The Ideallic Businessman

It seems the argument on market crashes is that credit expansion is the cause of boom and bust, and the cause of credit expansion is government policy trying to create wealth that doesnt exist. Mises put it like this; “In the long run, every country must be ruled in agreement with the ideas of the majority. If the country’s (leadership) is against the people’s ideas, then sooner or later the majority will cause a revolutionary upheaval and eliminate the leaders…Credit expansion is inserted into the market economy because governments and public opinion believe that the normal operation of the market economy doesn’t produce enough bridges and wealth.”

“If the additional money (from government intervention) goes first to farmers, the demand for credit among farmers drops and the amount that they would have absorbed without credit expansion is available for creating a boom somewhere else. A boom cannot be directed. No segment of the economy is separate.”

The above stated is fact, as far as I can tell. But where I differ is in the next statement. He says that credit expansion should be left to its natural devices, which will not mis-extend itself into mal-adventures; I also disagree that popular opinion towards cheap credit isnt a problem business would have to deal regardless of what government or style of rule.

“If there had never been government interference with the banks, the whole problem would never have appeared.” I think this bases on the assumption, or should I say the general “feeling” that businessmen and bankers inherently know whats good for both them and the general public. Mises states in other places that he knows this is not true.

But I still see this general feeling in statements like “Businessmen are not so stupid as to say that a business which was good yesterday will necessarily be good tomorrow also. A man embarking on a new business asks himself if there are already enough plants. People do not enter into business as morons (emphasis added).”

I make the argument that it happens more often than one would like.

“Only if the banker has the good will of the people can it be assumed that they will be willing to hold these excess money substitutes and not present them for redemption.” But many times they will. If something presents itself to an entrepreneur as a profitable opportunity, he will weigh the risks and benefits, and will even rip off and lie to the people he loves. And this may go on for years, even decades before anyone finds out. Only then will market forces take him out of business.

I like what Mises says here though; “Modern taxation prevents the newcomer from reinvesting the greater part of his funds. The government doesn’t legally and officially discriminate against the newcomer; if he makes $250,000 he is taxed the same as an old business making $250,000. But the future business capital is taxed away before the newcomer can build the big store.”

Of course, the irs allows you a few years to show a profit, but still, it can take a decade for an idea to take hold. The start-up business should be allowed more leeway in both his taxes, and his loans.

We should also take into account that public opinion is a market force, and public opinion tends towards cheap credit and high wages. It is not malinvestment alone, but malinvestment in too many sectors that causes a system crash. The bust doesnt happen until banks become afraid of not being able to meet the demands of their investors. They could rigorously audit themselves, but that is expensive and labor intensive. And besides, it makes it harder to show as much of a profit, to attract more investors.

What the investors and the general public would need is a general auditing group that has open access to the banks’ books and publishes their findings directly and transparently. This would achieve the same end as what Mises searches for with the gold standard; That people know the value of their money, and the security of their investments by the day.

But its not profitable to do this, how would you suggest we make it profitable to allow safe, cheap credit?

But its not profitable to do this, how would you suggest we make it profitable to allow safe, cheap credit?

Let the market decide;).

Yes, but even in a free market, how would individual banks go about offering cheap, safe credit? I would think it would have something to do with infrastructure. If you keep strengthening the base, and increasing research. You should be able to divert the crash to specific parts of the market, as you will need work in building and developing, education, research, and marketing; but more importantly, you will have new products and services to replace what is failing.

Consider what Mises says, " The businessman is led, by artificially low interest rates, to embark on projects for which the available supply of capital goods is insufficient. (Suppose a man owns a limited amount of building materials. The contractor makes an error in estimating so that the foundation is too large for the material actually on hand. He should have realized before that the amount of material would not suffice. A crisis results for the master builder.)" If he were to set about building this building slowly. He would be able to at least start the process, and acquire the products he needs as time passes. Its about not letting the need for growth endanger the strength of the market.

The problem is that a small business owner pays taxes, and part of those taxes are used as corporate welfare for large corporations.

The cost of regulation compliance hurts small business owners more than large business owners.

For example, a corporation with $10B in revenue might pay $10M on accountants. That’s 0.1% of revenue. A small business with $100k in revenue might pay $5k-$10k on accounting. That’s 5%-10%. The small business owner pays a larger “tax” due to the cost of figuring out taxes owed.

A large corporation can always lobby the government for favors. “We’re too big to fail.” A small business owner gets no such perk.

I see what you’re saying. So the public, being the ones that are looking for the service, should bear the brunt of their costs up to a certain income. But does this infringe upon the privacy rights of the business?

How so? A business has no privacy rights. If a business wants to transact with a consumer, then the onus is on that business to provide as much transparency as is necessary for the consumer to feel confident doing business with them.

Corporations pay taxes as well. As do all of their employees, and all of the vertical integrators, and their supply base.

Or rather, a small firm cannot afford such services. The issue is not the size of the firm, it is the regulatory monopoly of the state.