Abstract
Of the three sections comprising the paper, the first is of no applied economic value. It is concerned with definitions of who is a monetarist and who is not a monetarist. The discussion strikes me as scholastic and sterile. Every one of the issues on which opinion is said to be divided could be settled by empirical evidence. Why should we rely on models that ‘can show that exchange-rate targets are superior to money-supply targets as a method of controlling inflation’? If there is evidence that manipulation of exchange rates by monetary authorities has been successful in controlling inflation, that is the citation the paper should offer. I do not know why ‘views on the relative sizes of the interest elasticity of demand and the income elasticity of demand for money provide an important distinction between monetarism and non-monetarism’. There should not be ‘views’. There should be evidence.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 1984 Brian Griffiths and Geoffrey E. Wood
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schwartz, A.J. (1984). Comments on the Paper by Alan Budd, Sean Holly, Andrew Longbottom and David Smith. In: Griffiths, B., Wood, G.E. (eds) Monetarism in the United Kingdom. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06284-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06284-3_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-06286-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-06284-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Economics & Finance CollectionEconomics and Finance (R0)