SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Prof.ssa Lilia Costabile)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:18:46 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (65 lines)
Having learned much from the interesting, excellent  HES exchange on  
the neutrality of money, may I add some further minor points? 
 
(1)  Mises was certainly not the first to attract attention to   
where  in the economy the new  money comes in "first", and to the  
consequences on relative prices (including the rate of interest) and  
(possibly) on capital accumulation. Hayek,1935, chap.1 and Hayek,  
1932, are very useful references on the history of this idea, in its  
different versions (including Cantillon's and Wicksell's versions,  
the one proposed by Malthus, etc). 
 
(2)  Mises and other Austrians (as  Larry Moss, Pat Gunning and Steve  
Horwitz have aptly remarked) opposed discretionary monetary policy.   
In Mises's view, when, in addition to "money proper",  there is also  
fiduciary money (which includes bank-money, a component of loanable  
funds) the negative "social consequences" of monetary expansions  
(redistribution in favour of the issuing authority, of  debtors, and  
of the receivers of variable-incomes) are greatly exacerbated, as  
capital accumulation is directly interfered with.  As has been  
remarked , the disequilibrium process amounts to the banks  
artificially distorting relative price "signals" and violating   
consumers' sovereignty. Since there is no real saving to "back" the  
longer production processes induced by their policy, the "disruption  
of capital" necessarily follows. 
 
(3) It is interesting, I think, that in his book Mises also told a  
different  story, according to which a monetary expansion may  lead  
to a permanent increase in the capital stock, via its distributional  
effects, and its consequent augmenting effects on total saving. But  
he decided not to develop this alternative story, which would have  
led him towards a different approach to money and capital formation.   
See (if interested) my  article 'Money, cycles and capital formation:  
von Mises the "Austrian" vs. Robertson the "Dynamist" ', forthcoming  
in the Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2005; currently at the Advance  
Access section of the CJE website: 
  http:/www.cje.oupjournals.org 
 
Lilia Costabile 
 
Hayek, Prices and Production, 1935. 
Hayek, "A note on the development of the doctrine of forced saving",  
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1932 
Mises, The theory of money and credit, The Foundation for Economic  
Education, Irvington on Hudson, New York, 1971 (many of Mises's  
arguments date back to previous editions of this book, published in  
the first decades of the XXth century). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2