Jennifer Burns: evaluation

Transcript context

…Yeah. And I could take some of this back again to Frank Knight. So one thing Frank Knight said to all his students was the market is the best allocation mechanism we have. The market is what allocates resources. In a situation of scarcity the market allocates them the best. And Hayek will add to that by saying, “prices are information signals, and a price sends information to buyers and sellers about how they should act.” And these are two of the strongest arguments for why the government should not intervene in the price system because it will blur information or because it will allocate less efficiently than market allocation will. And so what Friedman is really going to add to that is maybe going up a level and thinking in the macro about the whole economy and how money circulates through that economy as a whole. And so what he and Anna Schwartz do is they construct what are called monetary aggregates. This is adding together say all the money that’s on deposit in banks and all the money that’s believed to be circulating in people’s wallets. And you also have to really go back in time. We don’t have credit cards. There is a stock market, but it’s tiny in terms of the number of people who invest. There aren’t mutual funds. When travelers checks are introduced, this is a big deal. So we have a very simple monetary system. And so Schwartz and Milton Friedman start measuring what they call the monetary aggregates. They focus on M1 and M2 and their favorite aggregate is M2, which I believe is encompassing sort of deposits and circulating medium. The other thing to recall, there’s some fine distinctions between money in savings accounts and money in checking accounts, and money in savings accounts can earn interest and is generally believed not to circulate or money in checking accounts does not at that time bear interest and cannot legally bear interest. And so is thought of as circulating. And then there’s different institutional architectures of postal savings, banks and credit unions. But Friedman is one, taking the focus to these aggregate amounts of money and saying, these really have a lot to do with economic booms and busts. When we have an expansion in the amount of available money, we see an expansion in economic activity. When we have a contraction in available money, we have a contraction. And so he says at this stage, the government through the mechanism of the Federal Reserve and its influence on interest rates can either make money more cheaply available and more freely available in the economy or can make money more expensive and slow things down. of the Federal Reserve and its influence on interest rates can either make money more cheaply available and more freely available in the economy or can make money more expensive and slow things down. But the central core idea of monetarism is this is potentially very bad if the government can hit the gas and then hit the brake, and hit the gas and hit the brake based on say what a politician wants or what somebody at the Federal Reserve wants. You have a lot of instability in the system. And so one of the core policy proposals of monetarism is let’s grow the money supply at a steady rate. And in the beginning, Friedman just says K%, he doesn’t even put a number on it because he says the number doesn’t matter. What matters is the steadiness in the growth rate. Because if it’s a steady growth rate, it will fade away. And then people will make economic decisions based on the fundamentals, not based on what they think is going to happen, not based on hedging against inflation or hedging against deflation. They’ll just be able to function. So this is sort of the paradox of monetary policy. When it’s happening right you don’t see it, you don’t notice it. When it’s happening wrong, Friedman argues, it can just fundamentally destabilize everything. It can cause a great depression, can cause an artificial boom. And so he’s taking monetary policy at a time when most economists think it’s completely irrelevant and saying, this is the central game of the economy. Now we live in a world where we believe this and the Federal Reserve chair can’t open their mouth without headlines being generated. But Friedman is saying this at a time when the Federal Reserve is a mysterious and secretive organization. It’s not well-known, it’s not deeply appreciated. Some of the only people who appreciate the Fed’s power are hardcore rural populists, who have constituents who think the banks and money power are the problem, who are throwbacks from the frontier days. So Friedman in the beginning has no constituency for this policy. He has no constituency for this analysis. And so just going back to summarize monetarism, it’s looking, it’s using the quantity theory of money to analyze the macroeconomy. It’s proposing a policy of slow and steady growth in the money supply. And then it is arguing that inflationary episodes when they emerge are profoundly driven by changes in the money supply, not by anything else. And going even up a level as we started, how epic is it to develop this idea, to hold this idea and then to convince the United States of this idea that money matters, that today we believe is mostly correct for now? And so just this idea that goes against the experts and then eventually wins out and drives so much of the economy, the biggest, the most powerful economy in the world. So fascinating.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.