No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Earlier this year we passed the 25th anniversary of the letter to The Times from 364 economists protesting about government economic policy in general and the 1981 Budget in particular. In a recent publication, Stephen Nickell, then a member of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, defended the letter. This article contends that Nickell's argument was wrong. This is not merely a matter of historical interest, it is important that the issues are understood if mistakes are not to be made in economic policy in the future. Tim Congdon is an IEA Fellow (timcongdon@btinternet.com).

Many authorities claim that central banks ‘have run out of ammunition’, either because the central bank rate has dropped close to the zero lower bound or because of Keynes's liquidity trap. I argue first, that indefinitely large increases in the quantity of money remain possible even with the central bank rate close to zero, and, second, that increases in the quantity of money raise all asset prices, including the prices of quoted equities, not just bond prices. Bonds are an unimportant asset class in modern capitalist economies, relative to corporate equity and real estate. Meanwhile increases in equity prices always boost aggregate demand and output.