IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v49y2025i5p1111-1113..html

Reply to Fontana and Sawyer

Author

Listed:
  • Christian Etzrodt

Abstract

Fontana and Sawyer rebut my critique (Etzrodt, 2023) of the ‘Positive Money’ (PM) reform proposed by Jackson and Dyson (2012). Their key argument centres on the shadow banking sector (SBS), asserting that PM would restrict credit supply, prompting the SBS to fill the gap by creating near-moneys—a claim adjusted from their earlier work (2016). I agree with them that the SBS influences money supply in two ways: (i) creating near-moneys independently and (ii) amplifying leverage of existing money via securitization. While Fontana and Sawyer emphasize the former, I stress the latter, citing its role in the 2008 Lehman Brothers crisis. This divergence leads to opposing policy conclusions: Fontana and Sawyer oppose banking reforms that would reduce the commercial banks’ risk-taking behaviour, fearing SBS substitution, whereas I support reform but reject PM as ineffective. Fontana and Sawyer’s stance inherently protects the status quo.

Suggested Citation

  • Christian Etzrodt, 2025. "Reply to Fontana and Sawyer," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 49(5), pages 1111-1113.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:49:y:2025:i:5:p:1111-1113.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/beaf038
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:49:y:2025:i:5:p:1111-1113.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.