Skip to main content

Do We Still Need Central Banks?

In the previous post, we discussed the Thompsonian view on central banks.  In this view, central banks are needed to raise emergency war finance.  However, with the emergence of the US nuclear umbrella and nuclear technology, nations have less need for emergency war finance.  So do we still need central banks?

According to David Glasner, given this decline in the need for emergency war finance, policy-makers should consider introducing a competitive currency or free banking system.  Click here for Glasner's book.

According to Thompson and Hickson, we may still need central banks due to internal threats (including natural disasters) and nuclear threats from rogue nations.  However, central banks are no longer on the gold standard, with the result that their ability to raise emergency war finance is highly constrained.  According to Thompson, writing 20 years ago, this ultimately means that “the increasing emergency usefulness of wealthy individuals relative to ordinary civilians will inevitably lead to a tortuous degeneration of our effective democracies back into elitist aristocracies such as those that had dominated our governments prior to the rise of the gold standard”. Might this explain why the 1% has become so powerful and influential over the past two decades?


Popular posts from this blog

Bitcoin Bubble?

According to Robert Shiller , speaking at Davos, Bitcoin is a perfect example of a bubble - story here . Shiller sees Bitcoin as a backwards step in the evolution of money.   George Selgin , a free banker, takes an opposing view - click here .  Although he doesn't believe that Bitcoin is money, he sees its development as a fascinating turn in the evolution of money. In particular, he lauds the fact that Bitcoin production is constrained and cannot be infinite. There is a short video below where Bitcoin explain how it works.

How Valuable Are Connections?

Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Amir Kermani, James Kwak and Todd Mitton have written a paper on whether firms connected to Timothy Geithner benefited from these connections. They do so by looking at how stocks of these firms reacted to the announcement that he was a nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008. They find that there were large abnormal returns for connected firms. Below is the paper's abstract and the full paper is available here . The announcement of Timothy Geithner as nominee for Treasury Secretary in November 2008 produced a cumulative abnormal return for financial firms with which he had a connection. This return was about 6% after the first full day of trading and about 12% after ten trading days. There were subsequently abnormal negative returns for connected firms when news broke that Geithner's confirmation might be derailed by tax issues. Excess returns for connected firms may reflect the perceived impact of relying on the advice of a small ne...

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles

Boom and Bust: A Global History of Financial Bubbles, co-authored with my colleague Will Quinn , is forthcoming in August. It is published by Cambridge University Press and is available for pre-order at Amazon , Barnes and Noble , Waterstones and Cambridge University Press .