Lachmann Suggests Dispensing with the Notion “Period of Production”and Replacing It with the Notion “Degree of Complexity”

An important aspect of the information revolution is that it allows for the formation and management of ever more complex capital structures. In his work on capital Lachmann proposed a reinterpretation of a controversial aspect of Böhm-Bawerk’s theory, his famous proposition concerning the superior productivity of roundabout production (i.e. of production processes that are more indirect, that take more “production time”) (Lachmann 1978: ch. V). Lachmann regarded Böhm-Bawerk's use of time as a unit of measurement for the capital stock as untenable and seriously misleading. He felt strongly, however, that Böhm-Bawerk’s intuition about the sources of economic progress was correct. “[T]he intuitive genius of Böhm-Bawerk gave an answer [that], to be sure we cannot fully accept and which, moreover, is marred by an excessive degree of simplification, yet an answer we cannot afford to disregard” (Lachmann 1978:73). Therefore he suggests dispensing with the notion “period of production” and replacing it with the notion “degree of complexity.” Whereas Böhm-Bawerk argued that the period of production increased with capital accumulation, Lachmann argues that capital accumulation results in the increasing complexity of the production process. In this way he hoped to have given a new and more appropriate meaning to the notion of increased roundaboutness.

--Peter Lewin, Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, Routledge Foundations of the Market Economy (London: Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2003), 130.

From the Perspective of a Technologically Dynamic Market Economy, Both the English Neo-Ricardian and the American Neoclassical Approaches Appear to be Largely Irrelevant

The debate between the Cambridges in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s featured the English neo-Ricardians against the American neoclassicals. Taking the production function approach to be definitive of production economics, the neo-Ricardians relentlessly picked at its logical limits in an effort to discredit it and seem to have been largely successful in this. But what they gained in logical consistency, they arguably lost in relevance. Both the Cambridges implicitly assumed a Ricardian equilibrium world in which the “rate of profit” was uniformly equal to the rate of interest. From the perspective of a technologically dynamic market economy, both approaches would appear to be largely irrelevant.

--Peter Lewin, introduction and outline to Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011), 10.

The Ricardian Vision Versus the Mengerian Vision of the Production Process

When we move from Smith’s world to the world of Ricardo’s Principles we find that things are not so simple. Ricardo strove valiantly to apply Smith’s insights and method to a world in which much of the productive equipment was in the form of heterogeneous “machinery.” He salvaged homogeneity by banishing considerations of change, by focusing on the conditions of the “long-run” stationary state. Those who followed Ricardo thus came to see this long-run equilibrium not only as the condition toward which the economy was always moving, but also as a sort of essential reality that characterized the market system below the surface reality of which our senses may at any time be aware.

In this sense, all modern-day theorists who work in terms of stationary or steady-state economics are “Ricardians.” Their approach is to be contrasted with that of Carl Menger who, while also following Adam Smith in some respects, offered a different vision of the economy and of the process of production. For Menger production was characterized by a time structure of production that was the result of individual intertemporal planning. There is no suggestion that the economy is in a stationary-state equilibrium.

--Peter Lewin, introduction and outline to Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011), 9.

Much of the Reluctance of Economists to deal with the Theory of Capital Is a Result of the Historical Context in Which It Was Developed

As will become clear from the discussion below, much of the reluctance of economists to deal with the theory of capital is a result of the historical context in which it was developed. The history of thought in capital theory contains volumes of discussion on intricate technical and sometimes philosophical issues that modern economists have come to think they can do quite well without. This impression was strongly reinforced by the Keynesian revolution and Keynes’s summary dismissal of capital theory as irrelevant. Even with the emergence of a more critical approach to Keynesian macroeconomics, this habit of ignoring the deeper issues that a consideration of the nature of capital invites was not broken. Capital theory is widely (if tacitly) regarded as a topic in the history of economic thought.

--Peter Lewin, introduction and outline to Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011), 4.

Most Students of Economics Encounter the Theory of Capital as Part of a Theory of Finance and/or Project Evaluation

Most students of economics encounter the theory of capital as part of a theory of finance and/or project evaluation. When considering the question of how to measure (known or estimated) values that occur at different points in time, they get introduced to the arithmetic of present values. And while the notion of present value can be elaborated and dissected in many subtle ways, its basics derive from some very straightforward, intuitive ideas. It is surprising, then, to find that capital theory is regarded as a particularly esoteric and largely irrelevant part of economics.

Obviously, although present-value arithmetic is an important part of an understanding of capital, it is only a part of that understanding. It is the other parts that have been regarded as obscure and irrelevant. Although capital theory may be difficult, it is hard to see that it could justifiably be judged as irrelevant. After all, the market economies of the world are often referred to as “capitalist” economies. Surely a good understanding of the meaning and significance of the “capital” in “capitalist” is of some importance, for history and for policy. If capital is that phenomenon that makes market economies different, ought we not to accord it a prominent place in the education of an economist?

--Peter Lewin, introduction and outline to Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011), 4.

To Understand Disastrous Economic Policies Like the Dot-Com Bust and Housing Bubble, Study the Battles over Capital and Capital Theory

In the world of economic policy, the relevance of (Austrian type) capital theory has increased dramatically. The appeal of what Ludwig Lachmann referred to as “neoclassical formalism” has not diminished. Policy-makers, following the counsel of their economic advisors, who are ruled by a belief in the significance of economic aggregates, have persistently ignored, indeed precipitated, capital structure distortions; the results of which have been two major domestic economic crises (the dot-com bust and the housing-bubble meltdown), a global credit crisis, a chronic fiscal deficit and an exploding debt burden that threatens to destroy the very fabric of the economy’s value-creating potential.This book is designed for those who wish to understand, in a thorough and fundamental way, the nature and significance of capital. What makes an economy “capitalist”? How does value get created over time? If we get this wrong we may end up paying a high price indeed.

The erroneous ideas upon which disastrous economic policy has been based have come down from the intellectual forebears of the current generation of economic advisors. A full appreciation of this entails understanding the nature of battles fought long ago over the nature and significance of capital and capital theory. Accordingly, the focus of this book on this particular aspect of the history of economic thought remains very relevant.

--Peter Lewin, preface to the second edition of Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World, 2nd ed. (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011), xi.