Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Question about the ABCT

rated by 0 users
Not Answered This post has 0 verified answers | 48 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
138 Posts
Points 3,600
CaptainMurphy posted on Fri, Apr 16 2010 12:18 AM

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory states that entrepreneurs are not able to distinguish between money that comes from genuine savings and money created through credit expansion by the Fed.  But surely the Fed keeps track of how much money they loan into existence..  If entrepreneurs know this, shouldn't they be able to adjust the interest rate appropriately and not be fooled into malinvestments?

I know there are holes in this argument, but I'm having trouble putting together a cohesive counter-argument in my head..

  • | Post Points: 95

All Replies

Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775
CaptainMurphy:
If entrepreneurs know this, shouldn't they be able to adjust the interest rate appropriately and not be fooled into malinvestments?
I've had this q also, and it's been asked many times. My personal answer has been, look at the recent bubbles, housing and dot.com. There was a business cycle, and malinvestments, but a bit different from how Mises mapped it out, I believe. Hard to say that a dot.com stock or a house is a high order capital investment. I was forced to conclude that what really counts is easy money, meaning money created by credit expansion by the Fed. It's very existence will creat a boom, as people look for a place to spend it. Maybe Mises was writing in the days before there was an FDIC, so that banks had to be careful where they invested their money, lest they go bankrupt. But nowadays they can gamble recklessly, and do. As for the original purely theoretical q, won't the enterepeneurs wise up sooner or later, I think Mises himself addressed this question, and i think his answer was "When they do, if ever, things may be different."

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
3,113 Posts
Points 60,515
Esuric replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 3:16 AM
CaptainMurphy:
The Austrian Business Cycle Theory states that entrepreneurs are not able to distinguish between money that comes from genuine savings and money created through credit expansion by the Fed.  But surely the Fed keeps track of how much money they loan into existence..  If entrepreneurs know this, shouldn't they be able to adjust the interest rate appropriately and not be fooled into malinvestments?
Don't look at it as "money which comes from real savings" and "money which is created by credit expansion;" the key is that profitable investment requires real savings (actual resources). Expanding the money supply, and therefore lowering the rate(s) of interest makes it seem like society has more resources then it actually does, which causes the malinvestments. Also, the FED does not control the money supply; it merely controls one component of the money supply (the monetary base). It doesn't loan money to the public; commercial banks do, which increases the supply of money (constrained by the demand for money). So entrepreneurs cannot know what the "real" equilibrium interest rate is because they don't know the real supply of savings (also, they don't know the demand for investment). Essentially, you need markets for accurate pricing (unavoidable conclusion).
Smiling Dave:
There was a business cycle, and malinvestments, but a bit different from how Mises mapped it out, I believe. Hard to say that a dot.com stock or a house is a high order capital investment.
Interest rates effect long term durable goods (like housing) and producer goods (higher order goods).

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 1,730
cret replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 3:28 AM
"Theory states that entrepreneurs are not able to distinguish between money that comes from genuine savings and money created through credit expansion by the Fed. does the fed actually do credit expansion??? or do they distribute dollars on the treasury/mints behalf?? would it make any difference if it was paper dollars or credit expansion as you say??
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 1,730
cret replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 3:32 AM
"Don't look at it as "money which comes from real savings" and "money which is created by credit expansion;" the key is that profitable investment requires real savings (actual resources). Expanding the money supply, and therefore lowering the rate(s) of interest makes it seem like society has more resources then it actually does,..." if say a deposit of iron ore is found and it would take about 6 months to gather up a bunch of stiing saved dollars to mine the iron would that be different that creating dollars from thin air and mining the iron in six weeks??? is that what so=called credit expansion does??? also if the area where the iron ore was was owned how could society have more resources than it actually does??
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 1,730
cret replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 3:36 AM
My personal answer has been, look at the recent bubbles, housing and dot.com. what you call a bubble...did people actually loose dollars during these instances that you call a bubble? did they invest dollars only to have a bank in a deposit account create dollars once the first ones were lent???
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 1,730
cret replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 3:42 AM
"The Austrian Business Cycle Theory states that entrepreneurs are not able to distinguish between money that comes from genuine savings and money created through credit expansion by the Fed...." would it really matter where the dollars come from??? does money even come from the fed????
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 1,730
cret replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 3:55 AM
"So entrepreneurs cannot know what the "real" equilibrium interest rate is because they don't know the real supply of savings ....." how does a mortgage lender get his hands on fed credit expansion??? by talking to someone??? does the commercial bank get credit from the fed via a fed purchase of assets??? does the banker then tell this to someone else???? is this information posted somewhere??
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
165 Posts
Points 1,730
cret replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 4:03 AM
would savings accounts figures give some idea? would an entrpreneur ever know exactly how much gold there was in peoples safes???
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
138 Posts
Points 3,600
Smiling Dave:
I was forced to conclude that what really counts is easy money, meaning money created by credit expansion by the Fed. It's very existence will creat a boom, as people look for a place to spend it.
I agree that the credit expansion will inevitably lead to the new money being snatched up and utilized, but shouldn't entrepreneurs be able to realize that investing this money in long-term projects would be a mistake? Is it simply a matter of not enough people being familiar with the ABCT?
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
138 Posts
Points 3,600
Esuric:
Don't look at it as "money which comes from real savings" and "money which is created by credit expansion;" the key is that profitable investment requires real savings (actual resources). Expanding the money supply, and therefore lowering the rate(s) of interest makes it seem like society has more resources then it actually does, which causes the malinvestments.
But if people know that the new money is being generated through essentially counterfeiting, shouldn't they have the foresight to avoid investing this new money in long term projects? Even if they're not familiar with the formal ABCT, shouldn't experience teach them this anyways?
Also, the FED does not control the money supply; it merely controls one component of the money supply (the monetary base). It doesn't loan money to the public; commercial banks do, which increases the supply of money (constrained by the demand for money). So entrepreneurs cannot know what the "real" equilibrium interest rate is because they don't know the real supply of savings (also, they don't know the demand for investment). Essentially, you need markets for accurate pricing (unavoidable conclusion).
This is a good point, but for the sake of argument let's assume there is no fractional reserve banking. If the money supply was entirely controlled by the Fed, would entrepreneurs be able to avoid the boom-bust cycle if they knew exactly how much money the Fed was pouring into circulation?
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
138 Posts
Points 3,600
cret:
"The Austrian Business Cycle Theory states that entrepreneurs are not able to distinguish between money that comes from genuine savings and money created through credit expansion by the Fed...." would it really matter where the dollars come from??? does money even come from the fed????
Some of the money comes from the Fed creating it, some comes through commercial banks lending out money while still having it be redeemable on demand, known as fractional reserve banking. And yes it does matter where the dollars come from.. if they come from people saving money, it means people are foregoing present luxuries to invest in production that makes them better off in the future. If the dollars come from the Fed, not only are the real savings not there because people are still consuming at the same rate, but it will also lead to inflation.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775
CaptainMurphy:
Smiling Dave:
I was forced to conclude that what really counts is easy money, meaning money created by credit expansion by the Fed. It's very existence will creat a boom, as people look for a place to spend it.
I agree that the credit expansion will inevitably lead to the new money being snatched up and utilized, but shouldn't entrepreneurs be able to realize that investing this money in long-term projects would be a mistake? Is it simply a matter of not enough people being familiar with the ABCT?
My own personal non-official answer to this is that easy money, even low interest loans kind of easy money, makes people really reckless and stupid. Add to that banks, who play with house money and are insured by govt in case they fail, and we don't need those wily ole entrepeneurs to create the boom. But I've seen other answers, like "In the short term there IS a lot of money to be made, and its a gamble, maybe the Fed will keep rates low till I finish building my factory." Also "Hey all my competitors are taking the money, so I'll lose if I don't take it." if i was really energetic I'd dig up the links and emails about this frequently asked question.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
4,249 Posts
Points 70,775
OK I found this: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/15660/321482.aspx Caplan asks your q, I think. Scroll down to New Libertys post of refuting links.

My humble blog

It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
138 Posts
Points 3,600
Smiling Dave:
My own personal non-official answer to this is that easy money, even low interest loans kind of easy money, makes people really reckless and stupid. Add to that banks, who play with house money and are insured by govt in case they fail, and we don't need those wily ole entrepeneurs to create the boom.
I think you're right to an extent.. I see this as helping to explain why the banks would be more willing to lend money, but not necessarily why entrepreneurs would be more likely to sink the money into big projects if they know they it will come back to bite them later on.
But I've seen other answers, like "In the short term there IS a lot of money to be made, and its a gamble, maybe the Fed will keep rates low till I finish building my factory."
I agree this plays into it.. but if the entrepreneur gets his factory built before interest rates are raised, would he then sell it off immediately to make a quick profit? If he decides to run the factory, hire workers, etc, he knows the bust will come eventually either when interest rates are raised or when his factory begins to lose money because it has no buyers because consumers are still spending on lower-order goods. So he would probably try to sell it immediately. But if other investors are privy to the same knowledge, that the bust is coming soon, they would be fools to buy it. So it seems like the entrepreneur is banking on suckers who don't see the bust coming to make his profit. Do you think if more investors were familiar with the ABCT, we would be able to lessen the severity of the recessions?
Also "Hey all my competitors are taking the money, so I'll lose if I don't take it."
To this I respond with one of my previous points.. Sure the new money will be taken, but why does this dictate that it will be invested in long-term projects? Can't entrepreneurs borrow the money and invest it in short-term projects if they know the long-term projects will prove toxic when the bust kicks in?
if i was really energetic I'd dig up the links and emails about this frequently asked question.
I tried searching for this, but honestly this forum engine is confusing.. I wish they would switch over to vbulletin or something
  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 4 (49 items) 1 2 3 4 Next > | RSS