The origin of the debate on fixed versus flexible exchange rates in its modern form is arguably Friedman’s (1953) piece ‘The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates’. Friedman strongly rejected the conventional wisdom of the time, arguing that flexible exchange rates are ‘absolutely essential for the fulfillment of our basic economic objectives: the achievement and maintenance of a free and prosperous world community engaging in unrestricted multilateral trade’. On the other hand, he argued against fixed exchange rates by asserting that ‘there is scarcely a facet of international economic policy for which the implicit acceptance of a system of rigid exchange rates does not create serious and unnecessary difficulties’. It must be emphasized, however, that Freidman distinguished between ‘flexible’ and ‘unstable’ exchange rates. In this sense, he advocated as the ‘ultimate objective’ what he described as ‘a world in which exchange rates, while free to vary, are in fact highly stable’. However, he argued that the elimination of exchange rate instability by ‘administrative freezing’ of exchange rates cures none of the underlying difficulties and only makes adjustment to them more painful.
Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
- Fixed versus Flexible Exchange Rates: The Everlasting Debate
Imad A. Moosa
- Palgrave Macmillan UK
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Frankfurt School