Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBilo, Simon
dc.date.accessioned2019-03-11T18:59:02Z
dc.date.available2019-03-11T18:59:02Z
dc.date.issued2017-11-01
dc.identifier.citationBilo, S. Eastern Econ J (2018) 44: 364. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41302-017-0104-3en_US
dc.identifier.issn0094-5056
dc.identifier.issn1939-4632
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10456/48127
dc.description.abstractEconomists lost a valid theory of monetary non-neutrality, which relates to how new money enters the economy at different points and in the process changes relative prices. This theory was introduced by David Hume, among others, but it has since disappeared from the leading conversations. The disappearance was not caused by any theoretical or empirical weakness, however. Using Robert Lucas’s Nobel lecture as a case study, I argue that the theory might have disappeared because it did not fit into the popular technical frameworks’ modeling constraints, which view money as inherently neutral and introduce non-neutrality only through external frictions.en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherPalgrave MacMillanen_US
dc.relation.ispartofEastern Economic Journalen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1057%2Fs41302-017-0104-3#citeasen_US
dc.rights© EEA 2017en_US
dc.subjectmonetary non-neutralityen_US
dc.subjectLucasen_US
dc.subjectHumeen_US
dc.titleLucas and Hume on Monetary Non-neutrality: A Tension between the Logic and the Technique of Economicsen_US
dc.description.versionPublished articleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentEconomicsen_US
dc.citation.volume44en_US
dc.citation.issue3en_US
dc.citation.spage364en_US
dc.citation.epage380en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1057/s41302-017-0104-3
dc.contributor.avlauthorBilo, Simon


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record