As part of a long theme I want to push back against the notion that “confidence” is a meaningful driver of macro-economic outcomes.
I don’t mean to simply join in bashing the “confidence fairy.” I mean all notions of confidence: investor confidence, animal spirits, consumer confidence, etc.
At the heart of my position is that Aggregate Demand is not practically constrained by what people want to do. Its constrained by what people can do. Put another way, the preferences of consumers and businessmen mean almost nothing. What matters is their budget constraint.
The simply explanation is that in a world of 7 billion people and a country of over 300 million there is ALWAYS someone who wants to buy more, invest more, expand, etc.
We could be in the middle of a Great Depression, we could have marginal tax rates of 70%, we could have a police state that randomly ransacked people’s houses, stole their possessions and carted them off to jail.
Even that world, there is some outlier for whom the only thing stopping him or her from trying to build a vast business empire is that he or she can’t find the financing.
If you doubt this look at the market for criminal enterprises, where the state is explicitly trying to stop you from doing business. Not taxing you. Not regulating you. But, men with guns are coming to either shoot you or put you in a cage for the very act of being in business. Yet, crime never wants for lack of entrepreneurs, though it does sometimes want for lack of financing.
You can call this reverse Malthusianism. The desire of the expanders to expand is always exponential. In the end you only need one of them and they will attempt to take over the entire economy. What’s stops them is competition, scarce real resources and financing.
Thus if you are in a world where no one else is looking to expand, and real resources are slack, financing is all that’s holding one of these folks back.
Practically speaking the price of slack resources also matters because if they actually collapsed in price then at some point you could simply self-finance your empire.
But, there is never a shortage of empire builders. There is only a shortage of people willing to lend to empire builders.
Now, some would say, yes but don’t you need consumer demand nominal and real. That is, don’t people need to have the money to buy your stuff and doesn’t your stuff need to be worth buying.
Nominally, no because the expansion of business itself creates the purchasing power that allows people to buy your stuff.
Real, no not either. Its entirely possible that you could be running an economy where the vast majority of people were employed by businesses who were failing and then replaced by new business who also fail. What you would experience would be a decline in TFP, a rise in inflation and a fall in the real wage as most people would be producing things no one wanted to buy.
If people genuinely couldn’t find good ways to employ resources then everyone would get poorer but as long as financing is available there need be no recession.

6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ December 1st, 2011 at 1:21 pm
foosion
You seem to be saying that as long as there are people willing to hand out free money, someone will take it, start a business and employ people, those people will buy stuff, setting off a virtuous cycle and then the economy will be fine. Therefore, they’re not just handing out free money, because the stronger economy means the lender has reasonable chance of getting repaid.
I’m not sure if this is another version of “supply creates its own demand” or an argument for a much looser monetary policy.
What are the policy implications?
Thursday ~ December 1st, 2011 at 2:09 pm
Nick Rowe
Not sure I understand this Karl.
The only *aggregate* budget constraint is from the LRAS curve — the supply side. If there were no LRAS constraint, if everyone decided on a whim to double their spending, they would find their incomes doubling too. Take the very simplest model of AD: MV=PY. If people get confident, and halve their desired V’s, PY will double too.
Thursday ~ December 1st, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Curt Doolittle
@KS: “If people genuinely couldn’t find good ways to employ resources then everyone would get poorer but as long as financing is available there need be no recession.”
That’s the whole point now, isn’t it? Are you sure you understand the implications of that sentence?
I don’t think so.
Thursday ~ December 1st, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Windchaser
“The desire of the expanders to expand is always exponential. In the end you only need one of them and they will attempt to take over the entire economy. What’s stops them is competition, scarce real resources and financing.”
This is also why an anarchist society would never work. If there are large groups of people, disorganized and unprotected, there will be always be someone crazy enough to try to conquer and unify them.
Friday ~ December 2nd, 2011 at 1:20 am
John L.
While I agree with your general premise that “confidence” in the traditional use of the word isn’t all that important to the general operation of the macroeconomy, I disagree with your thesis that the primary problem is an inability to finance. In a situation where you have a fall in aggregate demand and disinflation stemming from an economy wide deleveraging process isn’t the more apt argument to make that the problem is a general lack of DEMAND for credit as opposed to bottlenecks in the SUPPLY for credit? Now this might not at all apply to Europe now or over the past several months, but surely you can fit a debt-deflation explanation of the recession into your model somewhere?
Friday ~ December 2nd, 2011 at 5:10 pm
Rick G
Expansion only takes time. If there is only one company willing to expand, sure, they could expand to 100% of the market in infinite time in the absence of the other constraints you’ve described, but the rate they can expand might be slow, because business decisions/transactions take time. One business expanding by 50% will take longer than 10 businesses each simultaneously expanding by 5%. So confidence may have no bearing on the asymptotic level of expansion, but it does affect the rate at which that asymptote is reached.