Recommended reading

People often ask me what sort of readings I would suggest, outside of my blog.  There is a list over at “FAQs”, but I’d also like to mention a new book that was recommended by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph:

Yet three heavyweight books now lay the blame squarely on the Fed: the ‘Great Recession’ by Robert Hetzel, a top insider at the Richmond Fed; ‘Money in a Free Society’ by Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research; and ‘Boom and Bust Banking: The Causes and Cures of the Great Recession’ by David Beckworth from Western Kentucky University.

I’ve discussed the Hetzel and Congdon books (and recommend Hetzel’s especially highly) but haven’t discussed the new book edited by David Beckworth.  It’s your one-stop shopping for the views of Lawrence H. White, David Beckworth, Diego Espinosa, Christopher Crowe, Jeffrey Hummel, Bill Woolsey, Nick Rowe, Josh Hendrickson, William White, Laurence Kotlikoff and George Selgin. I also have a chapter in the book.



5 Responses to “Recommended reading”

  1. Gravatar of Jaap de Vries Jaap de Vries
    24. September 2012 at 10:43

    A pity that the book is not available for sale in Europe. International delivery is quite expensive. However I did order it.

  2. Gravatar of FT Alphaville » The Closer FT Alphaville » The Closer
    24. September 2012 at 13:30

    […] Further (market monetarist) […]

  3. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    24. September 2012 at 21:17

    Woolsey argues that successful QE should cause rates to rise — not fall — because the goal of such policy should be to put money into the hands of businesses that then invest, spending on machinery and real expansion.

    That’s not quite what he said. And lower real rates would also encourage more investment. Rather we want to see the investment demand schedule return to healthy levels, which would raise rates.

  4. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    25. September 2012 at 00:38

    Scott, you may want to check out these two pieces:

  5. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    25. September 2012 at 01:18

    Bill Woolsey has a good criticism of Eli, from earlier, which wasn’t really addressed:

    And, of course, real GDP is about 12 percent below its growth path from the Great Moderation and so speculating about how much it would rise above that path because of added labor productivity versus how much employment would remain below its growth path of the Great Moderation is very premature.

    The typical Market Monetarist perspective is that nominal GDP has shifted to a 14 percent lower growth path. For real output and employment to remain on its previous growth path, the price level and nominal wages need to also shift to 14 percent lower growth paths. They haven’t. Instead, they are only about 2 percent lower.

Leave a Reply