”Recessions are always and everywhere a monetary phenomena”

At the core of Market Monetarist thinking, as in traditional monetarism, is the maxim that “money matters”. Hence, Market Monetarists share the view that inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon. However, it should also be noted that the focus of Market Monetarists has not been as much on inflation (risks) as on the cause of recession, as the starting point for the school has been the outbreak of the Great Recession.

Market Monetarists generally describe recessions within a Monetary Disequilibrium Theory framework in line with what has been outline by orthodox monetarists such as Leland Yeager and Clark Warburton. David Laidler has also been important in shaping the views of Market Monetarists (particularly Nick Rowe) on the causes of recessions and the general monetary transmission mechanism.

The starting point in monetary analysis is that money is a unique good. Here is how Nick Rowe describes that unique good.

“If there are n goods, including one called “money”, we do not have one big market where all n goods are traded with n excess demands whose values must sum to zero. We might call that good “money”, but it wouldn’t be money. It might be the medium of account, with a price set at one; but it is not the medium of exchange. All goods are means of payment in a world where all goods can be traded against all goods in one big centralised market. You can pay for anything with anything. In a monetary exchange economy, with n goods including money, there are n-1 markets. In each of those markets, there are two goods traded. Money is traded against one of the non-money goods.”

From this also comes the Market Monetarist theory of recessions. Rowe continues:

“Each market has two excess demands. The value of the excess demand (supply) for the non-money good must equal the excess supply (demand) for money in that market. That’s true for each individual (assuming no fat fingers) and must be true when we sum across individuals in a particular market. Summing across all n-1 markets, the sum of the values of the n-1 excess supplies of the non-money goods must equal the sum of the n-1 excess demands for money.”

Said in another way, recession is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the same way as inflation is. Rowe again:

“Monetary Disequilibrium Theory says that a general glut of newly produced goods can only be matched by an excess demand for money.”

This also means that as long as the monetary authorities ensure that any increase in money demand is matched one to one by an increase in the money supply nominal GDP will remain stable (Market Monetarists obviously does not say that economic activity cannot drop as a result of a bad harvest or an earthquake, but such “events” does not create a general glut of goods and labour). This view is at the core of Market Monetarist’s recommendations on the conduct of monetary policy.

Obviously, if all prices and wages were fully flexible, then any imbalance between money supply and money demand would be corrected by immediate changes prices and wages. However, Market Monetarists acknowledge, as New Keynesians do, that prices and wages are sticky.

PS I inspired Nick Rowe to do a post on ”Recessions are always and everywhere a monetary phenomena”. Now I am stealing it back. Nick, I hope you can forgive me.

Leave a comment


  1. Alex Salter

     /  October 16, 2011

    The coolest thing about MET is how firmly it’s rooted in a proper understanding of Say’s Law. Recessions, then, are always a phenomenon of coordination failure. This can happen in one of two ways: either producers make stuff which people don’t want (which we shouldn’t expect to happen systematically), leading to specific excess supplies/demands in specific industries, or a shortage of money, which is the only explanation for a general glut.

    As I mentioned in a previous comment, real factors still matter. A negative adverse supply shock can cause a business cycle. Price stickiness is the issue here. The cool thing here is MM’s emphasis on markets: we can riddle out nominal vs. real causes by looking at expectations as embodied in asset prices.

  2. Alex, I think the understanding of Say’s law is key – and understanding when monetary disequilibrium makes the law fail.

    Obviously real matter still matter and yes markets can tells of when shocks are real or nominal. I happen to believe that real shocks empirically are minor if NGDP is anchored then they will not have any major impact. Obviously in the long-run RGDP is 100% a real story rather than a nominal story (and that of course is my point in my post on Japan).

  1. ”Regime Uncertainty” – a Market Monetarist perspective « The Market Monetarist
  2. Most people do “national accounting economics” – including most Austrians « The Market Monetarist
  3. Mr. Hollande the fiscal multiplier is zero if Mario says so « The Market Monetarist
  4. The Sumnerian Phillips curve « The Market Monetarist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: