At an event in New York tonight, economists, investors, and economics publishers debated the question of whether the US needed a policy of a "strong" dollar.
On the one side were two known hard money fans:
On the other side were economist Frederic Mishkin and hedge funder John Taylor.
Anyway, it sounds like the gold bugs got their clocks cleaned.
Bloomberg's Michael McKee tweeted up a storm.
Mishkin cites Anna Schwartz research showing slower growth slower under gold. Grant not impressed by Anna Schwartz. @iq2us #strongdollar
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013
Forbes then gets history wrong: says going off gold standard in 1930s didn't work. In fact, strong growth followed. @iq2us #strongdollar
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013
Mishkin to Grant: no serious scholar disagrees there was more volatility under classic gold standard... @iq2us #strongdollar
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013
Grant: there's no linear improvement in monetary policy. We've gone backward into dark ages. @iq2us #strongdollar
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013
Grant cites "Little House on the Prairie" anecdote to counter Mishkin's Anna Schwartz research. @iq2us #strongdollar
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013
Sort of not sorry #strongdollar debate is over. Was hoping for more facts from Forbes/Grant. Actually, would have liked any facts. @iq2us
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013
Audience vote: Mishkin/Taylor win easily. Though neither side really supported a "strong" dollar. @iq2us #strongdollar
— Michael McKee (@mckonomy) March 14, 2013