WEBVTT

NOTE Austrian Theories of Interest

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.000
Before I start, I want to offer an explanation for those of you who might be puzzled. In a conference like this, it might have been more appropriate for me to speak on something from American history.

2
00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:19.000
But unfortunately, my living memory only goes back to the first Reagan administration, and so therefore, it was deemed more appropriate for me to talk on Austrian interest theory.

3
00:00:19.000 --> 00:00:31.000
So today I'm going to be focusing mainly on the work of Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, who is a pioneer not only in the Austrian school for interest theory, but in general in economics.

4
00:00:31.000 --> 00:00:40.000
And he has this massive three volume work, Capital and Interest. Now before I get going, I should make some remarks on this.

5
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:47.000
I think a lot of Austrians, even who are very well read, tend to shy away from Boehm-Bawerk because he is admittedly a bit intimidating.

6
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:59.000
His writing style at times is difficult. It's a very dense book. And so I think a lot of Austrians shy away in particular because they know that much of his work is controversial.

7
00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:05.000
And so I think the thought is, well, why should I get hit deep into this stuff if it turns out that in the end he's not even right?

8
00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:15.000
And that's a valid concern. However, I would say the first volume of his work, the History and Critique of Interest Theories, doesn't offer Boehm-Bawerk's own thoughts.

9
00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:20.800
It just has him giving a systematic survey of all preceding theorists and he offers a critique of them.

10
00:01:20.800 --> 00:01:28.600
So I would urge you that if you are a serious student of Austrian economics that you at least look over some of his critiques of other theorists

11
00:01:28.600 --> 00:01:35.800
because at times they're brilliant and I think also depending on your preferences for writing style, I think at times it can be funny.

12
00:01:35.800 --> 00:01:38.600
Just to give you one of my personal favorites.

13
00:01:38.600 --> 00:01:46.600
This is a passage where he is about to talk about the work of an American economist, Henry Carey, and this is how he begins.

14
00:01:46.600 --> 00:01:53.600
Carey offers one of the very worst examples of confused thinking on our subject, where there has already been a great deal of confusion.

15
00:01:53.600 --> 00:02:03.600
What he says on interest is a tissue of incredibly clumsy and thoughtless mistakes of such a nature that it is almost inconceivable how they could ever have won such esteem in the scientific world.

16
00:02:03.600 --> 00:02:13.600
I should not express his opinion in such severe terms if it were not that Kerry's interest theory, even now, in 1884, enjoys a reputation which I consider very ill-deserved.

17
00:02:13.600 --> 00:02:21.600
It is one of those theories which, to my mind, cast discredit not only on their authors, but on the science that is misled in the credulous acceptance of them.

18
00:02:21.600 --> 00:02:28.600
His theory is to be condemned not so much because of its errors as because of the unpardonable kind of errors it contains.

19
00:02:28.600 --> 00:02:32.760
as it contains. My readers may decide on the basis of what follows whether or not I'm

20
00:02:32.760 --> 00:02:39.040
judging too harshly. So as I say if you find that funny and witty then you would

21
00:02:39.040 --> 00:02:42.600
love this first volume if you think it's pompous and arrogant then don't bother

22
00:02:42.600 --> 00:02:47.280
reading it. But so anyway that's Boehm-Bawerk's thought and now I'll get into the

23
00:02:47.280 --> 00:02:51.280
heart of the matter. To understand the Austrian approach to interest you need

24
00:02:51.280 --> 00:02:56.720
to realize what Boehm-Bawerk thought the problem was needed to be explained and

25
00:02:56.720 --> 00:03:06.720
And specifically, he wanted to know why is it that a capitalist, apparently without exerting any effort, can just sit back and earn an income on his capital year after year?

26
00:03:06.720 --> 00:03:16.720
In contrast, a laborer can earn wages year after year, and that seems to make sense because he goes to work, he exerts his labor, it's irksome, and the labor is productive.

27
00:03:16.720 --> 00:03:20.720
And so it seems to make sense that a laborer earns wages in exchange for his labor.

28
00:03:20.720 --> 00:03:26.720
But why is it, Boehm-Bawerk wondered, that a capitalist can earn an income off of his capital funds?

29
00:03:26.720 --> 00:03:29.720
So that was what needed to be explained.

30
00:03:29.720 --> 00:03:33.720
Now the first step to understand Boehm-Bawerk's solution to the problem that we need to realize

31
00:03:33.720 --> 00:03:40.720
is that you can view a loan contract or the interest phenomenon as an intertemporal exchange.

32
00:03:40.720 --> 00:03:46.720
So let me illustrate this by first drawing up a typical loan contract.

33
00:03:46.720 --> 00:04:08.720
So suppose that Smith, in the current year, has $100 in financial capital and that he lends it out to Jones, who's the borrower, and then Jones, one year later, pays him back $110.

34
00:04:08.720 --> 00:04:16.720
Okay, now that's a standard loan contract and we would say, okay, the interest rate on this loan is 10% and that seems straightforward.

35
00:04:16.720 --> 00:04:26.720
But we can also view the same transaction equivalently if we say that in this period, rather than Smith lending $100, he buys a promise from Jones.

36
00:04:26.720 --> 00:04:41.720
So Jones is selling him a claim on future dollars. So it's an IOU for $110 in the year 2004 issued by Jones.

37
00:04:41.720 --> 00:04:47.720
So Jones is selling Smith this piece of paper rather than saying he's borrowing the $100.

38
00:04:47.720 --> 00:04:55.720
And if it so happens that the price of this claim is $100, well then we've just mimicked this more standard loan contract.

39
00:04:55.720 --> 00:05:05.720
$100 passes from Smith to Jones in the year 2003. We wait one year and then Smith takes this claim and redeems it and gets his $110.

40
00:05:05.720 --> 00:05:14.720
So it's the same transaction really, but viewed in this way we see how the interest earned is just an inter-temporal exchange.

41
00:05:14.720 --> 00:05:30.720
Now, what von Boehm-Bawerk focused on was called originary interest.

42
00:05:30.720 --> 00:05:40.720
And he contrasted this with the more commonplace loan or contract interest.

43
00:05:40.720 --> 00:05:47.220
Now, originary interest is another way that someone can earn money on his financial wealth.

44
00:05:47.220 --> 00:05:54.720
So we've seen here that one way that Smith with his $100 can increase it is by lending it out to Jones.

45
00:05:54.720 --> 00:05:59.720
Another way is to just to buy an IOU or a bond is really what this is.

46
00:05:59.720 --> 00:06:01.720
So that's another way to earn an interest return.

47
00:06:01.720 --> 00:06:05.720
But there's a third way and that's to invest in a productive process.

48
00:06:05.720 --> 00:06:35.720
So, if Smith takes his money and buys inputs of land, labor, and capital goods and he transforms them into output goods one year later he can also earn an interest return because if these goods, let us just suppose they sell for $110

49
00:06:35.720 --> 00:06:40.720
to consumers, so consumers pay a total of $110 for this output.

50
00:06:40.720 --> 00:06:46.720
And if Smith initially spent $100 total on all these inputs,

51
00:06:46.720 --> 00:06:52.720
well then we see that that's another way that Smith can take his initial $100 and one year later turn it into $110.

52
00:06:52.720 --> 00:06:56.720
And so this is an example of originary interest.

53
00:06:56.720 --> 00:07:01.720
And so what that means is it's interest you earn on your capital when it's invested

54
00:07:01.720 --> 00:07:06.620
in goods rather than merely being lent out on the loan market.

55
00:07:06.620 --> 00:07:16.080
Now, again, let me just point out that here the fact that this $100 is lower is what's allowing us to earn the interest return.

56
00:07:16.080 --> 00:07:22.520
Also, let me just point out that I'm neglecting the differences in risk in these different operations.

57
00:07:22.520 --> 00:07:28.280
So in the real world, the credit worthiness of the borrower would be an issue

58
00:07:28.280 --> 00:07:33.980
and the certainty with which you thought these goods could be sold to consumers would also come into consideration.

59
00:07:33.980 --> 00:07:41.420
But if we assume that the risk is the same in these lines, well then in equilibrium, the return, the percentage return has to be the same.

60
00:07:41.420 --> 00:07:48.980
Nobody would lend out on the loan market for 5% if he could invest in this line of production and earn 10% on his money.

61
00:07:48.980 --> 00:07:52.280
So these returns, these rates of returns have to be the same.

62
00:07:52.280 --> 00:07:55.980
And at the time, this was a fairly revolutionary concept.

63
00:07:55.980 --> 00:08:04.980
Other thinkers had realized this, but von Boehm-Bawerk was very systematic to see that interest isn't merely about the premium that you earn on contractual loans,

64
00:08:04.980 --> 00:08:16.980
but it's also implicit in the production process itself. Because production takes time, the interest phenomenon has to occur in all processes.

65
00:08:16.980 --> 00:08:23.980
One more final point. Let me just mention an accountant who looked at this operation might say that there was a $10 profit,

66
00:08:23.980 --> 00:08:37.980
Profit. But that would just be considered an accounting profit. So it's true that the total amount spent on inputs is $100 and the total revenues is $110, but you also need to consider the fact that it took one year of investing that capital.

67
00:08:37.980 --> 00:08:51.980
And so because there's an opportunity cost on that, because you could have just lent it out in the loan market, there's no economic profit involved here. So this is just representing the money spent on the inputs and the opportunity cost, the interest

68
00:08:51.980 --> 00:08:57.980
interest return on the capital, and that equals the $110 that's sold to the consumers.

69
00:08:57.980 --> 00:09:06.980
Okay, so now we've seen how Boehm-Bawerk, by viewing interest as an intertemporal exchange, can see it from a different point of view.

70
00:09:06.980 --> 00:09:12.980
Now in this new framework, we can once again ask his question as to what is interest or what causes interest,

71
00:09:12.980 --> 00:09:17.980
but rather than saying why is it that the capitalist earns an income, we can ask the question,

72
00:09:17.980 --> 00:09:25.980
Why is it that the price of these inputs doesn't get bid up to this full price of the expected sale of the output?

73
00:09:25.980 --> 00:09:35.980
Because the only way to earn originary interest is if these prices in total are lower than what the capitalist will receive once he sells the product.

74
00:09:35.980 --> 00:09:44.980
So to ask why can the capitalist earn an income off his capital is equivalent to saying why is it that these capital goods or these inputs

75
00:09:44.980 --> 00:09:54.980
or why is it that this piece of paper doesn't get bid up to $110 when everybody knows the next period it's going to be worth $110.

76
00:09:54.980 --> 00:09:59.980
So that's now the question. Boehm-Bawerk hasn't yet given us an answer. He's just rephrased the question.

77
00:09:59.980 --> 00:10:05.980
Why is it that these goods are apparently given a lower market value than they ought to be?

78
00:10:05.980 --> 00:10:13.980
Now before I go on with what Boehm-Bawerk's solution was, let me take a detour and explain what an answer isn't.

79
00:10:13.980 --> 00:10:21.980
So, in other words, one of the theories that he attacked in his first volume, let me explain that because it's very important for the history of the Austrian School.

80
00:10:21.980 --> 00:10:38.980
This was what was called the Naive Productivity Theory.

81
00:10:38.980 --> 00:10:44.020
okay now the naive productivity theory said that the reason someone who

82
00:10:44.020 --> 00:10:49.060
invests in capital goods can earn originary interest is that the goods are

83
00:10:49.060 --> 00:10:54.420
physically productive and I think thinking in terms of a natural example is

84
00:10:54.420 --> 00:10:58.900
perhaps the most intuitive to understand why someone could believe this let me

85
00:10:58.900 --> 00:11:02.740
just point out that for Austrians a natural good resources are typically

86
00:11:02.740 --> 00:11:06.220
considered land while other things are considered capital goods but don't worry

87
00:11:06.220 --> 00:11:11.220
Let's not worry about that for the moment. Let's just think about why someone could believe the Naive Productivity Theory.

88
00:11:11.220 --> 00:11:17.220
Let's think about someone who buys an apple tree. So what we know is that people earn interest on their money.

89
00:11:17.220 --> 00:11:25.220
And so if someone invests in an apple tree, we know from experience that that means the person who invests his capital in an apple tree,

90
00:11:25.220 --> 00:11:32.220
year after year, will earn a return on that investment because the tree produces apples, the person harvests them and sells them in the market,

91
00:11:32.220 --> 00:12:02.220
in the market and that's how he earns dividends on his investment and the naive productivity theory explains this interest return quite simply by saying look the tree is productive the tree takes the sunshine and the minerals from the soil and the rainwater which by themselves are not productive on the margin or not valuable on the margin and it produces apples which people value and so isn't it obvious that year after year the owner of this apple tree can earn an interest return on his investment

92
00:12:02.220 --> 00:12:21.220
But actually that's not a good explanation. So let me just, so this is a tree in the year 2003 and we know it's going to produce apples next year. Those are supposed to be apples in the year 2004.

93
00:12:21.220 --> 00:12:31.220
Now let's just suppose that these apples sell for $1,000 on the market and that the tree is initially priced at $10,000.

94
00:12:31.220 --> 00:12:38.220
Now this happens every year. The apples every year are harvested and so $1,000 is earned by the owner of the apple tree every year.

95
00:12:38.220 --> 00:12:47.220
So if this is what we're assuming, well then yes, someone who buys the apple tree in 2003 first invests $10,000.

96
00:12:47.220 --> 00:12:52.720
Then next year, he harvests his apples and sells them for a thousand, so he's earned ten percent on his money.

97
00:12:52.720 --> 00:12:57.720
And then in 2005, he picks the apples again, sells them for a thousand, so he's earned another ten percent.

98
00:12:57.720 --> 00:13:03.220
And so that's why someone who buys the tree can make ten percent per year on his money.

99
00:13:03.220 --> 00:13:07.720
And the naive productivity theory, just to remind you, says that that's perfectly natural.

100
00:13:07.720 --> 00:13:12.220
Look, the trees are physically producing these apples. So what's the problem?

101
00:13:12.220 --> 00:13:18.220
Well the problem is, I just asserted that the market price of this tree is $10,000.

102
00:13:18.220 --> 00:13:22.220
But suppose instead the market price is $20,000.

103
00:13:22.220 --> 00:13:26.220
Now all of a sudden, even though I haven't changed the physical facts of the situation,

104
00:13:26.220 --> 00:13:31.220
even though this tree is still producing $1,000 worth of apples every year,

105
00:13:31.220 --> 00:13:35.220
now the implicit originary rate of interest is only 5%

106
00:13:35.220 --> 00:13:39.220
because the person who wants to invest in this tree has to first put up $20,000

107
00:13:39.220 --> 00:13:46.420
$100,000 in order to earn $1,000 per year in dividends. And of course, if it cost $100,000,

108
00:13:46.420 --> 00:13:51.800
the percentage return would be even lower, and so on. Now, it's a bit confusing because

109
00:13:51.800 --> 00:13:56.740
the tree technically gives you an infinite stream of dividends, but if we think in terms

110
00:13:56.740 --> 00:14:02.260
of the more typical example where the goods are physically depreciated and completely

111
00:14:02.260 --> 00:14:06.540
spent in the production process, we can see what I'm talking about, that if these inputs

112
00:14:06.540 --> 00:14:13.540
were priced at $110. Well then there would be no implicit interest return at all in this process.

113
00:14:13.540 --> 00:14:19.540
Now this is true even though the capital goods are physically productive. Now what does that mean?

114
00:14:19.540 --> 00:14:25.540
Well it means if I took away the capital goods and so just had land and labor, the output here would be much lower.

115
00:14:25.540 --> 00:14:31.540
So let's say I took away the capital goods and we had a much smaller output that could only be sold for $50.

116
00:14:31.540 --> 00:14:35.540
And then I add the capital goods and now we have more output that can be sold for $110.

117
00:14:35.540 --> 00:14:41.540
So clearly, these capital goods are productive. They're adding value even at the end of the process.

118
00:14:41.540 --> 00:14:49.540
But the point is, that fact by itself doesn't tell me that someone who invests in this will earn a return on his money.

119
00:14:49.540 --> 00:14:53.540
Because the only way to earn a return is if this number is lower than that number.

120
00:14:53.540 --> 00:14:58.540
So the fact that adding capital here increases the total amount you can sell at the end

121
00:14:58.540 --> 00:15:03.540
by itself doesn't show why someone who invests in this will earn money.

122
00:15:03.540 --> 00:15:06.540
Because to get the capital goods in the first place, you have to pay for them.

123
00:15:06.540 --> 00:15:14.540
And if what you pay for them here is exactly taking into account the surplus they will earn you here, well then there's no interest return.

124
00:15:14.540 --> 00:15:21.540
And it's the same thing with the tree. The higher this dollar value, the lower the rate of interest on this investment.

125
00:15:21.540 --> 00:15:23.540
And I can make it any rate that you want.

126
00:15:23.540 --> 00:15:33.540
So the mere fact that the tree produces valuable apples by itself doesn't explain to me why someone who invests in trees can earn an interest return.

127
00:15:33.540 --> 00:15:42.540
So that was the naive productivity theory and Boehm-Bawerk, I think, decisively showed why it was an inadequate explanation for the phenomenon of interest.

128
00:15:42.540 --> 00:15:51.540
Incidentally, I think that that's a brilliant critique and I think it ranks up there with, for example, Mises' argument against economic calculation under socialism.

129
00:15:51.540 --> 00:15:57.540
I think it's just an absolutely brilliant critique and you really wouldn't understand it unless you went back and read

130
00:15:57.540 --> 00:16:00.540
von Boehm-Bawerk in the first section of his work.

131
00:16:00.540 --> 00:16:08.540
Now let me just take a brief digression here to explain something for those of you who may have studied graduate level economics.

132
00:16:08.540 --> 00:16:13.540
You might have seen equations in mathematical models that look like this.

133
00:16:21.540 --> 00:16:30.540
Okay, you'll see r equals f prime of k, where r is the real interest rate and f is the production function and k is the capital stock.

134
00:16:30.540 --> 00:16:38.540
And so what this relation here is saying is that in equilibrium, the real interest rate is equal to f prime of k, the marginal product of capital.

135
00:16:38.540 --> 00:16:45.540
They also write it like this, marginal product of capital. So this is saying it's the first derivative of the production function with respect to the capital stock.

136
00:16:45.540 --> 00:16:55.540
So what that means in words is the real rate of interest is equal to the increment in production that you can get from an incremental input of capital.

137
00:16:55.540 --> 00:17:00.540
Now what's odd about that is that seems to be literally the naive productivity theory.

138
00:17:00.540 --> 00:17:05.540
It seems on the face of it to be saying that if you want to increase the rate of interest,

139
00:17:05.540 --> 00:17:12.540
all you have to do is increase the product of capital and therefore increase the rate of interest, as I say.

140
00:17:12.540 --> 00:17:18.860
as I say but it seems that that is making exact confusion that apparently

141
00:17:18.860 --> 00:17:23.980
Boehm-Bawerk showed was wrong and so for a while I was puzzled by this because it

142
00:17:23.980 --> 00:17:27.860
seems Boehm-Bawerk's verbal logic is correct so I agreed with him in reading

143
00:17:27.860 --> 00:17:32.620
his words that the naive productivity theory had to be wrong but at the same

144
00:17:32.620 --> 00:17:37.020
time when I was in graduate school these models seemed to be right as I looked

145
00:17:37.020 --> 00:17:41.460
them over there was no error in the derivation from the axioms it wasn't that

146
00:17:41.460 --> 00:17:46.460
and they committed an arithmetical error and so for a while I couldn't reconcile these two things

147
00:17:46.460 --> 00:17:51.460
and I think what it is after a while is I figured this out that in these models

148
00:17:51.460 --> 00:17:55.460
they assume that there's only one good and they do this for simplicity.

149
00:17:55.460 --> 00:18:00.460
So in these models the capital good and the consumption good are the same thing.

150
00:18:00.460 --> 00:18:29.460
So, in Boehm-Bawerk's case, we had a tree that produced apples, but in a case where there's only one good, what they often say to motivate that apparently unrealistic assumption is,

151
00:18:29.460 --> 00:18:39.460
I'll suppose it's something like sheep. So somebody who owns a sheep now, and that's supposed to be a sheep, he can consume it now.

152
00:18:39.460 --> 00:18:53.460
So you can eat the sheep or use it, but kill it and use it in whatever way gives you utility, or you can postpone your consumption for one year, in which time it will multiply into two sheep.

153
00:18:53.460 --> 00:19:02.460
Now, of course, in reality, it would be something like two sheep would turn into four sheep, but not that I know about sheep and how they reproduce.

154
00:19:02.460 --> 00:19:14.460
So the point is, this is the sort of way that they motivate their models, which again, as I say, they only assume that there's one good, and that's done for simplicity.

155
00:19:14.460 --> 00:19:21.460
Of course, in the real world, there's billions of goods, but they say, well, we'll assume there's one and we'll see if we can learn something about the real world that way.

156
00:19:21.460 --> 00:19:28.460
Now, what happens in this sort of instance, it's particularly dangerous to assume one good, because let me show you why.

157
00:19:28.460 --> 00:19:35.460
It just so happens that if there's one good, if the capital good is the same thing as its output good, then in that case only,

158
00:19:35.460 --> 00:19:44.460
this physical fact that one unit now will turn into two units next year does make the real rate of interest have to be 100% in equilibrium.

159
00:19:44.460 --> 00:19:50.460
And the reason for that is clear. If there's only one good, and I ask how wealthy is someone,

160
00:19:50.460 --> 00:19:53.460
Well, the only way to answer that is to tell me how many sheep he owns.

161
00:19:53.460 --> 00:20:00.460
To put it another way, someone's real financial wealth is just a measure of how many sheep does he own, because there's no other goods in the economy.

162
00:20:00.460 --> 00:20:07.460
And so if you tell me that someone who starts out with one sheep now, if he saves it, can turn it into two sheep next year,

163
00:20:07.460 --> 00:20:11.460
well, that means he can have his financial wealth double every year.

164
00:20:11.460 --> 00:20:15.460
And that's another way of saying that the real rate of interest is 100%.

165
00:20:15.460 --> 00:20:23.460
So this approach eludes the problem that Boehm-Bawerk worried about because it assumes away the problem.

166
00:20:23.460 --> 00:20:28.460
Here, where there's a tree that produces apples, where apples are the good that gives utility,

167
00:20:28.460 --> 00:20:34.460
the question becomes how do we relate the market value of the tree to the market value of the apple?

168
00:20:34.460 --> 00:20:41.460
So over there I said that the apples were worth $1,000 every year, and so the question was how many dollars was the tree worth?

169
00:20:41.460 --> 00:20:49.460
If I want to do it in real terms, I can say, in the year 2003, how many present apples does the tree exchange against?

170
00:20:49.460 --> 00:20:55.460
Okay, so if the answer is 10,000 apples, and then we know that every year 1,000 apples gets produced,

171
00:20:55.460 --> 00:21:02.460
then I can tell you, okay, the rate of interest in terms of apples is 10% per year for this process.

172
00:21:02.460 --> 00:21:08.460
But if I tell you that the purchase price of a tree in the year 2003 is 20,000 apples,

173
00:21:08.460 --> 00:21:12.460
Well, then again, it's what I was just doing over there, but now I'm doing it in terms of apples.

174
00:21:12.460 --> 00:21:17.460
The apple rate of interest, if that's the way you want to think about it, is now 5% and so on.

175
00:21:17.460 --> 00:21:23.460
But you don't run into that problem if the goods are the same thing, because if I ask in the year 2003,

176
00:21:23.460 --> 00:21:27.460
how many sheep does one sheep exchange for? Well, the answer is one.

177
00:21:27.460 --> 00:21:31.460
No one's going to sell one sheep now for two sheep, because that would be stupid.

178
00:21:31.460 --> 00:21:35.460
One sheep is worth one sheep. But you don't have that here.

179
00:21:35.460 --> 00:21:40.960
If I say how many apples does one tree trade for, well I don't know. It could be a thousand, it could be five hundred.

180
00:21:40.960 --> 00:21:44.960
We just don't know. You need to know more about the situation, about people's preferences.

181
00:21:44.960 --> 00:21:50.960
So the whole point of this is just to show you that in these mainstream models where they have these equations,

182
00:21:50.960 --> 00:21:54.960
I think technically they are correct. They're not committing a logical fallacy.

183
00:21:54.960 --> 00:22:00.960
But what's going on is they're assuming away the whole problem of how do you value the capital stock in terms of the output good.

184
00:22:00.960 --> 00:22:05.960
because since there's only one good they happen to be the same thing.

185
00:22:05.960 --> 00:22:18.960
Okay, so now that I've explained why the naive productivity theory isn't a good explanation for the interest phenomenon,

186
00:22:18.960 --> 00:22:21.960
let me tell you what Boehm-Bawerk thought the answer was.

187
00:22:21.960 --> 00:22:31.560
Boehm-Bawerk said that, on the margin, present goods are more valuable than future goods of like, kind and number.

188
00:22:31.560 --> 00:22:41.560
So what he's saying is that the reason, for example, the person doesn't pay $110 for this piece of paper,

189
00:22:41.560 --> 00:22:50.760
even though it will yield him $110 in the year 2004, is that $2,003 are more valuable than $2,004,

190
00:22:50.760 --> 00:22:57.760
Because the 2003 dollars are available in the present, 2004 dollars aren't available until next year.

191
00:22:57.760 --> 00:23:03.960
So to say, well, how come the price of these things doesn't get bid up to 110 dollars is a bit like saying,

192
00:23:03.960 --> 00:23:07.360
how come the price of hamburger meat doesn't get bid up to the price of steak?

193
00:23:07.360 --> 00:23:10.360
Well, the answer is because people value steak more than they value hamburger,

194
00:23:10.360 --> 00:23:13.460
and that's why the market price is lower for hamburger meat.

195
00:23:13.460 --> 00:23:20.660
And the same thing here, at this point in time, this only represents a claim to 110 future dollars,

196
00:23:20.660 --> 00:23:50.660
and since future dollars are less valuable the market price of this piece of paper is less than the face value and in the same way these inputs in a sense represent a technological claim on this future revenue but its current price is lower because again you're buying this with present dollars and you're only being promised the prospect of future dollars and so if in general present goods are more valuable than future goods that explains why the prices of things that are claims to future goods will be lower

197
00:23:50.660 --> 00:24:04.660
in terms of present values. And that's why, as Boehm-Bawerk has already shown, once we can explain that, why these present goods have a lower market price than the expected market price of their products, once we know that, we can explain interest.

198
00:24:04.660 --> 00:24:09.660
Because it's merely a differential in the values inter-temporally.

199
00:24:09.660 --> 00:24:39.660
Okay, now Boehm-Bawerk didn't stop there. He had now analyzed the problem and gotten to the point where he said interest is an inter-temporal exchange or is due to inter-temporal exchange phenomena and it's due to the fact that present goods on the margin are more valuable than future goods but he wanted to explain why is it that present goods are more valuable than future goods and he offered three reasons I'm not going to go into them because they're controversial and they're not exactly relevant for the

200
00:24:39.660 --> 00:24:47.660
But let me just mention the third reason that he offered was the fact that present goods are technically more productive than future goods.

201
00:24:47.660 --> 00:24:56.660
Now this alarms some people, and that's going to be the next economist I'm going to talk about, in particular Frank Fetter.

202
00:24:56.660 --> 00:25:14.660
Now, Feder was a member of what was called the Psychological School, and by that they just meant that he believed that subjective valuations were pivotal, not material conditions.

203
00:25:14.660 --> 00:25:19.660
And so he was very sympathetic to the Austrian School, and many Austrians claim he's an Austrian.

204
00:25:19.660 --> 00:25:25.660
And so Feder thought that Boehm-Bawerk had done a great job. He exploded the Naive Productivity Theory.

205
00:25:25.660 --> 00:25:32.100
He showed us that interest was just an intertemporal exchange phenomenon, but inexplicably, Feder thought,

206
00:25:32.100 --> 00:25:36.220
Boehm-Bawerk, right at the last moment, slipped back into the productivity fallacies.

207
00:25:36.220 --> 00:25:42.380
And so, Feder couldn't understand why Boehm-Bawerk, in Boehm-Bawerk's own positive explanation,

208
00:25:42.380 --> 00:25:46.460
had as a component the fact that present goods were more technically productive.

209
00:25:46.460 --> 00:25:55.380
So, what Feder did is he wanted to say interest is solely due to time preference.

210
00:25:55.380 --> 00:26:19.980
Now, positive time preference for Federer referred to the fact that present goods were more valuable than future goods, and Federer offered what he called a capitalization theory.

211
00:26:19.980 --> 00:26:28.980
So what Federer said is that the way to understand interest is to first distinguish the concept of rent.

212
00:26:28.980 --> 00:26:35.980
Rent isn't what you think of as land rent, but also the rent that you earn from renting out capital goods.

213
00:26:35.980 --> 00:26:42.980
So someone who owns a tractor can rent it out every year and earn an income, and that's because the tractor is productive.

214
00:26:42.980 --> 00:26:46.980
And the same thing with the tree, if you want to think about it this way,

215
00:26:46.980 --> 00:26:54.980
Someone who owns the tree every year can sell the apples and earn $1,000 a year, and so in a sense, that's rents on the ownership of the tree.

216
00:26:54.980 --> 00:27:06.980
And so what Federer's capitalization theory set is, when someone owns a capital good that is a promise to a future stream of revenue, you need to consider, okay, where are the rents going to be every period,

217
00:27:06.980 --> 00:27:11.980
and then discount those rents to the present based on the person's degree of time preference.

218
00:27:11.980 --> 00:27:16.980
And then once you do that, you can come up with the current present market value of the capital good.

219
00:27:16.980 --> 00:27:22.980
And that will be less than the total expected future stream if there's positive time preference.

220
00:27:22.980 --> 00:27:28.980
So here, these capital goods, they will yield a rent.

221
00:27:28.980 --> 00:27:33.980
The fact that once I add capital goods to the process, this goes up, explains why they're productive.

222
00:27:33.980 --> 00:27:39.980
But in order to figure out the current market value, you need to discount this back to the year 2003.

223
00:27:39.980 --> 00:27:43.980
And so the person now who's buying all these products, he thinks ahead and says,

224
00:27:43.980 --> 00:27:48.980
okay, they're going to yield me $110 next year, but because I have a time preference,

225
00:27:48.980 --> 00:27:55.980
I may only value that $110 of future money right now at $100, and that's why I spend $100,

226
00:27:55.980 --> 00:27:59.980
and that's why I earn 10% on my money one year later.

227
00:27:59.980 --> 00:28:13.980
So that was, that's briefly, that's Federer's Capitalization Theory. The next economist to discuss is Ludwig von Mises.

228
00:28:13.980 --> 00:28:26.980
Now, Mises advanced what he called the pure time preference theory.

229
00:28:26.980 --> 00:28:38.980
Now, Mises pretty closely followed Federer, except Mises first of all thought that he showed that time preference is something that is just a priori true.

230
00:28:38.980 --> 00:28:44.480
that everybody by the mere fact that they engage in human action exhibits positive time preference.

231
00:28:44.480 --> 00:28:53.480
In contrast, Federer thought that it was just an empirical claim that for biological and psychological reasons people did prefer present to future goods,

232
00:28:53.480 --> 00:28:56.980
but Federer thought there could be extreme cases where the reverse might be true.

233
00:28:56.980 --> 00:29:07.480
For Mises, that isn't the case. Mises thinks, no, everywhere and always the mere fact that people act shows that they prefer present satisfactions to later satisfactions.

234
00:29:07.480 --> 00:29:21.480
So, again, Mises adopted Federer's view. He thought that interest was essentially about time preference, and he completely rejected anything having to do with the productivity of capital goods.

235
00:29:21.480 --> 00:29:32.480
Now, most Austrians have adopted the pure time preference theory. For example, Murray Rothbard, of course, that's what he expounds in Man Economy and State.

236
00:29:32.480 --> 00:29:42.480
and Roger Garrison also has advanced a version of the pure time preference theory, Peter Lewin also, Walter Block is a staunch defender of it.

237
00:29:42.480 --> 00:29:52.480
And in more recent times though there have been some revisionists. So earlier in this week you've heard about historical revisionists.

238
00:29:52.480 --> 00:29:56.480
Well now I'm going to tell you about interest theory revisionists. It's a much smaller market.

239
00:29:56.480 --> 00:30:14.480
And let me first focus on the work of Guido Holzman, and he's offered, is it a realist theory? Is that what you call it?

240
00:30:14.480 --> 00:30:30.320
okay all right so he's offering a realist theory of interest and what

241
00:30:30.320 --> 00:30:36.480
Hulsman focuses on the the crucial part in his analysis is the means-end

242
00:30:36.480 --> 00:30:41.480
Non-Framework

243
00:30:41.480 --> 00:30:48.560
Ever since Menger, Austrians have realized or have had the framework that someone values

244
00:30:48.560 --> 00:30:51.880
a means based on how much value they give to the end.

245
00:30:51.880 --> 00:30:56.280
So for example, if I have a lottery ticket that's a winner and it entitles me to a million

246
00:30:56.280 --> 00:31:01.480
dollars, I'm going to value that piece of paper a lot, unless I'm a pacifist or something.

247
00:31:01.480 --> 00:31:06.000
If someone tries to take it from me, I'm probably going to use violence to defend it.

248
00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:13.000
If we want to understand why is someone fighting over this little piece of paper, we say, oh, because it's a means to a valuable end,

249
00:31:13.000 --> 00:31:22.000
that the lottery ticket entitles someone to a million dollars, and so that's why people are fighting over this intrinsically worthless piece of paper.

250
00:31:22.000 --> 00:31:31.000
So that's why Austrians think the causality runs this way, that ends are valued in and of themselves or based on a person's value scale,

251
00:31:31.000 --> 00:31:36.000
and then the means to the end attain their value because it flows this way.

252
00:31:36.000 --> 00:31:43.000
The actor recognizes, if he recognizes this framework, will then assign value to the means because of the end.

253
00:31:43.000 --> 00:31:49.000
But what Holtzman has done is pointed out what should be an obvious fact, but apparently he's eluded people for some time,

254
00:31:49.000 --> 00:31:54.000
is that actually we don't assign the full value of the end to the means.

255
00:31:54.000 --> 00:31:59.000
Because always what we end up doing is we exchange the means for the end.

256
00:31:59.000 --> 00:32:03.000
So at some point I'm going to take that ticket and go turn it in and get my million dollars.

257
00:32:03.000 --> 00:32:10.000
So the very fact that I've turned in the means in order to achieve the end shows that I must have valued the end more than the means.

258
00:32:10.000 --> 00:32:19.000
And so even though we can say that the means is valued because of the end, we can't say that it achieves its full value or the full value of the end.

259
00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:25.120
of the End. There must be a gap in that valuation and so it's that gap that

260
00:32:25.120 --> 00:32:32.480
Holtzman uses to explain originary interest. Okay so to make the analogy

261
00:32:32.480 --> 00:32:38.160
here these inputs are means to this output to these ends or if you want to

262
00:32:38.160 --> 00:32:42.280
think in terms of dollars these these dollars that are being spent are a means

263
00:32:42.280 --> 00:32:48.480
to this end but you would never expend a hundred and ten dollars on the means to

264
00:32:48.480 --> 00:32:59.480
to achieve $110 as an end because, as I've just argued with you, means must be valued more lower than the end.

265
00:32:59.480 --> 00:33:07.480
Now, okay, I don't know much more about Hoelsman's theory, so I'm going to move on to my own.

266
00:33:07.480 --> 00:33:12.480
I'm sure it might come out in the question and answer period.

267
00:33:12.480 --> 00:33:41.480
So lastly, this is my own work. What I have advanced, I haven't really given what I'm calling a theory of interest, but in the last essay of my dissertation, I give what I call a monetary approach to interest theory.

268
00:33:41.480 --> 00:33:58.480
So what I'm arguing here is that what Boehm-Bawerk did was right from the beginning, he made a wrong move, is that he tried to transform the interest that we see on money loans or the appreciation in financial dollar terms.

269
00:33:58.480 --> 00:34:05.480
He tried to relate that to the underlying real commodities and that's what I claim was his fundamental mistake.

270
00:34:05.480 --> 00:34:16.480
And so ever since Boehm-Bawerk, even in the mainstream and also among Austrian theorists, that's just been taken for granted that when someone earns 10% on a money loan,

271
00:34:16.480 --> 00:34:20.480
Austrians as well as most neoclassicals will say, okay, that's just a symptom.

272
00:34:20.480 --> 00:34:27.480
Really what's going on is that real goods are being traded at a premium in the present for future goods.

273
00:34:27.480 --> 00:34:33.480
And for example, if you read Human Action, you'll see Mises talk about it, that interest isn't about money.

274
00:34:33.480 --> 00:34:38.480
It's about the fact of time preference and the fact that present goods are more valuable than future goods.

275
00:34:38.480 --> 00:34:44.480
The fact that present satisfactions as such are more valuable than the same satisfaction not available until later.

276
00:34:44.480 --> 00:34:48.480
So my claim is that that's not a good approach at all.

277
00:34:48.480 --> 00:34:53.480
And that if you want to understand interest, we should just stick to the fact that it's about money.

278
00:34:53.480 --> 00:35:01.480
And just to illustrate one of the problems, what you'll have, what you'll see in the pure time preference literature,

279
00:35:01.480 --> 00:35:09.480
is the claim that the preference for present goods over future goods must become uniform across all goods.

280
00:35:09.480 --> 00:35:15.480
So for example, if there's a 10% money rate of interest, a PTPT, a pure time preference theory,

281
00:35:15.480 --> 00:35:20.480
theorists might say, well that means that present goods are 10% more valuable on the margin than future goods.

282
00:35:20.480 --> 00:35:27.480
and that initially it might be different that some goods might be 12% more valuable and others 6% more valuable

283
00:35:27.480 --> 00:35:34.480
but because of arbitrage capitalists will shift their funds until in equilibrium the expected rate of return is the same.

284
00:35:34.480 --> 00:35:41.480
Murray Rothbard says this in Man Economy and State and Ludwig Lachman specifically has several passages where he makes these sorts of arguments.

285
00:35:41.480 --> 00:35:47.480
Now the problem with that is that it's only true if the spot prices of the goods remain the same over time.

286
00:35:47.480 --> 00:35:53.480
So let me just give you a little example to show what I'm talking about.

287
00:35:53.480 --> 00:36:06.480
I'm going to just talk about two goods, apples and oranges, and I'm going to list their prices for two years.

288
00:36:06.480 --> 00:36:11.480
So initially, apples and oranges sell for $2 each for a certain quantity.

289
00:36:11.480 --> 00:36:35.480
or a certain quantity, or in the year 2003 you can buy futures, which is just a claim to the same quantity of apples but not to be delivered until next year.

290
00:36:35.480 --> 00:36:40.980
Okay, and then the next year, I just need to put the present prices, the spot prices.

291
00:36:40.980 --> 00:36:45.980
We'll assume that apples are the same.

292
00:36:45.980 --> 00:36:55.980
But for some reason, the price of oranges goes up to $8 per unit.

293
00:36:55.980 --> 00:37:00.380
Okay, now if you want to say, well, why did that happen? I don't know, maybe there's a frost or something.

294
00:37:00.380 --> 00:37:30.380
But the point is, and I don't want to be confusing on this, these are all anticipated changes, okay, so I'm not here talking about the fact that everyone thought oranges were going to remain at $2 and all of a sudden they're 8 and so people suffer losses and some people earn profits. I'm not talking about that. These prices are perfectly known to everyone in the year 2003. Now, the pure time preference theory normally says that the ratio or the premium placed on present goods

295
00:37:30.380 --> 00:37:37.380
The ratio of goods over future goods has to be the same for all goods, and that ratio is what we see in money transactions.

296
00:37:37.380 --> 00:37:46.380
But here, if you ask what's the natural rate of interest, that's another way of putting it, what's the natural rate of interest in this economy, you can come up with two different answers.

297
00:37:46.380 --> 00:37:56.380
If you look at apples, you could say, okay, someone in 2003, if he wants to buy a quantity of apples in the present, for present apples, he has to spend $2.

298
00:37:56.380 --> 00:38:01.380
If he's willing to wait one year, if he's willing to buy an apple future, he only has to pay $1.

299
00:38:01.380 --> 00:38:06.380
And so from these, it looks as if the natural rate of interest in this economy is 100%

300
00:38:06.380 --> 00:38:10.380
because present apples are twice as valuable on the margin as future apples.

301
00:38:10.380 --> 00:38:13.380
But if we look at oranges, we see just the opposite.

302
00:38:13.380 --> 00:38:15.380
Present oranges sell for $2.

303
00:38:15.380 --> 00:38:21.380
But if you want to buy pieces of paper that say this will entitle you to a certain quantity of oranges next year,

304
00:38:21.380 --> 00:38:24.380
you have to pay $4 for that claim.

305
00:38:24.380 --> 00:38:31.380
So, from this consideration, present oranges are actually less valuable than future oranges.

306
00:38:31.380 --> 00:38:38.380
And in fact, the natural rate of interest, if that's the way you want to think about it, would be negative 50% from this, if you just looked at oranges.

307
00:38:38.380 --> 00:38:47.380
Now, the pure time preference theorist would normally say this is possible in the beginning, but after arbitrage, this can't remain.

308
00:38:47.380 --> 00:38:55.380
So that these relative ratios would have to be equalized because people would just shift from the lower to the higher valued investment.

309
00:38:55.380 --> 00:38:58.380
But that's not true because the spot price has changed.

310
00:38:58.380 --> 00:39:00.380
So let me just show you an example.

311
00:39:00.380 --> 00:39:06.380
Suppose someone right now in 2003 has $4 to invest.

312
00:39:06.380 --> 00:39:12.380
So if he invests in apples, he wants to invest his money in apple futures.

313
00:39:12.380 --> 00:39:16.380
So with his $4, he can buy four of these claims because they cost $1 each.

314
00:39:16.380 --> 00:39:25.380
Then he waits one year, redeems his four claims, and then, so he has now four units of apples and sells them for the spot price of $2.

315
00:39:25.380 --> 00:39:28.380
So that means he can have $8 now.

316
00:39:28.380 --> 00:39:38.380
Okay, so again, just to review what's going on, just as back here someone who had money could invest it in futures on dollars or could invest it in this,

317
00:39:38.380 --> 00:39:46.380
So, too, in this world, someone who has $4 in wealth, who wants to invest it, can put it in Apple futures.

318
00:39:46.380 --> 00:39:52.380
With his $4, he buys four claims. Next period, he gets the four, sells them for $2 a piece, he has $8.

319
00:39:52.380 --> 00:39:56.380
So, he's earned a 100% nominal return on his money.

320
00:39:56.380 --> 00:39:59.380
But, he earns the same return if he invests in orange futures.

321
00:39:59.380 --> 00:40:04.380
With his $4, he can buy one future because it costs $4 each.

322
00:40:04.380 --> 00:40:11.380
He waits one year, he turns it in, he gets his oranges, and then he sells them for the now higher spot price of $8.

323
00:40:11.380 --> 00:40:19.380
So once again, he's turned his $4 in 2003 into $8 in 2004 for a 100% nominal return on his money.

324
00:40:19.380 --> 00:40:25.380
So what's happening, as I said, is that the spot price of oranges is going up.

325
00:40:25.380 --> 00:40:29.380
If we kept the spot prices the same, then the PTPT theorist would be correct,

326
00:40:29.380 --> 00:40:34.140
that you could just figure out what the rate of the real rate of interest is by

327
00:40:34.140 --> 00:40:39.300
looking at these ratios but if we allow the spot prices to change then there's

328
00:40:39.300 --> 00:40:43.900
no reason that the ratio of spot prices to future prices has to be the same for

329
00:40:43.900 --> 00:40:47.900
different goods because the relative price ratios between the goods might

330
00:40:47.900 --> 00:40:52.340
change over time so if you look at a lot of the pure time preference theory

331
00:40:52.340 --> 00:40:57.180
literature you'll see the claim that these underlying real exchange ratios

332
00:40:57.180 --> 00:41:05.180
These things need to be equalized, but that's only true in what's called the evenly rotating economy, where everything stays the same year after year.

333
00:41:05.180 --> 00:41:15.180
So this is one of the reasons that I don't think a real, not a real list, but a real approach to interest theory, meaning a real goods approach, is very fruitful.

334
00:41:15.180 --> 00:41:25.180
I'm not intending a pun there, because again, in the real world where things change, you have to consider these sorts of possibilities.

335
00:41:25.180 --> 00:41:30.180
And again, let me just emphasize because there's a lot of confusion when I tried to show this to people before.

336
00:41:30.180 --> 00:41:35.180
This is not about pure profit opportunities. These changes, we're just stipulating, are completely anticipated.

337
00:41:35.180 --> 00:41:39.180
So everyone here knows apples are going to sell for $2 and oranges are going to sell for $8.

338
00:41:39.180 --> 00:41:47.180
But nonetheless, on the margin, present apples are twice as valuable as future apples, but oranges are half as valuable as future oranges.

339
00:41:47.180 --> 00:41:53.180
Incidentally, if you don't like the fact that it looks like there's a negative rate of interest here, if that seems impossible to you,

340
00:41:53.180 --> 00:41:59.180
Well, I could have just made this $1.50, and then it still would have been a different ratio, but it still would have been positive.

341
00:41:59.180 --> 00:42:02.180
So if you don't like that, I just did this to make nice round numbers.

342
00:42:02.180 --> 00:42:10.180
But you can still get the fact that on some goods there could apparently be a 20% rate of originary interest, while on others, you know, a 14% rate.

343
00:42:10.180 --> 00:42:13.180
And there's no reason for those rates to be equalized.

344
00:42:13.180 --> 00:42:22.180
So if your theory of interest says that when the money rate of interest is 10%, that means that present goods have a 10% premium on future goods,

345
00:42:22.180 --> 00:42:37.180
I think that's a very problematic statement because you're committed to saying the relative price ratios of those goods must remain the same over time and since Austrians tend to emphasize the fact that things change, I think that's a very serious problem for an Austrian theory of interest.