Mainstream Financial Publication Finally Admits that Austrian Economists Were Right → Washingtons Blog
Mainstream Financial Publication Finally Admits that Austrian Economists Were Right - Washingtons Blog

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Mainstream Financial Publication Finally Admits that Austrian Economists Were Right

Barron's is finally admitting what few in the mainstream have been willing to acknowledge: the Austrian school of economics was right.

The Austrians have been saying for well over a hundred years that big bubbles lead to big crashes, and that - if you want to avoid depressions - you have to avoid the bubbles.

In today's article, entitled "Ignoring the Austrians Got Us in This Mess", Barron's agrees:

The credit crisis and the ensuing global economic contraction have failed to make an impression on academe, where free-market orthodoxy still reigns supreme, the New York Times asserted in an article in arts section recently ("Ivory Tower Unswayed by Crashing Economy," March 4.)...

What definitely is ignored in academe is the Austrian school of economics, especially for baby boomers brought up on Samuelson's economics text, which was pure Keynesian orthodoxy. I did not learn the names von Mises and Hayek or their ideas until a decade or more after graduation (with a degree in economics, by the way.)

The Austrian view is a mirror image on the right to Minsky's from the left. The economy, if left alone, is self-correcting, say the Austrians. But central banks' inflationary expansion of credit produces booms and malinvestments, which inevitably lead to a crashes and depressions.

The only prevention for boom and busts are sound money, which is impossible with government-controlled central banks. Once the bust comes, the only cure is to let it run its course; allow the malinvestments go bankrupt and let the market reallocate the capital to productive uses....

But the Austrians were the ones who could see the seeds of collapse in the successive credit booms, aided and abetted by Fed policies, especially under former chairman Alan Greenspan. ...

Greenspan always contended that monetary policymakers can neither predict nor prevent bubbles in asset markets. They can, however, clean up the after-effects of the bust -- which meant reflating a new bubble, he argued.

That had a profound effect on risk-taking. Knowing that the Greenspan Fed would bail out the markets after any bust, they went from one excess to another. So, the Long-Term Capital Management collapse in 1998 begat the easy credit that led to the dot-com bubble and bust, which in turn led to the extreme ease and the housing bubble.

Austrian economists assert the current crisis is the inevitable result of the Fed's successive efforts to counter each previous bust. As the credit expansion pumped up asset values to unsustainable levels, the eventual collapse would result in a contraction of credit as losses decimate banks' balance sheets and render them unable to lend. That sounds like an accurate diagnosis of the current problems.

While Barron's acknowledges that the Austrian school is right about how to avoid depressions, it doesn't agree with the other main tenet of the Austrians: that the quickest way to get out of a depression is to let the bad investments clear themselves out of the markets by letting the companies which made dumb decisions fail. (The sub-title for the article is "Their ideas warned us of the bubble; their prescription for the bust is too harsh, however"; and the article ends with the phrase "Make us non-interventionist, but not yet.")

Readers have written to me saying the same thing: the Austrians might be right, but their remedy for an economic crisis is too draconian and we have to do something to help the people.

I am all for helping people and doing something that will speed up a recovery. But remember the 2,000 year old medical wisdom of Hippocrates: "First, do no harm".

The two leading economists of the 20th century - Friedman and Keynes - were both wrong, and so all of the approaches being implemented by economists right now are actually making things worse.

Advocates of the Austrian school - such as Marc Faber, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Mish, and others - argue that any interventionist approach by governments will only prolong the economic crisis, and that there really is no choice but to let the gunk clear out of the system.

At the very least, everyone - liberal and conservative alike - should demand that:

(1) The federal reserve be eliminated (as Ron Paul, Mish, and others propose) or at least reigned in so that it cannot blow any more bubbles; and

(2) That no "medicine" be administered to the economy - whether Keynesian spending stimulus, Friedmanite monetary stimulus, or anything else - unless it is proven (using Austrian economic models) to do more good than harm.


  1. Show me one example where Austrian school economics has even been applied. Then if you can show me where a hands off economy has ever worked. I've seen the tail end of the depression and now I see another both brought on by lack of regulation and corporate greed.

  2. The "Grey Tiger" only sees with his political beliefs. The regulations were there, it was our dear politicans who needed votes and thought getting everyone into the housing boom would gain those votes. Hense the loosening or those regulations through Freddie and Fanny. I agree on the corporate greed, but our good old politicans again where there to turn a blinds I to the special interest money the banks provided. You think Berney Madoff was bad wait and see where this all leads, the SEC and Congress better put the stops to any investigations buy the AG, because it will lead through the SEC deep into the whole political system. It seems everyone has a price today.

  3. the 1921 depression was far worse at the beginning than the 1929 crash, in 1921 the government did nothing and cut spending and taxation and it ended within the year leading America to the lowest unemployment rate that existed in any country.

    but in 1929 they pushed government intervention into overdrive, Hoover and Roosevelt were new dealers, Roosevelt was actually following Hoovers policies resulting in a systematic crash.

    Hoover was not a do nothing free market president. Read his memoirs,
    I will not put links, read books.

    Austrian economic theorems are correct.

  4. The Grey Tiger has it wrong. Markets without the coercive hand of the State on top of them are stable. It's State-coerced markets that result in things like Depressions...


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.