Typography

When I last wrote about alternative cryptocoins — the universe of small bitcoin competitors — TerraCoin and PPCoin had just debuted, but by and large the list was a relatively stable one that included Litecoin, Namecoin, Devcoin, and a few non-functioning coins. All of these alt-coins paled in size and breadth to Bitcoin, of course, and as the chart below shows, this dominance continues to be the case. Since April, what was once a trickle of new alternative cryptocoins has turned into a veritable flood. Nowadays, a new coin is being announced every day, and it isn't rare for two or three to debut on the same afternoon. Almost all of these are "copy-paste" coins. Their creator simply takes the source code of a previous coin (usually Litecoin ), alters a few parameters, and then announces its debut on the alternative crypto-currency forum at Bitcointalk . Most of the changes implemented by new alt-coins are arbitrary. RichCoin , one of the newest coins, sets an 88.88 mi

Many moons ago Matt Yglesias wrote that the "zero lower bound is a pure artifact of the existence of physical cash."  In this post I'll argue that the zero-lower bound , or ZLB, is an artifact of our modern central bank-managed monetary system, and not the existence of cash. In a free banking system in which private banks issue banknotes, competitive forces would force bankers to rapidly find ways to pierce below the ZLB, rendering the bound little more than a fleeting technicality. What is the zero lower bound? When the economy's expected rate of return drops significantly below 0%, interest rates charged by banks should follow into negative territory. But if banks set sub-zero interest rates on deposits, everyone will quickly convert them into central bank-issued paper currency. After all, why hold -2% yielding deposits when you can own 0% yielding cash? The inability to set negative interest rates is the zero-lower bound problem. As I'll illustrate, the threa

In the comments section of my post on Adam Smith and the Ayr Bank , frequent commenter John S. brought up the real bills doctrine . The phrase real bills doctrine gets thrown around a lot on the internet. To muddy the waters, there are several versions of the doctrine. In this post I hope to dehomogenize the various versions in order to add some clarity. 1. Lloyd Mints's version We may as well start with Lloyd Mints's version, since he coined the phrase real bills doctrine back in 1945 on his way to denouncing the doctrine. Mints taught at the University of Chicago and mentored Milton Friedman. [1] Here is Mints: The real-bills doctrine runs to the effect that restriction of bank earning assets to real bills of exchange will automatically limit, in the most desirable manner, the quantity of bank liabilities; it will cause them to vary in quantity in accordance with the "needs of business"; and it will mean that the bank's assets will be of such a nature that they

It's interesting to see how after a credit crisis, economists start to take money and banking a bit more seriously. Adam Smith, who experienced his very own credit crisis -- the collapse of the Douglas Heron and Co , or the Ayr Bank, on June 22, 1772 -- is no exception. His views on money and banking became much more nuanced after that event. Ayr Bank had been founded in 1769 in the Scottish town of Ayr. It expanded to Edinburgh and Dumfries, and in only a few short years it had succeeded in wrestling a significant chunk of Scottish banking business from incumbents the Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland. By 1772, according to Checkland, the Ayr Bank supplied 25% of Scotland's bank notes and deposits. In early June 1772 one of Ayr's largest customers, Alexander Fordyce , skipped London for Paris to avoid debt payments. A run on the Ayr Bank began that precipitated the bank's failure by the end of the month. Upon observing the bank run, David Hume writes from

While it somewhat lacked in structure, a good time was had by everyone in the live chat section of the big Warren Mosler vs Bob Murphy debate last night. You can see a replay of the debate here . One of Mosler's running themes (and which Murphy turned into a running gag) was the idea that he (Mosler) could give his business card a positive price by requiring members of the audience to hand over said card to Mosler's bouncer should they wish to leave the room unmolested. Voilà, modern fiat money. In order to get his fiat cards out into the audience, presumably Mosler would have had to spend them into existence by purchasing stuff from the the audience. Only then would audience members be able to afford to leave the room without being subjected to the bouncer's whims. In the MMT literature, this is called twintopt .* A state imposes an obligation on its citizenry to pay a tax, and then dictates what good or item (the "twintopt") will be sufficient to discharge that

James Gillray, a popular caricaturist, drew the above cartoon in 1797. In it, England's Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger is fishing through the pockets of the Old Lady on Threadneedle Street -- the Bank of England -- for gold. At the time, England was in the middle of fighting the Napoleonic wars and its bills were piling up. According to its original 1694 charter, the Bank of England was prohibited from lending directly to the Treasury without the express authority of Parliament. Over the years, the Bank had adopted a compromise of sorts in which it provided the government with limited advances without Parliamentary approval, as long as those amounts did not exceed £50,000. In 1793 Pitt had this prohibition removed and in formalizing the Bank's lending policies, imposed no limit on the amounts that could be advanced by the Bank. Thenceforth Pitt made large and continuous appeals to the Bank for loans. Without the traditional Parliamentary check, there was little the Ban