The Purpose of Corporations II

Every once in a while I get a comment that can be used as a teaching tool. Here is a comment I received on my post on “The Purpose of Corporations.” It may be crossing the line of proper etiquette, but I could not help myself. I have basically gone line-by-line examining the comment. The comment is in red and my responses are below them.




I can't believe a supposed doctor wrote this.

Starting an anonymous response with an attack like this is always a sign of class.



It's so woefully shortsighted and is pretty much everything wrong about the modern economy.

Then I hope that you clearly explain how shortsightedness creates an error that encompasses the whole of the modern economy.



Is the system working as you describe right now? A resounding NO!

Actually, I agree that the current system is not working as I described it. I described how a system would work in a free market. We do not live in a free market. We live in a world permeated with government rules and regulations that tip the scales in favor of some at the expense of others. I am very much in favor in getting rid of the government’s ability to intervene in the economy. Please join me in rejecting crony capitalism and crony socialism. No more bail-outs for businesses. And no bail-outs for students either.



Profits are being made with no real resource being managed.

What does this mean? Why is a real resource needed to gain a profit? The problem with this point is the word “real,” meaning that there is a dividing line between the tangible and intangible, where only the tangible matters. This idea of an objective value is simple-minded. Providing information can be a very profitable business. Education might be considered to be a business in which no real resource is being managed, so does this mean that there are no gains to education? (Remember: Profits are the surplus of the gains over opportunity costs.)



It's profit being made off of profit itself, leeching away the value of real labor resources from the working classes. That's the problem!

The idea that value comes from the labor of the working classes is clearly a labor theory of value reference. While this theory has been smashed time and again, it keeps coming back in different incarnations--like a bad zombie film. Value does not stem from any class nor does it stem from the time or effort of the labor involved. To say otherwise is to say that the amount of time working is directly related with value or the amount of effort has a direct relationship with value. (“Directly related” in this sense means the opposite of “inversely related.”) In other words, my anonymous friend is saying that the longer one works, the more valuable the output. A watch that has 1,000 labor hours is twice as valuable as a watch made with 500 labor hours. Or “he” is saying that a watch made with twice the effort is twice as valuable as another watch.

Of course, both of these propositions are ridiculous. My students earn their grade based upon the correctness of the answer and nothing else. If one student studies twice as long or works twice as hard has no bearing on the grade received. All that matters is what is put on the answer sheet. The same is true when it comes to goods and services. It does not matter if one producer worked twice as long or twice as hard as another. All that matters is the judgment of the consumer. The value of the good is a product of the consumer’s mind and nothing else. If the consumer values the good at $5, then he will be willing to pay up to $5 for it. If the consumer values the good at $0, then the amount of time and effort of the producer is irrelevant. It is all wasted.



Prices do not simply function as pieces of information, they are extremely powerful implements of social control.

“Implements of social control?” In a sense, yes of course they are. They signal to any one who wishes to use a resource its relative scarcity. It allows the user to calculate the opportunity cost of using that resource. When the price rises, it tells the users of such resources that the resource in question is more scarce. It gets users of the resource to reduce their use, conserve. The least important uses of the resource are dispensed with first. It gets users to look for substitutes. It is in this sense that prices “control” society. But in saying this it is no more control than a red stop light saying, “Stop.” If the entrepreneur ignores the price signals, he will be out of business. If I ignore the red stop light, I will likely get into a car accident.

If fact, prices are such important signals that without them very little economic calculation could be done. Society could not exist without prices. Indeed, prices are what allow societies to exist. So I suppose that in this sense, there could be no “social” to control without prices.



Who is the consumer in a stock transaction?

The buyer of the share of stock.



The answer today is really no one, there is no person deriving use from a good that is sold. The primary "use" of stocks today is as placeholders of value -- their prices.

The owner of the share derives a dividend, a portion of the profit generated by the company serving its customers. The cash flow, the dividend, is the benefit of the stock and is the reason for its ownership. The cash flow is the return on the money saved. The money saved was invested into the company. The company combines resources to serve customers. The extent to which people trade with the company is a reflection of how well it is combining resources to meet consumers’ needs, wants and desires. And not just random or trivial needs, wants and desires, but the most intense needs, wants and desires first. The value of the company is reflected in the stock, the equity. Call it a “placeholder” if you want, it does not change its nature as the reflection of how well a specific group of people are pleasing customers.



How then does a "good" get priced when its value is its price? The answer is that it cannot be priced in any way that is beneficial to an economy, by any system that makes any sense.



Again this is naïve. Here is a quick lesson in Corporate Finance…. A firm looks into the future and must project what it will do to combine resources to meet future needs, wants and desires of its customers. It creates a pro forma statement. It looks at the projected revenues and the projected costs. It creates a projection of cash flows occurring in future periods. Then it uses its opportunity cost, the Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) to discount all of those future cash flows to the present. Then it subtracts the upfront costs of the endeavor. This process yields a Net Present Value (NPV) of the project. If the NPV is positive, the endeavor should be undertaken. If the NPV is negative, the firm looks for something else. The greater the NPV, the more valuable is the company’s endeavor. As the company announces its future plans, the eyes of the world evaluate the firm’s decision. If they agree that this project adds value (or more precisely will add value) to the firm, then this increase in value is reflected in the share price of the firm. Bad decisions (in the eyes of the market) lower the price of the company. The benefit of these capital markets is merely the efficient allocation scarce resources to good decision makers and away from bad decision makers. Without profit and loss, without economic calculation, without the ability to value projects and companies, there is no ability to efficiently allocate scarce resources. The opposite of the stock market is evaluating which is a better user of resources: the DMV, the Post Office, or the Judicial System? There is no method to know. But I can easily tell you which for-profit company is a better user of resources. And I can do it at a glance. We can’t even come close with bureaucracies.



This is how the global financial system has essentially turned into a gigantic casino game. And that is not good at ALL.

The idea that the financial world is the same as a casino game is an argument by analogy and wrong on its face. There is no house. When I win a chip, someone must lose a chip. It’s all just random luck based upon probabilities. Apple Inc. was not random chance. Successful corporations are not just random luck based upon probabilities. Creating a successful company is hard work and long hours. It is being “others focused.”


You have to know what will please your customers and then constantly strive to please them. And customers are fickle. They don’t tell that they are coming to your store in advance. They just show up and you have to be ready. They don’t tell you what they are looking for, but you had better have it on your shelves. They don’t tell you what they think is a good price, but if you don’t meet their price, they walk out without a word. Running a business is hard. Being successful is harder. Going global, that’s mindboggling!


And yet, we take it for granted. I expect to walk into a Walmart at 2am in the middle of rural North Carolina and buy Kiwi 3/$1! How insane is that? We need to take the time and marvel at this economic system, which has built the highest standard of living ever known in the last 5,000 years of recorded human history. Before we tear it down and decry the free market and the role of corporations, we had better take a very close look at what it is that we intend to do away with. I absolutely know that if we tear down the market economy, we sentence ourselves to a life of future poverty. I cannot and will not sentence my children to that fate.

New Posts?

If you have noticed that there have not been any new posts in quite some time, you are correct.  It has been a busy time and I have fallen woefully behind. 

At the top of the distraction list is the birth of my third child (girl).  She is doing fine, but sleep has become something of a rare commodity in the household. 

Additionally, I have completely changed my approach to my Money and Banking class this semester.  I decided to use Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking as the primary text and the regular textbook as the secondary source.  I think that this experiment has been wildly successful.  The students are enjoying the class, and they are actually reading the book!  I asked one student if he managed to read Chapter 7.  He said that not only did he finish Chapter 7, but that he was reading ahead and was now starting Chapter 13!  It's even more amazing when its realized that we don't have economics majors at Mount Olive College!  The downside of all of this is that the class is a "new prep" and has been a major consumer of my time for most of this semester.

Anyway, the NCSU Austrian Readings Groups have still been continuing and I will write up and post the results of the discussions.  So there will be a #4, #5 and #6 to look forward to.

Next semester, we have agreed to open up the Readings Group.  The members of the group will get to pick a week and a topic, article, paper they are working on, etc. and present it to the group and lead the discussion.  I am looking forward to it.

As an aside, I recently finished reading Mises' Theory and History.  I have always been fearful of that book knowing that it's a book on methodology and that I could be quickly overwhelmed.  I could not have been more wrong.  In fact, I found the book very readable.  There were parts where one had to think about Mises' argument, but overall it was an enjoyable read.  I am somewhat ashamed of my earlier fears.  So note to self, never avoid reading Mises!

Austrian Economics Forum Fall '11 #3--Competition and Monopoly

This week’s forum focused on the third chapter “Competition and Monopoly” in Kirzner’s book.  Much of the chapter was not controversial to an Austrian audience and so there wasn’t the sort of discussion surrounding it as one might expect with a larger mix of mainstream economists.

In traditional theory, economists envision a continuum in which we place “perfect competition” on one end and “monopoly” on the other.  This method of organizing our thoughts says that the most important aspect of markets is the number of firms.  On the monopoly end, there is one firm, while on the other end there are so many firms that they all face horizontal demand curves.  (As an aside, we really need to get rid of the term “perfect competition” and replace it with “perfect equilibrium,” because there is no competition in that model. It’s an equilibrium-only model.)

Kirzner completely rejects this approach to defining competitive markets.  He wants to use “competition” in the same manner that the average person uses it: as a rivalrous process.  Competition describes actions.  It is a verb.  The mainstream uses competition to describe states of markets.  It is a noun.  The result is that the mainstream cannot communicate to laymen, which Kirzner says has been a “disservice.”

With competition defined as a process, we can then apply it to the entrepreneur.  When the entrepreneur recognizes a market opportunity, he is able to act.  He applies means to achieve ends.  If others wish to use those same means, a rivalry emerges.  In a market, a bidding process arises and the one who outbids the marginal rival is able to employ those means.  It is this process that coordinates the economy.  The move toward equilibrium is an unintended consequence.  The mainstream lacks this function in that the Robbinsian maximizer does not compete.  Kirzner states

Purely Robbinsian economizing activity is never competitive; purely entrepreneurial activity always is.  In other words, I am asserting, that entrepreneurship and competitiveness are two sides of the same coin: that entrepreneurial activity is always competitive and that competitive activity is always entrepreneurial (rather than Robbinsian). (p 94)

The Robbinsian maximizer merely chooses the course according to a given framework and a given set of economic relationships.  In contrast the Kirznerian entrepreneur looks at the unseen and chooses based upon some factors that may be hidden or absent.  The entrepreneur strives for profits and does so by out-competing his rivals.  The “pure Robbinsian decision-maker is not seeking to outdistance his rivals—he is not intent on learning what opportunities they are about to available to the market in order to attempt to make available still more attractive opportunities.” (p 95)

Later (p 108) Kirzner states, “As soon as we draw the cost and revenue curves facing the firm, no matter what their shape, we have created a theoretical case in which all competitive behavior has by definition been ruled out.  What is left is neither competitive nor monopolistic (in the process sense), but a problem in allocation.”  This means that as soon as we assume the structure of the cost curves or the type of demand curves, we have transitioned away from anything competitive and entered into the world of the Robbinsian maximizer.  I think that this analysis goes too far.  In one sense I see exactly what Kirzner is attempting to draw attention to, however I do not see why a sufficiently generic supply and demand graph has to be that way.  If we follow Kirzner, then even imagining curves sends us into the maximizing world.  I think that an economist can look at a static graph and recognize that it is an imperfect representation of a dynamic process.

Kirzner then examines how competition can be limited.  “[F]or us to speak freely of a lack of competitiveness in a market process, we must be able to point to something which prevents market participants from competing. … What is it, …, which might halt the competitive process? … Competition, …, is at least potentially present so long as there exist no arbitrary impediments to entry.” (p 97)  As we can tell, there are several reservations and qualifications in his definition.  Furthermore, we doesn’t define the areas of monopoly in a positive sense, e.g., “you’ll know monopoly when….”  Instead, he defines a potential absence of competition in a negative sense and assumes that the result is monopoly.  Personally, I do not like this approach.  It seems that there is too much hedging.  Is there a reason to be overly cautious?  I do not know.

Later on (p 99), Kirzner gives us a better definition: “When we assert that purely entrepreneurial activity is always competitive, we are then asserting that with respect to purely entrepreneurial activity no possible obstacles to freedom of entry can exist.  We can see this by recalling that purely entrepreneurial activity involves no element of resource ownership. … [B]lockage of entry into a particular activity must arise from restricted access to the resources needed for that activity. … All imaginable obstacles to entry can be reduced, in basic terms, to restricted access to resources.”

To summarize Kirzner’s position, the pure entrepreneur is a metaphysical concept.  It is simply the recognition of a profit opportunity.  There is no way that we can stop a person from recognizing an opportunity.  As a result, all entrepreneurship is competitive and short of direct brain control, it is impossible to curtail this recognition.  Thus, all anti-competitive restrictions have to occur on the level of access to resources.  The restriction of access to resources is a decrease in competition.  A complete restriction is a monopoly.

We talked about the implications of these concepts.  There arise two types of monopolies: one created by a government action and one created through the sole ownership of a resource. While we agreed with the first, the group debated the second concept.

As an aside, it arose that private property is a legal restriction to the access of resources.  I therefore have a monopoly over my car.  While Kirzner does argue that monopoly “diverts the entrepreneurial-competitive process into” other markets, I know that he would not argue that we should abolish private property. (p 107)  Kirzner states, “For us monopoly means the position of a producer who is immune from the threat of other entrepreneurs’ doing what he does.” (p 106)  However, it seems that for Kirzner, monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing.  I suspect that he will cover this in more detail later in the book.

Mises argues that intervention in the market distorts the market.  When the government buys pencils, it is not disrupting the normal market process and thus this is merely a shifting in supply and demand curves.  When the government imposes rules that prevent the market from doing its job, we have permanent discoordination.  For example, a maximum price set below the market price will create a permanent shortage.  I see Kirzner using the same logic in the background of his analysis.  When a monopoly exists due to legal barriers, we see the market unable to perform its job and this is bad.  If there is a monopoly that arises from ownership, then the market curves shift and the market adjusts.

The next item that we discussed was the idea of monopoly rent.  This is the return that a monopolist gains because he is a monopolist.  It is an addition to the return on the other factors of production, in which we are including entrepreneurial profit.  We found it difficult to separate these rents from the concept of entrepreneurial profit.  Luckily, Kirzner does not use it in his welfare appraisal of the monopoly.  Instead, he uses “the speed and smoothness with which misallocations can be discovered and corrected” (p 112) as his basis of comparison.  This definition directly parallels Mises’ definition on interventionism, where the focus (for monopoly) is directed to the obstacle to entry.

We then touched on some relatively random points.  We found them thought provoking and interesting enough to comment on.

Kirzner states, “for our notion of monopoly the shape of the demand curve facing the firm is of little significance. … [T]he significance of monopoly does not relate to the theory of the firm at all. (It is because of this that the shape of the demand curve is irrelevant.)” (p 108)  The importance of this comment is that the mainstream focuses on the firm (and the industry) and the consequent shape of the curves that the firms face.  Austrians have long rejected this static view of Industrial Organization.  Instead, we focus on the competitive process, on the action, on the verb.

Kirzner has a discussion on Monopolistic Competition, in which we basically throw the concept out.  In characteristic Kirzner fashion he cannot make a strong, direct statement and instead says, “The position developed thus far in this book makes it impossible for me to accept this approving judgment on the theory of monopolistic competition.” (p 113)  More directly he states, “the theory of monopolistic competition was on balance a decidedly unfortunate episode in the history of modern economic thought.” (p 114)  The problem was, of course, the fact that when it threw out the old perfect competition model, it left out the competition (in the Austrian sense).

Kirzner then has a nice discussion (pp 115-117) on how only in disequilibrium does product differentiation exists.  There is no reason to change product quality in a world of equilibrium.

Kirzner then delivers the one-two punch to monopolistic competition:

Thus far my criticism of the monopolistic competition view of the market has charged it (a) with overlooking the simplest available explanation of such phenomena as product differentiation …, and (b) with gratuitously advancing an alternative explanation ascribing these phenomena to the presence of monopolistic elements. … The explanation provided by the theory of monopolistic competition not only fails to recognize the disequilibrium character of the phenomena it seeks to explain, it fails even as an equilibrium theory. (p 117)

Nice.

Finally Kirzner compares his concept of the entrepreneur with that of Schumpeter’s concept. They both reject the model of perfect competition.  Schumpeter does so on the grounds that entrepreneurs are disruptive to all equilibria.  They create something new which then explodes all the old economic relationships.  Kirzner does not deny that this occurs, but is merely a subset of his “alertness to hitherto unnoticed opportunities.”  The difference then rests on Kirzner’s emphasis.  He says that the primary function of the entrepreneur is to coordinate resources, the result of which is the movement towards equilibrium.  For Schumpeter, the coordination process is secondary and mundane.

The next meeting has been changed. Instead of meeting in 2 weeks (October 14th), it will convene in 3 (October 21st).  This development is unfortunate for me since that is the day that we have scheduled the trip to the hospital for the new (girl) baby’s arrival.  Since the surgery is scheduled for the morning, in theory I could make it to the afternoon meeting. (Yeah, right!)  So I will try to recruit someone to write up a summary for that session.  We’ll see.

$16 Muffins, A Recipe for Bad Economics

The AP posted a story where the Department of Justice paid $16 apiece for the morning muffins at a recent conference.  While the author rightly condemns the government for wasting tax money, the article takes an odd turn.  The article states,

"Which all kind of misses the most compelling issues. If you did spend $16 on a muffin, what would it look like? How would it taste? Is it even possible?"

It then goes on to say,

"The typical muffin baked in an institutional setting such as a hotel costs about 50 cents or less, not counting labor. If you go crazy extravagant and reach for the top-shelf organic flour, maybe some hand-harvested wild blueberries from Maine and fancy sugar, you're still going to max out around $1 per muffin on raw ingredients."

Talk about missing the "most compelling issue!"  The author makes a typical economic error, which should have been learned in the most basic economics class, and that point is this: the price of any good or service is determined by the interaction of supply and demand.  It is NOT determined by the price of the inputs.  If the cost of materials determined the price of anything, then no business would go out of business, ever.

Let me repeat this necessary fact: Costs do not determine price. 

Too many people simply do not understand this principle.  Too many people think that retailers simply take wholesale prices, mark them up and then viola!  Done.  If we stop to think for a moment, if this were the case, then why are there sales? 

Let's take a simple example...

You may have noticed that the price of corn is not that same as it was a few years ago. Today you might see ears of corn selling 3/$1, while just a year or two ago it was selling for 4/$1 or even 5/$1. A few years before that it may have even been 10/$1. Setting aside inflation, the grocer might tell you that the reason he raised his prices is because the wholesaler’s price has gone up. In other words, he says his costs have gone up.

In order to correctly analyze the problem, we need to look beyond the seen and think about the unseen. This technique is called Counter-Factual Reasoning. Counter Factual Reasoning is being able to compare the “seen” world with a hypothetical alternative. When we apply counter factual reasoning, we realize that we need to ask why the wholesalers’ price of corn rose. We begin the process of tracing the change in price to its root causes. After some thought, we realize that the problem is ultimately caused by an increase in demand. Corn has a wider variety of uses than just eating it on the cob. For example, it is used as a sweetener in drinks and it is also used to create ethanol for cars. With the increase in the number of uses for corn, the demand for corn rises. These competing uses each bid for the corn. The result is an increase in the demand for corn, which causes the wholesale price to rise. So while the grocer may tell you that the price is increasing because of supply reasons, the unseen fact is that it is really demand that is driving the price change.

I suppose that I cannot fault the author of the article for getting it wrong.  I see that it was just a segue to talk about expensive muffins.  But really, using economic fallacies to get to your topic, come on!  Can't we do better than that?

Austrian Economics Forum Fall '11 #2--The Entrepreneur

This session's Austrian Economics Forum dealt with Chapter 2, "The Entrepreneur" in Israel Kirzner's book, Competition and Entrepreneurship.  We had a dozen people attend this session, in which there were three Austrian Economists with PhDs.  Additionally there was Dr. Margolis, who is a close fellow traveller, and who we are very happy to have join us each week.  (I wonder if there are many other regular Austrian discussion sessions with such a line up each time.)

Israel M. Kirzner

The opening question centered on whether Kirzner's construction of the "pure entrepreneur" is a useful concept.  While it is obvious that Kirzner is discussing an archetype and that no such purity must exist in the real world, the central points that we were wrestling with was whether the pure entrepreneur acts and the implications derived from our conclusion.  According to Mises, acting is the application of means to achieve ends.  Kirzner's entrepreneur does not use means at all.  Kirzner states that the entrepreneurial "decision was made before the original act of purchase...." (p. 50)  He simply recognizes profit opportunities.  So Kirzner's pure entrepreneur never acts, at least in the Austrian sense.  Is a non-acting entrepreneur a fruitful concept in Austrian Economics?  The discussion group has not reached a conclusion. 

Furthermore, Kirzner argues that the pure entrepreneur receives a return for recognizing the profit opportunity.  As I understand it, Kirzner argues that after all the factor payments are paid out, there is a residual.  From that residual must be subtracted the implicit return to the entrepreneur’s use of his own money and his time, the opportunity costs of these subjective factors.  So the amount that then remains (above the opportunity costs) is the return to the pure entrepreneur.

However, my question is, "How can a non-actor earn a return?"  We speculated that the pure entrepreneur "acts" by conveying information to the resource owner.  Under the Misesian definition, this is clearly a no, but even under the normal usage of "acting" it is a stretch.  Later in the chapter, Kirzner references Mises article, "Profit and Loss."  I found this curious because in it, Mises has sa very different definition of entrepreneur.  Mises states,

"There is a simple rule of thumb to tell entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs are those on whom the incidence of losses on the capital employed falls. Amateur-economists may confuse profits with other kinds of intakes. But it is impossible to fail to recognize losses on the capital employed."

A key point is that the entrepreneur acts and opens himself up to potential losses.  Where's loss for Kirzner's Entrepreneur?  Where is the possibility of entrepreneurial error?  How does this error fit into the overall picture?  Furthermore, if we are looking at the structure of the firm, where is the responsibility within the firm?  Mises would say that it is the owner/entrepreneur, but it seems that Kirzner would split those functions.  So would the ultimate responsibility fall on the decision-maker, the resource owner and not the entrepreneur?

So, if the pure entrepreneur does not act, is this a step in the wrong direction?  The Austrians have consistently argued that the entrepreneur is central to coordinating the market.  Is creating this ideal type of a non-acting entrepreneur a direction that Austrians want to take?  I am not convinced that this is a proper course for Austrians.  It is clear that this issue will continue to develop as we progress through the book.  My thoughts are that under the standard definition of action (purposeful behavior), which is typically employed by Austrians, we should reject Kirzner's pure entrepreneur.  However, I might change my mind after we finish the book.

At this point the discussion turned to why Kirzner would employ such an abstract concept.  Our conclusion is that he was trying to draw the greatest possible distinction between his construct of the entrepreneur and Lord Robbins' maximizer (RM).  (While Kirzner uses the RM for comparison, I have been thinking that perhaps we might want to use the Walrasian auctioneer instead.)  It seems that the central reason why he wants to contrast with the RM is because the RM simply reacts and crunches numbers in response to changing conditions.  So here Kirzner is arguing that the entrepreneur is better because he is discovering new conditions about potential futures.  Without this recognition of discoordinations (profit opportunities) then we could at best stumble into superior (coordinating) moves.  The exploitation of the profit opportunities moves the market (unintentionally) toward a more coordinated state.

There was some discussion of moving the economy toward some "Ultimate Equilibrium" but that was quickly rejected.  On the other hand there is a discoordinating aspect of the actions of these owner/entrepreneurs.  Schumpeter's contribution to entrepreneurship theory is that the entrepreneur is essentially a destroyer of old methods of production and a creator of new equilibria.  Kirzner downplays this aspect and focuses on the coordinating role of the entrepreneur.  Contrasting with Schumpeter, Kirzner sees the entrepreneur as a responder to and "not as a source of innovative ideas."  (p. 74)  The entrepreneur must be alert to opportunities that already exist.  Cordato pointed out that in an open universe, inventing is equilibrating (in a sense), but the actions of the entrepreneur are not always coordinating, at least not in the short-run.
 
A causal reading of Kirzner might lead one to conclude that he rejects the creative feature of entrepreneurship, but the word Kirzner uses is "emphasis."  He states, "By contrast my own treatment of the entrepreneur emphasizes the equilibrating aspects of his role." [italics added]  I do not see Kirzner as completely rejecting Schumpeter’s creative-destroyer, but simply shifting the focus to the entrepreneur’s coordinating role.

We then shifted gears to address Mises’ claim that “every actor is always an entrepreneur.” (Human Action (1949), p. 253.)  The reasoning is this, if all ends are subjectively determined and since these ends are necessarily projections of potential future states, then there is uncertainty surrounding the means to employ to achieve these ends.  With the uncertainty, we move away from the perfect knowledge of the RM in the state of (so-called) “perfect competition,” and we move into the world of the Austrians.  With this uncertainty, there is an opportunity for pure gain to come from pure entrepreneurial insight.

Margolis posed the question, "Have we lost the separation with the Robbinsian maximizer if all are entrepreneurial?"  I would have to say yes.  There are no given payoffs and production functions without Kirznerian entrepreneur.  I do not recall who said it, but a wonderful insight was made, “Means are not given, they must be perceived.”  Additionally, there is a separation between acting and reacting.  The Robbinsian maximizer is clearly reacting.  There are outside stimuli and the maximizer adjusts.  "Robbinsian decision-making ... see ends and means as data."  (p. 78 fn 34)  The Austrian conception of the owner/entrepreneur is that he enters the market with knowledge and acts upon profit opportunities.  The unintended consequence is the addition of information into the market and a higher degree of coordination. 

So now we have it straight.  The Kirznerian pure entrepreneur stands in sharp contrast to the Robbinsian Maximizer in that the RM merely reacts to outside stimuli.  The Kirznerian entrepreneur differs with the Schumpeterian entrepreneur in that the primary role of the Kirznerian version is coordinating while the other discoordinates.  The Kirznerian pure entrepreneur differs from the Misesian concept because the pure entrepreneur does not act and only perceives.  Right?

And then we come to page 84 where Kirzner says, "It is the deliberate exploitation of perceived opportunities which is essential to the entrepreneurial role."  Does this radically change Kirzner’s pure entrepreneur?  Now he acts.  That implies using means, which implies resources.  Was the pure entrepreneur a long side step?  I argued that this statement should just be thrown out.  Cordato argued that the payoff is the distinction between Robbinsian maximizer and the pure entrepreneur.  However, I think Palasek got it right.  She pointed out that he is using “entrepreneurial role” here and not concept of the pure entrepreneur.  The use of the word role does indicate that he has taken a step away from his pure entrepreneur.  I am not sure exactly where this leaves us.  Clearly, reading Kirzner is difficult.  I am hoping that more will develop along these lines in the later chapters.

I had one further observation.  The definition of the entrepreneur from the French is from entreprendre, to undertake, one who undertakes a project, or an “undertaker.”  This definition of the entrepreneur follows in the tradition of Cantillon, Turgot, Say, Menger and the Austrian School.  The mainstream tradition of Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Walras, and Marshall has tended to neglect the entrepreneur and his function.  While Kirzner is clearly emphasizing the role of entrepreneur, his definition of the pure (non-acting) entrepreneur does not fit within older the Austrian tradition.  He has broken new ground.  For this reason alone, Kirzner is worth reading.

Which Economists Show Support for Obama's Plan?

Today there was an article by Derek Kravitz on the AP which was entitled as "Economists Show Support for Obama Job-Growth Plan".  Now which economists are those?  Well, he quotes Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, Allen Sinai, chief economist of Decision Economics, Susan Wachter, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, Michael Mandel, chief economic strategist for the Progressive Policy Institute, Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics and Menzie Chinn, an economist at the University of Wisconsin.  (Personally, I have only heard of Zandi before and I think he usually has it wrong.)  Amazingly they say that more stimulus is what is needed.  Well, maybe not Mandel.  (Kravitz is not very clear on this point.)  And Ashworth says that people might just save it instead of running out and spend, spend, spending it.  (How horrible!)  However, as we see by the article's title, the whole point is to show how much economists love Obama's plan.  In fact, Chinn says that the plan doesn't go far enough.

Here's the commonality: they are all locked into the formula GDP = C + I + G + (X-M).  In other words, the size of the economy is equal to Consumption + Government Spending + Investment + Net Exports.  Of these components, they rightly see that consumption is by far the largest. 

The only problem with this approach of looking at the macroeconomy is that it is completely wrong. 

GDP is defined as the summation of all final goods and services in an economy over a certain period of time, usually a quarter or a year.  Only final goods and services are counted because we do not want to double count.  In other words, when we make a table, we don't want to count the table when we chop down the tree, and count it again when we turn it into boards, and again when we construct the table and then again when it goes to the wholesalers, and so on.  It's one table and we only want to count the one table once.  Fine.  That makes perfect sense; however most economic activity does not take place at the final stages of production.  That's the "Do you want fries with that?" stage.  Most people and most economic activity are not there. 

So what is a better approach?  The Austrian Approach is, by far, better.

We need to disaggregate the Capital Structure--The Structure of Production.  Only by viewing the economy as a process of production can we get an idea of how the economy works, and more importantly, how it grows.

The economy does not grow because people simply "demand" stuff.  Think about it.  Do you demand more than your parents, or grandparents, or people who lived 1,000 years ago?  Are we rich in the US because we simply want things more than those who came before us?  Ridiculous!  So, if it isn't demand that has caused us to be wealthy, then it must be that other thing that economists talk about--supply.

Yes, it is supply that allows us to be wealthy.  Now, let's pause as before and think about this point too.  Could it possibly be that more stuff is what allows us to have more stuff?  Duh!  Yes of course it is.  Supply has always been the limiting factor, not demand.  Thus, we need to focus our attention on production. 

In order to get out of these economic doldrums, we need to produce more.  It is only through production that we will be able to grow.  So how do we grow when starting from a depressed economy?  We need to let the costs of production fall.  We need to stop propping up prices and let them fall.  As input prices (yes, this includes wages) fall, profitability will rise.  As profitability rises, there will be more economic activity from both existing companies and new rivals.

The bottom line is that the business sector needs to cut its costs.  We could let input prices fall (commodity prices are still fairly high); we could let nominal wage rates fall; and we could reduce the costs of keeping up with rules and regulations.  Additionally, imagine how much productive energy would be released if we simply abolished the corporate income tax.  All those wasted hours converted into productive activity.  A zero corporate income tax would attract capital from all over the world to the US.  The first country to do this will be the big winner and then other countries will have to do the same to remain competitive.  Instead of implementing Frank-Dodd and ObamaCare, we should repeal these and even more regulatory burdens.  What a boon to business and the economy!  Production will grow and with it, the economy. 

And remember, consumption, jobs and prosperity are a consequence of production, they are not the reason for it.

Austrian Economics Forum Fall '11 #1--Competition & Entrepreneurship

We have finally kicked-off the new semester of the Austrian Economics Forum at NCSU.  About a dozen of us decided that the best thing to do at 4:30pm on a Friday afternoon was discuss Austrian Economics.  (I know that this is not normal behavior, but I still find that I have an overwhelming need to be there.)

We are reading Israel Kirzner's Competition and Entrepreneurship (1973).  There are six sessions scheduled for this semester and there are six chapters.  (That was just fortunate.)  The first chapter "Market Process versus Market Equilibrium" was this week's focus.  I found that I needed to remind myself several times that this is only the introductory chapter.  There are a number of points that need further clarification and refinement, but Kirzner doesn't (and shouldn't) go into an in depth explanation in the introductory chapter. 

The next point that I needed to remind myself was who the target audience was for Kizner.  Professor Cordato gave a brief overview of the state of the profession in 1973.  This was a time when General Equilibrium (price) theory reigned supreme and that all firms were either perfectly or imperfectly competitive.  So the target of this book is not me.  I was "raised" Austrian.  I was taught from the beginning competition is a verb and not a noun.  The target of the book is obviously not those professors who are locked into their ways.  Then who is the target?  My guess is that the targets are graduate students in economics.  They are still forming their opinions on which school is correct and will be more open-minded about the different approaches.

Kirzner sees the profession completely focused on equilibrium.  The dominant view is that we should be in equilibrium and, if reality differs from it, then there is an imperfection that needs to be studied and corrected (usually by government).  Kirzner suggests that there is an alternative.  Competition should not be studied as a state of being, for example, "the XYZ Market is in a state of perfect competition."  Rather the normal, vernacular, usage of "competition" as a rivalrous process should be adopted.  Competition is a verb and not a state of being.  Therefore, equilibrium, while an important tool, should not be the focus of the economist.  Instead the questions of "Why is there a change in prices?" and "What are the forces behind the price changes?" should dominate the economist's thinking.

Economists too often use phrases such as "market forces" to describe the market process.  "Market Forces" move the market to equilibrium.  Professor Margolis challenged the group by asking us to describe exactly what we mean by "market forces"?  He stated that we all like to tell a story that illustrates an example of market forces, but we tend to leave "market forces" as a fuzzy concept.  My thoughts are that it is shorthand for explaining how individuals have some sort of "felt uneasiness" (to use Mises' phrase) and think about how they can replace that state for a better one.  Then they act.  Within this analysis we are implicitly assuming time and ignorance (to use the title from Rizzo and O'Driscoll's book).

As buyers and sellers enter into the market they bring with them knowledge.  As the desires of the buyers confront scarcity, a price is generated and ignorance is lessened.  It is in this step-by-step manner that the market will equilibrate.  Contained in this notion is an implicit ceteris paribus assumption.  We need to realize that tastes, preferences, expectations, etc. need to be held constant.  When we (economists using this thought experiment) start to relax the ceteris paribus assumption, we are allowing supply and demand to change and thus equilibrium prices and quantities change.  Despite the fact that the equilibrium point (intersection of supply and demand curves) changes, the market forces are chasing that point around.  So while equilibrium is an important theoretical concept, we might never, ever be in equilibrium.  The important concept to focus on is that competition is always driving us toward equilibrium.

These driving forces then require the interaction of individuals with limited knowledge.  They require that this process takes time, meaning that we do not simply jump from equilibrium point to equilibrium point.  Finally, this is not an automatic or mechanical process; it requires actual people to move the market.  That person is called the entrepreneur. 

The Kirznerian pure entrepreneur is an ideal type.  This archetype has no physicality.  It is an observation of a profit opportunity.  This construction is fairly controversial within Austrian circles.  To me it seems strange to push it this far.  Without physicality, there is no action and it then falls outside of praxeology and is therefore not a market force.  (It is at this point I need to remind myself that this is the introductory chapter and there is a whole book to follow.) 

We argued about the implications of the pure entrepreneur.  A traditional manner of characterizing the Kirznerian entrepreneur is someone stumbles across money lying on the ground.  (If this is the case, then my son is a Kirznerian entrepreneur because he found 12-cents on the ground today!)  However, the act of picking up the money is a physical act and thus is not a pure entrepreneur.  After much discussion, the consensus of the group was that the pure entrepreneur is an observer and accumulates knowledge.  The action is separate and distinct.  An interesting question was raised and so I'll throw it out to you to ponder and comment...  "Is an entrepreneur only a person who finds Pareto Superior moves?"

The last issue that we discussed was the point on resource monopoly.  While he defines most monopolies are a "barrier to entry" problem, Kirzner argues that resource monopolies are "very real and significant."  In other words, a single owner of a resource can be a monopolist and this has consequences that are "very real and significant."  I disagree.  Rothbard disagrees.  In fact most of the people in the room disagreed.  (Some didn't vocalize one way or another, which was fine.)  We thought about who else (Austrian) thinks that a single resource owner is a real and significant problem, and the only one that anyone could think of is Sandy Ikeda, at SUNY - Purchase.  I like Sandy and he is usually fairly solid in his economics so I will have to ask him about this point.  Furthermore, this is still just the first chapter and there is a whole chapter on monopolies coming up and so we will see how "real and significant" this problem really is.

Unfortunately, we ran out of time and closed the meeting there.  If you are reading along (or even if you aren't) please feel free to post your comments and continue the discussion.