Böhm-Bawerk Sought a Universal Notion of Capital, but Menger Developed a Historically Specific View with Microeconomic Foundations

Just as in their respective treatments of the goods-character of goodwill, Menger’s sympathy for the everyday practices of economic agents and Böhm-Bawerk’s lack of concern for them are evident in their competing capital concepts. Menger’s respect for the lessons of ‘experience’ (a word he used tirelessly) led him to restrict capital to its actual role as diverse possessions which generate private incomes in a monetary economy (capital in the acquisitive sense). Böhm-Bawerk recognized the dual meaning of capital—that is to say, capital in the acquisitive sense, and capital in the technical sense—as an instrument of production. However, the centrality of the technical element in his choice of social capital as a guiding conception did not lead him beyond capital as an aggregate of produced goods with a durable foundation. He sought a universal notion, whereas Menger developed a view as to the content of capital historically specific to private ownership and entrepreneurial economizing in a monetary economy. In such an economy, entrepreneurial behaviour was not merely perfunctory or secondary to the technical dictates of the so-called Böhm-Bawerkian ‘instruments of production’. Menger’s theories of capital and money had microeconomic foundations: uncertain needs were served by holding cash balances, including speculative balances. The use of money cannot be precisely scheduled; it acts as a stock against the disappointment of individuals’ plans in uncertain conditions. Indeed, ‘Menger again and again stresses that demand is fickle, that it changes in unpredictable ways and that such changes bring about economic frictions’ (Streissler 1973). It is precisely in these conditions of uncertainty generated through demand fluctuations that the concept of capital in the acquisitive sense is formed in the minds of Menger’s entrepreneurs.

—A. M. Endres, Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory: The Founding Austrian Version, Foundations of the Market Economy (London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2002), 171-172.

The Consumption-Theory of Time Preference Integrates the Theory of Capital and Interest into the General Theory of Prices

Let us highlight the significance of this explanation within the overall theoretical framework of Misesian economics. Consumption here appears as the root of all economic phenomena. Carl Menger and his disciples had argued that consumer choices directly determine the prices of consumers’ goods, and that indirectly they also determine the prices of producers’ goods. Now time preference, too, and with it the phenomena of capital and interest appear to be rooted in consumption. The great attraction of this explanation (at least from Mises’s point of view) was that it did not stress any psychological dispositions of man, but relied on the fundamental fact that there can be no human action without consumption. The consumption-theory of time preference thus seamlessly integrates the theory of capital and interest into the general theory of prices. In the field of interest—as in the broader market process—the consumer is sovereign.

—Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007), 779.

Time Preference Is Only the Proximate Cause of Interest; the Ultimate Cause Was the Necessity of Consumption

Like Böhm-Bawerk, Mises believed that time preference was only the proximate cause of interest. But rather than seeing the ultimate cause in certain psychological dispositions of the human being, he followed Frank Fetter and Franz Cuhel in arguing that the ultimate cause was the necessity of consumption. The fact is that human beings cannot survive if they do not consume. Hence there must be some time preference in human action or the human race would perish. This does not mean that time preference is the only factor determining human actions. It means that in order to survive, human beings must at some point prefer shorter production processes to longer ones, even though the longer ones would be more physically productive.

Mises argued that one would always choose the longest production process if one could disregard the need for survival through time. It is the need to survive that prompts the acting person also to consider the passage of time and to prefer, at some point, sooner results to later ones.

—Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007), 778.

Time-Preference Is NOT Always Preference for Present Goods As Compared with Future Goods

It should, however, be carefully observed that time-preference is not always preference for present goods as compared with future goods. We sometimes, indeed very frequently, prefer to have certain things in the future. After any meal, the present use of the remaining food in the pantry, the cellar, the granary, is worth less than its possibility of future uses, some of which are a few hours, others a few days, others perhaps weeks distant. The changes of the seasons with their effects on the abundance of plant and animal life cause a pretty regular cycle of valuations. When the crops are harvested in the fall, the farmer, while setting apart some of the fruits of the field to provide for the present nourishment of himself and family, yet stores up the rest for later use. His immediate needs are over-supplied, and his anticipated future needs induce him to save. In a fishing tribe after a great haul of fish a present fish is worth less than the certainty of a fish six months later when fish will be scarce. After a successful buffalo hunt, when all the members of the tribe are sated with meat, present meat is worth less than the chance of an equal amount of meat any time for nearly a year. Ice has less value in winter both because the need for ice in refrigerators is less, and because ice is more plentiful. In January one would gladly exchange a larger amount of present ice for a smaller amount to be delivered the following July. Crops of fruit, vegetables, etc., are on the average worth less per unit at the moment they are gathered than at any other time in the year until the next crop is due.

—Frank A. Fetter, Economics, vol. 1, Economic Principles (1915; repr., New York: The Century Co., 1928), 237-238.

Capital-Based Growth Is Fundamental to All Austrian Macroeconomics

One of the distinguishing characteristics of the Austrian school throughout the development of modern macroeconomics was its structure of production framework and capital theory. Building on Menger’s (2007 [1871]) insights regarding the categorization of goods as “higher order” or “lower order,” Böhm-Bawerk (1930 [1889]) presented a structure of production theory based upon the roundaboutness of production processes and recognized time preference as a factor in determining the interest rate and economic growth. Mises (2009 [1912]) used these insights among others to sketch a capital and monetary based business cycle theory and later contributed to the pure-time-preference theory of interest (Mises, 2008 [1949]). Hayek (2008 [1931]) made notable contributions to capital and business cycle theory, including a graphical representation of the structure of production that could show both sustainable and unsustainable growth, which he subsequently attempted to further improve (Hayek, 2012 [1941]). Rothbard (2009 [1962]) synthesized this entire system traceable to Böhm-Bawerk through his “development of a capital and interest theory that integrated the temporal production-structure analysis of Knut Wicksell and [F.A] Hayek with the pure-time-preference theory expounded by Frank A. Fetter and Ludwig von Mises” (Salerno, 2009, p. xxvii). Using the ideas of earlier Austrian theorists as well as adding his own contributions, Rothbard presented the relationship between the interest rate and the proportion between consumption and investment in the clearest and most logically deduced manner as well as the capital-based growth that underlies Austrian macroeconomics.

The basic growth scenario entails a fall in time preference, which is represented by a decrease in consumption spending and an increase in investment spending. The additional investment funds are spent on higher order goods, and increase the number of production stages to reflect the lower natural rate of interest. The opposite occurs for an increase in time preferences. Graphically, the change in time preference is generally visualized as a movement in the supply curve along a constant demand curve in the loanable funds market, which implies a similar shift in the overall time market (Skousen, 2007, p. 233; Garrison, 2006, p. 62). This capital-based growth is fundamental to all current Austrian macroeconomics since it provides the basis for the generalizations made about the capital structure and time preference, mainly, that the proportion of present consumption spending to investment (future consumption) spending is systematically related to the interest rate through time preference. In other words, changes in time preferences are embodied in changes in both as “the time preferences of the individuals on the market determine simultaneously and by themselves both the market equilibrium interest rate and the proportions between consumption and savings (individual and aggregate).” (Rothbard, 2009, p. 400).

—Patrick Newman, “Rothbard's Time Market and the Demand for Present Goods,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 17, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 47-48.

Economy-wide Disequilibria in the Context of a Changing Capital Structure Escape the Attention of Growth Theorists and Macroeconomists

Capital-based macroeconomics rejects the Keynes-inspired distinction between macroeconomics and the economics of growth. This unfortunate distinction, in fact, derives from the inadequate attention to the inter-temporal capital structure. Conventional macroeconomics deals with economy-wide disequilibria while abstracting from issues involving a changing stock of capital; modern growth theory deals with a growing capital stock while abstracting from issues involving economy-wide disequilibria. With this criterion for defining the subdisciplines within economics, the thorny issues of disequilibrium and the thorny issues of capital theory are addressed one at a time. Our contention is that economic reality mixes the two issues in ways that render the one-at-a-time treatments profoundly inadequate. Economy-wide disequilibria in the context of a changing capital structure escape the attention of both conventional macroeconomists and modern growth theorists. But the issues involving the market’s ability to allocate resources over time have a natural home in capital-based macroeconomics. Here, the short-run issues of cyclical variation and the long-run issues of secular expansion enjoy a blend that is simply ruled out by construction in mainstream theorizing.

—Roger W. Garrison, Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure, Foundations of the Market Economy (London: Routledge, 2002), 34.

The Rate of Interest Is NOT Set in the Loan Market; Interest Is a General Phenomenon Pervading All Sectors of the Market

Another possible objection to Mises’s treatment of interest is that it focuses on real goods rather than money. After all, isn't interest related to how much the lender charges on a loan of money? Why isn't the interest rate simply the price that balances the supply and demand for loanable funds?

Here the answer is that Mises, following Böhm-Bawerk, views interest as a general phenomenon that pervades all sectors of the market. From this perspective, it’s not the case that the rate of interest is “set” in the loan market, and then ripples out to other markets where people adjust their behavior based on the interest rate. On the contrary, in a market free from outside interference, individuals’ subjective time preferences manifest themselves in every market. Time preference influences the supply and demand in the loanable funds market, but time preference also regulates how much a home builder will pay today for the lumber, shingles, nails, and so on that will yield a house to be sold in a year’s time. The implied rate of return on a production project—in other words, the percentage excess of the total revenues compared to the total monetary expenses—is called originary interest. Originary interest is ultimately determined by subjective time preference because it reflects the fundamental difference in valuation between present and future goods.

—Robert P. Murphy, Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action (Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 2015), e-book.