Hayek’s neglected truths about credit, capital and the trade cycle

Last night, I caught up with Martin Wolf’s November programmes for Radio 4 Analysis, which you can find here. He offered a predictable blend of commentators calling for more money printing, world central banking and greater global governance. It prompted me to look out Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle (1933).

Hayek wrote (emphasis mine):

It is a curious fact that the general disinclination to explain the past boom by monetary factors has been quickly replaced by an even greater readiness to hold the present working of our monetary organization exclusively responsible for our present plight. And the same stabilizers who believed that nothing was wrong with the boom and that it might last indefinitely because prices did not rise, now believe that everything could be set right again if only we would use the weapons of monetary policy to prevent prices from falling.The same superficial view,which sees no other harmful effect of a credit expansion but the rise of the price level, now believes that our only difficulty is a fall in the price level, caused by credit contraction.

All eerily familiar. And:

We must not forget that, for the last six or eight years, monetary policy all over the world has followed the advice of the stabilizers. It is high time that their influence, which has already done harm enough, should be overthrown.

The truths set out by Hayek in that crucial essay – and in Prices and Production in the same PDF – are ever more relevant today. Yet, despite the evidence of the intervening 80 years, the Keynesians, and indeed the Monetarists, continue to peddle their interventionist policies and monetary statism. Their intellectual bankruptcy is plain but still institutions are regarded as august which hawk their poor ideas about money and bank credit.

The economic truths which Hayek set out in the 1930s are much neglected. It is high time that they were widely read by economists and businessmen and that the impoverishing ideas of Keynes which are now doing so much damage are laid to rest.

Autumn Statement chart of the day: tax and spending

The economic facts behind the Autumn Statement, in as far as they are known or forecast, are available in the Economic and Fiscal Outlook from the Office for Budget Responsibility. Table 4.7 provides forecast current receipts. Table 4.18 provides total managed expenditure. So, here’s a chart of current receipts (i.e. tax) and total managed expenditure (i.e. spending) for the next few years:

The reality is that the Government intend to increase spending every year of the forecast period and to meet that spending with increased revenues. There will only be cuts as a proportion of GDP, and only if it grows. There will only be real cuts if there is inflation.

It’s tragic that we have created for ourselves a state which cannot provide more with more money and that, from the perspective of real public services, there are cuts at all.

There’s much to be said about inflation, inflating the debt away and, indeed, inflating away public expenditure. There’s something fundamentally dishonest about it. That’s why I co-founded The Cobden Centre to press for honest money: our inflationary financial system is undermining society, just as Keynes and Mises said it would.

Keynes wrote,

There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

And Mises explained,

Inflation is the last word in destructionism. The Bolshevists, with their inimitable gift for rationalizing their resentments and interpreting defeats as victories, have represented their financial policy as an effort to abolish Capitalism by destroying the institution of money. But although inflation does indeed destroy Capitalism, it does not do away with private property. It effects great changes of fortune and income, it destroys the whole finely organized mechanism of production based on division of labour, it can cause a relapse into an economy without trade if the use of metal money or at least of barter trade is not maintained. But it cannot create anything, not even a socialist order of society.

We have been plunged into the present misery by a long credit boom caused by low interest rates. Politicians now seem to be helpless in the face of a crisis caused by the inflationary financial institutions they have allowed for the decades following the collapse of Bretton Woods. The only prescription for recovery appears to be more inflation or, as they call it today, “quantitative easing” and “credit easing”.

Yet more money and bank credit may lead to a boom initially, or perhaps merely to a moderation in our difficulties compared to our neighbours, but it is bound to erode the capital stock, to hide losses and to cause a yet worse problem later. The illusion of prosperity created by “monetary activism” cannot last.

If we are to have lasting prosperity and a just socio-economic system, we need instead, as the Chancellor used to say, an economy based on save and invest. That requires, as prerequisites, honest money which holds its value and a state which lives within its means.

People’s Pledge Congress tomorrow

I look forward to speaking on the Euro crisis tomorrow at the People’s Pledge Congress. In preparing, I rediscovered this:

…the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. Not, indeed, immediately, but after a certain interval; for in the field of economic and political philosophy there are not many who are  influenced by new theories after they are twenty-five or thirty years of age, so that the ideas which civil servants and politicians and even agitators apply to current events are not likely to be the newest. But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil.

Via Keynes’ General Theory. He wasn’t all wrong.

BBC Radio 4 Programmes – Keynes Vs. Hayek

What caused the financial mess we’re in? And how do we get out of it? Two of the great economic thinkers of the 20th century had sharply contrasting views: John Maynard Keynes believed that government spending could create employment and longer term growth. His contemporary and rival Friedrich Hayek believed that investments have to be based on real savings rather than increased public spending or artificially low interest rates. Keynes’s biographer, Professor Lord Skidelsky, will take on modern day followers of Hayek in a debate at the London School of Economics. Paul Mason, economics editor of Newsnight, is in the chair.

Listen via BBC – BBC Radio 4 Programmes – Keynes Vs. Hayek. Jamie Whyte also appeared on Radio 4 recently to discuss QE: more here. (And I should have blogged it sooner.)

Parliament, the EU, Keynes and Hayek

Last night in debate, Keynes and his disciples were invoked and rebutted in relation to EU economic surveillance. One Labour MP wanted to print the money we need…

Today, via The Cobden Centre, I find EconStories have followed up their superb Keynes vs Hayek rap, Fear the Boom and Bust, with Fight of the Century. From the video’s introduction:

Fight of the Century

According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the Great Recession ended almost two years ago, in the summer of 2009. But we’re all uneasy. Job growth has been disappointing. The recovery seems fragile. Where should we head from here? Is that question even meaningful? Can the government steer the economy or have past attempts helped create the mess we’re still in.

John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek never agreed on the answers to these questions and they still don’t. Let’s listen to the greats. See Keynes and Hayek throwing down in “Fight of the Century”.

Whether we like it or not, today’s big question is which one of these great economist’s schools is more helpful to society’s flourishing. Parliament’s business shows that Keynes’s ideas are being adopted by ever greater state structures. Unfortunately, the experience of our lives is that they are mistaken.

Here’s the video:

Debauching the Currency

In the course of writing a presentation on bank reform, I rediscovered this from Keynes’ The Economic Consequences of the Peace:

Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some. The sight of this arbitrary rearrangement of riches strikes not only at security, but at confidence in the equity of the existing distribution of wealth. Those to whom the system brings windfalls, beyond their deserts and even beyond their expectations or desires, become ‘profiteers,’ who are the object of the hatred of the bourgeoisie, whom the inflationism has impoverished, not less than of the proletariat. As the inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundation of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.

And then there is this:

Gross inflation

More anon.

Speech in the budget debate

Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con): When I came to the House today, I expected to hear a great deal of Keynesian argument and I have not been disappointed. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) is no longer in the Chamber, as I wanted to congratulate him on his comprehensive grasp of Keynesian arguments. Unfortunately, it was also excruciating.

I am told that Keynes thought that the safe upper limit for the size of the state was 25% of national income. He might have halved the size of Government, so we can applaud the Budget as extremely moderate and thoughtful.

I have to tell those who propose deficit spending that it is inherently unsustainable. When Governments spend with a deficit they are bound to inject funds in a particular location in the economy and that is bound to create a pattern of economic activity that can be sustained only with deficit spending. We all accept that deficit spending cannot go on for ever. As one of my hon. Friends explained earlier this week, last year we were able to borrow only because we created a hole in the market for bonds using quantitative easing. That is so dangerous. In the past the world has seen the effects of printing money to pay off Government deficits, and I would dread to think that this country should live through such a circumstance.

I am reminded of some words published in 1945:

“I see now more clearly than ever before that even our greatest troubles spring from something that is as admirable and sound as it is dangerous-from our impatience to better the lot of our fellows.”

That is a quotation from Karl Popper, who is an interesting philosopher because, like his contemporary, Friedrich Hayek, he was a socialist until he understood where that philosophy went.

I am interested in the general well-being, particularly as Wycombe has not only great wealth but significant poverty and income levels everywhere in between. We must take seriously the realities that we face. I am glad that the Budget has included an announcement that there will be a review of pensions, and I should like to speak on that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) for having brought up the subject.

Read the rest of the speech here.

Hayek v Keynes

Via www.zerohedge.com and econstories.tv, the choice in economics explained through the medium of music:

See also

Crass Keynesianism

The Cobden Centre

This article originally appeared at cobdencentre.org.

Via Thrifty families accused of prolonging the recession – Times Online, yet more crass Keynesianism:

Anxious families are repaying debts instead of spending in the shops, amid concern over the uncertain economic outlook. The share of income saved in banks and building societies has risen to its highest level in more than a decade, heightening fears that faltering consumer demand could prolong the recession.

But see also Correction, Mr. Bernanke:

It is real savings that fund economic activity. The increase in the pool of real savings is the key behind sustained real economic growth.

These two authors make fundamentally different diagnoses and policy prescriptions because economics is not a positive applied science comparable to, say, physics. There are at least four schools of economic thinking, as Jeffey Tucker explains, but only one school predicted the bust.

This conflict over whether saving promotes recovery really matters: if the wrong side win and policy makers take heed, the recession will be deeper and longer than necessary.

Further reading

Presentations of capital-based macroeconomics

Capital-based macroeconomicsThough not for the faint-hearted, this first-class Powerpoint presentation of capital-based macroeconomics — based on Roger Garrison’s “Time and Money” — provides helpful animations explaining how the structure of production changes in response to saving and investment. It shows how malinvestment and overconsumption arise.

The original home of these presentations is here, but they have also been updated to present and compare Keynesian circular-flow analysis and Hayekian means-ends analysis here.