Anatomy of a Credit-Induced Boom-and-Bust Cycle
Billy Bob and Planetary Resources, Inc. both want the computer, but there’s only one to go around. They end up bidding against one another, prices have to rise, and that’s what leads to the bust phase of the business cycle.
Come again? What I’ve just described is part of the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Friedrich Hayek’s theory of the business cycle, which builds on the work of Ludwig von Mises and Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk and which finds its best modern explanation in Auburn University economist Roger Garrison’s 2000 book Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure, emphasizes how a government monetary injection leads to a business cycle.
How does this happen? The first thing we should do is ask about "an economy working right" because, as Hayek notes, we have to know how things could go right before we could possibly know how they might go wrong. For John Maynard Keynes and others following in his intellectual footsteps, macroeconomic questions are questions about relationships between very high-level aggregates—aggregates like Gross Domestic Product, Investment, Consumption, and so on. As Hayek argues, however, "Mr. Keynes’ aggregates conceal the fundamental mechanisms of change."
Hayek’s business cycle theory, on the other hand, focuses on those mechanisms of change. Let’s consider two cases. In the first case, we will see how the economy responds to an increase in real saving. In the second case, we will see how the economy responds to a credit expansion.
For simplicity’s sake, we’ll consider a story featuring three characters: there’s the aforementioned Billy Bob, who is considering buying a new computer. There’s Walmart, which sells computers to consumers who use them for email, games, and other stuff. Finally, there’s our other protagonist, Planetary Resources, a firm that wants to earn its income by mining asteroids (seriously, this company exists) and that is investing in developing new technology that might make this possible. Someday.
Billy Bob, after thinking about it, decides that his old computer is good enough. Instead of spending $1000 on a new computer, he decides to put it in his savings account so he can buy something better someday. This increases the supply of loanable funds, lowers the interest rate ever so slightly, and leaves a valuable resource—a new computer—available for someone else to purchase.
In response to the lower interest rate, Planetary Resources decides to expand its R&D operations ever so slightly. In order to do their R&D, they will need…a new computer. They borrow the $1000 that Billy Bob has saved and buy the computer he decided to leave on the shelf at Walmart. There’s a dip in consumption spending, but there’s an increase in investment spending. We get less consumption today, but we also get more investment. The computer Billy Bob decided not to buy, instead of being a $1000 Facebook machine, becomes an investment that a scientist at Planetary Resources uses for research that might not pay off for years. This investment means even higher consumption possibilities in the future. In response to an increase in the saving rate, we get more economic growth.
Contrast this to what happens when the Federal Reserve injects new reserves into the banking system. This injection of new reserves increases the supply of loanable funds and lowers the interest rate, but—and this is crucial—it does not create any new investable resources. In other words, it doesn’t create any new computers, or hammers, or wrenches, or tractors.
In response to the lower interest rate, Planetary Resources decides to invest more. They respond to the credit expansion just like they would respond to Billy Bob’s increase in saving. Billy Bob, however notices that interest rate has fallen and therefore decides to save less, not more. In our example, this means he decides to buy the computer since he wouldn’t earn much interest if he just left the money in his savings account.
Billy Bob and Planetary resources each have $1000 with which they want to buy a new computer. The problem is that there is only one computer on the shelf, so Billy Bob and Planetary Resources end up bidding against one another. This causes computer prices to rise, say to $1100. This wouldn’t necessarily be a problem, but there are firms that have made plans and hired workers or bought office furniture or started new projects based on the expectation that they would be able to buy a computer for $1000. Some of these projects will no longer work out and some firms will no longer be profitable with $1100 computers. Hence, these projects (and firms) have to be liquidated, and we end up with unemployment during the "bust" phase of the business cycle.
The economist Tim Harford wrote in The Undercover Economist about "Competitive Markets and the World of Truth." Indeed, competitive markets are truly spectacular as they assemble and transmit knowledge about consumers’ tastes, available technology, and available stocks of natural resources. The problem with credit expansion is that it means that prices are no longer telling the truth. Billy Bob and Planetary Resources both went to the store with the expectation that they would be able to get a computer for $1000. Both were wrong, at least one of them ended up having plans thwarted, and the economy as a whole experienced unemployment and dislocation as people adjusted to the fact that the prices informing their plans were inaccurate.
An economy works right when the prices are telling the truth, and things go badly when the prices get distorted. When a central bank starts playing fast and loose with the money supply, price distortions are an inevitable result. These distortions in turn lead to the kinds of problems we call on central banks to fix—problems we wouldn’t have if central banks hadn’t created them in the first place.
When prices are distorted in a higher direction, competition becomes a bad thing because the plans individuals and firms made assuming a (lower) price are no longer viable. What about when prices are distorted in a lower direction? Say, injections from the central bank lead the computer manufacturer to take out loans in order to ratchet up the production of its $1000 computers in order to sell more by offering them at a lower price point that has been determined would generate more profit for the company. Does Billy Bob benefit from that scenario by saving on consumption, or was his purchase unnecessary through and through? I'm not sure why the computer manufacturer doesn't build more computers to meet the increase in demand created by the injection.
I think the thesis of this article is that when consumers delay consumption (unprovoked by government liquidity injections), they increase the borrowing power of businesses who will be more productive with the resources not consumed by individuals, and this is a net good for the economy.
Well, Fed. create problems and then proceed to solve their own problems (it is called "make work" in the industry)... and get paid for doing both (creation and solving) with net zero-gain. A sure win-win for them.
First, it is to idealized and not factual.
Second, there are so many variables connected to the production of an item for sale, that the price can be manipulated from anyone who participated into producing that item for sale.
And finally, but not the least our government influence our boom and bust by shifting policies, money supply, interest rates and psychological lies.
As soon as the economy starts to pick up, and people and businesses demand more loans, you will start to see these reserves unwind into the economy and that's when the inflation will really begin.
The Fed is hoping it will be able to catch this when it happens and reduce the money supply, but if it does so too early it will risk recession, too late and we could see hyperinflation. And let's be honest, which central banker wants to be the cause of a recession by tightening too early?
Like the Fed, economic statistics are certainly imperfect but the trends over time are meaningful. Comment #6 is mistaken, headline CPI includes all the expenses mentioned (only Core CPI excludes food and energy) and is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not the Federal Reserve. And if there is skepticism about data compiled by government career civil servants, inflation measures are also published by numerous private firms. They show similar trends - low inflation despite increased money supply due to insufficient demand - consistent with a Keynesian liquidity trap.
The long term interest rates can not rise until USA runs deficits year after year, if they rise, the taxes must go up on everyone or USA must default on its debt, there is no third solution to the present problem. Printing money will destroy the dollar and all of our dollar denominated assets.
cringe in fear at the mention of your name.
To AbeKuyper: The computer manufacturers would have to compete with other firms looking to expand, as well, so I doubt they will be able to produce at lower prices (the inputs--labor, capital, and raw materials--would likely get more expensive.
To gcomfort & Anonymous: The absence of inflation predicted by a lot of people who were concerned about various rounds of quantitative easing is definitely a point in (say) Krugman’s favor. There are a lot of things that go into explaining recessions, and the housing bubble was almost certainly caused by Austrian factors.
Thanks again for reading and commenting. I look forward to continuing the conversation in a future post.
In your further description of the second (money-creating) scenario you assume that the money-creation was *unexpected*. You should have mentioned that right away, in the initial description, since *expected* money-creation has none of the bad consequences that you attribute to the *unexpected* kind. Also, you should have mentioned that unexpected money-*destruction* (or -*withdrawal*) can have similar disruptive effects on the economy.
The lesson seems to be that the fiat-monetary authority should avoid surprises; it should create a definite expectation about how much base money it is going to provide, and then it should provide just that amount, neither more nor less. It should function by rule, eschewing discretion; its monetary policy should be fully pre-committed.
Does it matter which rule the monetary authority commits itself to? That is a question that would have been, and is, worth addressing.
pre-Copernican theories on teh center of the universe.