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:
Mason Gaffney <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:43:25 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
Congratulations to Lloyd Mints on living to be 100; may we all do as well.
However, it's hard to judge a scholar's work from 50 years ago by a few
words from an aged person on a clip whom you cannot cross-examine. The idea
of 100% cash reserves sounds conservative to the max, but also unworkable -
how are the banks to make any loans and earn any income? So if you oppose
all qualitative controls, and propose only an unworkable alternative, that
leaves us with nothing.

I must be missing something. Smart people have seriously debated this 100%
reserves idea, it can't be that easily dismissed. Can any Mintsians fill me
in with chapter and verse? "I'm not foolin', I need schoolin', I don't
know".

Mason Gaffney

ATOM RSS1 RSS2