and monographs. They founded the Journal of Monetary Economics and the Journal of Money, Credit & Banking. They organized the Carnegie-Rochester annual conferences. A venue of civilized confrontation between Keynesian and monetarist economists, these conferences provided young innovative economists, such as Robert Lucas, Thomas Sargent, Finn Kydland and Edward Prescott, the launching pad for ideas that were to transform macroeconomics. Brunner and Meltzer also were at the origin of the so-called Shadow Open-Market Policy committee . Last but not least, they pursued a theoretical ambition predicated on a vision of Monetarism different from Friedman’s. Our paper aims at substantiating this last aspect

  • Brunner Versus Friedman: Diverging Aspirations For The Monetarist Project
    2020
    Co-Authors: Pierrick Clerc, De Vroey Michel
    Abstract:

    The aim of this paper is to compare the visions held by two eminent monetarist economists, M. Friedman and K. Brunner, on the development prospects of Monetarism within the macroeconomics discipline. Brunner, jointly with A. Meltzer, strived at constructing a model competing with the IS-LM model. By contrast, when invited to elaborate on the broader theoretical framework of Monetarism, Friedman had no qualms to use the IS-LM model. In the first part of this paper, we summarize Friedman’s “Theoretical Framework” paper, Brunner and Meltzer’s reaction to it, and Friedman’s response. In the second part, we study the commonalities and differences between Friedman’s and Brunner’s approaches. In the third part, we summarize and assess the Brunner–Meltzer model. More general observations are offered in the conclusion

Kevin D Hoover - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.