We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
One example of a speculative bubble that gets mentioned sometimes is the Dutch Tulip Bubble of the 17th Century. I have occasionally come across the argument that says that this bubble, like some others, cannot be blamed on expansion of the money supply, ergo, those hairshirt Austrians banging on about the evils of elastic money are wrong, there are sometimes bad things that happen in capitalism and we need laws against it, etc, etc.
But according to this guy at the Mises Institute, even the mania for tulip bulbs in the Netherlands had a monetary cause. So that’s that issue settled then.
“On the basis of economic theory and historical experience, the life expectancy of a societal model with 50 percent or more government control over the economy does therefore not look promising. The taxing, resources-consuming state-parasite must constantly weaken and sooner or later kill the productive and wealth-creating market-host. When does this happen? Well, we are about to find out, as we are now all part of some gigantic real-life experiment, bravely conducted by the current policy establishment in Europe and elsewhere at our own expense and that of our children. Across the EU, the share of government spending in the economy is already around 50 percent, depending whose numbers you believe. If we could account for regulation and interventionist legislation, the state’s grip on economic decision-making is certainly larger. To call such an economy capitalist is a joke, albeit perhaps not as cruel a joke as the one the economy itself, with its persistently anaemic performance, is playing on the Keynesian economists and their ridiculous clamour for ever more government spending to boost ‘aggregate demand’.”
– Detlev Schlichter, making a point that needs hammering home. What we have in the West, right now, is a million miles from laissez faire capitalism.
Is this video the 21st century version of a photocopied 1980s Libertarian Alliance pamphlet? It contains Madsen Pirie explaining an economics concept in under three minutes. He tells me that he is going to do 20 videos, one a week.
Strangely, outside of lectures held by the ASI and IEA, there isn’t much video coming out of the UK libertarian scene. Over in the States, all sorts of organisations, especially Reason.tv, have done sterling work with online video. My instinct is that the returns on time for British libertarians doing video could be significant – and that Madsen’s videos will have quite an effect among young people exploring economics.
The recent debates about the US Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, has reignited interest in the subject of intellectual property. As regulars here know, people who defend free markets take very different views of IP, often clashing sharply about what the purpose of property rights as such is. So to help form my views about this, I recently ordered and received this book, Justifying Intellectual Property, by Robert P Merges. From a fast skim-read, it bases its arguments around the ideas of three thinkers: Kant, Locke and Rawls. A strange mix in some ways, I think. There is a huge bibliography, and the book notes – without rudeness or dismissal – those writers who dispute the case for IP, such as Stephan Kinsella and Tom G Palmer.
Definitely an interesting read, I think. Naturally, it is under copyright.
Update: this is an interesting observation from a man, D Halling, who is a fierce proponent of IP and yet regards the SOPA and related legislation as “power politics at its worst”. So if the IP crowd hate these bills, why bother?
Another update: here is a very rigorous explanation by Stan Liebowitz of the issues as to why IP exists, and does so very much from an economics point of view, rather than say, arguing that IP is about “free speech”.
“In retrospect, there are some obvious questions an Icelander living through the past five years might have asked himself. For example: Why should Iceland suddenly be so seemingly essential to global finance? Or: Why do giant countries that invented modern banking suddenly need Icelandic banks to stand between their depositors and their borrowers – to decide who gets capital and who does not? And if Icelanders have this incredible natural gift for finance, how did they keep it so well hidden for 1,100 years?”
Tom Clougherty has an interesting graph up at the ASI blog, taken from this McKinsey report, of the movement in combined public and private debt for the ten biggest of the world’s developed national economies, from 1990 until now. Follow either of the above two links to get a bigger and more legible version of this graph:
Since 2007, of course, all have lurched upwards from wherever they were to quite a bit more.
To me the interesting bits are those between 1990 and 2007. The general trend was a general increase in debt, from somewhat troubling to somewhat more troubling. But three countries bucked this trend: Japan started very bad and merely stayed very bad; Canada started okay-ish and stayed okay-ish; Britain started okay-ish but became very bad. In terms of the direction things went in, Canada has the best graph of them all, and Britain has the worst. Between them, these three graphs, the grey one along the top (Japan), the green one in the pack towards the bottom (Canada), and the dark one moving most determinedly upwards (Britain), make a kind of big and elongated Z.
One other deviation from the norm worth noting is that just before 2007, Germany, unlike any other country, went (see the yellow graph) definitely downwards. It did what Keynes said, in other words, and paid down its debts when times were good, or at least when they seemed good. In Britain, the “Keynesians”, public and private, just carried on running up more debt.
I know that as a fan of Austrianism I am not supposed to get too excited about national economic aggregates. But this set of aggregates and aggregate movements looks to me quite telling. Make of it all what you will. For me, it confirms the sense that many now have that Tony Blair’s government was one of the worse ones that we’ve ever had.
This article over at the Foreign Policy website, by Helen Mees, dusts off an argument that I have mentioned here on Samizdata before, (in relation to a comment by the US investor and commentator Peter Schiff) namely, that China, by using its vast foreign exchange reserves to buy Western government debt, thereby pushed down long-term interest rates and encouraged the kind of reckless lending that ended up going ker-boom! in 2007-2008. And if only the Chinese had not flogged us all those artificially cheap computer parts and children’s toys (made cheap by that naughty fixed exchange rate regime for the yuan), they would not have made so much money to then lend to us Westerners to blow on housing we cannot really afford. (Here is another old post of mine on the same subject of debt/savings imbalances between the West and China.)
The problem with this line of reasoning is that if, say, a country has earned genuine income by selling something valuable and useful (like toys, cars, electronic components or whatnot), and invested the proceeds abroad in things that can generate new wealth in the future, what is the problem? The problem is not that China invested huge savings and other surpluses into the West – after all, in the 19th Century, the UK invested large capital surpluses in places such as the US, Canada and Argentina (now there’s an irony, Ed). And there was nothing “imbalanced” about that. If real savings – not central bank funny money created out of thin air – gets lent to people to invest, that’s hardly bad. The problem is if the money is lent to people buying homes as part of a broader speculative bubble in real estate, say. And there is no doubt that domestic policy in the West, most definitely in the US, encouraged unwise lending and borrowing for property, consumer goods and so on, rather than investment in new technologies and industries.
The comment thread on the FP item are interesting, where it is contested that subprime borrowing made up only a tiny fraction of the US mortgage market. It did not, since one of the issues with the sub-prime market and the huge losses sustained by banks was how sub-prime debt was mixed up with better quality stuff and then sold to investors as if it is was all investment-grade, when it was wasn’t. For example, here is a comment from a person called “RRAFAY”:
“Actually, 5% of Subprime is enough to cause a crash. Especially, when no mention is made of how these mortgages were leveraged. Secondly, Alt-A is not mentioned either. When both are taken together, they represent roughly 15% of the US mortgage market. Secondly, the idea that Chinese surplus capital led to an excess supply of money is so weak, that it is mind boggling that someone would even suggest this. China only holds 7% of total US debt. Each country mentioned had a housing crisis, Ireland, Spain, and the US.”
In my view, it is certainly true that in a world of free capital movements, if a country A can export a vast amount of its capital into country B, and people in the latter country are not constrained by proper market disciplines and there is already a full-blown encouragement of high borrowing and lax lending, then the added money will pour fuel on the fire. But in the main, I think it is a pretty silly line of argument to say that it is the fault of the Chinese for having earned so much money and then reinvested it. There’s something just not quite right about that argument on so many levels.
Comment just attached, by “Malcolm”, to my posting here a while back entitled Austrianism as Number Two:
Newsnight has just introduced its story on Ed Milliband’s decision today to back the government’s pay freeze by playing the Keynes v Hayek video from Econstories.tv
The narrator even described it as a “fabulous” video that is “easily the most entertaining explanation of the issues” – as closely as I can remember the wording, anyway.
I realise I’m commenting on a posting that’s six months old, but I’m hoping Brian, as the original author, gets automatically notified of comments. That the video is being used to give context to a now-current news item is certainly consonant with Brian’s original theory about Austrianism as the new #2 (with apologies to The Prisoner).
I did get automatically notified of this comment. Many thanks for the kind thought. However, I also clocked this Newsnight snippet myself, and added an off topic bit in a comment I also added to the earlier posting today about SOPA, which Newsnight is also reporting on, thanks to the Wikipedia black-out that Rob Fisher noted.
The more I ponder those Keynes v Hayek videos, the more of a stroke of total genius I believe them to be. They play especially well with the BBC, because the BBC is never happier than when explaining an issue in terms of competing arguments. Yes, the BBC is often “biased”, in the sense that you get a definite idea of which team they may prefer (which may not be yours), and which team they choose to give the last word to. But the “other” team often gets a more than fair crack of the whip.
As I made clear in that earlier posting of mine, the real sufferers from this kind of bias are the “other other” teams, so to speak, the ones who don’t even get a look in, the ones who are shown as being not even wrong, on account of not even existing.
To quote Rob Fisher in the posting immediately below, about Detlev Schlichter’s performance on the BBC’s “Start The Week” show yesterday morning:
All in all not a bad day for the spreading of Austrian ideas.
Which adds up to two consecutive not bad days for the spreading of Austrian ideas.
As Brian Micklethwait informed us ahead of time, Detlev Schlichter appeared on the BBC Radio 4 programme Start The Week on Monday. A podcast of the programme can be downloaded. Remember that all of this is being talked about on the BBC, on Radio 4, which I imagine is listened to by lots of Guardian and Independent readers. Austrian economics is now Being Talked About, as Brian might point out.
The programme opens with Economist columnist Philip Coggan talking about the supposed conflict between money as a store of value and money as a medium of exchange. Creditors will always want a fixed supply of money and debtors will want an expanding supply of money, and this seems true enough, up to a point. Coggan goes on to point out that the biggest debtor is government and governments have always been very keen on expanding the money supply. He also explains how banks’ interests are aligned with the governments because the expanding money supply props up asset prices. There is no way out except by defaulting or inflation.
Angela Knight of the British Bankers Association is worried about more immediate matters like tomorrow and the Eurozone crisis.
Detlev Schlichter is up next. He says that paper money systems have been tried throughout history and have always failed; have always been implemented to fund the state. The failure mode is either a return to commodity money or hyperinflation. He clarifies Coggan’s point about conflict between debtors and creditors by pointing out that in a voluntary contract both expect to benefit. They would both like a means to honour that contract with money that they can trust. This makes sense because if debtors routinely get the expanding money supply they want, this ultimately will get factored into the price of the loan.
Coggan says that the trouble with the gold standard is that it imposes more austerity on governments than the voters will stand. I think Schlichter agrees, which is why he is predicting hyperinflation.
Maurice Glasman says that capitalism requires ‘exploitation’ of humans and their environment and short term returns. Detlev is ignoring the imbalance of power between the debtor and creditor. After that I couldn’t follow what he was on about.
Schlichter responds to Marr’s questions by saying that expanding money supply is right now being done to stimulate the economy rather than just to fund governments. Furthermore he is not suggesting that we walk around with little sacks of gold; payment technologies do not depend on state fiat currency. The BBC listeners are reminded that money is not backed by gold and that it’s just an invention of the state. Schlichter advocates removing the state entirely from money. Consumers should control what is produced in the economy by sending price signals, but this does not work because of the expanding money supply. If we went back to gold, as has been done before in Britain, markets would correct. Andrew Marr is incredulous: interest rates shooting up!? In this day and age? Yes, says Schlichter, calmly, it is essential that savings and investments are coordinated by interest rates.
Philip Coggan says going back to gold is possible but very unlikely, but could arise from complete collapse of the system, Zimbabwe-style, but this is not imminent in the next two or three years. Schlichter agrees that politicians are unlikely to take that decision. Over the last 40 years, since the whole world has been on paper money, we have had unprecedented money expansion and, surprise surprise, the whole world is in a mess. If we suddenly went back to hard money now it would cause a sharp correction and a recession. So Politicians will avoid this and in so doing cause a worse outcome.
Angela Knight is asked whether bankers are failing savers by getting into league with the government and she avoids the question, but agrees that banks should not be protected and should be allowed to fail. But there are a lot of Buts that I didn’t follow.
Philip Coggan says bankers have become so important because of the credit money expansion of the last 40 years. For some reason he brings international trade into the conversation. Knight starts waffling about ATM machines and the disruption to people’s lives that a move to gold would entail. Schlichter says that gold works fine in an international economy (after all, gold is gold wherever you are). When he talks about disruption he is talking about the correction of the accumulated imbalances in the economy. It’s clear he doesn’t know what Knight is on about, either.
Maurice Glasman makes a distinction between… oh I give up. The man is completely incomprehensible.
Coggan and Knight dignify him far too much by conversing on his terms, which wastes most of the last 15 minutes of the programme. Schlichter disagrees with him completely and gets in a point about how Germany’s success after WWII is a result of its relatively hard currency which encourages savings and avoids asset bubbles.
So there we have it. Coggan and Schlichter have their differences but would have appeared very close to each other to the BBC listeners. Knight didn’t really say anything, and Glasman was the token lefty who only other committed lefties would have been cheering along with. All in all not a bad day for the spreading of Austrian ideas.
“Certainly there is a need for free-market economics to be rescued from those who distort and discredit it, but that is the argument that must be made: that this system has delivered mass prosperity (and the self-determination that comes with it) on a scale unprecedented in human history, and that it deserves to be saved from the spoilers.”
Janet Daley, writing with justified scorn about those people who have been bashing Mitt Romney for his career in venture capital at Bain. To be honest, his background in this area is one of the few things going for him. It would be quite refreshing to have a president of the United States who can actually read a balance sheet.
For those who have not come across the “creative destruction” line before and how it applies to sometimes wrenching change in business, check out the great Joseph Schumpeter.
As a caveat, I should add that some – but no means most – private equity buyouts of firms have been made possible by cheap credit, and therefore might not have occurred in the way they did had interest rates not been how they were in the past decade or so. On a related point, here is what I wrote in defence of private equity at Samizdata several years ago. Excerpt:
“In the main, what these firms do is target cash-rich firms that are run by often lazy executives who have presided over crappy business decisions. Take the meltdown of Marconi a few years ago, one of Britain’s most famous companies. That was a listed company. The destruction of value and jobs in that company remains, in my mind, one of the most disgraceful episodes in British corporate history and who knows, it might have been saved from making big errors had a private equity fund been in charge, rather than deluded executives. Private equity firms helped stymie Deutsche Börse’s foolish bid for the London Stock Exchange 2 years ago, and have turned around businesses. They typically buy and hold a firm for 5 years or more, take a hands-on approach to running firms before spinning them off to another buyer or floating them in an IPO. So Will Hutton should spare us sentimental guff about how limited liability firms floated on the stock exchange represent the perfect model of doing business or something that Adam Smith or Voltaire would exalt. They are merely one of the many ways in which economic activity manifests itself. As interest rates rise and the economic cycle turns, some of the excesses of leveraged buyouts will fade and private equity transactions will decline.”
Austrian economic theory describes how purposive action by fallible human beings unintentionally generates a grand, complex, and orderly market process. An additional ethical step is required to pronounce the market process good. Economic theory per se cannot recommend but only explain markets. This is what Ludwig von Mises meant when he insisted that Austrian economics is value-free. Anyone of any persuasion ought to be able to acknowledge that economic logic indicates that imposing a price ceiling on milk will, other things equal, create a shortage of milk. But that in itself is not an argument against the policy. Mises assumed the policymaker would have thought that result bad, but the economist qua economist cannot declare it such. As Israel Kirzner likes to say, the economist’s job in the policy realm is merely to point out that you cannot catch a northbound train from the southbound platform.
Just a heads-up in case you are interested, I will be one of four guests on Andrew Marr’s show Start the Week on BBC Radio Four on Monday, 16th January. The program starts at 9 am but there are various ‘listen again’ facilities, and it will also be published as a podcast. The topic is the financial crisis, and the other guests are The Economist’s Philip Coggan (author recently of Paper Promises), Angela Knight, chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association, and the Labour life peer Maurice Glasman.
The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
