The following are six of the most
prevalent economic myths that appear time and again in the mainstream
media. I will give a brief description
of each and a brief description of the economic reality, as seen from an
Austrian perspective.
Myth
#1: Increased money leads to economic
prosperity.
This Keynesian myth postulates that
increasing aggregate demand through increasing the money supply will lead to
more spending, higher employment, increased production, and a higher overall
standard of living.
The reality is that an increase in money
leads to malinvestment. The time structure of production is thrown into
disequilibrium by encouraging investment in projects more remotely removed in
time from final consumption. There are
insufficient resources in the economy for the profitable completion of all
projects, since individual time preference is unchanged, meaning that there is
no increase in savings. When prices
rise, due to this unchanged time preference, these projects will be liquidated,
revealing the loss of capital.
Production will be lower than otherwise.
Unemployment will increase while workers adapt to economic reality.
Myth
#2: Manipulating interest rates leads
to economic prosperity.
This is a corollary of Myth #1 but
deserves its own discussion. In the
Keynesian view lower interest rates always are beneficial; therefore, it is the
proper role of the monetary authorities to drive down the interest rate via
open market operations.
The reality is that interest rates are a
product of the market, reflecting the interplay of the demand for loanable
funds and the availability of loanable funds.
Historically high or low interest rates can have multiple causes, none
of which are prima facie good or bad.
For example, rates can be high because entrepreneurs have highly
profitable opportunities due to reduced regulation or a breakthrough in
technology. If time preference is
unchanged and, therefore, savings is unchanged, the interest rate rises and allocates
the scarce savings to the most highly desired ends. Or, interest rates can be low due to a change
in time preference that leads to increased savings. If entrepreneurial opportunities are
unchanged, interest rates will fall.
Likewise, demand for loans can be high while savings is high or vice
versa. Manipulating the interest rate
truly is an act of fantasy by the monetary authorities, who believe that they
can know the impact of billions of ever changing decisions affecting the supply
of money and demand for money.
Myth
#3: Lowering the foreign exchange
rate of the currency, to give more local currency in exchange for foreign
currency, will lead to an export driven economic recovery.
The reality is that no country can force
another to subsidize its economy by manipulating its exchange rate. Giving more local currency subsidizes foreign
buyers in the near term, but it creates higher prices in the domestic economy
later. Early receivers of the new money--exporters,
their employees, their suppliers, etc.--benefit by a transfer of wealth from
later receivers of the new money. But as
the price level rises from the increase in the domestic money supply, the
benefit to foreign buyers evaporates.
Then the exporters demand that the monetary authorities conduct another
round of exchange rate interventions.
The big winners are foreign buyers.
Intermediate winners are exporters, but their advantage ends eventually. The losers are non-exporters, especially
retired people.
Myth
#4: Money expansion will not cause
higher prices.
Currently the U.S. government is engaged
in a propaganda campaign to convince us that it can both monetize the
government's debt and engage in quantitative easing without causing a rising
price level.
The reality is that there is no escaping
the fundamentals of economic law in the monetary sphere. Ludwig von Mises and many excellent Austrian
economists since, such as Murray N. Rothbard, have explained that the
relationship between an increase in money and an increase in the price level is
not a mechanical one. Nevertheless, even
Mises explained that the basis of all monetary theory is the "Quantity
Theory of Money", that states that there is a positive relationship
between the money supply and the price level.
In other words, more money eventually leads to higher prices and vice
versa. What causes all the confusion is
that the price level actually can fall even when the money supply expands, if
all of the new money plus some of the existing money stock are hoarded. Mises call this the first stage of the three stages
of inflation. The public expects prices
to remain the same or even fall, so they do not increase their spending even when
the money supply expands. Eventually, though, the public comes to understand
that the money supply will keep increasing and that prices will not return to
some previous golden age. At this point
the public will begin to increase spending to buy at lower prices today rather
than higher prices tomorrow. The price
level will rise even if the money supply shrinks, because the public spends
previously hoarded money faster. This is
Mises' phase two of inflation. In the
final stage money loses its value, as the public spends it as fast as possible. This is Mises' stage three, the "crackup
boom".
Myth
#5: More, better, and more vigorously
enforced regulations can prevent loan and investment losses.
The politicians and their regulatory
agencies believe that prior monetary crises were caused by a combination of
stupidity, greed, and criminality by bankers and sellers of investments.
The reality is that no army of
regulators armed with the most modern analytical tools and the most powerful
means of regulatory enforcement can prevent malinvestment from money supply
expansion. The monetary expansion
encourages longer term projects for which the cost of money is a major factor
in forecasting success. But without an
increase in real savings, insufficient resources will ensure that many of these
projects will never earn a profit and must be liquidated. Bank and investor losses are inescapable.
Myth
#6: Government can prevent
hyperinflation.
This is a corollary of Myth #4. If our monetary masters believe that money
expansion will not cause higher prices, then they believe that they can prevent
hyperinflation; i.e., the total destruction of the monetary unit as a universal
medium of exchange.
The reality is that hyperinflation is
cause by a loss of confidence in the money unit, which the monetary authorities
may be incapable of preventing. Once the
panic starts, the demand by the public to hold money falls to zero. Prices skyrocket. Even if the monetary authorities got religion
at this point and froze the money supply, the panic will run its course. No one will want to be the last holding
worthless paper. More likely, though,
the monetary authorities will aid and abet the panic, even if unwittingly, due
to political pressure to increase payments to powerful domestic constituencies,
such as retirees, the military, the public safety sector, government
contractors, etc. This was the case in
Revolutionary France, Weimar Germany, and modern day Zimbabwe. The mindset of today's money masters seems
little more advanced.
Conclusion
I encourage Austrian economists to point
out these common myths whenever encountered.
I have had success writing letters-to-the-editor of major
newspapers. Their editors often seem
genuinely pleased to receive a polite letter pointing out the Austrian view. Perhaps it is simply a case of controversy selling
newspapers. Furthermore, much business
writing often has imbedded Keynesian assumptions that drive the narrative
toward government intervention. Most
business reporters have no economic training, so Austrians should politely
point out these errors, too.
Well said, Patrick. I especially agree with point 5 about the absurdity of regulation in general and particularly financial regulation. Anything beyond "don't steal" and "don't collude" is unenforceable, and inevitably leads to the argument for still more regulation -- it seems we're always just a few regulators away from nirvana.
ReplyDeleteAre the regulatory cheerleaders incapable of logic? Do they ever think of the heroic regulator's incentive system? What do they make? 60K? 100K? And it's the same whether they work 40 hours or 80. Compare that to the young shark at Goldman Sachs -- he's making 250K today and has visions of 5M before he's 30. It's ludicrous to think the regulator is going to stay ahead of the guy chasing his 5M dream. The market has all the regulatory power we need. Anything else is just trying to have a bubble-generating financial system and convincing ourselves we can somehow control it.