Keynes, the Post-Keynesians, and the Curious Case of Endogenous Money Geoff Tily December 2006
https://www.hetecon.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Tily.pdf
p.14
内生的貨幣供給理論
…私にはフリードマンの結論は逆に読まれねばならないことが、突然わかりはじめてきた。すなわち、
その因果関係はY からMへと進まねばならないのであって、MからYへではない。それで、私はその
ことについて時間をかけて考えれば考えるほど、商品-貨幣経済(commodity-money economy) に基礎を
置く貨幣価値理論は、信用-貨幣経済(credit-money economy)に適用しえないといっそう確信するよう
になった。…（図は省略）…
さて、信用貨幣の場合には、貨幣「供給曲線」を垂直的にではなく、水平的に描くのが適切で
あろう。金融政策は所与の貨幣ストック量によってではなく、所与の利子率によって表わされる。
そして貨幣存在量は需要によって決定されるであろう。…
邦訳『マネタリズム〜その罪過』1984(1982),72,74頁より（111頁に需要インフレとコスト・インフレの記述）
（鍋島直樹『現代の政治経済学」2020,118頁参照）
When I first heard of Friedman’s empirical findings, in the early 1950s, I received the news with some incredulity, until it suddenly dawned on me that Friedman’s results must be read in reverse; the causation must run from Y to M, and not from M to Y. And the longer I thought about it the more convinced I became that a theory of the value of money based on a commodity-money economy it [sic] is not applicable to a credit-money economy.[12] In the one case money has an independent supply function, based on production cost, while in the other case new money comes into existence in consequence of, or as an aspect of, the extension of bank credit. If, as a result, more money comes into existence than the public, at the given or expected level of incomes or expenditures, wishes to hold, the excess will be automatically extinguished either through debt repayment or its conversion into interest-bearing assets – in a way in which gold could not be made to disappear from existence merely because particular persons find that they have too much of it. (ibid., p. 22, my emphasis)
Kaldor, Nicholas (1986 [1982]) The Scourge of Monetarism, second edition, Oxford University Press.
Kaldor, Nicholas (1986 [1982]) “The Scourge of Monetarism”
https://www.hetecon.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Tily.pdf
“…Friedman’s empirical findings, …it suddenly dawned on me that Friedman’s results must be read in reverse; the causation must run from Y to M, and not from M to Y. ”
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Friedman's results
https://www.hetecon.net
>wp-content
>uploads
>2019/11
>Tily
Keynes, the Post-Keynesians, and the Curious Case of ...
Friedman's results must be read in reverse; the causation must run from Y to M, and not from M to Y. And the longer I thought about it the more convinced I.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿