Capital and Its Structure

Preface

  • In spite of protracted efforts it has proved impossible to find a quantitative expression for capital which would satisfy the rigorous requirements of economic thought. (p. 8)
    • Because capital also exists in configuration.revisit
  • Knowledge is as refractory to quantification as capital is. (p. 8)
    • Refractory as in unimaginable, because knowledge creation is qualitative change (never quantitative).revisit
  • The acquisition and diffusion of knowledge certainly take place in time, but neither is, in any meaningful sense of the word, a ‘function’ of time. (p. 8)
  • The theory of capital is a dynamic theory, not merely because many capital goods are durable, but because the changes in use which these durable capital goods undergo during their lifetime reflect the acquisition and transmission of knowledge. (p. 9)
  • The causes of certain phenomena do not lie in the ‘facts of the situation’ but in the appraisal of such a situation by active minds. (p. 9)
  • Something is capital because the market, the consensus of entrepreneurial minds, regards it as capable of yielding an income. (p. 10)
  • The chief object of this book is to emphasize the transmission of knowledge, the interaction of minds, as the ultimate agent of all economic progresses. (p. 10)
  • It is not impossible that at some time in the future the concept of capital structure, the order in which the various capital resources are arranged in the economic system, will be given a quantitative expression; after all, any order can be expressed in numbers. (p. 10)

Chapter I: The Order Of Capital

Chapter II: On Expectations

Chapter III: Process Analysis And Capital Theory

On malinvested capital, and that preferences do not determine the constituents of capital structure.

Chapter IV: The Meaning Of Capital Structure

Chapter V: Capital Structure And Economic Progress

Classicists and neoclassicists don’t consider the effect the configuration of capital goods have on those very capital goods

Chapter VI: Capital Structure And Asset Structure

An asset structure = the Plan Structure + the Portfolio Structure + the Control Structure

  • The importance of capital goods lies not in their physical qualities but in the service streams to which they give rise. (p. 114)
    • As discussed in Chapter IV
  • We came to see in the Stock Exchange, which is a market not for physical capital goods but for titles to them, an instrument for promoting consistent capital change. (p. 114)
  • We have to ask whether capital complementarity exists outside the sphere of physical capital goods, and how such forms of capital complementarity are related to the structure of physical capital hitherto studied is the main question to which this chapter is devoted (pp. 114-115)
  • Variations in the cash balance are our primary criterion of success or failure of the plan. In a world sufficiently dynamic to permit of unexpected change there must be at least one variable to register failure and success. (p. 115)
  • Money is largely a capital good ‘by proxy’ (p. 116)
  • Money and other assets ≠ Consumer goods and services
  • We have to ask why at certain times certain people prefer one kind of asset to another—the composition of asset holdings and its changes make sense only as a response to change, expected and unexpected. (p. 117)
  • Monetary change is sometimes the concomitant, and sometimes the ulterior consequences of other asset changes, unexpected and, as often as not, undesired. (p. 117)
    • I.e., ‘liquidity preference’ wouldn’t explain it (as discussed in Chapter III)
  • A Theory of Business Finance based on our knowledge of entrepreneurial action in response to change, expected and unexpected, is what we need. To set out at least the elements of such a theory, couched in terms of plan and process, is the main task of this chapter. (p. 117)
  • Since our interest is in assets qua instruments of action and the structural relationships between them as channels for the transmission of knowledge, our mode of classification is governed by the relevance of our classes to planning and action. (p. 117)
    • Lachmann’s classification is centered around knowledge
  • Operating assetsSecurities
    • In the same way as the technical exigencies of production planning reflect past experience and its interpretation in the form of expectations presently held, and are continuously changing as the latter are tested and present becomes past, asset preferences change and holdings are reshuffled as experience and new knowledge direct. (p. 118)
      • I.e., asset preferences are driven by knowledgerevisit
    • To understand how the two spheres of action interact is to understand how a market economy works (p. 118)
      • Warren Buffett: “I am a better investor because I am a businessman and a better businessman because I am an investor.”
  • Operating assets = first-line assets + second-line assets + reserve assets
  • Securities = debt-titles + equities
    • Debt-titles embody the right to an income in terms of currency units
    • Equities embody the right to participate in control and in residual income
  • The various modes the relationship between debt and equity may assume—its control structure—is of considerable importance in determining the response to success and failure. (p. 119)
  • There are three kinds of structure—and these three structures are not independent of each other
    • The Plan Structure based on technical complementarity
    • The Control Structure based on high or low gear of the company’s capital
    • The Portfolio Structure based on people’s asset preference
  • ‘Asset preference’ is dependent of expectations regarding managerial competence and conduct in making and carrying out plans—it is very different from consumers’ preference, since a cigarette smoker in his choice is confined to what is available in the shops with no need to ponder the managerial efficiency of the makers of the various brands. (p. 120)
    • The existence of flow-driven approach to investing implies that the relationship between the Plan Structure and the Portfolio Structure is not the one of necessityrevisit
      • But since you want to avoid ruin, and since the relationship has a loose correspondence (especially between incompetent companies and bankruptcy), you should avoid incompetent companies (see Carlo Cipolla)
    • If the consumer cannot find what he wants, he has to either give up, or become the producerrevisit
  • We shall study the forces which ‘integrate’ our three structures into an over-all asset structure, i.e., the forces bringing the decisions which shape them into consistency with each other—this they do, and can only do, by transmitting knowledge. (p. 120)
  • What happens in conditions of expected success
    • As long as success is achieved ‘according to plan’ the structural relationships remain undisturbed. Reserve assets neither increase nor decrease, operating cash balances and stocks are being replenished out of gross revenue. (p. 121)
    • The picture is that of stationary conditions with a ‘steady income stream’ flowing year after year, giving no incentive to anybody to modify his conduct. (p. 121)
      • You are getting what you paid for
  • What happens in conditions of unexpected success
    • The surplus profits may be used for higher dividends or be ‘ploughed back’ or serve to pay off debts. (p. 121)
      • There are actually five options. The other two include buyback and M&A. See The Outsiders (p. 110)
  • What happens in conditions of unexpected failure
    • Sooner or later the need for a reshuffle of operating assets will present itself. (p. 122)
  • Both expansion following on success as well as reconstruction following failure cause the ‘demand for money’ to increase. (p. 122)
  • A successful enterprise will not ordinarily experience great difficulty in finding new money capital for expansion, though the new capital may alter the control structure. (p. 122)
    • By either tapping internal cash flow, issuing debt, or raising equity. See, again, The Outsiders (p. 110)
  • The value of the existing common stock of unsuccessful enterprise under financial reconstruction will have declined, not as a result of any decline in ‘asset preference’, but as the result of events outside the control of the asset holders. (p. 123)
    • I.e., via created knowledge
      • This is why Buffett and Munger stay away from tech companies—unless they have brand
        • I think Berkshire’s stake in Google and Apple is an extension of their previous investment thesis for newspaper companies and See’srevisit
  • Capital gains and losses accompany the success and failure of production plans—consumption will be strongly stimulated by capital gains and discouraged by losses. (p. 123)
    • Put differently, the Portfolio Structure and the Plan Structure influence each other.
  • Capital losses may give rise to a demand for capital to finance reconstruction (p. 123)
    • The Portfolio Structure can influence the Plan Structure and the Control Structure.
  • For our purpose in this chapter capital gains and losses are of importance mainly in that they reflect within the portfolio structure the success or failure of production plans, and thus record within one sphere the events that have taken place, or are about to take place, within another sphere. (p. 123)
    • That is, the Portfolio Structure can reflect the Plan Structure.
  • Relative preference for different classes of assets are not given to us as a ‘datum’, but merely reflect other economic processes and their interpretation by asset holders (p. 123)revisit
  • Four conclusions (from this fragmentary survey of interrelationships in the capital sphere):
  • In the modern world of large-scale enterprise the typical objects of reshuffling are as often as not whole subsidiary companies. (p. 126)
    • E.g., a conglomerate
    • This fact is of some significance in business fluctuations—as will be discussed in Chapter VII
  • If equity ownership has nothing to do with control and the making of decisions, the whole structural scheme we have presented would fall to the ground. (p. 127)
  • The manager and the capital owner are each active in his own distinct sphere, but their spheres of action are interrelated by virtue of mutual orientation. (p. 127)
    • For either the other’s action is a datum of his own action. (p. 127)
      • Lachmann uses ‘datum’ to mean something external to oneself and hence uncontrollablerevisit
  • It is true that the modern shareholder rarely takes the trouble of opposing managerial decisions with which he happens to disagree at the company meeting. But this is so because he has a more effective way of voting against these decisions: He sells. (pp. 127-128)
  • Our main argument in this chapter has been based on a simple division of assets into operating assets and securities. But we saw in the case of the holding company controlling a number of subsidiaries that it is sometimes impossible to draw such a clear dividing line. In such cases it often becomes impossible to say when, for instance, a certain sale or purchase of securities involves a ‘managerial decision’ and when it does not. In the same way it becomes impossible to disentangle profits and capital gains. (p. 128)
  • If by entrepreneurial decisions we mean decisions involving the making and revising of plans, there is no difference between changing a production plan and changing the composition of an investment portfolio. They are both exactly the same type of action. (p. 128)
    • There is no substantial difference between businessmen and investors—an entrepreneur should embody bothrevisit
      • Warren Buffett: “I am a better investor because I am a businessman and a better businessman because I am an investor.”
  • An entrepreneur = the capitalist-entrepreneur + the manager-entrepreneur
    • The capitalist-entrepreneur’s decisions are of a ‘higher order’ since the manager-entrepreneur’s decisions presuppose and are consequent upon the decisions of the capitalist
      • This is to an extent—because someone like Buffett can fund himselfrevisit
  • All the decisions are specifying decisions (p. 129)
    • Turning something into non-contingent form

Chapter VII: Capital in The Trade Cycle

I

II

III

Personal thought:

  • inspired by Lachmann (Ch. III)
    • value is subjective because knowledge is created subjectively
      • knowledge supersedes preferences
        • and knowing the extent of other people’s knowledge forms a part of accurate and complete information, because other human beings are part of the reality with which your theory must be concerned
  • my thoughts on lachmann (ch. vi)
    • his focus on the Control Structure somewhat anticipates activists and their influences
  • my thoughts on lachmann (ch. vii)
    • the invisible hand doesn’t exist independently—it exists because of humans and to the extent of their knowledge—and since knowledge is created subjectively ex nihilo, and to the extent that the capital consistency is not achieved by any single mind, it’s not one hand but many and it literally changes hands

Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions

From Mises to Shackle

  • Mises: “Economics is not about things and tangible material objects; it is about men, their meanings and actions. Goods, commodities, and wealth and all the other notions of conduct are not elements of nature; they are elements of human meaning and conduct” (1949: 92)
  • Shackle: ‘Economics, concerned with thoughts and only secondarily with things, the objects of those thoughts, must be as protean as thought itself” (1972:246)
  • “Action is guided by plans, i.e. by thought, and all action has to be interpreted as the outward manifestation of such plans, which must be coherent if they are to have a chance of success. In fact all economic phenomena are intelligible only as the outcome of planned action”
  • Shackle: “If the world is determinist, then it seems idle to speak of choice” (1972:122)
  • Mises: “What counts for praxeology is only the fact that acting man chooses between alternatives. That man is placed at crossroads, that he must and does choose is…due to the fact that he lives in a quantitative world and not in a world without quantity” (1949:126–7)
  • “Both our authors emphasize that the mathematical notion of time as a continuum, a dimension in which events take place, does not fit the requirements of a science of human action.”
  • Mises: Case probability has nothing in common with class probability but the incompleteness of our knowledge. In every other regard the two are entirely different… “Case probability is a peculiar feature of our dealing with problems of human action. Here any reference to frequency is inappropriate, as our statements always deal with unique events which as such—i.e. with regard to the problem in question—are not members of any class… Case probability is not open to any kind of numerical evaluation” (1949:110-113)
  • Professor Hayek, to be sure, dealt with expectations in 1933 in his Copenhagen lecture on ‘Price Expectations, Monetary Disturbances and Mal-investments’ (1939) and in ‘Economics and Knowledge’ (1948), but not with the causes and consequences of their divergence. In fact, expectations were here regarded as being of analytical interest only to the extent to which they converge. They were, on the whole, treated as a mode of foresight, a rather unfortunate but inevitable consequence of imperfect knowledge. Mises hardly ever mentions expectations, though entrepreneurs and speculators often enough turn up in his pages. Thus from 1939 onwards Shackle had to take on expectations more or less single-handedly without much benefit of support from the Austrian side.
  • “Professor Hayek, to be sure, dealt with expectations in 1933 in his Copenhagen lecture on ‘Price Expectations, Monetary Disturbances and Mal-investments’ (1939) and in ‘Economics and Knowledge’ (1948), but not with the causes and consequences of their divergence. In fact, expectations were here regarded as being of analytical interest only to the extent to which they converge. They were, on the whole, treated as a mode of foresight, a rather unfortunate but inevitable consequence of imperfect knowledge. Mises hardly ever mentions expectations, though entrepreneurs and speculators often enough turn up in his pages. Thus from 1939 onwards Shackle had to take on expectations more or less single-handedly without much benefit of support from the Austrian side.
  • “Nobody can profitably exploit his knowledge without conveying hints to others. But can the market process diffuse expectations in the same way as it diffuses knowledge where this exists?”
  • “What is being traded there are titles to (in principle) permanent income streams, which have no date that could ‘move nearer’…There is here no question of a gradual approach towards long-run equilibrium”
  • “Professor Hayek and Mises both espouse the market process, but do not ignore equilibrium as its final stage. The former, whose early work was clearly under the influence of the general equilibrium model, at one time appeared to regard a strong tendency towards general equilibrium as a real phenomenon of the market economy. Mises, calling the Austrians ‘logical’ and neoclassicals ‘mathematical’ economists, wrote: ‘Both the logical and the mathematical economists assert that human action ultimately aims at the establishment of such a state of equilibrium and would reach it if all further changes in data were to cease’ (1949: 352).”

How I found Lachmann

20250701

  • In the evenly rotating economy, businesses somewhat become interchangeable.
    • But are people interchangeable in the ERE?revisit
  • Mises and Rothbard are both theorists, and I am sure that Sherlock (and likely Deutsch and Taleb) would criticize their treatment of government intervention, saying it doesn’t explain how it came about in the first place.

20250704

  • me doubting the concept of evenly rotating economy
    • money is demanded because there is change, but in the ERE there is no change, but the ERE assumes money
      • I can convince myself that this makes sense if the ERE is the end state towards which the reality tends toward
        • but yet another question—is it really?
    • ludwig lachmann and bohm-bawerk argued otherwise (vs Rothbard and Mises)
      • capital is not homogenous
        • every capital good is a function of a plan—relate this with how you cannot predict how people will use technologyTODO

20250705

  • 5-1b1a2—the problem with the ERE (evenly rotating economy) is the problem I encountered with Deutschean concept of universality—what is specifically universal is subjectivity
    • Also 9-1b2
    • For Lachmann, there is no such thing as mispricing, at least in the objective sense
    • Price as it would be in free market is not the same one as it would be in free market with knowledge creation.
      • Knowledge creation can negate difference between free market and one with intervention
        • E.g., ケマルアタテュルク (an intervention which facilitated knowledge creation)

20250707

  • embedding error-correction in capital theory, that’s what Lachmann did

20250708

  • The evenly rotating economy framework is useful because it clearly shows economic theory which disregards knowledge creation

20250710

  • Lachmann’s focus on capital configuration is similar in spirit to constructor theory of David Deutschrevisit

20250713

  • Lachmann vs Rothbard
    • MPP is knowledge-dependent—it changes
      • and although knowledge goes from private to public, some knowledge are kept hidden forever unless it is created in the mind
    • rothbard: time preference → interest → cap structure
      • time pref → capital
    • lachmann: knowledge → cap structure → coordination (which includes interest)
      • inverted: no capital → no demonstrated choice → no revealed time pref
        • rothbard would’ve reached the same conclusion, had he taken his praxeological stance thoroughlyrevisit
      • knowledge → capital → revealed time pref

20250714

  • expectations are not fully capturable in a price
    • because perfect replication is impossible
      • rothbard assumes price can exhaust something other than itself—e.g., in the ERE, he assumes that prices exhaust MPP and MVPrevisit
  • “Homogeneous capital” in Rothbard’s use assumes a shared valuation of capital goods (same MVP), because everyone sees the same MPP.
    • Lachmann challenges this by showing that MPP is subjective, and hence valuation is fragmented—depending on each actor’s knowledge, expectations, and purpose
      • and this is the meaning of heterogeneous capital
      • this is evident in rothbard arguing how different goods cannot be aggregated, but the “same” goods can be aggregatedrevisit
  • that capital is heterogenous is implied in the multiverserevisit
  • homogenous capital theory ignores culture
    • it ignores the fact that we are and will be always shifting from anti-rational to rational memes

20250715

  • MES Ch. 7-1 ~ 9-2E
    • Real-income (MPP/d) doesn’t rise or fall—because commensurable MPP doesn’t exist where there’s knowledge creation—it just becomes different.
      • The more is different to the extent that more creates knowledge.
      • This means that MPP curves change rather than shift.
        • The latter assumes constant environment but since knowledge is unpredictable, what happens in reality is the former.
          • This clearly shows how knowledge creation is not a function of time (Lachmann), which is also related with how there’s no beginning or end in our perception of reality, which further relates to why we always adjust to the facts of reality.
            • The book doesn’t have to be read in order, you can discover the meaning as you read (which means, you can read the way you like)—in fact, this is how we go about life (including scientific discoveries).
    • If there’s no additional saving, then profit must be made out of other people’s losses (by other people’s mistakes).
      • Facilitated via market
    • Optimal level of anything assumes constant environment.
    • We can discuss productivity in marginal terms, but only with conjunction in terms of knowledge held by those who are related to the productivity at hand.
      • That is, the factor’s marginal productivity doesn’t exist objectively—it exists only to the extent of the knowledge held by the producer who uses that factor.
        • This is why MPP curves cannot be aggregated—they are subjective just like any other preferences.

20250726

  • there is no beginning or end because there is no commensurable unit (e.g., time)
    • as Lachmann said, knowledge is created in time, but not a function of it
      • relate with there’s no tracing the origin notes