I phrased that badly. You’re not engaging a weak point so much as not steelmanning, which is what you should be doing. Fix your opponents arguments.
Yes, everyone refers to Sumner. He is the popularizer of market monetarism. Yes, Sumner doesn’t produce a defense of his views that is solidly grounded in economics. He is none the less vastly better than most people talking about this.
You should say things like ‘The best arguments for Sumners views are made by Nick Rowe and others (link to work or something) and are sometimes called ‘monetary disequilibrium theory’, however I think that this theory misses the important effect of Discoordination which works like this …’.
Basically no one discussing monetary economics (including the Austrians and others against active monetary policy) manages to ground their arguments in solid theory except Nick Rowe, a couple other market monetarists and the monetary disequilibriumist Austrians. The quality of debate is bad, but that doesn’t mean its OK for you not to engage the strongest arguments.
I found them to completely assume away the important social benefits of hoarding.
And that’s fair enough. I didn’t get that you were referring to that.
However,It is highly misleading to say
I don’t think anyone, including you, has really engaged with the benefits of hoarding and so don’t have a satisfactory framework for evaluating whether there’s “too much”.”
Because monetary disequilibrium is an internally consistent theory which does talk about the benefits of holding money and which can assess whether people hold ‘too much’ or not within the theory. You do not appear to deny this.
As far as I can tell, you additionally claim that this theory does not describe the important effects of Discoordination which provide additional social benefits to holding money. This is well and good! You should acknowledge what monetary disequilibrium theory does do well, and then attempt to improve upon its deficiencies. I’m actually very interested in hearing those arguments!
Your previous posts do not make this at all clear that this is what you were arguing, even to me. Since I probably know more about your views than anyone else other than you, this means they were probably also unclear to everyone else.
I phrased that badly. You’re not engaging a weak point so much as not steelmanning, which is what you should be doing. Fix your opponents arguments.
Yes, everyone refers to Sumner. He is the popularizer of market monetarism. Yes, Sumner doesn’t produce a defense of his views that is solidly grounded in economics. He is none the less vastly better than most people talking about this.
You should say things like ‘The best arguments for Sumners views are made by Nick Rowe and others (link to work or something) and are sometimes called ‘monetary disequilibrium theory’, however I think that this theory misses the important effect of Discoordination which works like this …’.
Basically no one discussing monetary economics (including the Austrians and others against active monetary policy) manages to ground their arguments in solid theory except Nick Rowe, a couple other market monetarists and the monetary disequilibriumist Austrians. The quality of debate is bad, but that doesn’t mean its OK for you not to engage the strongest arguments.
And that’s fair enough. I didn’t get that you were referring to that.
However,It is highly misleading to say
Because monetary disequilibrium is an internally consistent theory which does talk about the benefits of holding money and which can assess whether people hold ‘too much’ or not within the theory. You do not appear to deny this.
As far as I can tell, you additionally claim that this theory does not describe the important effects of Discoordination which provide additional social benefits to holding money. This is well and good! You should acknowledge what monetary disequilibrium theory does do well, and then attempt to improve upon its deficiencies. I’m actually very interested in hearing those arguments!
Your previous posts do not make this at all clear that this is what you were arguing, even to me. Since I probably know more about your views than anyone else other than you, this means they were probably also unclear to everyone else.