In 1994, a young Tony Abbott wrote a review of a book by an economist and a political scientist, Hugh Stretton and Lionel Orchard.
It was the year in which Abbott was first elected to the Australian House of Representatives.
It was also a decade since the float of the dollar.
The review was well written. It dipped into economic and political theory, and took a swing at the idea we are all rational self-interested economic agents.
But Abbott was not convinced the decision to switch to a floating exchange rate had been a wise one.
''The floating of the dollar remains an article of faith with the leadership of both main parties, notwithstanding its exceedingly dubious outcome for Australia,'' he wrote.
''Changing the price of the dollar moment by moment in response to each transaction makes no more sense than altering the price of cornflakes every time a buyer takes a packet off the supermarket shelves.''
The times were not broadly optimistic. Deputy governor of the Reserve Bank Ian Macfarlane gave a speech that year called ''Pessimism and Optimism about Australia's Future''. Prime minister Paul Keating's comment about the recession ''we had to have'' was still haunting the homes of the unemployed.
Abbott noted in his review that a 1990 edition of The Economist magazine had already proclaimed the experiment of floating exchange rates a failure.
But by the time that Economist edition was published Australia's dollar had already begun to settle around 75¢.
As it turns out, 75¢ became its long-term average, and that long-term average has served Australia well.
A few weeks ago, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens observed that floating the exchange rate had pretty much done the job that it was supposed to do.
It has helped the central bank to contain inflation.
It has helped Australia's economy record more than 20 years of uninterrupted growth.
It is interesting to read what Abbott thought of the floating dollar when it was already 10 years old. Could it help to explain, even a little, why Abbott has opted for ''direct action'' to deal with the problem of carbon pollution, rather than a market mechanism?
The majority of economists believe the best way to deal with carbon pollution is to use a market mechanism of some kind.
But in July this year, Abbott described the idea of an emissions trading scheme as a ''so-called market in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one''.
One wonders what that comment will look like in 20 years.