WEBVTT

NOTE 11. "The Multiplier"

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.000
Chapter 11. The Multiplier.

2
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:13.000
The Magic of It.

3
00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:23.000
We now come to the strange concept of the multiplier, about which some Keynesians make more fuss than about anything else in the Keynesian system.

4
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:30.360
System. Indeed, a whole literature has developed around this concept alone. Let us try to see

5
00:00:30.360 --> 00:00:34.760
what Keynes means by this term.

6
00:00:34.760 --> 00:00:41.120
In given circumstances, a definite ratio, to be called the multiplier, can be established

7
00:00:41.120 --> 00:00:47.620
between income and investment, and, subject to certain simplifications, between the total

8
00:00:47.620 --> 00:00:52.760
Total Employment and the Employment Directly Employed on Investment

9
00:00:52.760 --> 00:00:58.180
This further step is an integral part of our theory of employment, since it establishes

10
00:00:58.180 --> 00:01:04.200
a precise relationship, given the propensity to consume, between aggregate employment and

11
00:01:04.200 --> 00:01:07.220
income and the rate of investment.

12
00:01:07.220 --> 00:01:09.720
Page 113

13
00:01:09.720 --> 00:01:11.720
Keynes gives credit to R.F.

14
00:01:11.720 --> 00:01:18.720
Now, the average propensity to consume, the reader will recall, is the functional relationship between a given level of income in terms of wage units and the expenditure on consumption.

15
00:01:41.720 --> 00:01:54.720
So, if C w is the amount of consumption and y w is income, both measured in wage units,

16
00:01:54.720 --> 00:02:02.240
the function of C w has the same sign as the function of y w, but is smaller in amount,

17
00:02:02.240 --> 00:02:11.040
i.e., d C w over d y w is positive and less than unity.

18
00:02:11.040 --> 00:02:17.360
Page 96 What this means in simple and numerical terms

19
00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:23.840
is that if out of three units of income, two are spent on consumption, the propensity to

20
00:02:23.840 --> 00:02:28.040
consume will be 2 over 3.

21
00:02:28.040 --> 00:02:36.180
Now in Chapter 10 and on Page 115, Keynes advances to the concept of the marginal propensity

22
00:02:36.180 --> 00:02:38.080
to consume.

23
00:02:38.080 --> 00:02:44.540
He defines this, however, by precisely the same mathematical expression and notation as

24
00:02:44.540 --> 00:02:51.400
he has previously used to express what he now calls the average propensity to consume.

25
00:02:51.400 --> 00:02:59.640
V. Delicit, D.C.W. over D.Y.W., page 115.

26
00:02:59.640 --> 00:03:05.600
The marginal propensity to consume is the relation of the increase in consumption to

27
00:03:05.600 --> 00:03:12.240
to the increase in real income when the income of the community increases.

28
00:03:12.240 --> 00:03:18.480
The reader might not be inclined to imagine at first glance that either the average propensity

29
00:03:18.480 --> 00:03:25.040
to consume or the marginal propensity to consume was a matter of much importance so far as

30
00:03:25.040 --> 00:03:30.240
the business cycle or the extent of employment was concerned.

31
00:03:30.240 --> 00:03:37.040
Keynes simply tells us that out of a given amount of income, or of increase of income,

32
00:03:37.040 --> 00:03:45.240
some but not all of it will be spent on consumption, and some but not all of it will be saved.

33
00:03:45.240 --> 00:03:50.260
Now economists have long pointed out that the greater the percentage of the national

34
00:03:50.260 --> 00:03:56.160
income that is saved and invested, the more rapid, other things being equal, will be the

35
00:03:56.160 --> 00:04:10.000
But just how any significant discovery concerning fluctuations in business and employment could

36
00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:15.480
follow from the truism that people will spend something and save something out of their

37
00:04:15.480 --> 00:04:19.240
incomes, it is difficult to see.

38
00:04:19.240 --> 00:04:23.880
Yet Keynes does think he gets a magical result from this truism.

39
00:04:23.880 --> 00:04:30.840
The Marginal Propensity to Consume is of considerable importance because it tells us how the next

40
00:04:30.840 --> 00:04:40.200
increment of output will have to be divided between consumption and investment, page 115.

41
00:04:40.200 --> 00:04:47.880
And from this, Keynes derives the magic investment multiplier, K. It tells us that when there

42
00:04:47.880 --> 00:04:53.620
There is an increment of aggregate investment. Income will increase by an amount which is

43
00:04:53.620 --> 00:05:00.620
K times the increment of investment. Page 115.

44
00:05:00.620 --> 00:05:06.440
Let us try to find in plainer language what it is that Keynes is saying here. He explains

45
00:05:06.440 --> 00:05:13.440
on the next page. It follows therefore that if the consumption psychology of the community

46
00:05:13.440 --> 00:05:20.240
is such that they will choose to consume, e.g. nine-tenths of an increment of income,

47
00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:27.540
then the multiplier k is ten, and the total employment caused by, e.g. increased public

48
00:05:27.540 --> 00:05:35.360
works will be ten times the primary employment provided by the public works themselves.

49
00:05:35.360 --> 00:05:45.400
p. 116-117. What Keynes is saying, among other things, is that the more a community spends

50
00:05:45.400 --> 00:05:53.000
of its income and the less it saves, the faster will its real income grow, nor do the implications

51
00:05:53.000 --> 00:06:00.120
of its own logic frighten him. If a community spends none of its additional income from,

52
00:06:00.120 --> 00:06:07.120
This would mean that a small expenditure on public works would increase income without limit, provided only that the community was not poisoned by the President.

53
00:06:30.120 --> 00:06:58.120
If, on the other hand, they, the community, seek to consume the whole of any increment of income, there will be no point of stability, and prices will rise without limit, but just how did prices get into it?

54
00:06:58.120 --> 00:07:12.120
The propensity to consume and the multiplier, we have been assured up to this point, are expressed in terms of wage units, which, Keynes assures us, means real terms and not money terms.

55
00:07:12.120 --> 00:07:19.120
Why didn't we hear anything about the effect on prices until we got to an infinite multiplier?

56
00:07:19.120 --> 00:07:42.120
This leads us to still another peculiarity of Keynesian economics, which we shall examine at a later point, which is the assumption that increased activity and employment have no significant effect on prices and wages until full employment is reached, and then everything happens at once.

57
00:07:42.120 --> 00:07:46.120
Only then does true inflation set in.

58
00:07:46.120 --> 00:07:54.120
It is true, however, that the implications of their logic do frighten Keynes and the Keynesians just a little bit.

59
00:07:54.120 --> 00:07:57.120
Their multiplier is too good to be true.

60
00:07:57.120 --> 00:08:06.120
Moreover, when their schemes are tried and their multiplier does not miraculously do its multiplying, they badly need an alibi.

61
00:08:06.120 --> 00:08:11.120
This is supplied by the doctrine of leakages.

62
00:08:11.120 --> 00:08:15.120
Among the most important of these leakages are the following.

63
00:08:15.120 --> 00:08:22.560
1. A part of the increment of income is used to pay off debts 2. A part is saved in the

64
00:08:22.560 --> 00:08:28.480
form of idle bank deposits 3. A part is invested in securities purchased

65
00:08:28.480 --> 00:08:35.480
from others, who in turn fail to spend the proceeds 4. A part is spent on imports, which

66
00:08:35.480 --> 00:08:40.980
does not help home employment 5. A part of the purchases is supplied from

67
00:08:40.980 --> 00:08:45.700
Excess stocks of consumer goods, which may not be replaced.

68
00:08:45.700 --> 00:08:54.140
By reason of leakages of this sort, the employment process peters out after a while.

69
00:08:54.140 --> 00:08:57.940
Not Fixed or Predictable

70
00:08:57.940 --> 00:09:04.400
I have said that a whole literature has developed around this concept of the multiplier.

71
00:09:04.400 --> 00:09:07.380
There are many different concepts, in fact.

72
00:09:07.380 --> 00:09:14.820
The logical theory of the multiplier, which assumes no time lag, the period analysis concept,

73
00:09:14.820 --> 00:09:21.980
which assumes time lags, the comparative statics analysis, and so on.

74
00:09:21.980 --> 00:09:27.700
Immense ingenuity has gone into the mathematical development of these theories, but if the

75
00:09:27.700 --> 00:09:33.540
reader wishes to economize his time before he plows through the monographs of the multiplier

76
00:09:33.540 --> 00:09:46.460
What reason is there to suppose that there is any such thing as the multiplier, or that

77
00:09:46.460 --> 00:09:53.420
it is determined by the propensity to consume, or that the whole concept is not just a worthless

78
00:09:53.420 --> 00:09:59.740
toy, the kind of thing made depressingly familiar by monetary cranks?

79
00:09:59.740 --> 00:10:05.180
There are, in fact, so many things wrong with the multiplier concept that it is hard to

80
00:10:05.180 --> 00:10:09.020
know where to begin in dealing with them.

81
00:10:09.020 --> 00:10:13.120
Let us try to look at one probable origin of the concept.

82
00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:20.400
If a community's income, by definition, is equal to what it consumes plus what it invests,

83
00:10:20.400 --> 00:10:26.180
and if that community spends nine tenths of its income on consumption and invests one

84
00:10:26.180 --> 00:10:32.180
If a person spends one-tenth, then its income must be ten times as great as its investment.

85
00:10:32.180 --> 00:10:39.660
If it spends nineteen-twentieths on consumption and invests one-twentieth, then its income

86
00:10:39.660 --> 00:10:44.020
must be twenty times as great as its investment.

87
00:10:44.020 --> 00:10:50.660
If it spends ninety-nine-hundredths of its income on consumption and invests the remaining

88
00:10:50.660 --> 00:11:05.300
These things are true simply because they are different ways of saying the same thing.

89
00:11:05.300 --> 00:11:11.340
The ordinary man in the street would understand this, but suppose you have a subtle man, trained

90
00:11:11.340 --> 00:11:13.000
in mathematics.

91
00:11:13.000 --> 00:11:18.580
He will then see that, given the fraction of the community's income that goes into

92
00:11:18.580 --> 00:11:25.060
Next, the income itself can mathematically be called a function of that fraction. If

93
00:11:25.060 --> 00:11:32.120
investment is one-tenth of income, income will be ten times investment, etc. Then, by

94
00:11:32.120 --> 00:11:39.660
some wild leap, this functional and purely formal or terminological relationship is confused

95
00:11:39.660 --> 00:11:42.140
with a causal relationship.

96
00:11:42.140 --> 00:11:49.140
Next, the causal relationship is stood on its head, and the amazing conclusion emerges

97
00:11:49.140 --> 00:11:54.260
that the greater the proportion of income spent, the smaller the fraction that represents

98
00:11:54.260 --> 00:12:01.300
investment, the more this investment must multiply itself to create the total income.

99
00:12:01.300 --> 00:12:08.540
I admit that all this sounds pretty fantastic, and I am at a loss otherwise how to explain

100
00:12:08.540 --> 00:12:16.020
How Keynes came to think that such an amazing, causal mathematical relationship should exist.

101
00:12:16.020 --> 00:12:22.800
Let us, however, look at other observations and notions that might give rise to the hypothesis

102
00:12:22.800 --> 00:12:26.720
that there is such a thing as a multiplier.

103
00:12:26.720 --> 00:12:32.800
When after a depression a business recovery sets in, then increased expenditure in any

104
00:12:32.800 --> 00:12:54.080
The conspicuous agent in rousing business from its partial lethargy has often been some

105
00:12:54.080 --> 00:13:01.360
propitious event, but these propitious events did no more than accelerate a process of business

106
00:13:01.360 --> 00:13:31.360
and Business Recuperation already begun. Among the ultimate effects of a period of hard times, then, are a reduction in the prime and supplementary costs of manufacturing commodities and in the stocks of goods held by wholesale and retail merchants, a liquidation of business debts, low rates of interest, a banking position that favors an increase in loans and an increasing demand among investors for corporate securities.

107
00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:37.360
Once started, a revival of activity spreads rapidly over a large part, if not all, of

108
00:13:37.360 --> 00:13:39.260
the field of business.

109
00:13:39.260 --> 00:13:44.840
For even when the first impulse toward expansion is sharply confined to a single industry or

110
00:13:44.840 --> 00:13:52.400
a single locality, its effects in the restricted field stimulate activity elsewhere.

111
00:13:52.400 --> 00:13:58.560
In part, this diffusion of activity proceeds along the lines of interconnection among business

112
00:13:58.560 --> 00:14:00.380
enterprises.

113
00:14:00.380 --> 00:14:05.860
One line leads back from the industries first stimulated to the industries that provide

114
00:14:05.860 --> 00:14:09.980
raw materials and supplementary supplies.

115
00:14:09.980 --> 00:14:14.700
Another line leads forward to the chain of enterprises that handle the increased output

116
00:14:14.700 --> 00:14:17.140
of commodities.

117
00:14:17.140 --> 00:14:22.440
The diffusion of activity is not confined to these definite lines of interconnection

118
00:14:22.440 --> 00:14:24.780
among business enterprises.

119
00:14:24.780 --> 00:14:31.140
It proceeds also by engendering an optimistic bias in the calculations of all persons concerned

120
00:14:31.140 --> 00:14:37.420
with the active direction of business enterprises and with providing loans.

121
00:14:37.420 --> 00:14:42.220
Most men find their spirits raised by being an optimistic company.

122
00:14:42.220 --> 00:14:48.100
Therefore, when the first beneficiaries of a trade revival develop a cheerful frame of

123
00:14:48.100 --> 00:14:54.540
mind about the business outlook, they become centers of infection and start an epidemic

124
00:14:54.540 --> 00:14:56.880
of Optimism.

125
00:14:56.880 --> 00:15:02.960
As it spreads, the epidemic of optimism helps to produce conditions that both justify and

126
00:15:02.960 --> 00:15:05.660
intensify it.

127
00:15:05.660 --> 00:15:11.240
Those who have a long-term acquaintance with the worlds of business and finance will recognize

128
00:15:11.240 --> 00:15:18.660
this as an excellent realistic description of what actually happens in a period of recovery.

129
00:15:18.660 --> 00:15:25.540
But it is clear that it is not a purely mechanical process, determined by some fixed, fundamental

130
00:15:25.540 --> 00:15:33.940
psychological law from which we cannot escape, or by some rigid and predetermined multiplier.

131
00:15:33.940 --> 00:15:38.820
It is true that some consumers begin to spend more because they have more from somebody

132
00:15:38.820 --> 00:15:46.740
else, which they may have received in wages, say, from re-employment after idleness.

133
00:15:46.740 --> 00:15:53.160
This spending of newly acquired money does of course tend to accelerate a recovery, but

134
00:15:53.160 --> 00:15:59.700
in any case, in the days before compensatory government spending, the recovery was usually

135
00:15:59.700 --> 00:16:06.660
initiated and certainly in large part continued by people who had finally ceased to be pessimistic

136
00:16:06.660 --> 00:16:13.000
about the business future and had become convinced that prices were scraping rock bottom and

137
00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:16.300
might even be due for an upturn.

138
00:16:16.300 --> 00:16:21.980
Some of these people who initiate the upturn are entrepreneurs who have decided to restock

139
00:16:21.980 --> 00:16:25.780
on raw materials and re-employ some workers.

140
00:16:25.780 --> 00:16:31.820
They either borrow from the banks for this purpose or simply reactivate balances that

141
00:16:31.820 --> 00:16:36.500
they have long allowed to remain comparatively idle.

142
00:16:36.500 --> 00:16:42.180
Some of the people who initiate the upturn are consumers and not necessarily solely those

143
00:16:42.180 --> 00:17:06.740
Optimism begets new income, which by being spent begets still more income, and so on.

144
00:17:06.740 --> 00:17:14.740
Optimism, income, consumption and investment all interact, all mutually increase each other.

145
00:17:14.740 --> 00:17:19.740
But there is never any precise, predictable mathematical relationship.

146
00:17:19.740 --> 00:17:25.740
There is never any fixed or purely mechanical relationship among these elements.

147
00:17:25.740 --> 00:17:32.740
Income, consumption and investment may be measurable quantities, at least in monetary,

148
00:17:32.740 --> 00:17:34.740
though not in real terms.

149
00:17:34.740 --> 00:17:50.740
But the state of business sentiment, the individual and composite expectations of Messers A, B, C, N, is not a measurable quantity and can never be put into a meaningful mathematical equation.

150
00:17:50.740 --> 00:18:02.740
If optimism is already present, a small, new expenditure may touch off, or seem to touch off, a wave of expenditure and re-employment.

151
00:18:02.740 --> 00:18:24.740
But if the outlook of the community is still basically pessimistic, if some prices or wages or interest rates are still generally regarded, for example, as being unrealistically or unworkably high, the new expenditure may be completely wasted so far as any stimulating effect is concerned.

152
00:18:24.740 --> 00:18:35.740
In this whole process, the concept of a fixed or predictable or predeterminable multiplier is never of any use.

153
00:18:35.740 --> 00:18:40.740
Saving and Investment Again

154
00:18:40.740 --> 00:18:50.740
Keynes consistently fails to provide convincing deductive reasons for any of his leading propositions or laws.

155
00:18:50.740 --> 00:19:01.740
Nor does he compensate for this by offering any statistical proof of them, or even providing any prima facie statistical presumption in their favor.

156
00:19:01.740 --> 00:19:05.740
Instead, he gives us something like this.

157
00:19:05.740 --> 00:19:10.860
It should not be difficult to compile a chart of the marginal propensity to consume

158
00:19:10.860 --> 00:19:15.980
at each stage of a trade cycle from the statistics, if they were available,

159
00:19:15.980 --> 00:19:20.620
of aggregate income and aggregate investment at successive dates.

160
00:19:20.620 --> 00:19:24.540
At present, however, our statistics are not accurate enough.

161
00:19:29.100 --> 00:19:33.260
One would suppose that he would wait until the statistics were compiled

162
00:19:33.260 --> 00:19:35.340
before telling us what we would find.

163
00:19:35.740 --> 00:19:42.500
It appears that some figures had been compiled, however, by Simon Kuznets, and though they

164
00:19:42.500 --> 00:19:47.940
are very precarious, Keynes is surprised by what they show.

165
00:19:47.940 --> 00:19:53.540
If single years are taken in isolation, the results look rather wild, but if they are

166
00:19:53.540 --> 00:19:59.220
grouped in pairs, the multiplier seems to have been less than three, and probably fairly

167
00:19:59.220 --> 00:20:11.100
One would suppose that Keynes would show the reader how these figures were obtained, what

168
00:20:11.100 --> 00:20:15.860
years they covered, etc., but he does nothing of the kind.

169
00:20:15.860 --> 00:20:21.240
On the contrary, he says that the marginal propensity to consume shown by these figures

170
00:20:21.240 --> 00:20:39.200
In other words, if the statistics do not fit in with Keynes's preconceptions, it is the

171
00:20:39.200 --> 00:20:45.760
statistics, not the preconceptions, that are to be suspected or thrown out.

172
00:20:45.760 --> 00:20:52.400
If the facts do not substantiate the a priori theory, so much the worse for the facts.

173
00:20:52.400 --> 00:20:59.160
Time and again, Keynes tries to carry his point by sheer ex cathedra pronouncement.

174
00:20:59.160 --> 00:21:05.720
His evident success in carrying it off can only be attributed to the docility of academic

175
00:21:05.720 --> 00:21:07.640
opinion.

176
00:21:07.640 --> 00:21:14.360
The whole multiplier concept rests on the assumption of already existing unemployment.

177
00:21:14.360 --> 00:21:20.440
This of course is a deliberate, even when tacit, assumption on Keynes's part, for it

178
00:21:20.440 --> 00:21:27.680
is his contention that substantial unemployment is the general situation, and that full employment,

179
00:21:27.680 --> 00:21:34.640
even when defined to allow for frictional unemployment, is only a special situation.

180
00:21:34.640 --> 00:21:37.880
But this contention is never established.

181
00:21:37.880 --> 00:21:43.840
It rests in turn on the assumption that there can be such a thing, and even that there normally

182
00:21:43.840 --> 00:21:51.560
is such a thing as an equilibrium with unemployment. This, as we have seen, and we'll see more

183
00:21:51.560 --> 00:21:59.680
fully later, is a contradiction in terms. For, while Keynes's multiplier and other concepts

184
00:21:59.680 --> 00:22:07.060
assume unemployment, Keynes never correctly tells us the reasons for this unemployment.

185
00:22:07.060 --> 00:22:13.600
Those reasons always involve some disequilibrium, some maladjustment in the interrelationships

186
00:22:13.600 --> 00:22:20.600
of Money, The Theory of Money and State, The Theory of Money and State, The Theory of Money

187
00:22:43.600 --> 00:22:50.600
The government spending may have to be so big and financed in such an inflationary manner

188
00:22:50.600 --> 00:22:58.600
that it raises the nation's whole price level sufficiently to increase employment in the affected industries.

189
00:22:58.600 --> 00:23:04.600
But even so, the employment could much more easily be brought about by price and wage adjustment

190
00:23:04.600 --> 00:23:07.600
than by further government spending.

191
00:23:07.600 --> 00:23:14.240
In fact, if unemployment is being caused by specific wage rates that are too high, and

192
00:23:14.240 --> 00:23:20.160
a new government spending merely encourages the unions with excessive wage rates to demand

193
00:23:20.160 --> 00:23:27.040
still higher wage rates, the new spending may not result in any net increase in employment,

194
00:23:27.040 --> 00:23:30.480
and could even be followed by a decrease.

195
00:23:30.480 --> 00:23:36.260
Another difficulty with Keynes's multiplier concept is that it does not clearly and consistently

196
00:23:36.260 --> 00:23:44.260
and they distinguish between real income, or income measured in constant dollars, and money income.

197
00:23:44.260 --> 00:23:53.260
True, he expresses his multiplier most of the time in terms of wage units, but we have already seen, page 64,

198
00:23:53.260 --> 00:23:59.260
that he so defines wage units as to make them in fact not a quantity of employment,

199
00:23:59.260 --> 00:24:04.260
but a quantity of money received by workers who are employed.

200
00:24:04.260 --> 00:24:10.260
His wage units are, in brief, not real units, but monetary units.

201
00:24:10.260 --> 00:24:16.260
And Keynes's multiplier jumps without notice from real terms to monetary terms.

202
00:24:16.260 --> 00:24:22.260
This jump becomes flagrant on pages 116 and 117.

203
00:24:22.260 --> 00:24:28.260
There we are told that if the propensity to consume is 9 over 10,

204
00:24:28.260 --> 00:24:42.260
Then the multiplier k is 10, and the total employment caused by, e.g. increased public works, will be 10 times the primary employment provided by the public works themselves.

205
00:24:42.260 --> 00:25:00.260
Only in the event of the community maintaining their consumption unchanged, in spite of the increase in employment and hence in real income, will the increase of employment be restricted to the primary employment provided by the public works.

206
00:25:00.260 --> 00:25:06.260
But this passage is immediately followed by this sentence.

207
00:25:06.260 --> 00:25:12.620
If, on the other hand, they seek to consume the whole of any increment of income, there

208
00:25:12.620 --> 00:25:18.420
will be no point of stability and prices will rise without limit.

209
00:25:18.420 --> 00:25:24.860
To repeat our question on page 137, how did prices get into this?

210
00:25:24.860 --> 00:25:30.980
Just where did we jump from real income to prices rising without limit?

211
00:25:30.980 --> 00:25:36.900
This brings us to another peculiar Keynesian theory, for each fallacy depends for its support

212
00:25:36.900 --> 00:25:39.420
on other fallacies.

213
00:25:39.420 --> 00:25:44.620
This is the theory that when there has been unemployment and demand increases for any

214
00:25:44.620 --> 00:25:52.820
reason, the effect is wholly to increase employment and or volume of goods sold and never to increase

215
00:25:52.820 --> 00:25:57.860
wage rates or prices until the point of full employment is reached.

216
00:25:57.860 --> 00:26:06.260
Then, as by assumption there can be no more employment, prices will rise without limit.

217
00:26:06.260 --> 00:26:12.140
Neither economic theory, general experience nor available statistics support this Keynesian

218
00:26:12.140 --> 00:26:18.980
notion, but we shall postpone further analysis of it until a later point.

219
00:26:18.980 --> 00:26:25.060
One fallacy in the multiplier that is alone sufficient to discredit it completely is the

220
00:26:25.060 --> 00:26:30.360
The assumption that the entire fraction of a community's income that is not consumed

221
00:26:30.360 --> 00:26:37.160
is hoarded, that no part of this unconsumed income is invested.

222
00:26:37.160 --> 00:26:43.340
The propensity to consume, in brief, determines the multiplier only on the assumption that

223
00:26:43.340 --> 00:26:48.820
what is not spent on consumption is not spent on anything at all.

224
00:26:48.820 --> 00:26:55.220
If the propensity to consume is seven-tenths or eight-tenths or nine-tenths or anything

225
00:26:55.220 --> 00:27:01.180
less than ten-tenths, the economic machine will run down unless investment rushes in

226
00:27:01.180 --> 00:27:04.420
to fill the gap left by saving.

227
00:27:04.420 --> 00:27:10.820
This investment can only be supplied by a deus ex machina, and this god turns out to

228
00:27:10.820 --> 00:27:14.780
be the government with loan expenditure.

229
00:27:14.780 --> 00:27:21.220
All these assumptions are not only false, in fact, but a contradiction of Keynes's own

230
00:27:21.220 --> 00:27:26.540
formal definitions in the general theory of saving and investment.

231
00:27:26.540 --> 00:27:33.700
For Keynes himself has assured us that, in Chapter 6, saving and investment have been

232
00:27:33.700 --> 00:27:40.500
so defined that they are necessarily equal in amount, being, for the community as a whole,

233
00:27:40.500 --> 00:27:43.820
merely different aspects of the same thing.

234
00:27:43.820 --> 00:27:52.320
Page 74 He has also told us that The prevalence of the idea that saving and investment taken

235
00:27:52.320 --> 00:27:57.820
in their straightforward sense can differ from one another is to be explained, I think,

236
00:27:57.820 --> 00:27:59.980
by an optical illusion.

237
00:27:59.980 --> 00:28:09.100
Page 81 Further, he has ridiculed The newfangled idea that there can be saving without investment

238
00:28:09.100 --> 00:28:12.980
or investment without genuine saving.

239
00:28:12.980 --> 00:28:17.300
Page 83 Yet the notion of a multiplier, depending

240
00:28:17.300 --> 00:28:24.700
on a propensity to consume, rests on precisely this optical illusion and this new-fangled

241
00:28:24.700 --> 00:28:26.180
view.

242
00:28:26.180 --> 00:28:32.800
It rests on the assumption that there can be saving without investment.

243
00:28:32.800 --> 00:28:39.660
What is involved here is partly a question of fact and partly a question of definition.

244
00:28:39.660 --> 00:28:46.460
If we define saving as including both money and goods, and investment as including both

245
00:28:46.460 --> 00:28:53.600
money and goods, the goods in both cases being measured in current money prices, then saving

246
00:28:53.600 --> 00:29:00.240
and investment are at all times necessarily equal and, in fact, merely two names for the

247
00:29:00.240 --> 00:29:02.720
same thing.

248
00:29:02.720 --> 00:29:08.860
On these definitions the terms savings and investment could be freely interchanged in

249
00:29:08.860 --> 00:29:16.520
in any context without change of meaning, or a common term such as un-consumed output

250
00:29:16.520 --> 00:29:20.340
could be substituted for either or both.

251
00:29:20.340 --> 00:29:27.380
But if we define savings exclusively in terms of money or even of goods plus money, and

252
00:29:27.380 --> 00:29:34.180
if we define investment exclusively in terms of capital goods, either in real terms or

253
00:29:34.180 --> 00:29:42.080
or at given prices, then there can frequently be discrepancies between saving and investment.

254
00:29:42.080 --> 00:29:45.960
Here is where the new-fangled view has its importance.

255
00:29:45.960 --> 00:29:54.320
For, when investment, by these definitions, exceeds genuine saving, there must be inflation,

256
00:29:54.320 --> 00:30:01.160
and when saving exceeds investment, by these definitions, there must be deflation.

257
00:30:01.160 --> 00:30:07.500
In fact, only on the assumption that investment without saving means that new money and credit

258
00:30:07.500 --> 00:30:14.020
has been created, and saving without investment means that some former money and credit has

259
00:30:14.020 --> 00:30:20.640
been retired or destroyed, is the discrepancy between saving and investment possible.

260
00:30:20.640 --> 00:30:27.020
With a constant money and credit supply and constant prices, saving and investment, even

261
00:30:27.020 --> 00:30:30.680
on these second definitions, must be equal.

262
00:30:30.680 --> 00:30:35.960
And they must be equal at every moment under all conditions, of course, if saving money

263
00:30:35.960 --> 00:30:40.920
is defined and treated as investing in money.

264
00:30:40.920 --> 00:30:47.520
But Keynes's propensity to consume concept and multiplier concept would be meaningless

265
00:30:47.520 --> 00:30:53.680
unless he used the terms savings and investment not as he has defined them in the general

266
00:30:53.680 --> 00:30:59.680
He assumes that there can, in fact, be saving without investment and investment without saving.

267
00:30:59.680 --> 00:31:06.680
And he makes this assumption in an extreme degree, to which nothing in the real world corresponds.

268
00:31:06.680 --> 00:31:13.680
For his propensity to save depends, for its alleged deflationary effects, on the tacit assumption

269
00:31:13.680 --> 00:31:17.680
that no part of savings is invested in money.

270
00:31:17.680 --> 00:31:24.560
has alleged deflationary effects on the tacit assumption that no part of savings is invested.

271
00:31:24.560 --> 00:31:30.920
His magically rejuvenating multiplier to work out perfectly assumes that this new investment

272
00:31:30.920 --> 00:31:34.320
comes into being without savings.

273
00:31:34.320 --> 00:31:40.360
In fact, the mathematics of the multiplier are upset if the recipients of the new income

274
00:31:40.360 --> 00:31:45.960
which the new investment is supposed to create do anything but spend the whole of the new

275
00:31:45.960 --> 00:31:53.560
Income on Consumption. If they save part of it, the multiplier is decreased. If they themselves

276
00:31:53.560 --> 00:32:01.160
invest part of it, the multiplier is increased. Yet, this multiplier is supposed to be predeterminable

277
00:32:01.160 --> 00:32:06.040
by a mathematical formula and used as a basis of policy and prediction.

278
00:32:08.920 --> 00:32:11.560
Investment means government spending.

279
00:32:11.560 --> 00:32:20.440
Closed scrutiny reveals still another peculiarity of the multiplier.

280
00:32:20.440 --> 00:32:26.360
Investment is supposed to multiply employment and income, and yet the amount of investment

281
00:32:26.360 --> 00:32:32.500
as such appears to be entirely irrelevant to the mathematics of the multiplier or the

282
00:32:32.500 --> 00:32:35.000
reasoning on which it rests.

283
00:32:35.000 --> 00:32:41.640
For, in connection with the multiplier, and indeed most of the time, what Keynes is referring

284
00:32:41.640 --> 00:32:48.280
to as investment really means any addition to spending for any purpose.

285
00:32:48.280 --> 00:32:53.680
Keynes shows not the slightest interest in real purpose of real investment, which is

286
00:32:53.680 --> 00:33:02.240
to increase productivity, both in quantitative and in qualitative terms, and to reduce costs.

287
00:33:02.240 --> 00:33:08.320
All he is interested in is additional spending, for any purpose, to produce his multiplier

288
00:33:08.320 --> 00:33:10.580
effects.

289
00:33:10.580 --> 00:33:16.840
By investment, when he speaks of the multiplier, he means government spending, on no matter

290
00:33:16.840 --> 00:33:20.940
what, as long as it creates additional money.

291
00:33:20.940 --> 00:33:27.660
This last idea is never explicitly introduced, but is constantly implied.

292
00:33:27.660 --> 00:33:35.020
Loan Expenditure, he declares, page 128, even if wasteful, may nevertheless enrich

293
00:33:35.020 --> 00:33:37.820
the community on balance.

294
00:33:37.820 --> 00:33:41.100
And then he explains in a footnote,

295
00:33:41.100 --> 00:33:47.300
It is often convenient to use the term Loan Expenditure to include both public investment

296
00:33:47.300 --> 00:33:53.820
financed by borrowing from individuals and also any other current public expenditure

297
00:33:53.820 --> 00:33:55.980
which is so financed.

298
00:33:55.980 --> 00:34:03.240
Thus, loan expenditure is a convenient expression for the net borrowings of public authorities

299
00:34:03.240 --> 00:34:11.420
on all accounts, whether on capital account or to meet a budgetary deficit.

300
00:34:11.420 --> 00:34:16.600
What is really necessary to get the multiplier effect, in short, when we start calling things

301
00:34:16.600 --> 00:34:22.800
by their right names, is not investment, but inflation.

302
00:34:22.800 --> 00:34:28.800
is irrelevant to the multiplier. If, to take another illustration, we find that the community

303
00:34:28.800 --> 00:34:35.000
is spending only 11 twelfths of its income on goods, whose names begin with the letters

304
00:34:35.000 --> 00:34:41.560
A to W, inclusive, then we get everything to come out right by having the community

305
00:34:41.560 --> 00:34:47.560
spend the other twelfth of its income on the goods beginning with the letters X, Y and

306
00:34:47.560 --> 00:34:55.200
And it is of no importance whatever for this effect whether the A through W goods or the

307
00:34:55.200 --> 00:35:02.500
X through Z goods consist wholly or partly of consumer goods or capital goods.

308
00:35:02.500 --> 00:35:09.440
The word investment is merely being used in a Pickwickian or Keynesian sense, and the

309
00:35:09.440 --> 00:35:15.960
great advantage of loan expenditure is not that it involves investment out of past income

310
00:35:15.960 --> 00:35:19.960
but that it involves the printing of more money.

311
00:35:19.960 --> 00:35:25.720
We shall have enough to do in this volume dissecting the errors of Keynes himself without

312
00:35:25.720 --> 00:35:32.280
going into the supplementary or derivative errors introduced by some of the Keynesians.

313
00:35:32.280 --> 00:35:38.520
For that reason, I shall make no effort here to analyze the foreign trade multiplier, which

314
00:35:38.520 --> 00:35:44.440
contains in addition to all the fallacies in the multiplier concept itself, additional

315
00:35:44.440 --> 00:35:51.440
In the first place, even granting all of Keynes's other peculiar assumptions, it is difficult

316
00:36:05.720 --> 00:36:12.560
to understand just why the multiplier, except by sheer assertion, should necessarily be

317
00:36:12.560 --> 00:36:16.960
be the reciprocal of the marginal propensity to save.

318
00:36:16.960 --> 00:36:24.240
If the marginal propensity to consume is 9 over 10, we are told the multiplier is 10.

319
00:36:24.240 --> 00:36:25.240
Why?

320
00:36:25.240 --> 00:36:27.280
How?

321
00:36:27.280 --> 00:36:33.960
We have already tried to guess, page 139, how Keynes might have arrived at this astonishing

322
00:36:33.960 --> 00:36:35.600
notion.

323
00:36:35.600 --> 00:36:39.360
But let us take an imaginary illustration.

324
00:36:39.360 --> 00:36:45.840
Ruritania is a Keynesian country that has a national income of 10 billion dollars and

325
00:36:45.840 --> 00:36:48.880
consumes only 9 billion dollars.

326
00:36:48.880 --> 00:36:54.000
Therefore, it has a propensity to consume of 9 over 10.

327
00:36:54.000 --> 00:37:00.800
But as in some way it manages to save 10 percent of its income without investing the 10 percent

328
00:37:00.800 --> 00:37:06.080
in anything at all, it has unemployment of 10 percent.

329
00:37:06.080 --> 00:37:11.760
Then the Keynesian government comes to the rescue by spending not one billion dollars,

330
00:37:11.760 --> 00:37:16.120
but only one hundred million on investment.

331
00:37:16.120 --> 00:37:22.040
For as the multiplier is ten, because Keynes has written out a mathematical formula which

332
00:37:22.040 --> 00:37:28.640
makes it ten when the marginal propensity to consume is nine over ten, this one hundred

333
00:37:28.640 --> 00:37:35.640
million dollars worth of direct new employment somehow multiplies itself to one billion dollars

334
00:37:35.640 --> 00:37:43.200
of Total New Employment to Fill the Gap, and Low Full Employment is Achieved.

335
00:37:43.200 --> 00:37:48.520
Expressing this in terms of employment, we might say, when the propensity to consume

336
00:37:48.520 --> 00:37:56.600
of ruritania is 9 over 10, then unless something is done about it, only 9 million of ruritania's

337
00:37:56.600 --> 00:38:01.080
working force of 10 million are employed.

338
00:38:01.080 --> 00:38:08.440
It is then simply necessary to spend enough to employ directly 100,000 more persons and

339
00:38:08.440 --> 00:38:14.900
their spending in turn will ensure a total additional employment of 1 million.

340
00:38:14.900 --> 00:38:21.080
The question I am raising here is simply why such a relationship between the marginal propensity

341
00:38:21.080 --> 00:38:26.040
to consume and the multiplier is supposed to hold.

342
00:38:26.040 --> 00:38:29.880
Is it some inevitable mathematical deduction?

343
00:38:29.880 --> 00:38:34.800
If so, its causal inevitability somehow escapes me.

344
00:38:34.800 --> 00:38:39.920
Is it an empirical generalization from actual experience?

345
00:38:39.920 --> 00:38:47.360
Then why doesn't Keynes condescend to offer even the slightest statistical verification?

346
00:38:47.360 --> 00:38:53.860
We have already seen that investment, strictly speaking, is irrelevant to the multiplier,

347
00:38:53.860 --> 00:38:57.600
that any extra spending on anything will do.

348
00:38:57.600 --> 00:39:08.600
We have already illustrated this by dividing commodities into those beginning with the letters from A to W, and those beginning with the letters X, Y and Z.

349
00:39:08.600 --> 00:39:13.600
But a still further reductio ad absurdum is possible.

350
00:39:13.600 --> 00:39:20.600
Here is a far more potent multiplier, and on Keynesian grounds, there can be no objection to it.

351
00:39:20.600 --> 00:39:32.600
Let Y equal the income of the whole community. Let R equal your, the reader's, income. Let V equal the income of everybody else.

352
00:39:32.600 --> 00:39:44.600
Then we find that V is a completely stable function of Y, whereas your income is the active, volatile, uncertain element in the social income.

353
00:39:44.600 --> 00:40:11.600
Let us say the equation arrived at is V equals 0.99999Y, then Y equals 0.99999Y plus R, 0.00001Y equals R, therefore Y equals 100000R.

354
00:40:11.600 --> 00:40:20.400
Thus, we see that your own personal multiplier is far more powerful than the investment multiplier.

355
00:40:20.400 --> 00:40:27.260
To increase social income and thereby cure depression and unemployment, it is only necessary

356
00:40:27.260 --> 00:40:33.200
for the government to print a certain number of dollars and give them to you.

357
00:40:33.200 --> 00:40:40.800
Your spending will prime the pump for an increase in the national income 100,000 times as great

358
00:40:40.800 --> 00:40:44.160
as the amount of your spending itself.

359
00:40:44.160 --> 00:40:50.360
The final criticism of the multiplier that must be made is so basic that it almost makes

360
00:40:50.360 --> 00:40:52.960
all the others unnecessary.

361
00:40:52.960 --> 00:40:58.040
This is that the multiplier and the whole unemployment that it is supposed to cure is

362
00:40:58.040 --> 00:41:05.560
based on the tacit assumption of inflexible prices and inflexible wages.

363
00:41:05.560 --> 00:41:11.840
Once we assume flexibility in prices and wages, and full responsiveness to the forces of the

364
00:41:11.840 --> 00:41:17.200
market, the whole Keynesian system dissolves into thin air.

365
00:41:17.200 --> 00:41:23.400
For even if we make the other thoroughly unrealistic assumptions that Keynes makes, even if we

366
00:41:23.400 --> 00:41:29.660
assume, for example, that people save a third of their incomes by simply sticking the money

367
00:41:29.660 --> 00:41:35.700
under their mattress and not investing it in anything, completely responsive wages and

368
00:41:35.700 --> 00:41:41.740
prices would simply mean that wages and prices would fall enough for the former volume of

369
00:41:41.740 --> 00:41:48.820
sales to be made at lower prices and for full employment to continue at lower wage rates.

370
00:41:48.820 --> 00:41:53.860
When the money was taken out from under the mattress again, it would simply be equivalent

371
00:41:53.860 --> 00:41:58.900
to an added money supply and would raise prices and wages again.

372
00:41:58.900 --> 00:42:05.940
I am not arguing here that prices and wages are, in fact, perfectly fluid, but neither,

373
00:42:05.940 --> 00:42:13.840
as Keynes assumes, are wage rates completely rigid under conditions of less than full employment.

374
00:42:13.840 --> 00:42:19.500
And to the extent that they are rigid, they are so either through the antisocial policy

375
00:42:19.500 --> 00:42:25.900
of those who insist on employment only at above-equilibrium wage rates or through the

376
00:42:25.900 --> 00:42:31.420
The very economic ignorance and confusion in business and political circles, to which

377
00:42:31.420 --> 00:42:36.220
Keynes's theories themselves make so great a contribution.

378
00:42:36.220 --> 00:42:43.100
But this is a subject that we shall develop more at length later.

379
00:42:43.100 --> 00:42:46.620
Paradox and Pyramids

380
00:42:46.620 --> 00:42:53.980
In section 6 of chapter 10 on the multiplier, Keynes lets himself go in one of the irresponsible

381
00:42:53.980 --> 00:43:00.060
All little essays in satire and sarcasm that run throughout the general theory as they

382
00:43:00.060 --> 00:43:02.860
run through all his work.

383
00:43:02.860 --> 00:43:09.260
As these essays rest on obviously false assumptions and as Keynes writes them with his tongue

384
00:43:09.260 --> 00:43:16.260
more or less in his cheek, it might seem to be as lacking in humor to refute them seriously

385
00:43:16.260 --> 00:43:22.780
as to refute a paradox of G.K. Chesterton or an epigram of Oscar Wilde.

386
00:43:22.780 --> 00:43:29.740
But these little essays are the most readable and the most easily understood part of Keynes's

387
00:43:29.740 --> 00:43:30.740
work.

388
00:43:30.740 --> 00:43:36.400
They are quoted by many laymen with chuckles of approval and delight, so we had better

389
00:43:36.400 --> 00:43:40.100
give them a certain amount of serious attention.

390
00:43:40.100 --> 00:43:46.900
Keynes begins section 6 by assuming involuntary unemployment without explaining how it comes

391
00:43:46.900 --> 00:43:48.220
about.

392
00:43:48.220 --> 00:43:54.160
At the same time, he assumes that the only way to cure it is by loan expenditure, no

393
00:43:54.160 --> 00:43:56.260
matter how wasteful.

394
00:43:56.260 --> 00:44:03.180
Pyramid-building, earthquakes, even wars may serve to increase wealth if the education

395
00:44:03.180 --> 00:44:09.300
of our statesmen on the principle of the classical economics stands in the way of anything better

396
00:44:09.300 --> 00:44:18.740
If our statesmen were really educated in the principles of classical economics, they would

397
00:44:18.740 --> 00:44:24.860
understand that unemployment is usually the result of union insistence on excessive wage

398
00:44:24.860 --> 00:44:30.260
rates or some other price-cost maladjustment.

399
00:44:30.260 --> 00:44:36.660
One of the most revealing paragraphs in this section is the footnote on page 128, which

400
00:44:36.660 --> 00:44:47.940
It is often convenient to use the term loan expenditure to include both public investment

401
00:44:47.940 --> 00:44:54.100
financed by borrowing from individuals and also any other current public expenditure

402
00:44:54.100 --> 00:44:56.100
which is so financed.

403
00:44:56.100 --> 00:45:02.500
Thus, loan expenditure is a convenient expression for the net borrowings of public authorities

404
00:45:02.500 --> 00:45:09.660
on all accounts, whether on capital accounts or to meet a budgetary deficit.

405
00:45:09.660 --> 00:45:15.580
This explains what Keynes really means by investment in his multiplier equations.

406
00:45:15.580 --> 00:45:20.020
It is not investment in the traditional or the dictionary sense.

407
00:45:20.020 --> 00:45:25.940
It means any government spending provided the money is borrowed, i.e. providing the

408
00:45:25.940 --> 00:45:29.340
spending is financed by inflation.

409
00:45:29.340 --> 00:45:35.260
Mises then goes on to write what he evidently considers a perfectly devastating satire on

410
00:45:35.260 --> 00:45:37.180
gold and gold mining.

411
00:45:37.180 --> 00:45:43.660
Gold mining, he tells us, which not only adds nothing whatever to the real wealth of the

412
00:45:43.660 --> 00:45:50.300
world, but involves the disutility of labor, is the most acceptable to the orthodox of

413
00:45:50.300 --> 00:45:53.780
all methods of creating employment.

414
00:45:53.780 --> 00:45:59.080
If the treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths in

415
00:45:59.080 --> 00:46:04.360
and disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave

416
00:46:04.360 --> 00:46:11.000
it to private enterprise on well-trained principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again,

417
00:46:11.000 --> 00:46:17.360
there need be no more unemployment, page 129.

418
00:46:17.360 --> 00:46:23.240
This sentence tells us a great deal more about the prejudices and confusions of Keynes than

419
00:46:23.240 --> 00:46:28.920
and it does either about gold, gold mining, the principles of private enterprise or the

420
00:46:28.920 --> 00:46:31.600
purposes of employment.

421
00:46:31.600 --> 00:46:36.920
There would of course be no need for private enterprise to dig up the banknotes.

422
00:46:36.920 --> 00:46:42.400
The treasury could simply run off more on its printing presses for no more than it cost

423
00:46:42.400 --> 00:46:44.800
for the ink and paper.

424
00:46:44.800 --> 00:46:50.440
But there is a slight difference between digging up gold and digging up paper money which Keynes

425
00:46:50.440 --> 00:46:53.200
neglects to mention.

426
00:46:53.200 --> 00:46:58.920
This is that gold has kept its high value over the centuries, not only when it was the

427
00:46:58.920 --> 00:47:05.640
international monetary standard, but even since it was dethroned, whereas paper currencies

428
00:47:05.640 --> 00:47:10.080
by an almost inexorable law have sunk into worthlessness.

429
00:47:10.080 --> 00:47:19.320
A compilation by Franz Pick in 1957 of the depreciation of 56 different paper currencies

430
00:47:19.320 --> 00:47:28.400
showed that in the nine-year period from January 1948 to December 1956, for example, the American

431
00:47:28.400 --> 00:47:36.240
dollar to which so many other currencies were ostensibly tied itself lost 15% of its purchasing

432
00:47:36.240 --> 00:47:45.700
power, while the British pound sterling lost 34%, the French franc 52% and the paper currencies

433
00:47:45.700 --> 00:48:15.700
The reason for this difference is that the quantity of gold that could profitably, i.e. with a surplus of proceeds over costs, be dug up and refined depends on natural factors largely beyond human control, whereas the amount of paper dollars that are printed, or that would be buried and then dug up under K-9,

434
00:48:15.700 --> 00:48:21.720
Keynes's scheme would depend solely on the caprice of the politicians or monetary authorities

435
00:48:21.720 --> 00:48:23.720
in power.

436
00:48:23.720 --> 00:48:27.120
Keynes proceeds to patronize gold mines further.

437
00:48:27.120 --> 00:48:34.160
He tells us that they "...are of the greatest value and importance to civilization, because

438
00:48:34.160 --> 00:48:39.400
gold mining is the only pretext for digging holes in the ground which has recommended

439
00:48:39.400 --> 00:48:42.720
itself to bankers as sound finance."

440
00:48:42.720 --> 00:48:54.080
page 130. Only? One can think also of oil wells, water wells, canals, subways, railway tunnels,

441
00:48:54.080 --> 00:49:01.600
house foundations, quarries, coal mines, zinc, lead, silver and copper mines, but it seems a

442
00:49:01.600 --> 00:49:09.200
pity to spoil the noble lord's rhetoric. It is one of Keynes's fixed convictions, as it was of

443
00:49:09.200 --> 00:49:24.840
Ancient Egypt was doubly fortunate and doubtless owed to this its fabled wealth, he writes,

444
00:49:24.840 --> 00:49:30.520
in that it possessed two activities, namely pyramid building as well as the search for

445
00:49:30.520 --> 00:49:35.680
precious metals, the fruits of which, since they could not serve the needs of man by being

446
00:49:35.680 --> 00:49:42.000
and Consumed did not stale with abundance, page 131.

447
00:49:42.000 --> 00:49:46.960
Keynes did not think that gold had value, because he could not understand the source

448
00:49:46.960 --> 00:49:49.100
of its value.

449
00:49:49.100 --> 00:49:55.200
The fact that nearly all men through the ages have valued gold only indicated in Keynes's

450
00:49:55.200 --> 00:49:58.920
eyes that they were incurably stupid.

451
00:49:58.920 --> 00:50:02.840
But perhaps the stupidity is with the critics of gold.

452
00:50:02.840 --> 00:50:09.480
It is true, as those critics are always insisting, that you cannot eat or wear it, but it is

453
00:50:09.480 --> 00:50:16.000
more satisfactory than custard pies or overcoats as a medium of exchange.

454
00:50:16.000 --> 00:50:22.420
And it is enormously more satisfactory as a medium of exchange and a store of value,

455
00:50:22.420 --> 00:50:27.780
as we shall see, than paper money issued in accordance with the political pressures or

456
00:50:27.780 --> 00:50:30.090
bureaucratic whim