Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Monetary equilibrium and price stickiness: A rejoinder

Monetary equilibrium and price stickiness: A rejoinder Luther and Salter argue for a regime where aggregate demand is restored by an increase in the money supply in response to an increase in the demand for money. They claim that, 1) monetary equilibrium policy prescriptions do not necessarily rely on sticky prices, 2) Cantillon effects can be neglected without consequence, 3) wealth redistributions from monetary policy are unimportant, 4) monetary disequilibrium theorists strive for a stable price level, 5) fewer price adjustments are necessary in their proposed regime than in ours, 6) savings and saving are equivalent, 7) changes in the composition of savings do not alter time preference, and, 8) in their proposed regime economic calculation is easier than in a 100 % reserve system. All these claims are false. They furthermore misconstrue us as preferring negative quantity adjustments to positive price adjustments. This too is false. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Review of Austrian Economics Springer Journals

Monetary equilibrium and price stickiness: A rejoinder

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/monetary-equilibrium-and-price-stickiness-a-rejoinder-OTXq9SxD93

References (21)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 by Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Subject
Economics; Public Finance; Political Science; History of Economic Thought/Methodology
ISSN
0889-3047
eISSN
1573-7128
DOI
10.1007/s11138-012-0183-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Luther and Salter argue for a regime where aggregate demand is restored by an increase in the money supply in response to an increase in the demand for money. They claim that, 1) monetary equilibrium policy prescriptions do not necessarily rely on sticky prices, 2) Cantillon effects can be neglected without consequence, 3) wealth redistributions from monetary policy are unimportant, 4) monetary disequilibrium theorists strive for a stable price level, 5) fewer price adjustments are necessary in their proposed regime than in ours, 6) savings and saving are equivalent, 7) changes in the composition of savings do not alter time preference, and, 8) in their proposed regime economic calculation is easier than in a 100 % reserve system. All these claims are false. They furthermore misconstrue us as preferring negative quantity adjustments to positive price adjustments. This too is false.

Journal

The Review of Austrian EconomicsSpringer Journals

Published: Jul 3, 2012

There are no references for this article.