Prices, and Production: Lecture II, Part III
It is now time to add the flow of
money into Hayek's theoretical apparatus. While the Hayekian triangle
is used to illustrate the movement of goods through the economy's
structure of production, it is just as legitimately utilized as a
schematic to elucidate the flow of money. When the goods are moving
from the bottom to the top of the triangle, money is moving in the
opposing direction, being first paid for the consumers' goods, and
moving downward until it is paid to the owners of the factors of
production as income. In order to analyze the relationship between
the proportional quantities of money used in each stage of
production, and the opposing movement of goods, it is necessary that
we take a definite assumption with respect to the division of the
process among different firms for if more than one consecutive stage
is owned by a single firm than there is no need for an exchange of
goods against money in those stages. Here, we shall take the
simplest assumption: that the previous division of the economy into
stages of production with respect to the Hayekian triangles happens
to coincide with the points at which goods change hands between
separate companies.
The proportion of money spent for
consumers' goods, and producers' goods is equal to the proportion
between the aggregate demand for consumers' goos, and that of
producers' goods (this is done with the assumption of a stationary
state, which is the only one we are concerned with right now). In
this case, there is a demand for 40 arbitrary units of consumers'
goods, and 80 of producers' goods, ergo a proportion of 40:80, or
1:2, in the output between the two; this can also reflect the
proportion between consumption, and investment during any period of
time . Similarly, 1:2 is the proportion of money spent for
consumers', and producers' goods . Once we have established this
method, a couple fundamental facts become clear.
The first is that the quantity of
money spent on producers' goods during any period of time may very
well be far greater than the quantity spent on consumers' goods in
that period of time. This fallacy originated with Adam Smith, who
wrote: “The value of goods circulated between the different dealers
can never exceed the value of those circulated between dealers and
consumers; whatever is bought by the dealer being ultimately destined
to be sold to the consumers.”
It is easy to see that this error results intuitively from the fact
that the total expenditures made during production must be covered by
the return from the sale of the eventual products. Nevertheless, it
is also easily solved by the realization that most goods are
exchanged several times against money before finally being sold to
the consumer, a realization that can be visualized in a Hayekian
triangle divided between different stages of production.
The second conclusion that follows is
that the amount of capital invested in the structure of production,
what Hayek referred to as the “capital equipment of society,” is
not a magnitude that is brought into existence, and hence forth
remains constant. To the contrary, whether the capital allocation
there remains the same depends on whether entrepreneurs find it
profitable to return the normal amount of their returns from selling
the product of their respective stages in producing goods of the same
sort a la J.S. Mill's “perpetual consumption and reproduction of
capital.” It totally depends on the entrepreneur on whether he will
continue to invest his net income in the same proportions as before,
as Hayek wrote: “The continuance of the existing degree of
capitalistic organization depends, accordingly, on the prices paid
and obtained for the product of each stage of production; and these
prices are, therefore, a very real and important factor in
determining the direction of production” - hence the title Prices
and Production.