Normal 0 false false false EN-AU X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
Can anyone provide a citation that supports the statement by Hans F. Semholz posted at http://mises.org/story/2414# that Friedman “calls for the issue of government money in the form of non-interest bearing obligations that would not alter the nature of currency expansion, it merely would change its technique”.
There was no mention of the “issue of government money in the form of non-interest bearing obligations” in Friedman, Milton and Friedman, Rose. "Constitutional Amendment to Limit the Growth of Spending." Academy of Political Science, Proceedings, 1985, 35(4), pp. 132.
Might there be another reference please?
Kind regards
Shann
Hello david_z
Thank you kindly for your your citations.
Both have Friedman referring to non-interest bearing obligations but neither seem to substantiate the comments posted by Hans F. Sennholtz that Friedman proposed that non-interest obligation be used as money.
Neither citation mentions the "Constitutional Ammendent" that Sennholtz refers to and neither has Friedman explicitly advocating the substitution interest bearing government bonds by "non-interest bearing obligations, though this can be inferred as being accepted by Friedman on pages 566-7 of his Monetary History.
Might anyone have any better substantiation of the Sennoltz views or did Sennoltz misintrept Friedman?
Regards
Try here (Real & Pseudo Gold Standards, M. Friedman, 1961).
Also, this page from A Monetary History of the United States.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."