Talk:Market monetarism

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

eLFStevens : your inclusion of krugman and friedman is at best irrelevant and unhelpful. at worse false and misleading. you didn't cite any sources, and krugman and friedman are not market monetarists. krugman definitely does not believe monetary policy is sufficient at the zero bound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.234.73 (talk • contribs) 2011-10-18T20:05:46.

I did cite a source for Friedman, and of course, Krugman has now outed himself as at least a partial supporter. What did I do wrong, exactly? Lfstevens (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

correctly cited and relevant material moved to nominal income target page. please don't undo improvements if you don't understand fully the differences in the terms. thanks for extra editing and help though! =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.234.73 (talk • contribs) 2011-10-18T20:07:46‎.

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes (as it says in the help, right above the edit box). You can just click the signature button at the top of the edit box. —Derobert (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Level targeting[edit]

This section was moved to nominal income target. I chose the MM page instead, because level targeting is only one of various targeting regimes, and is the one MM has adopted. It makes sense for NIT to cover the range of possibilities, of course... Lfstevens (talk) 11:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better Specific Evidence of Deliberate Creation of Inflation By Central Banks Needed[edit]

The only specific example given of the claim that fiat money central banks can always create inflation if they want to, in the current version of the article, is Switzerland in 2011. If you actually read the relevant quote in the cited source, it says:

"...The inflation rate recovered to 0.7% in 2010 after hitting a low of -0.5% in 2009. "

Firstly, this does not refer to 2011 at all. Indeed, apart from the post date itself, I can see no reference to 2011 in the blog post. Secondly, even if it did refer to 2011 - this is hardly a stunning example of creating inflation! Is this really the best that market monetarists can come up with... surely not? Moreover, where is the theoretical or empirical argument for causality rather than just correlation, even for this paltry recovery in inflation?--greenrd (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another piece on Switzerland's 2011 adventure. [1] Is this what you're looking for?

I understand the argument being made here, but the Swiss experience fails to provide direct evidence that a central bank can create arbitrary amounts of inflation, at any time.--greenrd (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Market monetarism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151112165400/http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fed to http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/re-targeting-the-fed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear sentence[edit]

Currently the second paragraph of Market monetarism#Liquidity trap says

Market monetarists further claim that fiat money central banks always have the ability to boost nominal spending, which would imply that the bank was unable to raise the rate of inflation—that is, to "debase the currency," which it can always do.[21]

This is unclear–why would the ability to boost nominal spending imply that it is unable to raise the rate of inflation?

I think the sentence intended to convey this, which I will put into the article:

Market monetarists dispute the claim of conventional theory that central banks that issue fiat money cannot boost nominal spending when the economy is in a liquidity trap: instead, they say that the central bank can indeed raise nominal spending, as evidenced by the assertion that the central bank can always “debase the currency” by raising the inflation rate, increasing nominal spending in the process.

Loraof (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]