SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Jérôme de Boyer des Roches <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:05:30 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
8bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
What is bank’s liquidity risk? Do banks have to 
take such a risk? Do banks which take this risk 
diminish or increase the « security of publick 
»(Smith, WN, Liberty Classics, p. 329)? The 
answer to these questions divided the classical 
and neo-classical economists. Cantillon, Hume, 
Steuart, Smith , Thornton, Ricardo, Torrens, 
Tooke, Bagehot, Kemmerer, Fisher, Hawtrey, Mints, 
etc… did not have the same analysis. In my 
opinion, it is useful that historians of economic 
thought try to give some light on these controversies.

Jérôme de Boyer des Roches

ATOM RSS1 RSS2