Comments on: Buchanan on macro-economics

By: Adrien

Adrien — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:18:08 +0000

The question is whether the benefits of increased stability are worth the costs of foregone growth and opportunities for trade from suppression of these things.
.
Yeah. I’d s’pose that the prime factoid there would be whether prosperity generated by the Grand Ponzi Scheme with its pitfalls outstrips that of a banking system where reserves are kept to back up deposits. It seems to my simple maths that the answer would be yes.

By: jtfsoon

jtfsoon — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:10:18 +0000

I think there actually is something to be said for the idea that the proliferation of financial instruments and fractional reserve contribute to macro instability at some level. The question is whether the benefits of increased stability are worth the costs of foregone growth and opportunities for trade from suppression of these things. I don’t think they are.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:36:46 +0000

I can’t see how this guy can be so critical on macro policy without paying due respect to monetary policy which is mostly all to do with macro policy and big waves.

By: Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:56:49 +0000

I wonder what Milton would have thought?

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:49:38 +0000

I wonder if he’s a gold-bug? A bit hard to argue for neutral money in that case.

By: jtfsoon

jtfsoon — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:45:45 +0000

As I noted on the Open forum he also appears to endorse 100% reserve banking!