I agree that the money-supply curve would shift rightward. But I think that a recession is inevitable. The question is whether it will be as bad as we think. The good news is that with the right policies and strategies, we can lessen the impact.

I’m not a fan of the “liquidity preference theory.” I think it’s a bunch of nonsense, but I also think it’s nonsense that we can solve the problem. It’s true that the economy will be different than we think it will be, but that doesn’t mean the economy is bad. It’s a simple matter of economics that you can make a better case for policies that actually work.

If you think about it, I don’t think that liquidity preference theory is quite right. Instead of a central bank, we have a number of banks. Not all of them are as bad as the money-supply curve implies. Some of them are just as bad as the money-supply curve implies. Some of them are just as bad as the money-supply curve implies.

As it turns out, there is a bit of a problem with liquidity preference theory. It assumes that the money-supply curve is a straight line or even a straight line-slope. However, the evidence suggests that liquidity preference theory is actually a lot flatter.

There is a lot of evidence that the money supply, not money demand, is what drives the money supply curve. As we saw in our discussion of the “money” vs. “money demand” debate, monetary policy can either change the money supply or the money demand. This is also why the money supply curve is an inverted U-shape, or what I like to call a “money-supply curve.

In our discussion of the money vs. money demand debate, I presented the theory that the money supply curve is just a straight line. But in our discussion of the money supply vs. money demand debate, I presented it as a flat (or even flat-ish) curve. I’m not sure if that’s the most accurate description of the curve, but it’s the one I’m using here for now.

I have always believed that the money supply curve is a real-time, time-historical curve, and so if the money supply curve is a flat or even flat curve then it’s just the money supply curve. However, the money supply curve is not a real-time curve. It is a graph that I’ve made to show that money supply and money demand aren’t static, but are time-historical curves.

I have always believed that it is important to learn about the money supply curve because of it’s impact on the economy. Now, I don’t think that a new theory is needed to show that flat money supply is not the case. But even if we accept that the money supply curve is a time-historical curve, it can still make a difference in how we view the supply curve.

In a nutshell, the money supply curve is like a graph with two branches, with one branch being the long-term curve of money supply, and the other branch being the short-term curve. The long-term branch is a horizontal line, with a slope that is set to zero and whose magnitude is defined by the money supply level. The short-term branch is a line with a slope of one and whose magnitude is set by the money supply level.

This is a bit more complex than that, but a simple explanation is that the long-term line is the amount of money that is needed to pay all of your bills. This is like the long-term curve for income, but it’s defined by the money supply level. The long-term line is also the slope for the long-term supply curve. The short-term line is the slope for the short-term supply curve.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here