Search results

“Velocity of money is a ‘purely statistical concept’ of no causal significance, which varies automatically with changes in the quantity of money in relation to total expenditure,” as concluded in the late 1950s by the well‐known Radcliffe Committee in Great Britain (Kaldor, p. 19). This view, although it has been supported from time to time by prominent economists such as Kaldor and Kahn, is not generally accepted. Velocity and its ‘stability,’ which is closely related to the stability of the demand for money, are considered by many economists to be very important in economic affairs and to constitute an important foundation of the monetarist doctrine.

One of the most significant changes in monetary economics at the beginning of the twenty-first century has been the virtual disappearance of what was once a dominant focus, the role of money in monetary policy, and parallelly, the disappearance of the liquidity preference-money supply (LM) curve. Economists used to consider monetary policy with the help of the LM curve as part of the analytical framework which captures the demand for money. However, the workhorse model of modern monetary theory and policy, the New Keynesian Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) framework, only comprises the dynamic investment-savings (IS) curve, the New Keynesian (NK) Phillips curve, and a monetary policy rule. The monetary policy rule is generally known as the Taylor rule. It relates the nominal interest rate to the output-gaps and inflation-gaps, but typically not to either the quantity or the growth rate of money. This change in the modern monetary model reflects how the central banks make monetary policy now. This study provides a detailed discussion on the role of money in monetary policy formulation in the context of the NK and the New Monetarist perspectives. The pros and cons of abandonment of money or the LM curve from monetary policy models have been discussed in detail.

According to Clark (1935a, b), if the various studies on the secondary effects of public works expenditures are examined, two main approaches to the analysis of the problem are revealed: “one via successive cycles of income and spending by ultimate recipients of income” – which the Columbia economist termed the “Kahn-Keynes” approach – “the other via the volume of money and its velocity of circulation.” As is well known, in the first approach, business fluctuations are seen primarily as a consequence of fluctuations in current investment. Accordingly, the amount of the secondary effects is determined by: (a) the amount of the net increase in investment; (b) the marginal propensity to consume; and (c) the length of the income propagation period. As it appears from the above, in the “Kahn-Keynes” analysis of the secondary expansion, money plays only a passive role.

The assignment of targets to instruments in developing countries cannot satisfactorily follow any simple universal rule. Which approach is appropriate is influenced by whether the economy is dominated by primary exports, by the importance of the domestic bond market and bank credit, by the extent of existing restriction in foreign exchange and financial markets, by the presence or absence of persistent high inflation, and by the existence or non‐existence of an active international market in the country's currency. Eighteen observations and maxims on stabilisation policy are tentatively drawn (pp. 64–8) from the material reviewed, and the maxims are partly summarised (pp. 69–71) in a schematic assignment, with variations, of targets to instruments.

This study examines empirically the stability of the demand for money under two different financial systems. One system pays interest on money deposited at the bank and charges interest on bank loans; the other does not pay interest on money deposited in the bank, and enters into a profit‐sharing contract with the bank borrower instead of charging interest on bank loans. The first system resembles the western financial system and the second resembles the Islamic financial system. A study by Darrat (1988) studies the behavior of demand for money in Tunisia, and concluded that interest‐free money is more stable than the interest‐bearing money. The behavior of demand for money in fifteen countries has been analyzed in this research in order to find out if the findings by Darrat (1988) are applicable to other countries that practice Islamic banking. This study finds that the velocity of money and its variance are lower for interest‐ free banking system than for interest‐bearing banking system. This result may support the hypothesis that interest‐free money is more stable than interest‐bearing money. The monetary policy implications of interest‐free banking are also analyzed.

At present, countries are concerned about inflation and the impact of inflation on each country’s economic growth. This inflation has been said by economists that inflation is a phenomenon of currency and currency, which has caused inflation in some countries by their monetary policy. According to the economic theory of Karl Marx, Irving Fisher, Friedman, inflation is caused by a continuous increase in the money supply.

The economic theories of Fisher, Friedman and an econometric model are applied to analyse the relationship between money supply and inflation. Besides, Vietnam’s and China’s research data are also collected in the period of 2012-2016.

It is found out that the continuous increase in the money supply causes inflation in the long-term, but the continuous increase in the money supply growth does not cause inflation in a short time, this was analyzed based on the theory of monetary quantity. Moreover, Chia’s and Vietnam’s correlations of the money supply growth and inflation are 99.1 per cent. These correlations are very close.

Research results show that money supply and inflation are closely related, and the money supply directly affects economic growth. Therefore, the government should have the relevant monetary policy to grow the economy and proposals to make monetary policy, control inflation levels and stimulate economic growth.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the performance of the trade‐weighted US dollar from 1973 to 2011 as a result of monetary policy.

Relevant time series variables – the money supply, the federal funds rate, general financial conditions, national income and interest rate spread are used to investigate the impact of shocks on the US trade‐weighted dollar and to explain the predictive power the variables hold over the weighted dollar. This is accomplished by using the conventional procedures of variance decomposition and Granger causality tests.

The paper finds that unexpected changes in national financial conditions, the federal funds rate and the velocity of money account for more variation in the performance of the trade‐weighted US dollar than do surprises associated with the interest rate spread (the variable that tracks quantitative easing (QE), quantitative contraction (QC) and neutrality).

This article is unique in adding to the literary discourse by incorporating international trade and other national conditions as key indicators of the long‐term value of a trade‐weighted currency and its propensity to increase national income. It provides an opportunity for further analysis of the role of QE in currency valuation when the short‐term interest rate becomes an inadequate monetary policy instrument for economic stabilization and determining the value of a currency.

The paper argues that the velocity of money has strong predictive power over the performance of the trade‐weighted dollar and that monetary policy can help to predict changes in the financial and real sectors, but not the value of the trade‐weighted dollar directly or in isolation. This is partly because the monetary policy transmission mechanism and external prices are also relevant to the weighted value of the currency over an extended period of time.

The revival of the quantity theory of money which was advanced by M. Friedman and the Chicago School in the 1960s led me to an investigation of the contributions of Greek economists during the twentieth century, to this indisputably long‐lived theory.