This paper examines the controversy concerning the relative desirability of fixed versus flexible exchange rates by examining whether a country can achieve a smaller variance of domestic output around its full employment path operating under an exchange rate rule or under a money supply rule. The paper finds that neither policy will always dominate the other. However, it does find that if shocks in one market of the economy are large relative to shocks to other markets, then one type of rule can be shown to dominate the other.

This paper examines the controversy concerning the relative desirability of fixed versus flexible exchange rates by examining whether a country can achieve a smaller variance of domestic output around its full employment path operating under an exchange rate rule or under a money supply rule. The paper finds that neither policy will always dominate the other. However, it does find that if shocks in one market of the economy are large relative to shocks to other markets, then one type of rule can be shown to dominate the other.

We examine the behavior of money, inflation, and output under fiat and commodity standards to better understand how changes in monetary policy affect economic activity. Using long‐term historical data for 15 countries, we find that, under fiat standards, the growth rates of various monetary aggregates are more highly correlated with inflation and with each other than under commodity standards. Money growth, inflation, and output growth are also higher. In contrast, we do not find that money growth is more highly correlated with output growth under one standard than under the other.