Although consensus building surely is an important and noble pursuit, one would think that it wouldn't really fall within the purview of a central bank president. It’s been clear for a long time that allowing politics to influence monetary policy carries significant and numerous risks.
Professor Arkadiusz Sieroń has written an important new book on the Cantillon effect, indicating that the effect of new money on the economy depends on where it is injected.
It is not money that funds economic activity, but the saved pool of consumer goods. The existence of money only facilitates the flow of savings. Any attempt to replace savings with money ends in economic disaster.
In order to remove the threat of secular stagnation what is required is to shrink government outlays and to close all the loopholes for the creation of money out of thin air.
Judy Shelton may be a tolerable—at least to Republicans—candidate for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
Monetary affairs have always been subject to government intervention of one kind or another, but there is no reason money could not be produced and regulated in a free marketplace.
The demand for goods is not constrained by the amount of money, but by the production of goods and services available to trade for money.
If the small sample size of monetary history is any guide, the combination of asset market crashes and high goods inflation empowers sound money forces in the political arena. At the moment, neither of those factors are in play.
The US's enthusiasm for sanctions means Europe is learning the price of doing business with the United States and with the dollar. They're now developing new ways to work around the the US-dominated financial system.
Sweden launched its failed negative rate plan almost five years ago and now reverses it due to the financial risks that are created.
