tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post6549221024997938..comments2024-03-28T06:53:23.473-04:00Comments on Moneyness: My synopsis of the MOE vs MOA debateJP Koninghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-26935016317986490492013-09-20T11:10:37.540-04:002013-09-20T11:10:37.540-04:00This is such a good post.This is such a good post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-86630461964258910272013-01-08T19:32:02.696-05:002013-01-08T19:32:02.696-05:00JCE,
I must confess that my thinking on these is...JCE, <br /><br />I must confess that my thinking on these issues is still evolving. Part of the difficulty of following the debate about MOE, UOA, and MOA is that different people use different definitions for unit-of-account and medium-of-account. In regards to the latter, I've written <a href="http://jpkoning.blogspot.ca/2012/11/discussions-of-medium-of-account-could.html" rel="nofollow">two</a> <a href="http://jpkoning.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-history-of-pound-sterlings-medium-of.html" rel="nofollow">posts</a> that try to hone in on the meaning of MOA.<br /><br />The group of thinkers who were most interested in splitting up the various functions of money created a field called "New Monetary Economics", or NME. These people include Tyler Cowen, Bill Woolsey, Yeager, Randy Krozner, and Greenfield. Search google for BFH (Black Hall Fama).JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-7530843837204975602013-01-08T18:41:09.747-05:002013-01-08T18:41:09.747-05:00Hello JP
I wanted to ask you which authors have d...Hello JP<br /><br />I wanted to ask you which authors have developed a monetary theory along the lines of this debate (studying each of those characteristics of money). In other words, who are the intellectual parents of that debate? Who do you base your mental framework on?<br /><br />I'd really appreciate any pointers! I'm struggling to understand these topicsJCEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09270393535746081359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-38771275904923517842012-11-02T20:37:36.726-04:002012-11-02T20:37:36.726-04:00Hi Saturos, I figured I'd wait before answerin...Hi Saturos, I figured I'd wait before answering in case you leave five other posts ;)<br /><br />I took these two comments (<a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=17412&cpage=2#comment-201439" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=17412&cpage=2#comment-201869" rel="nofollow">here</a>) that Nick and Scott had reached *some* sort of resolution. I realize you were one of those who got the debate going, but you left a lot of different comments so I lost track. Maybe you can get Scott to let your write a guest post where you can collect all your points in one spot.<br /><br />I'd be interested what you think about my third-to-last paragraph. It shows that, if for some reason or other, there is an excess demand for the MOE and rigid sticker prices, then you don't get a recession. <br /><br />Furthermore, if you did have a Zimbabwe style recession caused by the interaction of the MOA and MOE and rigid sticker prices, you couldn't get out of it by making the MOE less scarce. To solve the recession you need sticker prices to rise, since those are the troublesome rigid prices. But printing more Zim$ won't change sticker prices, it'll only change the price at the till. So making the MOE less scarce doesn't combat the recession.<br /><br />Those are just rough thoughts. Some of these ideas are new to me. I'm willing to be dissuaded.JP Koninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02559687323828006535noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6704573462403312459.post-62615895285370203412012-11-02T18:49:34.738-04:002012-11-02T18:49:34.738-04:00No, the main point that I had been trying to get i...No, the main point that I had been trying to get into Scott's head (and am still failing at) is that there are no demand-side recessions without the MoE. Money is actually a "real" thing, not a nominal one: it's job is to reduce transactions costs. Costs that are so great, that, when the flow of money dissipates, we get recessions. Monetary policy to combat recessions is all about making the medium of exchange less scarce.<br /><br />So when Scott made yet another comment about monetary policy being all about the medium of account last week, saying that currency was the money that ultimately mattered because it was the MoA (as opposed to being part of the base which is the foundation of all media of exchange) I left the first comment, retorting that recessions were really about the medium of exchange. And that's where it started...Saturoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01914831276101897944noreply@blogger.com