Mises Built His Business Cycle Theory on the Currency School’s Doctrines Even Though He Had to Correct Its Many Defects

Throughout his writings, Mises recognized and lauded the lasting contributions of the Currency School to monetary and business cycle theory and policy. In his first complete presentation of the Austrian theory of the business cycle, published in 1928, Mises (2006, pp. 101, 128) stated:

Of all the theories of the trade cycle, only one has achieved and retained the rank of a fully-developed economic doctrine. That is the theory advanced by the Currency School, the theory which traces the cause of changes in business conditions to the phenomenon of circulation credit [that is, the issue of fiduciary media]. . . . Every advance toward explaining business fluctuations to date is due to the Currency School. We are also indebted to this School alone for the ideas responsible for policies aimed at eliminating business fluctuations.  

In his earlier treatise, The Theory of Money and Credit, Mises credited the Currency School as the main inspiration for the development of modern business cycle theory. There Mises (1981, pp. 282–83) commented that the Currency School “propounded a theory, complete in itself, of the value of money and the influence of the granting of credit on the prices of commodities and the rate of interest.” While noting that the school’s doctrines were based on the erroneous value theory of the classical school and a mechanical version of the quantity theory, Mises yet maintained, “Within its own sphere of investigation,” the Currency School “was extremely successful.” “This fact,” he observed, “deserves grateful recognition from those who, coming after it, build upon the foundations it laid.”

Mises, however, did not allow his admiration for the Currency School to blind him to the two key errors it committed. In fact he was eager to expose and correct these errors because they were the reason that the currency principle failed on the policy level when it was implemented in Great Britain by the Bank Act of 1844, more popularly known as Peel’s Act. The first error was an analytical one. Unlike the opposing and inflationist Banking School, the Currency School failed to recognize that bank deposits were perfectly interchangeable with bank notes in exchange and, as such, were part of the money supply. Consequently, the currency principle’s rigid restriction on the creation of fiduciary media was tragically weakened because Peel’s Act applied only to bank notes, while banks were left free to create new, unbacked demand deposits ad libitum.

The second, practical flaw in the program of the Currency School was its insistence that power to enforce the currency principle be centralized in a bank with monopolistic legal privileges—in this case the Bank of England. Th is quasi-central bank, in which most of the system’s gold reserves were held, would then have the means and the power to enforce the currency principle for the banking system as a whole. In effect, the authors of Peel’s Act unwittingly created the template for the modern inflationary and crisis-prone monetary and financial system. In the modern system, a central bank such as the Fed is legally empowered to issue its own fiat notes and deposits which serve as the reserves for the commercial banks. The commercial banks, in turn, are permitted to create fiduciary media by pyramiding their own bank deposits on these Fed liabilities.

—Joseph T. Salerno, “Ludwig von Mises as Currency School Free Banker,” in Theory of Money and Fiduciary Media: Essays in Celebration of the Centennial, ed. Jörg Guido Hülsmann (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2012), 103-104.