SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: mishedlo who wrote (270608)12/13/2003 2:34:29 PM
From: Oblomov  Read Replies (1) of 436258
 
I've been reading Noland for a while, and I like his work. But there's something that I haven't been able to figure out. Maybe I'm not reading closely enough.

Noland follows Hyman Minsky in saying that a credit market-based finance capital economic system has inherent instabilities. According to Minsky, this instability is endogenous (i.e. part of the system). But then Noland repeatedly locates the source of the instability as being with the Federal Reserve and GSEs. So in this sense, he follows the Austrian philosophy that government intervention in the credit markets distorts the credit pricing mechanism, and is the cause of booms and busts.

The issue is that the two views are irreconcilable. Minsky and the post-Keynsians would say that government intervention (or regulation) is the solution, but the Austrians would say that it's the problem. Noland seems to say both.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News