Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Difference between revisions
Pestergaines (talk | contribs) Created initial page for the ABCT. |
Pestergaines (talk | contribs) m Adjustment to the wording of other schools. |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
==Other theories== | ==Other theories== | ||
Since the cycles appeared on the scene at about the same time as modern industry, [[Wikipedia:Karl Marx|Marx]] concluded that business cycles were an inherent feature of the capitalist market economy. Many current schools of economic thought, regardless of | Since the cycles appeared on the scene at about the same time as modern industry, [[Wikipedia:Karl Marx|Marx]] concluded that business cycles were an inherent feature of the capitalist market economy. Many current schools of economic thought, regardless of other differences and the different causes that they attribute to the cycle, agree on this vital point: That the business cycle originates somewhere deep within the free-market economy, and it can be only solved by some form of massive government intervention.<ref name="Rothbard_business_cycle" /> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 23:02, 27 October 2009
The business cycle describes regularly occurring booms and and busts observed in economic life. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory is an explanation of this phenomenon. Originally developed by Ludwig von Mises in the 1912 Theory of Money and Credit and elaborated on by Hayek and others.[1]
Banks expand credit well beyond their own assets and by the funds of their clients. This additional credit lowers the interest rate, and stimulates economic activity. Projects which would not have been started before, seem now profitable. They increase demand for production materials and for labor and their prices rise, which, in turn, leads to an increase in prices of consumption goods. If the banks would stop the extension of credit, the boom would be rapidly over. To prevent the sudden halt of this boom (and the resulting collapse of prices), the banks must create more and more credit, and the prices will rise even more.
But this expansion of credit cannot continue forever. There is no additional capital or labor; there is only more money. The means of production and labor which have been diverted to the new enterprises have to be taken away from others. Society is not sufficiently rich to permit the creation of new enterprises without taking away from others. As long as the expansion of credit is continued this will not be noticed, but it can't be pushed indefinitely. The inflation and the boom can last only as long as the public thinks that the prices will stop rising in the near future. When the public becomes aware, that there the inflation will not end, and that prices will continue to rise, panic sets in. Eventually, people will give up the currency.[2]
History
The regularly occurring booms and and busts were observed from approximately late eighteenth century, along with the start of the Industrial Revolution. Sudden economic crisis, when some king made war or confiscated the property of his subject were known; but there was no sign of the modern phenomena of general and fairly regular swings in business fortunes, of expansions and contractions.[1]
The Austrian cycle theory began with the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher and economist David Hume, and with the eminent early nineteenth century English classical economist David Ricardo. These theorists observed another crucial institution developing in the mid-eighteenth century, alongside the industrial system. It was the institution of banking, with its capacity to expand credit and the money supply (first, in the form of paper money, or bank notes, and later in the form of demand deposits, or checking accounts, that are instantly redeemable in cash at the banks). It was the operations of these commercial banks which held the key to the mysterious recurrent cycles of expansion and contraction, of boom and bust, that had puzzled observers since the mid-eighteenth century.
The English "Currency School" has tried to explain the boom by the extension of credit resulting from the issue of banknotes without metallic backing. But the school did not see that current accounts which could be drawn upon at any time via checks, play exactly the same role in the extension of credit as bank notes. Because of the legislation inspired by the Currency School (like the Peel's Bank Act of 1844 and similar laws in other countries), to prevent other economic crises, the issue of banknotes without metallic backing was restricted, but the expansion of credit through current accounts was unregulated. From this it was wrongly concluded that the English School's attempt to explain the trade cycle in monetary terms had been refuted by the facts.
The Currency School has also restricted its analysis to the case where credit is expanded in only one country while the banking policy of all the others remains conservative. The internal rise in prices would encourage imports and paralyse exports. Metallic money would drain away to foreign countries. As a result the banks would face increased demands for repayment of the instruments they have put into circulation (such as unbacked notes and current accounts), until they have to restrict credit. Ultimately the outflow of specie checks the rise in prices. The Currency School analyzed only this particular case; it did not consider credit expansion on an international scale by all the capitalist countries simultaneously. In the second half of the 19th century, this theory of the trade cycle fell into discredit, and the notion that the trade cycle had nothing to do with money and credit gained acceptance. The attempt of Wicksell (1898) to rehabilitate the Currency School was short-lived.[2]
Other theories
Since the cycles appeared on the scene at about the same time as modern industry, Marx concluded that business cycles were an inherent feature of the capitalist market economy. Many current schools of economic thought, regardless of other differences and the different causes that they attribute to the cycle, agree on this vital point: That the business cycle originates somewhere deep within the free-market economy, and it can be only solved by some form of massive government intervention.[1]
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Murray N. Rothbard. "The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and other essays", "Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure", p.58-81, referenced 2009-10-27.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Ludwig von Mises. "The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and other essays", "The Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle", p.23-32, referenced 2009-10-27.
External links
- Austrian Business Cycle Theory on Wikipedia