ALL BLOG POSTS
The financial media is full of stories about some countries are doing the right thing and other are doing the wrong thing. Everybody today agree that it was obvious that the Icelandic financial system was going to collapse and everybody agrees that Greek’s economic problems could have been forecasted easily. I actually think that both cases were pretty obvious examples of accidents waiting to happen and the only reason that they did not play out earlier was investors where betting on some kind of rescue if we would see a collapse. However, it is not always so clear. Why for example has Belgium with very high public debt not been as hard hits by the European debt crisis as for example Italy or Spain? We can surely find explanations, but many of these explanations have to do with pure luck rather than fantastic skills of policy makers.
Alex Salter has made a forceful argument that there are strong theoretical similarities between Market Monetarist thinking and Austrian School Monetary Equilibrium Theorists (MET). I on my part have noted that METs like Steven Horwitz have similar policy recommendations as Market Monetarists - particularly NGDP targeting.
I have noticed that a increasing number of 1980s US supply siders are coming out views on US monetary policy which is very close to the Market Monetarist views. This is not really surprising if one studies what the supply siders were saying in the 80s, but it is nonetheless in stark contrast to the core views of today's GOP.
As the Euro zone crisis continues to escalate and European policy makers are trying to avoid that the Greek sovereign debt crisis develops into a European wide banking crisis it might be an idea to study history. The Great Depression gives us many insides to what to do and what not to do to avoid crisis.