Taking a shot in the dark but I'm guessing trade wasn't free between the colonies, england, and the rest of the world. So capital could only flow in from the crown. In that case the British could buy at below market rates from the colonies and steal all the value. Controlling the currency was another method of extracting value
If true, where was the problem for the american colonies? And how about the theory of money neutrality (prices adjusts for money supply)? I mean if the amount of money in circulation reduced in the colonies exclusively due to trade imbalances, its value relative to other items should have increased, thus neutralizing the scarcity effect.
I think a deflationary money should work like that.
Or am I wrong? nostr:nprofile1qqsg86qcm7lve6jkkr64z4mt8lfe57jsu8vpty6r2qpk37sgtnxevjcpz4mhxue69uhkummnw3ex2mrfw3jhxtn0wfnsz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7um5wghxyecpr3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmqug4hxr nostr:nprofile1qqsw4v882mfjhq9u63j08kzyhqzqxqc8tgf740p4nxnk9jdv02u37ncpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqg4waehxw309ahx7um5wghx6ctvd9hzummwdsq3gamnwvaz7tmwdaehgunnv968vcfwdejhg34qm72
Otherwise NeoKeynesians, MMTheorists should be right saying that monetary inflation "stimulates growth".
Discussion
No replies yet.