In 1913 Ludwig von Mises Warned That There Is a Serious Danger for the Future of the Individualistic Organization of the Economy in the Development of Fiduciary Media

As I have explained elsewhere, there is a serious danger for the future of the individualistic organization of the economy in the development of fiduciary media; if the legislature does not put some obstacle in the way of its expansion, an unrestrained inflation could easily come about, the destructive effects of which cannot really be imagined. Even if we ignore this, as yet, not immediate threat, there is sufficient risk from the very nature of the system of fiduciary media. We have already mentioned that it would be desirable to put an end to the artificial expansion of fiduciary media. It would not only slow down the rate of devaluation, but it would also be the best way of preventing economic crises.

Mises defined “money substitutes” as claims to a commodity money such as gold in the form of banknotes or checks that are readily and generally accepted in transactions and that are believed to be fully redeemable on demand at the banking institution that has issued them. Mises distinguished between money substitutes that are backed 100 percent by commodity money reserves at the issuing institution (“money certificates”) and those money substitutes issued by a bank that are less than fully backed (“fiduciary media”). Loans extended on the basis of 100 percent reserve backing were referred to as “commodity credit” and those loans extended on the basis of less than 100 percent reserve backing were called “circulation credit.” Mises argued that it was the extension of fiduciary media not covered by 100 percent reserves that was the source of business cycles, in that it created the illusion of more savings available in society (in the form of money loans extended through the banking system) to support and sustain investment and capital formation than really existed.

—Ludwig von Mises, “The General Rise in Prices in the Light of Economic Theory,” in Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises, vol. 1, Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, ed. Richard M. Ebeling (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 155, 135n5.

A Major Defect in the German Banking System Is That Bankers Stopped Being Bankers in the Classical Sense of the Term

The events of the last few weeks have made obvious to everyone the defects in the German and Austrian banking systems, which previously were recognized by only a few.

At least until very recently, English and American banks have acted, in principle, purely as bankers in the classical sense of the term. That is, they have viewed their primary business to be the lending of money. The development of German banking activity made them not merely banks but also put them in the business of being industrial holding companies and investment trusts. This development did not occur through any logical process. In the beginning, German banks also limited themselves to the granting of credit. They ended up becoming partners in the businesses to which they had granted credit because they lent too much to these enterprises in proportion to their own capital. These banks were plunged into difficulties when there were attempts for immediate conversion of those enterprises’ stocks and debentures into cash.

Gradually, banks were pushed out of the role of creditor into the role of the chief interested party. As a result, these banks no longer faced those enterprises with the critical eye of a banker who carefully judges the businesses’ prospects as debtors, and who constantly evaluates the borrower’s creditworthiness in order to limit or withdraw lines of credit if changing circumstances warrant it. These banks no longer looked at businesses’ activities from the standpoint of a lender but from the viewpoint of the borrower. When the monitoring function that the lending institution normally exercises over businesses fell by the wayside, an essential regulator of the money market disappeared in fact if not in name.

The news media would appropriately offer strong criticisms of any combination of the banking business with production and trading activities, when individual enterprises and business firms made attempts to publicly raise investment money. But it was overlooked that at many respected banks that had readily put money into risky ventures (including three major banks in Vienna and Berlin that have recently failed) conditions were no better. The independence of these banks from industrial enterprises was in many cases purely formal in the legal sense.

The representatives of the banks who had to decide on the granting of credit were, unfortunately, in many instances, identical with the representatives of the debtors who appealed for loans and credit expansion. When writers on the economy spoke out against this combining of banking and industry, those in banking labeled them ivory-tower theoreticians. Modern conditions, it was said, absolutely demand the amalgamation of banking and industry. The failure of this system clearly proves who was right. The more cautious the bank was in the establishment of its associations, the better off it is today.

The most pressing reform that must be pushed for is the elimination of the existing close ties between the banks and industrial combinations. Everyone agrees with this. Of course, this goal can be only slowly achieved. It will be years before it will be possible to transfer the large debts of many enterprises from the banks to the public through the issuing of stocks and bonds. Recent experience has caused severe mistrust of stocks and bonds issued by industry, and this mistrust will not be quickly overcome. But the distrust is even stronger against stocks issued by banks, due to the serious doubts about their connections with industry.

—Ludwig von Mises, “The Economic Crisis and Lessons for Banking Policy,” in Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises, vol. 1, Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, ed. Richard M. Ebeling (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 296-298.

Carl Menger’s Slim Volume Grundsätze der Volkswirtshaftslehre (Principles of Economics) Completely Revolutionized Economic Science; Everything That Has Been Achieved Since Then Is Built upon Menger’s Works

Most exciting, however, is the grounding of the general theory of value on the basic idea of the subjective value of goods, as worked out by Menger. Menger’s slim volume Grundsätze der Volkswirtshaftslehre [Principles of Economics] completely revolutionized economic science. Everything that has been achieved since then is built upon Menger’s works. In Austria, marginal utility theory found its most important representatives, besides Menger, in the contributions of Friedrich von Wieser and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (who departed from us at much too early an age). It is customary to unite these three under the designation “the Austrian School.” Under this name they gained a worldwide reputation. In Germany they were able to find some minimal recognition; their success was incomparably greater in England, Italy, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries. Modern American economics is based on the works of the “Austrian School.”

--Ludwig von Mises, Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, vol. 1 of Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises, ed. Richard M. Ebeling (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 245-246.