Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-23302House OversightOther

Personal recollections of economic discussions with Nobel laureates

The passage is a memoir-style narrative about academic conversations on monetary theory and ETFs, lacking any concrete leads, names of officials, financial transactions, or allegations of misconduct. Mentions Nobel laureates Franco Modigliani and Milton Friedman discussing monetary ideas. Describes a proposal to treat ETFs and mutual funds as money-like assets. Speculates on banking structural ch

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #010938
Pages
1
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage is a memoir-style narrative about academic conversations on monetary theory and ETFs, lacking any concrete leads, names of officials, financial transactions, or allegations of misconduct. Mentions Nobel laureates Franco Modigliani and Milton Friedman discussing monetary ideas. Describes a proposal to treat ETFs and mutual funds as money-like assets. Speculates on banking structural ch

Tags

academic-memoiretfsmonetary-policyhouse-oversighteconomics

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Nobelist Franco Modigliani heard of this, and invited me to MIT for a presentation. He talked like Gepetto in Disney’s “Pinocchio”. There were a few other top brains, including Ruddiger Dornbusch and2Julio Rotemburg, in the small classroom where | spoke. Sometimes Modigliani interrupted. “Getty, you don’ta consider this.” “You forgeta that.” I guess I thought I wasn’t doing so well. My talk ended, and he and I were standing by a window. To lighten the mood, | said something about the Red Sox. He said “Getty, I getta papers on banka reform every week. Yours isa the best.” Milton Friedman, another nobelist, had a different take. We had given talks ata Cato Foundation symposium in San Francisco. He hated my idea. No great surprise. He had written that money ought to earn nothing so that we wouldn’t own too much. Any attempt to back money with anything, he told me, would meet John Law's fate in the Mississippi bubble. The backing commodity would become inflated and then crash. So Nobelists can disagree. My version of the same idea today looks first to ETFs (exchange traded funds), which are more liquid and money-like than mutual funds. ETFs are usually index funds, which replicate index holdings with no active management and so charge very small expense ratios. But mutual funds might become money too. My idea, dead opposite from Friedman’s, is that both money supply and money yield should be held as high as possible. What would happen to banks? Major angst, but not much damage. They would devolve into their separate deposit and lending specialties, with separate stockholders and only incidental interaction. Deposits would be invested in ETFs or mutual funds. Federal deposit insurance would wither away as unneeded. There are no runs on ETFs. Lending banks would have to raise funds to lend from investors expecting a return. Is there a downside? There is certainly a risk of one. The devil we don’t know is what would happen to lending rates and what the consequences might be. That had Chapter 1: Recollections 1/06/16 22

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.