Typography

Steve Williamson recently posted a joke of sorts: What's the difference between a New Keynesian, an Old Monetarist, and a New Monetarist? A New Keynesian thinks no assets matter, an Old Monetarist thinks that some of the assets matter, and a New Monetarist thinks all of the assets matter. While I wouldn't try it around the dinner table, what Steve seems to be referring to here is the question of money. New Keynesians don't have money in their models, Old Monetarists have some narrow aggregate of assets that qualify as M, and New Monetarists like Steve think everything is money-like .* This is a interesting way to describe their differences, but is it right? In this post I'll argue that these divisions aren't so cut and dry. Surprisingly enough, Milton Friedman, an old-fashioned monetarist, was an occasional exponent of the idea that all assets are to some degree money-like. I like to call this the moneyness view. Typically when people think of money they take an e...

Dreaming of Immortality in a Thatched Cottage - 1500s Exogenous/endogenous money , reflux , hot potato money , helicopter money , inelastic vs elastic currency. These are all part of the colourful lexicon developed by monetary economists over the centuries to outline a general set of problems: how does money get emitted from source, and when, if at all, does it return to source? We usually describe money as exogenous, hot potato, helicopter, or inelastic if it is emitted at the initiative of the issuer, and the issuer doesn't allow the public to exercise any initiative in returning this money back to source. Once it has been air-dropped into circulation from a helicopter, this kind of money becomes immortal, passing like a hot potato from person to person forever. We describe money as elastic or endogenous when the money-using public exercises its own initiative in both drawing money out from an issuing source and pushing (refluxing) this money back to the source. This sort of mo...

For diligent readers who have trudged through my first two post on Yap stones ( here and here ), I promise this will be my last on the subject. There is an interesting exchange between historian Cora Lee Gillilland, the author of The Stone Money of Yap: A Numismatic Survey ( pdf ), and critic David M. Schneider in the December 1976 issue of the American Anthropologist . Schneider was a well known anthropologist and contributor to The Micronesians of Yap and their depopulation . In response to Gillilland's survy, Schneider issues a warning that: Suffice it to say that traditional Yap does not have “money” in any technical sense of the word. None of the objects listed on page 1 [of Gillilland], like yar, gau, ma, or mbul, are money in any proper sense. It is certainly true that rai has been called “stone money” and that the literature which is cited (all of which is very far out-of-date) calls it “money.” And indeed, the Yapese themselves call rai “stone money.” But to call a “co...

Stephen Williamson had a good post recently in which he noted: Central to Old Monetarism - the Quantity Theory of Money - is the idea that we can define some subset of assets to be "money". Money, according to an Old Monetarist, is the stuff that is used as a medium of exchange, and could include public liabilities (currency and bank reserves) as well as private ones (transactions deposits at financial institutions). Further, Friedman in particular argued that one could find a stable, and simple, demand function for this "money," and estimate its parameters. Lucas does that exercise here, and then uses the estimated money demand function parameters to measure the costs of inflation. What's wrong with that? The key problem, of course, is that the money demand function is not a structural object. Some central bankers, including Charles Goodhart, figured that out. Goodhart's idea is a bit subtle, but there are more straighforward reasons to think that the para...

Lars Christensen had an interesting post on moneyness and the Divisia indexes. He recommended an old paper of Steve Horowitz's which I read some time ago and have always respected. See A Subjectivist Approach to the Demand for Money . Essentially, you can't believe in the concept of moneyness and also believe in the effort to count money through indexes like M1, M2, or even the Divisia indexes. The two efforts contradict each other. The best way to get a market indication of moneyness, or liquidity, is through the introduction of liquidity options. My comment follows: If moneyness is a subjective concept, and I think it is, then trying to sum up various money assets into a Divisia index is problematic. That’s because an asset that appears to be high on one person’s subjective moneyness scale will be low on another’s, the result being that it is impossible to create objective categories for moneyness. Ultimately, the best way to determine moneyness is to back out the market’s a...