ABCT and the Flow of Credit

In the 1970s, Hayek attempted to analyse stagflation. In doing so, he acknowledged the limitations of his earlier Austrian business cycle theory (ABCT) in explaining the 1970s crisis, because the flows of credit and monetary expansion were of a different type from those he had dealt with in his earlier work:

“There is one special difficulty about accounting for the present situation. In the misdirection of labour and the distortion of the structure of production during past business cycles, it was fairly easy to point to the places where the excessive expansion had occurred because it was, on the whole, confined to the capital goods industries. The whole thing was due to an over-expansion of credit for investment purposes, and it was therefore possible to regard the industries producing capital equipment as those which had been over-expanded.

In contrast, the present expansion of money [sc. in the 1970s], which has been brought about partly by means of bank credit expansion and partly through budget deficits, has been the result of a deliberate policy, and has gone through somewhat different channels. The additional expenditure has been much more widely dispersed. In the earlier cases I had no difficulty in pointing to particular instances of overexpansion; now I am somewhat embarrassed when I am asked the question, because I would have to know the particular situation in a particular country, where the additional money flows went in the first place, etc. I would also have to trace the successive movements of prices which indicate these flows. In consequence, I have no general answer to the question.” (Hayek 1978: 212).

And this remains a severe flaw in the Austrian trade cycle theory: the original theory assumes credit expansion goes to businesses investing in capital goods, and has no role for loans for consumer durables or debt-fuelled asset bubbles. Karen Vaughn has already drawn attention to the latter failing of ABCT (Vaughn 1994: 87–88).

Even Hayek himself made a remarkable qualification of his theory with respect to conditions after the Second World War:

“HIGH: The Austrian theory of the cycle depends very heavily on business expectations being wrong. Now, what basis do you feel an economist has for asserting that expectations regarding the future will generally be wrong?

HAYEK: Well, I think the general fact that booms have always appeared with a great increase of investment, a large part of which proved to be erroneous, mistaken. That, of course, fits in with the idea that a supply of capital was made apparent which wasn’t actually existing. The whole combination of a stimulus to invest on a large scale followed by a period of acute scarcity of capital fits into this idea that there has been a misdirection due to monetary influences, and that general schema, I still believe, is correct.

But this is capable of a great many modifications, particularly in connection with where the additional money goes. You see, that’s another point where I thought too much in what was true under prewar conditions, when all credit expansion, or nearly all, went into private investment, into a combination of industrial capital. Since then, so much of the credit expansion has gone to where government directed it that the misdirection may no longer be overinvestment in industrial capital, but may take any number of forms. You must really study it separately for each particular phase and situation. The typical trade cycle no longer exists, I believe. But you get very similar phenomena with all kinds of modifications.” (Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: Friedrich A. von Hayek, pp. 184–186).

Hayek’s belief that a proper application of his trade cycle theory to the modern world requires looking at the direct of credit expansion “separately for each particular phase and situation” is one lost on most modern Austrians. Instead, they flog the dead horse of Hayek’s 1930s theory, which he himself admitted had lost its relevance in modern economies.

The modern Austrians present a fossilised Hayekian relic of a theory derived from Prices and Production (1931; 2nd edn. 1935) and Profits, Interest and Investment (1939), as can be seen in Roger W. Garrison’s Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure (Routledge, London, 2002). Hayek himself by the 1970s had moved on from believing his 1930s work on trade cycles could be simply applied to the modern world, at least not without serious modification.

And one further observation should be made: a monetary theory that examines business cycles by looking at the flows of credit to debt-financed asset bubbles already exists: it is called Irving Fisher’s debt deflation theory (Fisher 1933), which has been developed in Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis (FIH) (Minsky 1982; 2008). This has been further developed in Post Keynesian economics, most notably by Steve Keen.

This is the true monetary theory of the trade cycle when credit flows to speculation that creates asset bubbles and their collapse spills over into severe effects on the real economy. This theory explains many 19th century trade cycles, the Great Depression, Japan’s lost decade, and now the mess that many Western nations are in.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fisher, I. 1933. “The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,” Econometrica 1.4: 337–357.

Garrison, R. W. 2000. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure, Routledge, London and New York.

Hayek, F. A. von, 1931. Prices and Production, G. Routledge & Sons, Ltd, London.

Hayek, F. A. von, 1935. Prices and Production (2nd edn), Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Hayek, F. A. von, 1939. Profits, Interest and Investment, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

Hayek, F. A. von. 1978. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Minsky, H. P. 1982. Can “It” Happen Again?: Essays on Instability and Finance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, N.Y.

Minsky, H. P. 2008 [1975]. John Maynard Keynes, McGraw-Hill, New York and London.

Nobel Prize-Winning Economist: Friedrich A. von Hayek. Interviewed by Earlene Graver, Axel Leijonhufvud, Leo Rosten, Jack High, James Buchanan, Robert Bork, Thomas Hazlett, Armen A. Alchian, Robert Chitester, Regents of the University of California, 1983.

Vaughn, K. I. 1994. Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

How Can Government Overcome Uncertainty?

S. D. Parsons poses the following question:

“Post Keynesian economists can, with considerable justification, criticize the view in some Austrian circles that it is possible to emphasize both uncertainty and market coordination. However, it would also seem that the Post Keynesian emphasis on uncertainty raises problems for the argument that governments can resolve coordination problems. ... Keynes may well have correctly identified problems of market coordination when he wrote, and correctly identified policy instruments to resolve them. However, given uncertainty, the past is a fickle guide to the future and, given transmutation, the world is now a different place. In conclusion, Post Keynesians have a valid point when they argue that an emphasis on economic uncertainty raises problems for the assumption that market coordination can occur in the absence of governmental intervention. However, it can also be argued that the emphasis on uncertainty raises problems for the assumption that market coordination can occur through government intervention.” (Parsons 2003: 9).

It is not, however, difficult to answer these charges.

When you introduce an intervention to influence the state of a nonergodic stochastic system, that process and outcome is not in the same ontological category or status as the future of that system, without intervention. The past data from which one draws inferences about what the intervention will do consist of examples of past such interventions, ideally of the same type. For example, there is no doubt that induction from past data will not be a reliable method to predict the future value of certain shares on the stock market or the future value of the whole market itself measured by some index, but predicting what happens when an entity with the power to influence certain shares or the whole system is a different matter. If the Treasury bought up the stock of a certain promising company, making the shares scarce when demand is high, announcing it will even support the value of the shares, we can make a empirical prediction about the outcome, which can be falsified. How? I have already addressed the question of the epistemological justification for such things and even Keynesian stimulus (and other government interventions) here:

“Risk and Uncertainty in Post Keynesian Economics,” December 8, 2010.

The problem revolves around whether induction can be rationally justified. If one thinks that induction can be defended rationally, then inductive arguments using past empirical evidence can be used to provide justification for policy interventions. Induction can be reliable when used outside of nonergodic stochastic systems or events. If one thinks that induction has no rational justification, then Karl Popper’s falsificationism by hypothetico-deduction can be used to test predictive hypotheses about what will happened in the future under government intervention. In the absence of falsification, we have empirical support for such polices.

Fundamentally, if Austrians or neoclassicals think that they can evade their own such epistemological problems, they are deeply mistaken. How, for example, does the Austrian praxeologist justify his belief that that the axiom of disutility of labour will continue to be true in the future? Mises explicitly tells us that this axiom is “not of a categorial and aprioristic character”, but “experience teaches that there is disutility of labor” (Mises 1998: 65). In other words, it is a synthetic proposition and its truth is only known a posteriori. Praxeologists require either induction or Popper’s falsificationism by hypothetico-deduction using empirical evidence to justify their belief in its truth now and for the future.

The concept of radical uncertainty in the Post Keynesian or Knightian sense applies to non-ergodic, stochastic systems. But human life does not just consist only of non-ergodic systems. The economic system we know as capitalism, where most commodities are produced by decentralised investment decision-making by millions of agents and consumption by other agents with shifting subjective utilities, is not the only institution of modern life. We have government and quasi-government entities, private non-profit organisations, private voluntary organisations, and at the basic level families.

The free market itself has attempted to overcome uncertainty by certain institutions. Government interventions in economies are merely a much more powerful and more effective instrument for reducing uncertainty than what has emerged on the market.

Its many institutions that exist alongside and influence modern capitalism (such as law courts that enforce contracts, buffer stocks, and even central banks) have developed precisely to deal with uncertainty, as “outside” entities capable of reducing uncertainty by interventions designed to influence the state of the system. Law and order is a basic human institution without which commerce would be impossible. It has been enforced through the ages essentially by governments, not by private enterprise. When, for example, the trade of the Roman Republic was threatened by pirates in the east Mediterranean, it was the state that ended that threat and allowed commerce to resume with confidence. Indeed, some conventions or institutions that reduce uncertainty (for example, forward/future markets for commodities, and even money) are so deeply ingrained that we think of them now as a fundamental part of capitalism. A futures market was developed to reduce uncertainty for producers of commodities, often primary commodities. There is a great deal of evidence that standardised coinage in Western European civilisation was essentially the invention of the state. Indeed, the state had a great role in monetising economies.

Central banks developed in the 19th and 20th centuries precisely because business and financial interests wanted a system that would reduce the uncertainty caused by liquidity crises and financial panics, because they were frightened by the potentially disastrous consequences of unregulated financial markets and banking systems.

It is interesting that the Austrian Ludwig Lachmann’s view that institutions have an important part to play in free market systems is similar to the view I have had described above. It is important to note the logical consequences these ideas had for Lachmann as well:

“Because of his focus on uncertainty, Lachmann came to doubt that, in a laissez-faire society, entrepreneurs would be able to achieve any consistent meshing of their plans. The economy, instead of possessing a tendency toward equilibrium, was instead likely to careen out of control at any time. Lachmann thought that the government had a role to play in stabilizing the economic system and increasing the coordination of entrepreneurial plans. We call his position ‘intervention for stability.’” (Callahan 2004: 293).

While I doubt whether Lachmann’s interventions would have been anything but minimal by Post Keynesian standards, nevertheless his intellectual journey is actually a lesson for his fellow Austrians: once they take fundamental uncertainty and subjective expectations seriously they would find themselves forced to much the same conclusions that he eventually drew.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barkley Rosser, J. 2010. “How Complex are the Austrians?,” in R. Koppl, S. Horwitz, and P. Desrochers (eds), What is So Austrian About Austrian Economics?, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK. 165–180.

Callahan, G. 2004. Economics for Real People: An Introduction to the Austrian School (2nd edn), Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Ala.

Parsons, S. D. 2003. “Austrian School of Economics,” in J. E. King (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Post Keynesian Economics, E. Elgar Pub., Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA. 5–10.