Austrian Economics and the Business Cycle | Robert P. Murphy

Robert Murphy presented this sample lecture from the Mises Academy's inaugural online course, "Understanding the Business Cycle," on 17 April 2010.
Dr. Murphy is author of the forthcoming book "Lessons for the Young Economist," and is the instructor of the forthcoming online course, "Principles of Economics," starting 7 September 2010.
You may download the slide presentation, here: docs.google.com/present/view?...
For more information, visit academy.mises.org
Music by Kevin MacLeod.

[@Xasew]

@prayfortruejustice "Does Austrian economics only work in a free market vacuum?" Austrian economics is the logic of human action; it applies always and everywhere.

[@88spammer]

is it just me? or does this make sooo much sense to have this system in stead of our current one? its as if pretty much in simple terms the market controls its self and points out inefficiency

[@NattligMelodi]

Keynesian economics is the belief that you can raise the overall water level of a swimming pool by taking water from the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end.

[@durhamdf]

@Elmgren76 You misunderstood, demand does not refer to what people want, demand is a measure of how many goods people are actually purchasing which sends the signal to business whether to pick up production or to just run on inventory. Right now, 2 years after the worst recession since the great depression, demand is down as household incomes are down nearly 30%. And right now companies have record holdings to invest in capital, we need more demand, not more money to sit in corporate treasuries

[@scottvska]

@durhamdf Savings is not "less spending" by definition. If it is not spent by households on consumables, it is spent by investors on capital goods. Investment purchases is business to the makers of capital goods (Boeing, Caterpillar, etc), just as consumption spending is business to Wal Mart and Target.

[@galikazoid]

very cool i enjoy misesmedia content very much thanks for the education!

[@Anon1696]

Robert Murphy is awesome.

[@Elmgren76]

@durhamdf That's a new definition of demand that I've never heard of before. People didn't demand iPhones before Apple released it on the market. Demand and supply decides the price but supply always comes first. What we need is not more demand, we need more supply, i.e production and manufacturing and new businesses. This is only enabled by access to capital, i.e savings.

[@ourmanthejoker]

I was there for this ;D

[@ymkamara420]

@NattligMelodi well the Keynesian theory worked from 1940-1980. until Reagan replaced it with supply side economics. And it is working well in Germany today. can you name one country where the Austrian theory working today? if so tell me about it.

[@durhamdf]

I am studying Keynesian economics right now and really want to understand the difference between it and AE. Seems to me that the only difference is Keynesian economics aggregates and simplifies more than AE. Is that the only real difference? Will someone explain this to me

[@durhamdf]

@orimoneychannel Thanks, that was helpful, but I am more interested in how they differ in practice. I just don't get why a slightly different view of the market where individual actions are broken down more would effect economic policy. For instance, keynesian economists would say the best thing to do in our current recession is to increase govt. spending, keep the interest rates low, and grow out of it on defecit. What would the Austrian Economist say about all of this? Thanks again

[@rumco]

@BRYAN351 AE explains behaviour/action in highly interventionist as well as free environment by applying logic and understanding human action. It's universal.

[@Rothbardo]

@prayfortruejustice Austrian economics analysis the effects of intervention through methological individualism, which is more effective and intellectually honest than having to look at historical records and extrapolate trends into the future (empiricism).

[@Elmgren76]

@durhamdf What do you mean by demand gap? Demand is unlimited. Everybody wants everything. This goes back to your way of seeing economic growth as a function of consumption. Production comes before consumption. It is production that enables consumption. In order to to have production you need capital. Capital comes from savings. Savings is by definition underconsumption. How can you propose the idea that we need less savings during a recession? That is when you need savings the most!

[@scottvska]

@durhamdf Savings is spent by investors on capital so that future consumption is greater. The money reaches the market either way, in the form of capital goods or consumables.

[@durhamdf]

@Elmgren76 But if savings is high then consumption will be low in the short term and the economy won't achieve full output and full employment. I mean the goal in Keynesian economics is modern economic growth because the idea is that if you maintain stable modern economic growth it translates to improved standards of living. Does Austrian economics completely dispute these goals all together or does it just find that the free market achieves these goals better than government.

[@durhamdf]

@Elmgren76 (contd)... and this savings just sits in record treasury holdings that companies currently have. That is why Keynesian economics supports high savings during times of runaway expansion to both cool demand pull inflation and to invest in future growth, but supports consumption and low savings during recession when demand is low and there is already an excess of savings in bank reserves and company treasuries that is not getting loaned out or invested.

[@durhamdf]

@zombiefitnezz right, I understand the idea of self correction in the economy, I think Keynesians acknowledge this as well. But then do Austrians just feel that there is no way to lessen the impact of massive shocks to the market? For instance, in the great depression the U.S. was unable to really execute monetary policy so some argue that the recession was much deeper and harder for the middle and lower class in particular than it would have been if the Fed had exercised expansionary policy.

[@Kangaryoo513]

lets go ron paul

[@prayfortruejustice]

Does Austrian economics only work in a free market vacuum? With all the intervention and market controls, bailouts, fraudulent regulation fixing that borders on economic terrorism, all sanctioned by a government under the thumb of the corporate banks and investment firms, how can Keynesian or Austrian economics be applied. Equilibrium ?

[@MrLibertarian94]

If economics is purely reliant on mathematics than the Keynesians should know what interest rates should be all the time and the estimated time it should take to the US out of the recession.

[@thesaintofelsewhere]

Not reductionism. If one is to model a complex system one must accept that there is a percentage that will always remain unquantifiable, Austrians accept this, while Keynesians attempt to make a rule out of the exception.

[@durhamdf]

@scottvska under normal conditions yes, but currently in this recession comapnies are holding on to RECORD holdings in their treasuries. They don't need to take loans from banks to invest in capital. High savings in today's market just means that the money will sit (at least for a while) in non-checkable deposits and do nothing to stimulate the economy.

[@Elmgren76]

@durhamdf Keynesian economics believes that economic growth is a function of the spending of money. Austrian economics correctly explains economic growth as a function of underconsumption (savings) and production. To create new companies and make investments in existing companies you need capital and capital comes from savings. Keynesians just want people spending as much money as possible and if people aren't spending the government has to step in to "stimulate, get things going" etc.

[@DH1986]

I read an article on I think msn talking about taxes, and it said republicans refuse all revenue increases by not approving certain tax hikes. I just thought that was funny. Anyway, the national debt could be resolved by cutting spending. Not nickel and dime stuff like the Dept. Education, but by cutting foreign aid, food stamps, and tons of other things as well. Cut the corporate tax and let companies bring back their money. It's really simple.

[@099749]

12.58 on. Wouldn't methodological relativism be a better term? 13.34 except under moments of stress of want towards need. Again value is relative to each party and that value flux's dependent on want, need and degrees of desire, surely.

[@durhamdf]

@scottvska By definition, more savings means less spending. Yes, eventually savings will be sucked up into investment as banks loan it out, but this delay causes a much smaller multiplier effect. It increases productive capacity FOR THE FUTURE! Savings is an investment in FUTURE growth! During recession we need immediate gains in demand in order to return the economy to full employment. You promote savings during times of massive expansion and consumtpion during times of recession.

[@scottvska]

@durhamdf But savings turns into spending. More savings means more investment purchases. This increases productive capacity.

[@099749]

That surprises me surley in the subjective manner, some actors will have made gains and fuelled bubbles and the booms purposly, call it exploting the fool, or extreme selfishness, but they effectivly seek an unsustanable time for that gain, like most bubles are blown by the earily insiders attempting to attract the fools and make a killing, what is to be learnt there? That some are selfish to the point of reckless. you say 'tell the captin' but those saying dont are already looking for life raft

[@durhamdf]

@1210catman Yes we have had central banks and fractional reserve banking since our founding! The problem was during the great depression, monetary policy was both timid and handcuffed by the gold standard. THAT IS WHY WE HAD A MASSIVE DEFLATIONARY SPIRAL! Do you understand what happens when you have deflation in a depression?! COMPANIES AND INDIVIDUALS HOARD CASH,this destroys demand even further, which forces companies to cut production & lay-off workers, which cuts demand yet again! (contd)...

[@Elmgren76]

@durhamdf It's impossible to have full employment as a goal since jobs in old or inefficient areas will constantly be replaced by other jobs. Countries with the highest savings rate also have very strong economic growth. There is a strong correlation between savings and economic growth because entrepreneurs and businesses can tap into the source of savings for capital investments to be more productive, hire more people, lower prices etc.

[@durhamdf]

@scottvska Yes, but capital is an investment in future growth. Savings is important, in times of economic expansion. But in times of massive recession, making up the demand gap is priority number 1. That means encouraging spending and discouraging savings.

[@Maltimimi]

RON PAUL

[@durhamdf]

@Elmgren76 Yes there will always be workers looking for jobs, the natural rate of unemployment or "full employment" is about 5% unemployment. For every 1% over this natural rate, we will have a GDP gap of 2%, but if we fall below this natural rate by too much, inflation is inevitable. As far as savings goes, yes savings gets loaned out to business to invest in capital which is an investment in future growth, However, during massive recessions, companies don't invest, banks don't loan (contd)...

[@durhamdf]

@Elmgren76 Low consumption in a recession is natural, but encouraging consumption in a recession to pull our selves out is logical, cutting spending and digging the recession deeper is illogical which is why only the fringy Austrian Schoolers think it is a good idea. Read my previous comment, companies have record holdings in their treasuries, a lack of money to invest in capital IS NOT the problem our country faces. You supply siders are nuts, it is like saying people buy stuff b/c it's there.

[@Elmgren76]

@durhamdf How can Keynesian economics support high savings when they want the interest rate to stay at basically 0 % all the time? Who saves when they won't get any interest, not many. That's why they put their money somewhere else, for example Internet stocks or properties. Low consumption during a recession is perfectly logical. It's Keynesian economics that create the recessions in the first place so you can't trust Keynesian solutions to the problems it caused.

[@durhamdf]

@Elmgren76 isn't a new definition, it is THE definition. You can want something like crazy, that desn't make it demand. Demand is the supply of goods people ware willing to buy at any given price. Just having desire to own everything on the planet isn't demand. And supply side economics is nonsense, companies have massive surpluses in inventory and record holdings in their treasuries, and your suggestion is that we need them to produce more? We need demand not MORE surplus supply!

[@saadk3000]

@durhamdf Decrease government spending, stop printing money, let the interest rates rise, let there be a recession even deflation so we can get back on the right track. How can you grow out of deficit by more deficit spending? lol at keynesian

[@durhamdf]

@1210catman george washington established the first central bank...it is part of any modern capitalist country! And the central bank in the 30's had virtually no control over the money supply because of the gold standard. The government can't sell as many bonds when it has to back up each dollar with gold and because ofthis we had a massive deflationary spiral which is the absolute wors case scenario in a recession! And the most prosperous time in U.S. history has been the past 80 years!

[@durhamdf]

@MIT2004 The technology just isn't there. At the end of the day it is cheaper for businesses to just exploit what is essentially slave labor in developing countries then undertake expensive R&D. If companies could exploit new technologies for cheaper than labor costs in developing nations then don't you think they would have done that already? It is a losing battle trying to turn back time to when we were a manufacturing based economy. We need to invest in our comparative advantages instead

[@Elmgren76]

@durhamdf How can it be logical to spend money in a recession to "pull ourselves out"? So if I have lost my job I should immediately start spending my savings and maybe buy a new car to "pull myself out" of my own micro recession? You have it all backwards, economic growth is not a function of spending, it's a function of underconsumption (i.e savings) and investment. You're right, companies have a lot of money but they won't invest in this environment where the government is such a huge burden.

[@jeffiek]

People pay for broccoli??????

[@americanIDOLfan11111]

RON PAUL brought me here..... PRESIDENT PAUL 2012

[@MIT2004]

@durhamdf i can tell youre a close minded person but i can help with that. First off had we continued to have a manufacturing economy theres a good chance many americans wouldnt be making the stuff. What? Yeah our ingenuity and free markets would have led us to the use of all types of technologies that would make manufacturing good very cheap. can u imagine getting an ipad2 for $150. we might eliminate one sector of jobs but we would create a new sector, such as technicians servincg robots

[@MIT2004]

@durhamdf yes we need more demand but we USA have nothing to give as all of our crap is manufactured somewhere else. i agree we need some demand but from ppl that can actually afford to pay us. so lets bring home all the usa based companies that fled the taxation and labor cost and build crap so that the 1billion azn can demand our products especially apple products

[@durhamdf]

@1210catman (contd)... ground modern economy, to the undisputed economic hegemon with a middle calss that can actually afford to buy the things they make! And if you don't understand how a gold standard leads to deflation then you aren't worth wasting another second of my time on. Peace!

[@durhamdf]

@1210catman (contd)... And are you seriously arguing that our non-existent middle class during the 19th century, that worked 80 hour weeks for peanuts and couldn't afford any of the products they manufactured were better off than the middle class today that can own a home, a car, send their kids to school etc...! If you honestly think that then why don't you move to China, keeping their people poor to keep manufacturing cheap is what China has been doing for 30 years. You would love it there!

[@VisionaryMiami]

@durhamdf LOL I don't believe in any specific group of economics, I believe in facts. Im not "spouting" off anything that has anything to do with economics. Those are basic life lessons. The bottom line is that your super insecure and need to protect a failing system by getting personal and using words like "retarded". The only reason there was a depression btw was because the people couldn't get their money. Banking is flawed, thats another issue.

[@ymkamara420]

"Wrong ymkamara. .... out of the depression." That does not prove anything. "Truman ... keynesian economics at the time." Keynes was not worried about the spending cuts in 1945 "Keynes harshly rejected the risk of post-war stagnation, holding that because of Social security there would be a large reduction in private saving and so that would be no problem” (Colander and Landreth 1996: 202)." And I love how you ignore all of the increases in spending from 1948 onwards. But hey fuck the facts

[@NattligMelodi]

@ymkamara420 Can you name one country where Austrian economics are being used at all? We don't have a worldwide debt bubble and a 16 trillion dollar deficit because of Reagan, and Reagan certainly didn't end Keynesianism. That's a joke. One that actually did make me laugh FYI.

[@durhamdf]

@VisionaryMiami Uh I am talking about private universities buddy and around the globe, not just in the United States. No serious institutions of higher learning anywhere on the planet still teach the failed policies of the Austrian School. Like you said yourself, you aren't arguing economics here, you don't understand economics at all. IT ISN'T JUST COMMONE SENSE. It is extremely complicated macroeconomic theory. (contd)...

[@kingjardine789]

man just imagine if he won

[@durhamdf]

@1210catman Yeah because that worked out really well all throughout the 19th century! Yeah a depression every 20 years under the invisible hand classical economists with a non-existent middle class is something we should revive! HAHAHAH Seriously you Austrian School bandwagoners need to go take a single economics class because none of you have a clue what you are talking about. Since Keynesians and monetarists took the reigns we haven't had a single depression and went from a middle (contd)...

[@ymkamara420]

@NattligMelodi wow. the ignorance in your comment is unbearable. you truly do not under stand the keynesian theory if you believe that.

[@ItsFazsha]

Robert, love you, BUT from the 5 to the 10 minute mark you are just rambling. I THOUGHT THE IDEA OF AUSTRIAN SCHOOL WAS TO CONVERT PEOPLE. Why are you spending a full 5 minutes on arcane asides, when you need to emphasize CLEARLY that Austrian economics emphasizes that there are MANY INDIVIDUAL needs that are met in an economy, and that this variation in desires is what makes an economy work. Macro, micro - you lose people when you throw out these buzz words.

[@NattligMelodi]

@ymkamara420 Wow. The arrogance in your comment is ludicrous. You truly do not understand how little sense Keynesianism makes.

[@hhiippiittyy]

Strong reductionist fail.

[@ymkamara420]

@NattligMelodi and Austrian does not work in the real world. it is an economic theory that rejects math. it is pure nonsense.

[@AlwaysHopeful87]

Had to bail.