Hayek’s
theoretical preference was to stabilize MV. This was not a policy suggestion. He wrote in Prices and Production,
Such
a change in the “velocity of circulation” has rightly always been considered as
equivalent to a change in the amount of money in circulation, and though, for
reasons which it would go too far to explain here, I am not particularly
enamoured of the concept of an average velocity of circulation it will serve as
sufficient justification of the general statement that any change in the
velocity of circulation would have to be compensated by a reciprocal change in
the amount of money in circulation if money is to remain neutral toward prices.
(1935, 123-124)
Don’t
be fooled. A reading of the lines that
follow this quote shows that he was not actually suggesting this as policy.
But
quite apart from the particular difficulty which, from the point of view of
pure theory, may not prove insuperable, it should be clear that only to satisfy the legitimate demand for
money in this sense, and otherwise to leave the amount of the circulation unchanged,
can never be a practical maxim of currency policy. (124)
In other words, Hayek did not approve of MV stabilization during the
Great Depression. Nope. Instead, he waved his hands and said that policy probably will not accomplish what is theoretically possible. He then goes on to confuse the issue by considering changes in demand due to changes in production and trade. In this context he suggests that central banks should not expand the money stock "save an accute crisis", but apparently believed that even this sort of policy was to no good end no matter the reason. He explains,
In any case, it [expansion] could be attempted only by a central monetary authority for the whole world: action on the part of a single country would be doomed to disaster... The most we may hope for is that the growing information of the public may make it easier for central banks to follow a cautious policy during the upward swing of the cycle, and so to mitigate the following depression, and to resist the well-meaning but dangerous proposals to fight depression by "a little inflation". (125)
Hayek is unclear whether he is considering changes in y or V, not that it changes his conclusion. He clearly believes that central banks cannot should not "fight depression by 'a little inflation'."
Related Posts
Hayek and Velocity sans Policy (and more)
2013-10-11
I hope not to have misrepresented Hayek in my review of his
opinion of velocity in the last several posts. I have made clear that Hayek did
not accept the idea of MV stabilization as a legitimate policy prescription at the time of his writing Prices and Production .
This certainly does not mean he had nothing deep to say in this theoretical
matter. In lecture 4 of Prices and Production , he...
Read more
Blindsided: Hayek, Austrian Business Cycle Theory, and the Narrative Fallacy. A Note
2013-10-25
The other day I had a
conversation with Garett Jones about the sources of dysfunction in the medical
sector. After I rattled off an explanation in which I cited barriers to entry,
the revolving regulatory door, and systematic control of journals by departments
whose interests are aligned with big-pharma, etc… he asked, “What do you think
the R-squared is for that?” In other words, on a scale of 0...
Read more
Considering Velocity and Price Level Stabilization in Prices and Production
2013-10-09
Hayek’s economic perspectives certainly varied over the course of
the Great Depression. The beginning of this change saw him distinguish between
theory of his opponents and their policy recommendations. In Monetary
Theory and the Trade Cycle , Hayek claims that relative prices only move due
to a change in the quantity of money: Apart from individual saving activity (which includes, of
course the...
Read more