WEBVTT

NOTE The Monetary Theory of Current Textbooks in the Light of 'The Theory of Money and Credit'

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.000
The theory of money and credit is a landmark treatise.

2
00:00:06.080 --> 00:00:10.080
It remains today a must-read for anyone

3
00:00:10.160 --> 00:00:13.720
wishing to get acquainted with the Austrian monetary theory.

4
00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:16.480
Its contributions are deep and numerous,

5
00:00:16.560 --> 00:00:19.600
but I would consider only one of them here,

6
00:00:19.680 --> 00:00:22.160
namely the foundation of monetary theory,

7
00:00:22.240 --> 00:00:26.840
and von Mises breaks new grounds in this field

8
00:00:26.840 --> 00:00:32.840
through a systematic application of the Mangerian Subjectivist Framework to the Study of Monetary Phenomena.

9
00:00:32.840 --> 00:00:41.840
The aim of my paper and lecture is to show that in spite of the importance and continuing relevance

10
00:00:41.840 --> 00:00:47.840
of the approach and monetary theories of von Mises, they are today completely unknown

11
00:00:47.840 --> 00:00:52.840
or almost completely unknown to standard neoclassical economists.

12
00:00:52.840 --> 00:01:00.840
In order to make this point, I will use a very little number, but of significant texts.

13
00:01:00.840 --> 00:01:07.840
First, the elementary level textbook by Gregory Mankiw, Economic Principles.

14
00:01:07.840 --> 00:01:14.840
Then a very advanced monetary textbook full of mathematical equations by Carl Walsh,

15
00:01:14.840 --> 00:01:18.840
Monetary Theory and Policy, published by the MIT Press.

16
00:01:18.840 --> 00:01:29.840
And I will also use selected entries in the new Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, so the reference text today in Economic Thought.

17
00:01:29.840 --> 00:01:35.840
Since time is quite short, I will only review the major topics. First, the determination of the purchasing power of money.

18
00:01:35.840 --> 00:01:41.840
Second, the demand for money. And third, the neutrality of money.

19
00:01:41.840 --> 00:01:51.840
So explaining the purchasing power of money, the PPM, this obviously is the core of monetary theory.

20
00:01:51.840 --> 00:01:59.840
And even though it may come as a surprise, Gregory Mankiw in his textbook expounds a subjectivist theory of the purchasing power of money

21
00:01:59.840 --> 00:02:05.840
that's quite similar to the theory developed by von Mises in The Theory of Money and Credit.

22
00:02:05.840 --> 00:02:10.840
There are, however, important differences that I will underline a little later.

23
00:02:11.840 --> 00:02:17.080
So here is the figure that represents the illustration

24
00:02:17.080 --> 00:02:19.880
that's offered by Gregory Mankiw in his textbook.

25
00:02:20.720 --> 00:02:23.800
We have a demand for money that's decreasing

26
00:02:23.800 --> 00:02:25.600
with the purchasing power of money.

27
00:02:26.580 --> 00:02:30.480
A supply of money that is the total quantity of money.

28
00:02:31.400 --> 00:02:35.120
And Gregory Mankiw defines the demand for money

29
00:02:35.120 --> 00:02:37.040
as a demand for cash balances.

30
00:02:37.920 --> 00:02:40.720
And he shows that the purchasing power of money

31
00:02:40.720 --> 00:02:45.060
tends to converge towards its equilibrium level

32
00:02:45.060 --> 00:02:48.040
at the intersection of the two curves.

33
00:02:48.980 --> 00:02:51.220
He then quite easily showed that

34
00:02:51.220 --> 00:02:53.860
when the quantity of money increases,

35
00:02:54.740 --> 00:02:57.380
the purchasing power of money decreases.

36
00:02:58.300 --> 00:03:03.260
This presentation by Mankiw is in fact identical

37
00:03:03.260 --> 00:03:07.220
to the one offered by Rothbard in Man Economy and State.

38
00:03:07.220 --> 00:03:25.220
It's very unlikely that Mankiew ever read Rothbard's treatise, and yet the striking similarity between their respective theories seems to indicate that Rothbard, and maybe ultimately von Mises, may have had an indirect influence upon Mankiew.

39
00:03:25.220 --> 00:03:44.220
Now let's turn to von Mises. His concept of the demand for money as a demand for cash balances and his theory of the adjustment process following an increase in the quantity of money are similar to those used by Mankiw, but there are significant differences between the two representations.

40
00:03:44.220 --> 00:03:49.220
So this is the way Murray Rothbard also explains the determination of the purchasing power of money.

41
00:03:49.220 --> 00:03:54.220
Now, von Mises. First point, subjectivism.

42
00:03:54.220 --> 00:04:01.220
Von Mises offers a purely subjectivist account of the determination of the purchasing power of money.

43
00:04:01.220 --> 00:04:04.220
There is no price level in his presentation.

44
00:04:04.220 --> 00:04:09.220
No purchasing power of money that could be calculated or represented as a single number.

45
00:04:09.220 --> 00:04:17.220
And von Mises never makes a rezoning based on the aggregate functions of demand for money or supply of money.

46
00:04:17.220 --> 00:04:28.220
He always starts with the individual subjective scales of preferences and the decisions by each individual to change or to preserve his own monetary relation.

47
00:04:28.220 --> 00:04:41.220
When the demons or the supplies of many people are affected in the same direction, their accumulative actions, based on their subjective evaluations, will lead to a change in the purchasing power of money.

48
00:04:41.220 --> 00:04:48.060
Second point of difference, the diffusion process of money.

49
00:04:48.060 --> 00:04:53.700
Since the theory developed by von Mises is based upon the individual decisions and actions,

50
00:04:53.700 --> 00:04:58.860
it cannot be separated from the diffusion process of the new money through the economic

51
00:04:58.860 --> 00:05:00.540
system.

52
00:05:00.540 --> 00:05:05.220
And indeed when he analyses the effects of an increase in the quantity of money, von Mises

53
00:05:05.220 --> 00:05:11.020
immediately takes into account the fact that the new monetary units enter into the economic

54
00:05:11.020 --> 00:05:16.060
economic system through the cash balances of specific individuals.

55
00:05:16.060 --> 00:05:21.860
And Man Q, on the other hand, totally neglects the question of who gets the new money first

56
00:05:21.860 --> 00:05:25.380
and how these additional monetary units propagate through the economic system.

57
00:05:25.380 --> 00:05:31.700
He just moves the aggregate curves of supply or demand and shows the changes in the purchasing

58
00:05:31.700 --> 00:05:33.480
power of money.

59
00:05:33.480 --> 00:05:38.540
The main problem with this kind of aggregate rezoning that it conceals the redistribution

60
00:05:38.540 --> 00:05:42.940
effect that occurs during the diffusion process of the new money.

61
00:05:42.940 --> 00:05:51.820
And indeed, Mankiw never even once evokes this redistribution effect in his textbook.

62
00:05:51.820 --> 00:05:54.500
Third point, a bit more theoretical.

63
00:05:54.500 --> 00:06:00.620
According to Mankiw, it's only in the long run that the purchasing power of money adjusts

64
00:06:00.620 --> 00:06:02.620
to balance the money demand and supply.

65
00:06:02.620 --> 00:06:11.420
In the short run, the purchasing power of money, according to him, cannot play any equilibrating

66
00:06:11.420 --> 00:06:17.580
role because, I quote, many prices are slow to adjust to changes in the money supply,

67
00:06:17.580 --> 00:06:23.720
unquote, and therefore the price level is, I quote, stuck at some level in the short

68
00:06:23.720 --> 00:06:25.140
run.

69
00:06:25.140 --> 00:06:31.180
The money demand and supply then are balanced in the short run by changes in the interest

70
00:06:31.180 --> 00:06:35.340
Interest Rate, as explained by the Canadian Theory of Liquidity Preference.

71
00:06:35.340 --> 00:06:41.060
So Mankiw puts forward two entirely different adjustment processes of the money demand and

72
00:06:41.060 --> 00:06:46.100
supply through the interest rate in the short run and through the purchasing power of money

73
00:06:46.100 --> 00:06:47.180
in the long run.

74
00:06:47.180 --> 00:06:52.340
And from the Misesian perspective, this standard framework is highly questionable.

75
00:06:52.340 --> 00:06:58.220
Is it true, as Mankiw claims, that the purchasing power of money is stuck at some level in the

76
00:06:58.220 --> 00:06:59.220
short run?

77
00:06:59.220 --> 00:07:00.780
No, it's not true.

78
00:07:00.780 --> 00:07:05.460
Many prices are free to move and will move in the short run if the quantity of money

79
00:07:05.460 --> 00:07:06.460
increases.

80
00:07:06.460 --> 00:07:12.500
Admittedly, quite a lot of prices are contractually fixed in the short run, so if an unanticipated

81
00:07:12.500 --> 00:07:19.420
increase in the quantity of money occurs, the PPM will not change as quickly as it would

82
00:07:19.420 --> 00:07:24.980
if all prices were flexible or if the change had been anticipated.

83
00:07:24.980 --> 00:07:29.340
In this sense, it can be said that the initial movement of the purchasing power of money

84
00:07:29.340 --> 00:07:34.580
Money is slow, but the purchase in power of money will nevertheless immediately begin

85
00:07:34.580 --> 00:07:35.660
to fall.

86
00:07:35.660 --> 00:07:41.460
It is not fixed and exogenous in the short run as the Canadian theory claims.

87
00:07:41.460 --> 00:07:45.160
And in The Theory of Money and Credit, the decrease in the value of money that follows

88
00:07:45.160 --> 00:07:51.640
a growth in the money supply is both a short run and a long run phenomenon.

89
00:07:51.640 --> 00:07:57.360
Last but not least, von Mises clearly explains in The Theory of Money and Credit that money

90
00:07:57.360 --> 00:08:00.700
Many prices have a historical component, this is well known.

91
00:08:00.700 --> 00:08:03.320
He credits Von Wieser for this discovery.

92
00:08:03.320 --> 00:08:09.480
So the purchasing power of money of the current period depends on the purchasing power of

93
00:08:09.480 --> 00:08:14.740
the previous period, which depends in turn on the purchasing power of the still earlier

94
00:08:14.740 --> 00:08:17.760
period and so on and so forth.

95
00:08:17.760 --> 00:08:24.600
Now this historical component of the purchasing power of money is not taken into account in

96
00:08:24.600 --> 00:08:30.120
in the figures nor, of course, in the theory of Manq, where the purchasing power of money

97
00:08:30.120 --> 00:08:33.240
is implicitly the current one.

98
00:08:33.240 --> 00:08:40.720
But this time lag needs to be explicitly acknowledged in the theory and the graphical representations.

99
00:08:40.720 --> 00:08:49.760
And for all the reasons I've given and maybe other reasons, von Mises would certainly have

100
00:08:49.760 --> 00:09:04.760
I have considered that the figure used by Mankiw is a very poor representation of the theory of the purchasing power of money that eludes some of the most important questions raised by monetary theory.

101
00:09:04.760 --> 00:09:17.760
There is no doubt that von Mises' subjectivist theory of the purchasing power of money is vastly superior to the textbook version offered one century later by Gregory Mankiw.

102
00:09:17.760 --> 00:09:32.760
One of the main contributions of von Mises in The Theory of Money and Credit is his trenchant criticism of the classical equation of exchange.

103
00:09:32.760 --> 00:09:38.760
This equation, however, is still used today in every standard textbook.

104
00:09:38.760 --> 00:09:47.760
and what is more, it's most often the only formulation of the quantitative theory of money that is offered to students.

105
00:09:48.760 --> 00:09:54.760
And the way Gregory Mankiw addresses this issue is revealing.

106
00:09:54.760 --> 00:09:58.760
There are two versions of his textbook.

107
00:09:58.760 --> 00:10:03.760
There is an elementary and introductory level version

108
00:10:03.760 --> 00:10:33.760
And there is a more advanced intermediate level version, so the subjectivist account and the figure that I have shown above are presented in his elementary level textbook, but this quasi-Misesian account completely disappears in the intermediate level textbook in which only the equation of exchange is explained and the demand for money is defined as the ratio

109
00:10:33.760 --> 00:10:36.680
from the quantity of money to the level of prices.

110
00:10:36.680 --> 00:10:41.160
All the subjectivist elements have been removed.

111
00:10:41.160 --> 00:10:45.080
So we get the feeling that the quasi-Misesian theory

112
00:10:45.080 --> 00:10:47.880
is for beginners, it's too simple.

113
00:10:47.880 --> 00:10:49.840
But when things get serious,

114
00:10:49.840 --> 00:10:52.520
let's move to the mathematical equation.

115
00:10:53.440 --> 00:10:56.480
But the opposite is true, of course.

116
00:10:56.480 --> 00:10:59.320
The Misesian theory is much more sophisticated

117
00:10:59.320 --> 00:11:00.640
than the equation of exchange.

118
00:11:00.640 --> 00:11:04.120
and von Mises develops a general theoretical framework

119
00:11:04.120 --> 00:11:06.800
in which the deductions from the equation of exchange

120
00:11:06.800 --> 00:11:10.480
appear as simplistic theories at best.

121
00:11:10.480 --> 00:11:12.340
And some essential theoretical elements

122
00:11:12.340 --> 00:11:15.320
are impossible to express with this equation,

123
00:11:15.320 --> 00:11:18.640
the subjectivist foundation of the purchasing power of money,

124
00:11:18.640 --> 00:11:20.660
the historical component in the determination

125
00:11:20.660 --> 00:11:23.740
of this purchasing power and the diffusion process

126
00:11:23.740 --> 00:11:26.080
of the money through the economic system.

127
00:11:26.960 --> 00:11:29.960
Now let's move to the demand for money.

128
00:11:30.640 --> 00:11:33.480
Why do people demand money?

129
00:11:33.480 --> 00:11:38.000
More precisely, why do they choose to hold a stock of money?

130
00:11:38.000 --> 00:11:41.000
The answer given by von Mises in The Theory of Money and Credit

131
00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:43.680
is not entirely satisfactory.

132
00:11:43.680 --> 00:11:46.400
In that, it lacks consistency.

133
00:11:46.400 --> 00:11:49.820
I have no time here to go into the details,

134
00:11:49.820 --> 00:11:52.280
but let's just say that in human action,

135
00:11:52.280 --> 00:11:54.660
von Mises resolves the contradiction

136
00:11:54.660 --> 00:11:56.560
that affects the theory of money and credit

137
00:11:56.560 --> 00:11:59.520
and conclusively adopts the idea

138
00:11:59.520 --> 00:12:03.040
that the demand for money is a demand for cash balances

139
00:12:03.040 --> 00:12:05.620
that's fundamentally explained by the existence

140
00:12:05.620 --> 00:12:08.280
of a radical uncertainty of the future.

141
00:12:08.280 --> 00:12:11.540
This idea is already present in The Theory of Money and Credit

142
00:12:11.540 --> 00:12:14.940
and explicitly told by von Mises,

143
00:12:14.940 --> 00:12:17.360
but there are other ideas

144
00:12:17.360 --> 00:12:20.600
with which it is not entirely consistent.

145
00:12:20.600 --> 00:12:23.980
Now, how is the individual demand for money understood

146
00:12:23.980 --> 00:12:25.800
in current textbooks?

147
00:12:25.800 --> 00:12:30.560
Here I refer to the very advanced textbook by Carl Walsh

148
00:12:30.560 --> 00:12:33.320
that I have quoted above

149
00:12:33.320 --> 00:12:41.480
and the main standard model is the M.I.U. model, Money in the Utility Function.

150
00:12:41.480 --> 00:12:51.040
In this model, the demand for money is directly integrated into the utility function of the representative household.

151
00:12:51.040 --> 00:12:53.320
So, here it goes.

152
00:12:53.320 --> 00:13:02.960
Usually, the utility function of the representative household only depends on the consumption goods, Ct, at moment t,

153
00:13:02.960 --> 00:13:17.080
but now in this model, you see that the stock of money here expressed in real terms, Mt, is added, integrated into the utility function.

154
00:13:17.080 --> 00:13:22.400
Why does money bring in utility in this model?

155
00:13:22.400 --> 00:13:28.560
As Carl Walsh openly and repeatedly concedes, the model does not answer this question.

156
00:13:28.560 --> 00:13:37.680
Does not answer this question, and I give you one of the quotations where Carl Walsh recognizes the problems.

157
00:13:37.680 --> 00:13:44.320
So in the MIU model, there's a clearly defined reason for individuals to hold money.

158
00:13:44.320 --> 00:13:48.240
It provides utility, but it has been put, in fact, in the utility function.

159
00:13:48.240 --> 00:13:56.640
However, this essentially solves the problem of generating a positive demand for money by assumption.

160
00:13:56.640 --> 00:14:01.520
And I underline here, it doesn't address the reasons that money,

161
00:14:01.520 --> 00:14:06.960
particularly money in the form of unbacked pieces of paper, might yield utility.

162
00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:15.160
This is a problem, and in three passages, Carl Walsh recognizes the problem.

163
00:14:15.160 --> 00:14:21.960
The problem that the utility of money in this model is postulated, but in no way explained.

164
00:14:21.960 --> 00:14:26.600
And in this regard, this model is highly artificial.

165
00:14:26.600 --> 00:14:32.200
It does not even try to deal with the initial question of why the agents choose to hold

166
00:14:32.200 --> 00:14:33.800
positive quantities of money.

167
00:14:33.800 --> 00:14:38.680
There is money in the economic system, we do not know why.

168
00:14:38.680 --> 00:14:42.560
It brings utility, we do not know why either.

169
00:14:42.560 --> 00:14:47.920
But the problem is even more serious, because in this model, the uncertainty of the future

170
00:14:47.920 --> 00:14:54.960
has been ruled out by hypothesis. Consequently, holding money is in fact totally useless.

171
00:14:54.960 --> 00:15:00.280
The conceptual foundations of the MIU model suffer from unsurparable difficulties that

172
00:15:00.280 --> 00:15:06.080
I would like to sum up by saying that in this model, holding a stock of money is arbitrarily

173
00:15:06.080 --> 00:15:13.080
is supposed to bring utility in a universe of certainty where money as such is useless.

174
00:15:13.200 --> 00:15:18.280
In spite of these deep conceptual problems and because it fits in nicely within the standard

175
00:15:18.280 --> 00:15:24.340
framework of general equilibrium and of Solow's Growth Theory, the MIU model has been elaborated

176
00:15:24.340 --> 00:15:31.340
for more than three decades now by mainstream economists. And in the textbook by Carl Walsh,

177
00:15:31.340 --> 00:15:39.660
you have equations three or four lines long with 40 variables impressive really very hard to read

178
00:15:39.660 --> 00:15:47.860
but as you have seen the conceptual foundations five minutes left that's perfect the conceptual

179
00:15:47.860 --> 00:15:57.420
for foundations are really very problematic so I have all the time required to review the

180
00:15:57.420 --> 00:16:01.660
The last point, the neutrality of money.

181
00:16:01.660 --> 00:16:06.740
The term neutrality of money, neutrality, does not appear in The Theory of Money and Credit

182
00:16:06.740 --> 00:16:13.020
and it's understandable since it was first used at the end of the 1920s, a few years

183
00:16:13.020 --> 00:16:20.260
after the publication of the last edition of von Mises' treatise in 1924.

184
00:16:20.260 --> 00:16:25.980
But even if the term is missing, the issue is addressed in depth by von Mises.

185
00:16:25.980 --> 00:16:29.380
I will not go into any detail here.

186
00:16:29.380 --> 00:16:35.540
There's one thing, one point that needs to be underlined.

187
00:16:35.540 --> 00:16:38.980
For von Mises, money is never neutral.

188
00:16:38.980 --> 00:16:41.220
It can never be neutral.

189
00:16:41.220 --> 00:16:44.340
And the standard economists perfectly

190
00:16:44.340 --> 00:16:49.540
agree that money is not neutral in the short run.

191
00:16:49.540 --> 00:16:53.740
Their arguments, however, are not at all the same

192
00:16:53.740 --> 00:16:56.380
as those put forward by von Mises.

193
00:16:56.380 --> 00:16:59.140
The first argument by standard economists,

194
00:16:59.140 --> 00:17:00.940
why money is not neutral in the short run,

195
00:17:00.940 --> 00:17:05.140
is that people can be confused by a change in prices.

196
00:17:05.140 --> 00:17:08.180
Consumers fall prey to the money illusion

197
00:17:08.180 --> 00:17:11.500
and confuse a simple increase in prices

198
00:17:11.500 --> 00:17:14.100
with a greater scarcity of goods.

199
00:17:14.100 --> 00:17:16.860
And the second standard argument, of course,

200
00:17:16.860 --> 00:17:19.460
is that some prices are sticky.

201
00:17:19.460 --> 00:17:22.280
Wages, for instance, adjust slowly

202
00:17:22.280 --> 00:17:24.180
because of the labor contracts.

203
00:17:25.140 --> 00:17:27.940
Some other selling prices are also sticky

204
00:17:27.940 --> 00:17:30.640
because it's costly to change them

205
00:17:30.640 --> 00:17:33.260
due to so-called menu costs.

206
00:17:34.220 --> 00:17:37.440
So the non-neutrality of money in the short run

207
00:17:37.440 --> 00:17:41.500
is explained either by mistakes and misperceptions,

208
00:17:41.500 --> 00:17:44.740
errors of expectations, or by sticky prices.

209
00:17:44.740 --> 00:17:48.380
All these arguments are correct and relevant,

210
00:17:48.380 --> 00:17:53.020
But the demonstration by von Mises is much more general.

211
00:17:53.020 --> 00:17:55.680
He showed that on account of the subjectivity

212
00:17:55.680 --> 00:17:58.140
of the individual demands for money

213
00:17:58.140 --> 00:18:02.180
and of the fact that money enters in the economic system

214
00:18:02.180 --> 00:18:06.940
at specific points, even if people do not commit any mistake

215
00:18:06.940 --> 00:18:11.940
and if prices are flexible, money will not be neutral.

216
00:18:12.780 --> 00:18:15.500
So the standard arguments are interesting

217
00:18:15.500 --> 00:18:17.220
and deserve consideration,

218
00:18:17.220 --> 00:18:25.940
But they are subordinate, and they miss the essential reasons why money can never be neutral.

219
00:18:25.940 --> 00:18:29.940
So far, and in spite of dissimilar arguments, there's a kind of agreement between von Mises

220
00:18:29.940 --> 00:18:35.980
and current standard authors, but then a big problem arises.

221
00:18:35.980 --> 00:18:42.580
Standard economists argue repeatedly that while money is not neutral in the short run,

222
00:18:42.580 --> 00:18:48.140
Somehow it's still neutral in the long run.

223
00:18:48.140 --> 00:18:55.340
Now strictly speaking, this result is highly questionable, if not outright impossible.

224
00:18:55.340 --> 00:19:00.580
If the productive relations have been altered in the short run by an increase in the quantity

225
00:19:00.580 --> 00:19:09.420
of money with non-proportionate changes in prices, then these changes cannot become proportionate

226
00:19:09.420 --> 00:19:12.540
again in the long run.

227
00:19:12.540 --> 00:19:19.180
Now, to be fair, when standard economists speak of long run neutrality, and they should not,

228
00:19:19.180 --> 00:19:25.420
but when they speak of long run neutrality, they often use a weak definition of neutrality.

229
00:19:25.420 --> 00:19:31.580
They mean in fact that changes in the quantity of money will not affect the long run evolution

230
00:19:31.580 --> 00:19:37.300
of the real GDP, real rate of growth, nor the natural employment rate.

231
00:19:37.300 --> 00:19:43.100
And in this sense, long-run neutrality does not imply a proportionate changes in all prices

232
00:19:43.100 --> 00:19:48.180
since it rests upon a very simplified macroeconomic reasoning in which there is just one kind

233
00:19:48.180 --> 00:19:50.260
of consumer goods.

234
00:19:50.260 --> 00:19:55.620
I just have time to give you my conclusion.

235
00:19:55.620 --> 00:20:01.620
It is a striking and unfortunate result of this inquiry that known of the most important

236
00:20:01.620 --> 00:20:10.620
One of the most important messages originating in von Mises' Theory of Money and Credit is to be found in contemporary textbooks or reference texts.

237
00:20:10.620 --> 00:20:21.620
It can even be observed that the more advanced the standard textbook, the more unsatisfying is the presentation of monetary theory from an Austrian perspective.

238
00:20:21.620 --> 00:20:26.620
And this is also the case in price theory, but it's another subject.

239
00:20:26.620 --> 00:20:34.020
There's much more von Mises, so to speak, in the elementary textbook by Mankiw than in the very advanced one by Walsh.

240
00:20:34.020 --> 00:20:40.920
And this is unfortunate because the Misesian theories of the determination of the purchasing power of money

241
00:20:40.920 --> 00:20:47.220
and of the neutrality of money are much sounder than their standard neoclassical counterparts.

242
00:20:47.220 --> 00:20:54.020
Of course, they are not as impressive as standard models such as the MIU model from a mathematical point of view.

243
00:20:54.020 --> 00:21:00.820
But mathematics is only a tool. It should never be given priority over theoretical relevance.

244
00:21:00.820 --> 00:21:06.500
And as far as theoretical relevance is concerned, one century after its publication,

245
00:21:06.500 --> 00:21:14.020
the monetary treatise of von Mises is as significant as ever and perhaps more significant than ever.

246
00:21:14.020 --> 00:21:16.020
Thank you very much.