WEBVTT

NOTE The Pattern of Indirect Exchange

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.400
Since this is the first time I'm speaking to you at this event,

2
00:00:03.400 --> 00:00:06.400
I want to just give you some preparatory remarks here.

3
00:00:06.400 --> 00:00:12.100
Let me just try to get you to appreciate the significance of this week.

4
00:00:12.100 --> 00:00:15.900
There's really nowhere in the world, to my knowledge, that you can get something like this,

5
00:00:15.900 --> 00:00:20.100
where it really is a graduate level program in Austrian economics,

6
00:00:20.100 --> 00:00:23.000
or in this particular case, Rothbardian economics,

7
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:26.800
that, for example, at New York University, where I went,

8
00:00:26.800 --> 00:00:29.400
Israel Kirzner was there at the time, and Mario Rizzo,

9
00:00:29.400 --> 00:00:33.400
and other big names in the Austrian School and it was a, I don't know why, it was a highly ranked school

10
00:00:33.400 --> 00:00:37.400
and you're getting a PhD in economics, so you might think that, oh, so you guys must have been up to late hours

11
00:00:37.400 --> 00:00:42.400
talking about capital theory and no, I wasn't up to late hours, but I wasn't talking about capital theory.

12
00:00:42.400 --> 00:00:48.400
The, so there, it was really, there wasn't even a class in Austrian economics.

13
00:00:48.400 --> 00:00:55.400
It was just the weekly Austrian seminar that my dissertation happened to be in Austrian economics

14
00:00:55.400 --> 00:00:58.400
and that's why I now work for these think tanks and I'm not teaching.

15
00:00:58.400 --> 00:01:28.400
So there's nothing there that you could really get what we're getting here and then even at George Mason where you might think there's something like this I mean I haven't I didn't go to George Mason so I don't know for sure but my sense is there you get more like wow there's a lot of free market people here and there's a lot of libertarian guys and there's people like Pete Bakke who know Austrian economics and so if you take a class with him you'll get it but I don't think there's anything really like what you're going to get in this week and so because of that we

16
00:01:28.400 --> 00:01:33.200
We really have to teach it as if this really is a serious seminar.

17
00:01:33.200 --> 00:01:38.600
In other words, this isn't just a fun thing, let's come to Auburn and hey, we all like Rothbard and let's have a good time,

18
00:01:38.600 --> 00:01:40.800
that this is actually fairly serious.

19
00:01:40.800 --> 00:01:44.000
So that's the way I'm approaching this.

20
00:01:44.000 --> 00:01:48.400
For example, I'm going to assume that all of you have read every word of this.

21
00:01:48.400 --> 00:01:51.000
I don't know if that's true or not, don't tell me.

22
00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:56.300
But I know some of you have, just looking at the questions that you guys wrote up or the comments.

23
00:01:56.300 --> 00:02:11.800
So I know some of you really are, have read this and if you haven't, I would strongly suggest that, you know, now there's plenty of time built in at night, there's not, you know, instead of going down and getting drunk down the street, you can read this stuff and it'd be much better for you.

24
00:02:11.800 --> 00:02:23.100
So that's where I'm coming from and like I said, I'm going to have to teach as if, because I know some of you have read that, because this is really the only opportunity I'm going to get to talk to those people who have read this.

25
00:02:23.100 --> 00:02:32.100
And if we just try to talk and summarize in these lectures and say okay, in case you haven't ever heard of indirect exchange from the Austrian approach, let me tell you about it.

26
00:02:32.100 --> 00:02:39.100
That's the kind of stuff we do at Mises University. So that's for kids. This is for adults.

27
00:02:39.100 --> 00:02:49.100
So that's where I'm coming from. And again, just to illustrate why it's so important that when I go to Mises University and all these guys fly in here, I'm actually nervous.

28
00:02:49.100 --> 00:02:53.100
What would happen if a tornado hit the Mises Institute and we all died?

29
00:02:53.100 --> 00:02:55.100
What would happen to Rothbardian economics?

30
00:02:55.100 --> 00:02:57.100
There would be a serious crippling blow.

31
00:02:57.100 --> 00:03:00.100
And then the Sunday when people are going back

32
00:03:00.100 --> 00:03:03.100
and I don't hear about any accidents from the Express 85 shuttle,

33
00:03:03.100 --> 00:03:05.100
I start relaxing and I don't read about any...

34
00:03:05.100 --> 00:03:07.100
You know, there's no plane crashes and I kind of calm down.

35
00:03:07.100 --> 00:03:09.100
First of all, Peter Klein owes me money.

36
00:03:09.100 --> 00:03:11.100
And so if his plane went down, you know...

37
00:03:13.100 --> 00:03:15.100
Anyway, I'm being serious.

38
00:03:15.100 --> 00:03:18.100
Of course, you can tell by my hairline, I worry about a lot of stuff.

39
00:03:18.100 --> 00:03:48.100
and I worry about a lot of stuff but the point really is though that I mean there is this body of thought and it's a lot safer now we're more diversified you know it wouldn't be whereas like they were saying before if Murray Rothbard if a bus had hit him or something it probably there wouldn't be Austrian economics as we know it surviving so the point is just we have to pass this along and this is really the only time to do it at this level and so that's why I'm going to be assuming that you guys have read this even though maybe some of you haven't read

40
00:03:48.100 --> 00:03:54.100
I've got every single word in this book. I'm going to have to talk to the people who have done that, because this is one of the rare chances we get.

41
00:03:54.100 --> 00:04:05.100
Okay, let me also just talk, the things I'm going to be talking about this week primarily concern monetary and capital theory, and then that includes the business cycle,

42
00:04:05.100 --> 00:04:11.100
because you really need to know the Austrian view of money and capital to understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle.

43
00:04:11.100 --> 00:04:20.100
And those are two areas where, just hands down, the Austrian theory is just unambiguously better than mainstream economics, okay?

44
00:04:20.100 --> 00:04:28.100
There's other areas where I can at least understand why a mainstream economist would be real haughty and look down on the Austrians,

45
00:04:28.100 --> 00:04:34.100
like you guys are just using primitive techniques and come on, why don't you start using some more modern approaches?

46
00:04:34.100 --> 00:04:40.100
And for certain very technical questions, certain real subtle things where you really have to balance

47
00:04:40.100 --> 00:04:43.100
and it's a quantitative matter and how much of this factor versus this,

48
00:04:43.100 --> 00:04:46.100
but are you being consistent in your thought process?

49
00:04:46.100 --> 00:04:54.100
I can see where formal modeling is useful and I certainly understand why the people who teach that at the big universities,

50
00:04:54.100 --> 00:04:56.100
why they think that their method is better than our method.

51
00:04:56.100 --> 00:05:00.100
But when it comes to monetary and capital theory, like I say, it's not even close.

52
00:05:00.100 --> 00:05:05.100
And just to sort of illustrate that, why this isn't just a, you know,

53
00:05:05.100 --> 00:05:09.100
it's not like we have different schools of art appreciation and we like this school

54
00:05:09.100 --> 00:05:39.100
This is really significant that the recent mess that's going on with the economy, with the housing crisis and then the related credit crunch and so forth, that stuff, regular mainstream economists, even free market ones in particular, they didn't see that coming at all, that I know lots of supply-siders, and they're very good economists. I'm not saying they're bad economists, but with the tools they use, the way they would just look out at the world and try to see what's going on and then give advice to other people who turn their backs on them.

55
00:05:39.100 --> 00:05:41.100
The Theory of Money and Credit

56
00:06:09.100 --> 00:06:14.300
So, on all those different areas, the free market economists could plausibly argue that

57
00:06:14.300 --> 00:06:18.700
things should be great right now, and obviously they're not, and what that person was missing

58
00:06:18.700 --> 00:06:21.500
is they don't understand the Austrian business cycle theory.

59
00:06:21.500 --> 00:06:28.500
So if nothing else, by the end of this week, I want to get across to you how knowledge

60
00:06:28.500 --> 00:06:32.700
of the Austrian business cycle theory really would have equipped you to understand that,

61
00:06:32.700 --> 00:06:38.760
because it happened with me, that when I was working in a financial firm and I didn't see

62
00:06:38.760 --> 00:07:08.760
I see all this stuff coming and then I did a consulting project for a bank and I just started looking at this stuff with fresh eyes because now I wasn't doing what my boss wanted me to do but I was on my own because I was doing the analysis myself so it wasn't going to have somebody else's name on it so I was just looking at it with fresh eyes and the stuff just jumped out at me and maybe in some of my later talks this week I'll show you the things I saw. So again, it's not that Austrian economics is a predictive, it's not correct because it predicts well. That's not the basis of it.

63
00:07:08.760 --> 00:07:13.160
Validity, but it can't hurt you to have a correct theory in hand when you go out

64
00:07:13.160 --> 00:07:17.120
and look at the world and like I say this is a case where it was just so

65
00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:22.840
obvious the economy was on a brink of serious trouble and and like I said it

66
00:07:22.840 --> 00:07:26.680
there really was a case where the Austrian economics informed me and the

67
00:07:26.680 --> 00:07:31.420
other supply-side free-market economics just completely missed the warning

68
00:07:31.420 --> 00:07:38.360
signals. All right so as far as this chapter goes let me let me just briefly

69
00:07:38.360 --> 00:08:08.360
I briefly mentioned that, and I mentioned this in the study guide, a lot of economists, they use the terms barter and indirect, or they mean one thing by barter, they mean that there's not money, and Rothbard is using the terms interchangeably, barter and indirect exchange, and actually there's a slight difference, so I just want to point that out to you, it's not that what Rothbard's saying is wrong, but just be careful that here when Rothbard is talking about indirect exchange, that could include a scenario where there isn't yet a money,

70
00:08:08.360 --> 00:08:18.860
And yet, there is indirect exchange, whereas if you're using the term barter to mean just a community where there's no money, then that's a broader definition.

71
00:08:18.860 --> 00:08:28.360
And as we'll see, it really is, surprisingly, it's almost nonsensical to try to think through the logical consequences of what if you really just restricted it to direct exchange.

72
00:08:28.360 --> 00:08:35.860
That's actually extremely limited, as we'll see, that it just, almost naturally, indirect exchange has to emerge.

73
00:08:35.860 --> 00:08:48.860
And so the example that Rothbard talks about and that I elaborate a little bit on in the study guide is if you had indirect exchange, and again, just to reemphasize, what does that mean?

74
00:08:48.860 --> 00:08:57.860
It's where you are exchanging in order to get something that you don't plan on using. It's not just for consumption, but you don't plan on using it in production either.

75
00:08:57.860 --> 00:09:01.820
okay so you can have direct exchange where you're getting something that you

76
00:09:01.820 --> 00:09:06.220
don't intend to consume but that you're gonna you're getting a producer good

77
00:09:06.220 --> 00:09:10.300
that you want to use yourself in some process of production alright so that

78
00:09:10.300 --> 00:09:14.640
also could be a case of direct exchange and indirect exchange obviously is when

79
00:09:14.640 --> 00:09:18.740
you're the thing that you're trading away for is something that you're neither

80
00:09:18.740 --> 00:09:24.260
going to consume nor use in production and as I say that's extremely limited if

81
00:09:24.260 --> 00:09:54.260
You know, the standard stuff you'll hear about when you take any economics class and they talk about what are the advantages of money, you'll hear stuff that, you know, well, how could specialization occur because the dentist would have to find somebody who needed his tooth pulled and then had the exact things that the dentist wanted to buy that day and, you know, were the chances of those two things overlapping. And so you hear stories like that, but outside of Rothbard, I've never seen someone really

82
00:09:54.260 --> 00:10:02.260
We delve into just exactly how important money is or indirect exchange is because it's a lot more than just that type of example.

83
00:10:02.260 --> 00:10:10.260
It's a lot more than just specialization that just advanced production in and of itself really couldn't happen without indirect exchange.

84
00:10:10.260 --> 00:10:14.260
And one of you asked a question about that, so let me just make sure you see why.

85
00:10:14.260 --> 00:10:22.260
So you couldn't, or it would be very difficult if you wanted to build a house for you to hire other people to come and work on it

86
00:10:22.260 --> 00:10:30.260
without engaging in indirect exchange, because you would have to have all of the things that you were going to pay them with just on hand.

87
00:10:30.260 --> 00:10:38.260
You'd have to happen to have a bunch of food lying around or a bunch of soft drinks or whatever it is that these workers wanted in exchange for their labor

88
00:10:38.260 --> 00:10:44.260
or the people who own the lumber that you needed for your house. You just have to have exactly what you wanted,

89
00:10:44.260 --> 00:10:49.260
because the reason I say you would have to just happen to have that on you is because you couldn't say,

90
00:10:49.260 --> 00:10:53.300
Okay, you know what, next week I want to build a house and I'm going to need some workers,

91
00:10:53.300 --> 00:10:58.700
so I better go out in the market and get a bunch of steak and rice to give them so they

92
00:10:58.700 --> 00:11:02.820
can work on my house, because in that case you would be engaging in indirect exchange

93
00:11:02.820 --> 00:11:06.160
when you went out and got the steak, because you would be getting the steak not because

94
00:11:06.160 --> 00:11:09.200
you wanted to use it, and not even because you wanted to use it to build your house,

95
00:11:09.200 --> 00:11:12.020
but because you wanted to give it to somebody else for their labor, okay?

96
00:11:12.020 --> 00:11:15.680
So that would, you know, the indirect, the prohibition on indirect exchange would prevent

97
00:11:15.680 --> 00:11:17.020
you from doing that.

98
00:11:17.020 --> 00:11:25.520
So that's the reason that if you really think through, it would be hard to do almost anything if you are outlying indirect exchange.

99
00:11:25.520 --> 00:11:35.020
And so that's why it's a lot more than simply you wouldn't have specialization in different professions, that it's a lot more restrictive than that.

100
00:11:35.020 --> 00:11:40.520
And then, of course, the whole notion of economic calculation, you need money in order to do that.

101
00:11:40.520 --> 00:11:45.520
and that's again something that the Austrians recognize a lot more than other schools of thought would.

102
00:11:45.520 --> 00:11:55.520
Now the, the definite, as Rothbard points out, the definition of indirect exchange, the distinction between direct and indirect exchange is pretty crisp,

103
00:11:55.520 --> 00:12:03.520
but the definite or the borderline between what happens if something is a medium of exchange and then where do you draw the line between that and a money?

104
00:12:03.520 --> 00:12:09.520
and Money. That's not crisp, because all money is a medium of exchange that is commonly accepted.

105
00:12:09.520 --> 00:12:18.520
And so there's no crisp definition. And even right now, we're all sure, even though we don't think it's a good form of money, like a $20 bill in your pocket, that's money.

106
00:12:18.520 --> 00:12:28.520
It's commonly accepted around here. But, I mean, there could be some guy out in the hills that you go to his house and you want to give him a piece of Federal Reserve notes for something, and he points a shotgun at you and says,

107
00:12:28.520 --> 00:12:58.520
And so by the same token, if you're looking at a free market society, it's not necessary that every single person in the whole

108
00:12:58.520 --> 00:13:03.520
So the whole community accepts gold or silver in order for those to count as money.

109
00:13:03.520 --> 00:13:06.520
It's just a sort of vague command. It's commonly accepted.

110
00:13:06.520 --> 00:13:09.520
So that's what Rothbard's getting at there, that distinction.

111
00:13:09.520 --> 00:13:12.520
Whereas it is crystal clear if something is direct or indirect.

112
00:13:12.520 --> 00:13:15.520
Now, as an outside observer, you might not know that.

113
00:13:15.520 --> 00:13:18.520
You would need to know what the person's motivations were.

114
00:13:18.520 --> 00:13:21.520
But the point is if the person who is acquiring something in exchange

115
00:13:21.520 --> 00:13:25.520
is going to use it for consumption or production personally,

116
00:13:25.520 --> 00:13:33.520
Let me talk a little bit about Menger's theory of the origin of money.

117
00:13:33.520 --> 00:13:38.520
I think the next chapter talks about the regression theorem, so I'm not going to talk about that,

118
00:13:38.520 --> 00:13:43.520
but let me just reiterate again what Menger's explanation for the origin of money is.

119
00:13:43.520 --> 00:13:47.520
First of all, it's a strange type of theory.

120
00:13:47.520 --> 00:13:57.520
So what Menger says is that goods have different, he called it saleability, and Rothbard uses the term marketability.

121
00:13:57.520 --> 00:14:05.520
And again, this is even before money emerges, when you just have direct exchange, that is the case, that some goods just,

122
00:14:05.520 --> 00:14:10.520
you have more people willing to accept them because those people happen to need it more.

123
00:14:10.520 --> 00:14:16.520
There are some things that not very many people are going to use for consumption or production, and so they have a very limited market.

124
00:14:16.520 --> 00:14:21.560
so they're not very marketable and and then over time is so people recognize

125
00:14:21.560 --> 00:14:24.860
that and then once they realize that okay I have something very unmarketable

126
00:14:24.860 --> 00:14:29.320
that I want to unload and what do I do well one way of achieving my end is to

127
00:14:29.320 --> 00:14:31.960
trade it away for something that I don't actually want but that's more

128
00:14:31.960 --> 00:14:35.000
marketable than the thing I got rid of and then that allows me to ultimately

129
00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:39.280
achieve my objective and so that process you know you just think through what

130
00:14:39.280 --> 00:14:44.280
would happen well then obviously that would just amplify the superior

131
00:14:44.280 --> 00:14:47.280
and the marketability of the things that initially were more marketable

132
00:14:47.280 --> 00:14:50.280
because more and more people would accept them in indirect exchange

133
00:14:50.280 --> 00:14:56.280
and it's just a snowball process until Menger says that a few things just outstripped all others

134
00:14:56.280 --> 00:15:01.280
and once it reaches the point where virtually everyone or it's commonly accepted

135
00:15:01.280 --> 00:15:04.280
then that medium of exchange becomes a money.

136
00:15:04.280 --> 00:15:08.280
So that's, as I say, I don't really know how to talk about that.

137
00:15:08.280 --> 00:15:11.280
It's an interesting, it's not that Menger went and did historical research

138
00:15:41.280 --> 00:15:46.280
There's a person, thousands of years ago, that said, you know, this is pretty dumb that we just engage in direct exchange

139
00:15:46.280 --> 00:15:52.280
or that there's no commonly accepted unit of account and all these things that money does for us or this new concept.

140
00:15:52.280 --> 00:15:58.280
So wouldn't it be great if we all just traded our goods against this one thing and then look at all the advantages that would flow from that.

141
00:15:58.280 --> 00:16:03.280
So maybe a king thought of it or maybe someone smart person told the king and the king put out the decree.

142
00:16:03.280 --> 00:16:08.280
And there's a lot of problems with that. So one thing is there's no record of that happening.

143
00:16:08.280 --> 00:16:18.280
We think, you know, we know, or we think we know people who have discovered certain trigonometry results and things like that and, you know, smart people throughout history who came up with brilliant ideas.

144
00:16:18.280 --> 00:16:24.280
We have an idea or there are records of those things happening. You would think if somebody invented money, we might know who that person was.

145
00:16:24.280 --> 00:16:29.280
This guy was joking one time. He said, well, it wasn't John Money, but no, it wasn't John Money.

146
00:16:29.280 --> 00:16:44.280
And so it's, it is, so that's sort of odd. And then, if you push it further though, how could, how would anyone ever even come up with that idea, if you didn't know what money was? Like it's really, if you just stop and try to think about what money is, it's a very odd thing.

147
00:16:44.280 --> 00:16:56.280
And it's actually a lot easier to see how weird it is now when we have fiat money, that you, you know, you try to get your students to say, well, you know, why, why is it that you go and work all day at the factory in order for these pictures of paper with president's portraits on them?

148
00:16:56.280 --> 00:17:00.280
And whereas if you say, why do you work all day for these bars of gold?

149
00:17:00.280 --> 00:17:02.280
They might say, well, why wouldn't I work for bars of gold?

150
00:17:02.280 --> 00:17:03.280
That's a great idea.

151
00:17:03.280 --> 00:17:12.280
So it's actually a little bit easier to get people to see how strange it is that we trade things for money when it's fiat money.

152
00:17:12.280 --> 00:17:17.280
And so the point is, can you imagine somebody before people recognize these advantages,

153
00:17:17.280 --> 00:17:20.280
if someone just started talking about that, you know what?

154
00:17:20.280 --> 00:17:23.280
And how about we all just, I don't know, let's take these seashells.

155
00:17:23.280 --> 00:17:27.480
How about you give me your house and your cows and I'll give you 2,000 of these.

156
00:17:27.480 --> 00:17:32.080
But don't worry because the guy down the street, he'll give you his telescope if you give those shells to him.

157
00:17:32.080 --> 00:17:34.380
So go ahead and give me your house and I'll give you these shells.

158
00:17:34.380 --> 00:17:36.280
And, you know, people would say, what are you crazy?

159
00:17:36.280 --> 00:17:44.480
And so the point is you can't just force it, that if people don't accept something as a medium of exchange or as a money, you really couldn't force it.

160
00:17:44.480 --> 00:17:51.080
And even if you tried, you could say, well, no, maybe there was a king that just, you know, at the threat of sword point made people do that.

161
00:17:51.080 --> 00:17:55.680
You still need to run the problem of what prices should he set, because it wouldn't be enough just to say,

162
00:17:55.680 --> 00:18:04.200
okay, from now on, shells are an acceptable payment, because then the guy with the house that the other person wants to take his house in exchange for shells,

163
00:18:04.200 --> 00:18:07.040
he'll say, okay, the price is 18 billion shells.

164
00:18:07.040 --> 00:18:14.280
And so you can see that it's not enough just to say, okay, now I'm a smart guy, I know about money, we're all going to start using it,

165
00:18:14.280 --> 00:18:20.120
or else you get shot, because then you have to put in prices, and so you would have to plan the whole economy.

166
00:18:20.120 --> 00:18:27.620
Another way of seeing it is if you're on a plane and it crashes in the mountains somewhere and you're isolated,

167
00:18:27.620 --> 00:18:32.620
presumably the people there aren't going to be trading the cash in their wallets for stuff because they might say,

168
00:18:32.620 --> 00:18:37.220
well, if we don't ever get rescued, I don't know. So they might not use those things as money anymore.

169
00:18:37.220 --> 00:18:43.320
And even though everyone's from modern civilization, they all realize, you know, we really ought to have money.

170
00:18:43.320 --> 00:18:47.020
They couldn't just say, OK, well, let's make these leaves of money.

171
00:18:47.020 --> 00:18:53.020
So you know what I'm saying? Even if they all knew the advantages of money, they would have to emerge along the lines of Menger's story.

172
00:18:53.020 --> 00:18:58.020
It might be quicker if they all knew what money was, but the point is you can't just pick something.

173
00:18:58.020 --> 00:19:08.020
So anyway, these are all reasons that Menger was giving as to why the standard theory of where money came from really wasn't a compelling story.

174
00:19:08.020 --> 00:19:15.020
Okay, let me move along. Another point I want to make sure we understand is, again, in a standard economics class,

175
00:19:15.020 --> 00:19:26.020
They're going to talk about things that make for a good money and they'll talk about it's divisible, it's durable, ease of transport, and those are all true, but those are not the definition of money.

176
00:19:26.020 --> 00:19:33.020
So the money is, at least in the Austrian approach, the definition is it's a medium of exchange that is commonly accepted.

177
00:19:33.020 --> 00:19:43.020
Now if you want to understand historically why do gold and silver tend to be chosen as monies, at least in the modern period, it's for all those reasons I just said.

178
00:19:43.020 --> 00:20:13.020
that you know it's hard to use cattle because they could die on you or it's hard to get them to go places and whereas gold and so in the same time you know platinum or other things they might be a little bit too valuable that it's you know in terms of the types of exchanges you're going to be engaging in gold and silver are just great for on many different reasons and there's nothing really wrong with them whereas everything else you might think of to use as money it might be good in some respects but there's really just one strike against it that kind of rules it out whereas gold and silver for the reasons I just mentioned

179
00:20:13.020 --> 00:20:43.020
and we're really the best there was but again that's not and so that's why Rothbard talks about gold but just to be clear it's not that there that money has to be gold if you're a libertarian or an Austrian it's just that we think that's what the market would would adopt if it weren't forced under a different path and so that's why sometimes we loosely talk about gold and you might get the impression that oh it's got to be gold but no it's whatever the market picks but it historically picked gold for that reason okay let me

180
00:20:43.020 --> 00:20:54.020
I'll put up a couple things here from the book, just going through it, I want to point out a few things.

181
00:20:54.020 --> 00:21:02.020
Okay, so this equation up there, I mentioned it in the study guide.

182
00:21:02.020 --> 00:21:04.020
Of course, you understand what Rothbard's talking about there,

183
00:21:04.020 --> 00:21:07.020
but I think it's a little bit confusing to have the two nets in there,

184
00:21:07.020 --> 00:21:11.020
that if you just got rid of this last phrase, the net addition to cash balance,

185
00:21:11.020 --> 00:21:16.220
include both the inflows and the outflows, and so I think you could get rid of that.

186
00:21:16.220 --> 00:21:21.700
The other thing is this equation, and then later on when he's talking about exports

187
00:21:21.700 --> 00:21:27.860
and imports, he's not dealing with credit transactions, and I think he explicitly mentions

188
00:21:27.860 --> 00:21:31.060
that in this chapter, that we're not going to deal with credit, we'll deal with that

189
00:21:31.060 --> 00:21:32.060
later.

190
00:21:32.060 --> 00:21:35.380
He does deal with it later, I think in the chapter Money and Its Purchasing Power, he

191
00:21:35.380 --> 00:21:39.780
explicitly talks about that, but I'm just warning you, be careful here, it's that word

192
00:21:39.780 --> 00:22:09.780
There's an income that's a little bit dubious there that really it would be more correct if he had here money inflow or something and you might say what's the difference, well just because in accounting if you go out and you take out a loan and you get a million dollars you're not going to call that income because you can't, you incur a debt to get that so it's certainly cash flow flowing in that you have control over now but it's not really income in the accounting sense.

193
00:22:09.780 --> 00:22:14.100
about Credit Transactions then this is correct as it is and as I say Rothbard

194
00:22:14.100 --> 00:22:19.180
was aware of that he just deferred the discussion so the same thing with the

195
00:22:19.180 --> 00:22:23.100
exports and the imports I'm not going to get into it right now because it's not

196
00:22:23.100 --> 00:22:27.660
really too relevant for this chapter but the issue with he talks about trade

197
00:22:27.660 --> 00:22:31.100
deficits and really there's a distinction between a current account

198
00:22:31.100 --> 00:22:34.300
deficit and it versus a trade deficit they're similar but they're not the same

199
00:22:34.300 --> 00:22:39.420
thing so late after the session if you really if you're up if you're up late at

200
00:22:39.420 --> 00:22:42.420
Night, saying, what's the difference between current account deficit and trade account deficit?

201
00:22:42.420 --> 00:22:48.920
I'll allow you to get your sleep, but I'm not going to put the rest of you to sleep right now talking about it.

202
00:22:48.920 --> 00:22:57.700
Another thing I want to mention here is, OK.

203
00:22:57.700 --> 00:23:06.900
All right, so this chapter, or sorry, this figure, this is, you know, all these figures, they're all simplifications.

204
00:23:06.900 --> 00:23:11.540
I mean this is ridiculously simplified, this isn't the economy, this isn't a picture of the economy.

205
00:23:11.540 --> 00:23:15.060
The point is just to isolate certain concepts in the text.

206
00:23:15.060 --> 00:23:21.340
And my point here is just to say that this is a lot better if you use this simplification

207
00:23:21.340 --> 00:23:27.380
than if you use the circular flow that you'll get in a mainstream textbook.

208
00:23:27.380 --> 00:23:30.780
All right, now you're not going to probably be able to read that because of the photocopying,

209
00:23:30.780 --> 00:23:34.980
but it's saying up here that consumption purchases flow from,

210
00:23:34.980 --> 00:23:42.680
The money from the public goes to businesses, and then in exchange for that, businesses give the public goods and services,

211
00:23:42.680 --> 00:23:51.180
and then the public gives their productive services to business in exchange for the business paying wages, interest and profit to the public.

212
00:23:51.180 --> 00:23:53.080
So this is the circular flow.

213
00:23:53.080 --> 00:24:02.880
And if you're just studying this, this is from Samuelson's textbook, and the point here is that if this is the way you're thinking about general equilibrium,

214
00:24:02.880 --> 00:24:06.880
And if this is the way you view the economy, you're not going to understand the Austrian business cycle theory.

215
00:24:06.880 --> 00:24:13.880
You can't have a business cycle theory in here unless you do some aggregate under consumption or over investment theory.

216
00:24:13.880 --> 00:24:22.880
There's no time lag in here. There's no way to show that the Austrian story itself you literally cannot put into this picture.

217
00:24:22.880 --> 00:24:29.880
Now, in fairness, actually, Samuelson, the chapter I took this from later on, he gets into this stuff.

218
00:24:29.880 --> 00:24:59.880
Samuelson actually is he's a very worthy adversary and so he does get into capital theory but the point is even more modern textbooks that sort of just crib from Samuelson's classic textbook they grab this and they don't take the other because it's just too complicated for you know most mainstream economists they don't worry about that so they're and we'll talk about this later when I get into the other capital theory chapters later on but it's true it's for those of you who are in grad school of mainstream

219
00:24:59.880 --> 00:25:10.380
Eastern Economics, their formal tools, you can do a lot with it, you can take a lot of the verbal stuff from here and translate it into a formal model if you want,

220
00:25:10.380 --> 00:25:17.380
and actually some of my own work, I have done that, but you wouldn't have known to do it if you didn't read it verbally, okay,

221
00:25:17.380 --> 00:25:26.380
that you wouldn't have stumbled across that possibility if you were just studying these models because you're focused on finding equilibrium outcomes

222
00:25:26.380 --> 00:25:56.380
you're trying to say oh well there's this new mathematical result is there a way I could use it oh yeah if we assume people's preferences are like this we can apply this theorem and that would be a neat result and so just like I say it's not that it's impossible to see some of the Austrian insights in a formal model but it's just it's very difficult and so that's why it's important that's why I was saying in the beginning of this talk that we want to pass this on to make sure that there are people reading reading this book that it's not enough just to you know even read the stuff

223
00:25:56.380 --> 00:26:03.380
Study Guide, the study guide is just sort of refreshing your memory and you really need to read the original.

224
00:26:03.380 --> 00:26:07.380
And then let me see, is there any other one?

225
00:26:07.380 --> 00:26:16.380
Okay, let me also, I'm going to go about five or ten more minutes and then we'll open it up for Q&A,

226
00:26:16.380 --> 00:26:21.380
but let me talk about a couple of these questions.

227
00:26:21.380 --> 00:26:29.380
Somebody asked me, I think it wasn't clear from the question if it was supposed to be for this chapter, but let me just talk about this.

228
00:26:29.380 --> 00:26:40.380
Okay, so now I need to chat. If I do Y, that unzooms it. Okay.

229
00:26:40.380 --> 00:26:44.380
So somebody asked me to talk about consumer and producer surplus.

230
00:26:44.380 --> 00:26:49.880
So this is the standard way you do it in a mainstream book.

231
00:26:49.880 --> 00:26:57.980
So here's the demand curve and the consumer surplus is the area above the price line and under the demand curve.

232
00:26:57.980 --> 00:27:02.180
And the idea is, and so the question was, you know, how do you guys feel about that?

233
00:27:02.180 --> 00:27:04.780
Is this legitimate? I have mixed feelings.

234
00:27:04.780 --> 00:27:11.380
It really is neat how you can show some of the problems with government intervention with these diagrams.

235
00:27:11.380 --> 00:27:16.340
But it's probably a case of where you're using an invalid concept to make fun of the government.

236
00:27:16.340 --> 00:27:18.020
And so you want to be able to do it.

237
00:27:18.020 --> 00:27:20.540
But I'm not sure how I feel about this.

238
00:27:20.540 --> 00:27:24.580
Clearly, if someone used this to show the market was bad, I'd say, this is a bunch of garbage.

239
00:27:24.580 --> 00:27:26.380
So probably it is a bunch of garbage.

240
00:27:26.380 --> 00:27:29.340
But let me show you why.

241
00:27:29.340 --> 00:27:38.300
So the theory is, where they're coming from with this thing, is they're going to say, look, here for each unit,

242
00:27:38.300 --> 00:27:46.000
Like, let's say this is the 10th unit, the height of the demand curve shows how much would people pay,

243
00:27:46.000 --> 00:27:49.500
at what price would people demand 10 units?

244
00:27:49.500 --> 00:27:50.800
And so...

245
00:27:53.600 --> 00:27:54.600
All right.

246
00:27:55.600 --> 00:28:02.100
And so, what that means now, we know, and this is, again, even in a mainstream undergrad class,

247
00:28:02.100 --> 00:28:32.100
They're allowed, they would say this, that we know that people value at least the first nine units, you know, as more than that, or as much as that, and then the tenth unit, whatever this price is, if it's $10, and let's say this price is $4, and so the point is that, look, for each of these ten units, people would have been willing to pay $10 for each of those, and yet they're only having to pay four, and so there's that $6 surplus on each of those ten units,

248
00:28:32.100 --> 00:28:46.100
And then you do that for each unit, and so you're summing up, you know, this surplus, this surplus, and so it's the area of that curve that's basically doing is showing you the benefits to the consumer from the existence of this market.

249
00:28:46.100 --> 00:29:01.100
And so I like that, the idea of it, because it shows undergrads that it's not right to think, oh, someone walks into a grocery store and buys $120 worth of stuff and gives away $120 worth of stuff, namely cash.

250
00:29:01.100 --> 00:29:07.100
And so both sides break even. That's a common way of thinking about it, but obviously, no, that's not right.

251
00:29:07.100 --> 00:29:12.100
And so if you understand consumer surplus, that's one way to try to get it across.

252
00:29:12.100 --> 00:29:17.100
Or another way of saying is, well, if I just took away the existence of this market, how does that hurt anybody?

253
00:29:17.100 --> 00:29:22.100
And you could say, well, because they're missing out on this surplus that they would have been able to buy stuff at four.

254
00:29:22.100 --> 00:29:25.100
And at least for these units, they valued them a lot more.

255
00:29:25.100 --> 00:29:29.100
Now, I can say there's a couple of problems with this.

256
00:29:29.100 --> 00:29:39.600
One thing is just on the face of it, it's adding up, it's trying to measure utility and so we know that that doesn't, that does not right.

257
00:29:39.600 --> 00:29:50.600
That, so no matter what's going on here, if you think it's impossible to measure utility and this is purporting to show that you can measure how happy a consumer is because of a market, it can't be valid.

258
00:29:50.600 --> 00:30:00.600
Specifically, what's another specific problem is, it's not true that if you set the price at 10,

259
00:30:00.600 --> 00:30:05.600
you do know that people would have bought 10 units, but then you can't take the next step and say,

260
00:30:05.600 --> 00:30:11.600
okay, what if you wanted to get people to buy 15, or we have to set the price at 7,

261
00:30:11.600 --> 00:30:17.600
and then people would have been willing to pay $7 for the 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th and 15th units.

262
00:30:17.600 --> 00:30:23.400
You don't know that because it's true that if the price is 7, they buy 15,

263
00:30:23.400 --> 00:30:29.300
but they have more money at that point than they would have had if you first set the price at 10 and they bought and they gave you $100.

264
00:30:29.300 --> 00:30:34.300
All right, so if you took $100 away from them and then lower the price to 7, it's not clear that they would have bought 5 additional units.

265
00:30:34.300 --> 00:30:37.000
All right, but that's what's going on here.

266
00:30:37.000 --> 00:30:44.200
It's assuming that it makes sense to say someone values the first unit at $100 and the second unit at 87,

267
00:30:44.200 --> 00:30:50.200
and that you can sum up the valuations on all those units and that's the total amount that the person would pay to get all those units

268
00:30:50.200 --> 00:30:56.700
and that's not necessarily true. So that's a specific sort of mechanical objection to what's going on there.

269
00:30:56.700 --> 00:31:06.400
So anyway, that would be my response. Oh, and the other one, of course, is that it relies on calculus a lot,

270
00:31:06.400 --> 00:31:10.600
the standard depiction when that's not really correct, but then even there you could say,

271
00:31:10.600 --> 00:31:40.600
Okay, well what if we made it discreet, could you add up the amounts and again, I don't think it makes sense that what you're doing is first of all, not true that you could, it's not true the consumer would pay this plus this plus this on all these units, you don't know that, the demand curve doesn't give you that information and then it's also what you think you're getting and then adding them together, that doesn't make any sense. Okay, and then let me turn to another question. Somebody said,

272
00:31:40.600 --> 00:31:59.600
Somebody said that, let's see here, referring to the marketability, I was trying to clarify that to say something's not marketable or has a low sellability, it's not the same thing as saying it's not valuable.

273
00:31:59.600 --> 00:32:02.600
In fact, there could be things that are quite valuable, but they're not marketable.

274
00:32:02.600 --> 00:32:13.600
So you can own a house, but it's not very marketable, and so it means, what I think it means is that how long do you have to spend trying to find what Menger called an economic price.

275
00:32:13.600 --> 00:32:22.600
And so, as opposed to a $20 bill is extremely marketable, that you don't, what you're likely to get for it, you can go out and get very quickly.

276
00:32:22.600 --> 00:32:29.600
In other words, you don't have to spend months looking for the best buyer for it, whereas you're selling a piece of art, you're selling an antique,

277
00:32:29.600 --> 00:32:35.680
You're gonna do a thorough search for the right buyer, okay? So that's that's what I meant there. So someone

278
00:32:36.800 --> 00:32:43.920
In response to that said it is noted that anything can be sold given a low enough price and then he asked

279
00:32:43.920 --> 00:32:46.400
How do you sell ice to a penguin? Okay, so

280
00:32:47.280 --> 00:32:53.280
First of all, you're right. I mean I had in mind if there's human buyers or rational actors at the penguin

281
00:32:53.280 --> 00:32:55.280
I don't know has needs

282
00:32:55.280 --> 00:33:10.280
The real answer there is, okay, I mean, I was, you're right, I probably didn't have this in mind, but technically you could lower the price to make it negative, so you could pay someone to take the thing off your hand.

283
00:33:10.280 --> 00:33:20.280
So, you know, virtually for anything you can think of, you could unload it very quickly if you're willing to lower the price, even if you make the price negative.