Theory of Interest and Prices inPaperCurrency Part I (Linearity)

Under gold in a free market, the theory of the formation of the rate of interest is straightforward.[1]The rate varies in the narrow range between the floor at the marginal time preference, and the ceiling at the marginal productivity. There is no positive feedback loop that causes it to skyrocket (as it did up until 1981) and subsequently to spiral into the black hole of zero (as it is doing now). It is stable.

In irredeemable paper currency, it is much more complicated. In this first part of a multipart paper presenting my theory, we consider and discuss some of the key concepts and ideas that are prerequisite to building a theory of interest and prices. We begin by looking at the quantity theory of money. In our dissection, we will identify some key concepts that should be part of any economist’s toolbox.

This theory proposes a causal relationship between the quantity of money and consumer prices. It seems intuitive that if the quantity of money[2] is doubled, then prices will double. I do not think it is hyperbole to say that this premise is one of the cornerstones of the Monetarist School of economics. It is also widely accepted among many who identify themselves as adherents of the Austrian School and who write in critique of the Fed and other central banks today.

The methodology is invalid, the theory is untrue, and what ithas predicted has not come to pass. I am offering not an apology for the present regime—which is collapsing under the weight of its debts—but the preamble to the introduction of a new theory.


Economists, investors, traders, and speculators want to understand the course of our monetary disease. As we shall discuss below, the quantity of money in the system is rising, but consumer prices are not rising proportionally. Central bankers assert this as proof that their quackery is actually wise currency management.

Everyone else observing the Fed knows that there is something wrong. However, they often misplace their focus on consumer prices. Or, they obsess aboutthe price of gold, which they insist should be rising in lockstep with the money supply. The fact that the price of gold hasn’t risen in two years must be prima facie proof that there is a conspiracy to suppress it. Gold would have risen, except it’s “manipulated”. I have written many articles to debunk various aspects of the manipulation theory.[3]

The simple linear theory fails to explain what has already occurred, much less predict what will happen next. Faced with the fact that some prices are rising slowly and others have fallen or remained flat, proponents insist, “Well, prices will explode soon.”

Will the price of broccoli rise by the same amount as the price of a building in Manhattan (and the same as a modest home in rural Michigan)? We shall see. In the meantime, let’s look a little closer at the assumptions underlying this model.

Professor Antal Fekete has written that the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) is false, on grounds that it is a linear theory and also a scalar theory looking only at one variable (i.e. quantity) while ignoring others (e.g. the rate of interest and the rate of change in the rate of interest).[4]  I have also written about other variables (e.g. the change in the burden of a dollar of debt).[5]

It is worth noting that money does not go out of existence when one person pays another.  The recipient of money in one trade could use it to pay someone else in another.  Proponents of the linear QTM would have to explain why prices would rise only if the money supply increases.  This is not a trivial question. Prices rise whenever a buyer takes the offer, so no particular quantity of money is necessary for a given price (or all prices) to rise to any particular level.

In any market, buyers and sellers meet, and the end result is the formation of the bid price and ask price. To a casual observer, it looks like a single “price” has been set for every good. It is important to make the distinction between bid and ask, because different forces operate on each.

These processes and forces are nonlinear. They are also not static, not scalar, not stateless, and not contiguous.



First let’s consider linearity with the simple proposal to increase the tax rate by 2%. It is convenient to think it will increase government tax revenues by 2%. Art Laffer made famous a curve[6] that debunked this assumption. He showed that the maximum tax take is somewhere between 0 and 100% tax rate. The relationship between tax rate and tax take is not linear.

Another presumed linear relationship is between the value of a unit of currency and the quantity of the currency outstanding.  If this were truly linear, then the US dollar would have to be by far the least valuable currency, as it has by far the greatest quantity. Yet the dollar is one of the most valuable currencies.

“M0” money supply has roughly tripled from 2007, “M1” has roughly doubled, and even “M2” has risen by 50%.[7]We don’t want to join the debate about how to measure the money supply, nor do we want to weigh in on how to measure consumer prices. We simply need to acknowledge that by no measure have prices tripled, doubled, or even increased by 50%.[8] It’s worth noting an anomaly: on the Shadowstats inflation[9] chart, the inflation numbers drop to the negativeprecisely where M0 and M1 rise quite sharply.

Consider another example, the stock price of Bear Stearns. On March 10, 2008 it was $70. Six days later, it was $2 (it had been $170 a year prior). As Bear collapsed, market participants went through a non-linear (and discontinuous) transition from valuing Bear as a going concern to the realization that it was bankrupt.



Some people today argue that if the government changed the tax code back to what it was in the 1950’s then the economy would grow as it did in the. This belief flies in the face of changes that have occurred in the economy in the last 60 years. We are now in the early stages of a massive Bust, following decades of false Boom. Another difference was that they still had an extinguisher of debt in the monetary system back then. I wrote a paper comparing the tax rate during the false Boom the Bust that follows[10]. The economy is not static.

By definition and by nature, when a system is in motion then different results will come from the same input at different times. For example, if a car is on the highway at cruising speed and the driver steps on the accelerator pedal, engine power will increase. The result will be acceleration. Later, if the car is parked with no fuel in the tank, stepping on the pedal will not cause any increase in power. Opening the throttle position does something important when the engine is turning at 3000 RPM, and does nothing when the engine is stopped.

Above, we use the word dynamic as an adjective. There is also a separate but related meaning as a noun. A dynamic is a system that is not only changing, but in a process whereby change drives more change. Think of the internal combustion engine from the car, above. The crankshaft is turning, which forces a piston upwards, which compresses the fuel and air in the cylinder, which detonates at the top, forcing the piston downwards again. The self-perpetuating motion of the engine is a dynamic. This is a very important prerequisite concept for the theory of interest and prices that we are developing.



It is seductive to believe that a single variable, for example “money supply”, can be used to predict the “general price level”. However, it should be obvious that there are many variables that affect pricing, for example, increasing productive efficiency. Think about the capital, labor, time, and waste saved by the use of computers. Is there any price anywhere in the world that has not been reduced as a consequence? The force acting on a price is not a scalar; there are multiple forces.

It should be easy to list some of the factors that go into the price of a commodity such as copper: labor, oil, truck parts, interest, the price of mineral rights, government fees,smelting, and of course mining technology. One or more of these variables could be moving in the opposite direction of the others, and as a group they could be moving in the opposite direction as the money supply.

Perhaps even more importantly, the bid on copper is made by the marginal copper consumer (the one who is most price-sensitive). At the risk of getting ahead of the discussion slightly, I would like to emphasize that today the price of copper is set by the marginal bid more than by the marginal ask. The price of copper has, in fact, been in a falling trend for two years.



Modeling the economy would be much easier if people would respond to the same changes the same way each time—if they didn’t have memories, balance sheets, or any other device that changes state as a result of activity. Even Keynesians admit the existence of human memory (ironically, they call this “animal spirits”[11]), which makes someone more cautious to walk into a pit a second time after he has already learned a lesson from breaking his leg. People are not stateless.

Stateless, and its antonym stateful, is a term from computer software development. It is much simpler to write and understand code that produces its output exclusively from its inputs. When there is storage of the current state of the system, and this state is used to calculate the next state, then the system becomes incalculably more complex.

In the economy, a business that carries no debt will respond to a change in the rate of interest differently from one that is struggling to pay interest every month. A company which does not have cash flow problems but which has liabilities greater than its assets would react differently still.

An individual who has borrowed money to buy a house and then lost the house to foreclosure will look at house price combined with the rate of interest quite differently than one who has never had financial problems.

It is important not to ignore the balance sheet or human memory (especially recent memory) when predicting an outcome.



Markets (and policy outcomes) would be far more predictable, and monetary experiments far less dangerous, if all variables in the economy moved according to a smooth curve.

A run on the bank, as is occurring right now in Cyprus (in slow motion due to capital controls), is a perfect example of a discontinuous phenomenon. One day, people believe the banks are fine. The next day there may not be a measurable change in the quantity of anything, and yet people panic and try to withdraw their money. If the bank is insolvent, they cannot withdraw their money, it was already lost.

A common theme in my economic theories is asymmetry. In the case of a run on the bank, there is no penalty for being a year early, but one takes total losses if one is an hour late. This adds desperate urgency to runs on the bank, and desperate urgency is one simple cause of an abrupt and large change, i.e. discontinuity.

Ernest Hemingway famously quipped that he went bankrupt, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”[12]It’s not a smooth process.

There are many other examples, for instance a scientific breakthrough may enable a whole new industry because it reduces the cost of something by 1000 times. This new industry in turn enables other new activities and highly unpredictable outcomes occur. As an example, the invention of the transistor eventually led to the Internet. The Internet makes it possible for advocates of the gold standard to organize and coordinate their action into a worldwide movement that demands honest money. The gold standard in this example would be a discontinuous effect caused by the invention of the transistor.

My goal in Part I was to introduce these five key concepts. While not writing directly against the Quantity Theory of Money, I believe that a full grasp of these concepts and related ideas would be sufficient to debunk it.


In Part II, we will discuss the dynamic process whereby the rate of interest puts pressure on prices and vice versa. I promise it will be a non-linear, multivariate, stateful, dynamic, and discontinuous theory.


[2] We do not distinguish herein between money (i.e. gold) and credit (i.e. paper)


[3] Full disclosure: when I am not working for Gold Standard Institute, I am the CEO of Monetary Metals, which publishes a weekly picture and analysis of the gold basis. One can see through the conspiracy theories using the basis:




[9] I don’t define inflation as rising prices, but as an expansion of counterfeit credit:




[12] The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway, 1926



Addendum, by Pater Tenebrarum – Austrians and the Quantity Theory

We certainly agree with what Keith writes above about the quantity theory of money. However, we vehemently disagree with one particular point: no-one who is truly an adherent of the Austrian School can possibly believe in a mechanistic quantity theory of money. While it is certainly acknowledged that an increase in the money supply is a sine qua non for a general decline in money's purchasing power, Austrian monetary theory is very much focused on the fact that money is not 'neutral' and that prices change at different rates if additional fiduciary media enter the economy. In his 1912 work 'The Theory of Money and Credit', Ludwig von Mises thoroughly refuted the mechanistic and tautological equation of the quantity theory invented by Irving Fisher. Murray Rothbard allocated an entire chapter in 'Man, Economy and State' to the discussion of money's purchasing power, which includes an extensive critique of Fisher's equation and the idea that there is a linear relationship between the quantity of money and prices. 

In fact, Austrian Business Cycle Theory is based precisely on the fact that the introduction of additional quantities of money into the economy primarily affects relative prices, as money always enters the economy at discrete points. Moreover, as interest rates tend to get suppressed below the natural rate when additional fiduciary media are thrown on the loanable funds market, prices of higher order goods  will tend to rise faster then those of goods closer to the consumption stage. This is the main reason for capital malinvestment and the associated boom-bust sequences.

That eventually, an increase in the money supply will lead to a general decline in money's purchasing power should be clear, but there can be great lags involved and it is not necessarily going to immediately show up in time series like the 'CPI'. As Mises has pointed out repeatedly, the purchasing power of money (the 'money relation' as he calls it) is influenced both by the supply of and the demand for money, as well as changes on the side of goods and services produced.

Imagine for instance a situation where ceteris paribus, both the supply of money and the supply of goods and services increase at a comparable rate. In that case, there would likely be very little or no change registered in final goods prices. However, prices would certainly be higher than they would be otherwise (under the 'ceteris paribus' condition, i.e., assuming that there is  no change in the demand for money). Every increase in the supply of money leads to a 'price revolution' (Mises) in the economy, but no Austrian scholar ever said that prices in the economy would simply double if the quantity of money were doubled. This is just to make clear where the Austrian School actually stands on this topic.

In a communication with Keith we asked whether the sentence should be edited out, or whether we should instead include this addendum. Keith opted for the addendum and noted on this occasion that he mainly wrote this because many people who say that they are adherents of the Austrian school seem to support the idea of a linear relationship between the quantity of money and prices in numerous postings on the internet. Admittedly we often do come across such errors. However, it is important to realize that such assertions are not in agreement with the Austrian 'monetary canon' if you will. In short, people making such assertions probably haven't really read the Austrians and possess only superficial knowledge of Austrian monetary and price theory.  As Hayek once noted in a interview with the BBC when discussing Milton Friedman: “It would be a misfortune for the field of economics if people ceased to believe in the quantity theory of money, except if they were to ever take it literally.”



Friedrich Hayek on Milton Friedman and the quantity theory






Emigrate While You Can... Learn More




Dear Readers!

You may have noticed that our so-called “semiannual” funding drive, which started sometime in the summer if memory serves, has seamlessly segued into the winter. In fact, the year is almost over! We assure you this is not merely evidence of our chutzpa; rather, it is indicative of the fact that ad income still needs to be supplemented in order to support upkeep of the site. Naturally, the traditional benefits that can be spontaneously triggered by donations to this site remain operative regardless of the season - ranging from a boost to general well-being/happiness (inter alia featuring improved sleep & appetite), children including you in their songs, up to the likely allotment of privileges in the afterlife, etc., etc., but the Christmas season is probably an especially propitious time to cross our palms with silver. A special thank you to all readers who have already chipped in, your generosity is greatly appreciated. Regardless of that, we are honored by everybody's readership and hope we have managed to add a little value to your life.


Bitcoin address: 12vB2LeWQNjWh59tyfWw23ySqJ9kTfJifA


5 Responses to “Theory of Interest and Prices inPaperCurrency Part I (Linearity)”

  • georgew:

    Pater, I just saw your addendum. As typical of your entries, it was well put. I have a question though:
    “many people who say that they are adherents of the Austrian school seem to support the idea of a linear relationship between the quantity of money and prices in numerous postings on the internet.”

    Who are these pseudo Austrians? How come I do not see them anywhere? Perhaps I am lucky enough to only run into people who do not pretend to be Austrians or people like you, who get it?

  • SavvyGuy:

    I appreciate the analysis presented in this article and also the comments above. Like everybody else, I also struggle to understand what the heck is going on with the global economy these days. Unfortunately, my biggest disadvantage is that I have a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, which traps me into applying a linear thought process to what is really a chaos system “gamed” by the bigger players.

    Imagine a forest where 1% of the monkeys have somehow created a society/economy that convinces the other 99% of the monkeys to run around all day collecting bananas for the 1%. No amount of economic or monetary analysis alone can explain this, because money is only one factor that drives behavior. In order to really understand what’s going on, we need to also include other factors that are influencing the psychology of the 99% of monkeys, convincing them to work hard to collect those bananas for the 1%.

    No disrespect to Apple, but here’s a hint: I was curious how seemingly normal people could be convinced to stand in long lines outside (shiny) stores for the privilege of overpaying for a cell phone or whatever iDevice. To my linear mind, this made no sense at all. These good people would probably complain to their mother-in-laws if the price of gas went up 10 cents, and yet here they were, ready to fork over $80 to $100 per month for 2 to 3 years (about $2,000 to nearly $4,000 in total!). What the heck was going on?

    Finally, I had to very humbly accept that bigger forces were at play here than basic economic principles. The biggest flaw in economic analysis is the underlying assumption that people make economically efficient decisions. In reality, this is not true at all. IMHO, humans and other primates are very susceptible to subliminal and subconscious psychological inputs, without even being aware of it. That is the real trick, and may help explain how the 1% of monkeys have managed to convince the other 99% to make economically inefficient decisions and run around collecting bananas for the 1%.

    (Sorry if this comment is a little long, but I wanted to clearly express a subtle point.)

    • georgew:

      Your 1%/99% (though I’d say .01% and 99.99% is more accurate) theory is correct. But it was not deception. Deception is correctable via normal legal and market mechanisms. It is institutionalized rights violations that people can eventually accept and become habituated to. Once Govt expands beyond a certain size (say ~4% of GDP), its institutionalized rights violations dwarf private (outside the law) rights violations.

      Calhoun was a brilliant political philosopher. If you have time I suggest you read his works. Two parts in particular would be useful. The section on Tax Payers Vs. Tax Consumers (being a technician, you should be able to visualize multiple Govt created castes pitted against each other, neutralizing resistance to state rule), and the section on “a written constitution” (and Govt inevitable ability to expand its own power over the citizenry). Here is a link:

      If you want the short version, another brilliant political philosopher, Spooner, has some vignettes that are useful to read.
      1. This supports Calhoun’s “Tax Consumers Vs. Tax Payers” assertion quite cogently.
      Make sure you read the indented section 3 part:

      2. Highlighted section here with respect to the nature of Govt:

      If you just want the ultimate conclusion, Mencken puts it best:
      “The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

  • georgew:

    “when a system is in motion then different results will come from the same input at different times.”

    This is an epistemological error. Human action cannot be modeled like inorganic manner or bacteria. There are no constants and thousands of variables, each interpreted differently by different people and changing all the time based on internal preferences and external conditions; conditions which are never the same. This is all that needs to be said about “Dynamic.”
    The “Multivariate” part is partially correct, but leaves out the salient point that value is subjective and there is no possible way to externally control or predict this subjective value, individually, or in aggregate.

    I am have two CS degrees and I don’t think the state machine analogy is useful at all. People are not automata! I said this above, but this analogy here is particularly bad. Your qualitative statements are true, but they cannot be measured, quantified, and are mercurial anyways. Economics has nothing to model here. Investing may, but as an art more than a science.

    Your comment about systemic risk are useful.

    Sorry to be such a tough critic, but most of this stuff has been more clearly elaborated by other authors in the past century. I’d stick to the incremental improvements or citing their work and building from/on it.

  • georgew:

    “It is also widely accepted among many who identify themselves as adherents of the Austrian School”

    I don’t know why some smart people have to attack other smart people. Mish is also guilty of this “adherents of the Austrian School” make this mistake and that mistake.
    “Another presumed linear relationship is between the value of a unit of currency and the quantity of the currency outstanding.”

    I would like names and specifics. I remember when some accused you of some things (falsely or not I was not interested in finding out); why would you attack “Austrian Economics” when its leading economists stated almost exactly what you have here? I have read Rothbard, DeSoto, Hoppe, and I have not seen them say anything but BOTH of these:
    1. An increase in the money supply will tend to cause the PPM to fall, i.e., prices to rise.
    2. This tendency for the PPM to fall (or prices to rise) will be not be equally distributed or contemporaneous with the increase in the money supply.
    They also discuss the effects of hoarding due to increased perceived risk, etc.

    “Will the price of broccoli rise by the same amount as the price of a building in Manhattan”
    I don’t know anyone who believes this, or at least expresses it with with confidence.

    Before “Dynamic” I saw nothing novel to anyone who has read even just Rothbard whatsoever (notwithstanding your very good analysis of Gold you referenced). I am out of time…I hope there is something useful in the later sections.

    Laffer is a political hack and a bozo. 1. The goal should not be to maximize Govt revenue as this means maximizing legalized extortion. 2. The only way to vainly attempt to measure what that optimal level would be is to despotically manipulate the economy, further hampering it.

Your comment:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Most read in the last 20 days:

  • No results available

Support Acting Man

Austrian Theory and Investment


The Review Insider


Dog Blow

THE GOLD CARTEL: Government Intervention on Gold, the Mega Bubble in Paper and What This Means for Your Future

Realtime Charts


Gold in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Gold in EUR:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Silver in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



Platinum in USD:

[Most Recent Quotes from]



USD - Index:

[Most Recent USD from]


Mish Talk

    Buy Silver Now!
    Buy Gold Now!