Instability is a lack of balance – a reasonable relationship between value of money and goods. A prominent view is the financial instability hypothesis, which states that the economy has financial regimes under which it is stable, and financing regimes in which it is unstable, and that, in periods of prolonged prosperity, the economy transits from financial relations that make for a stable system to financial relations that make for an unstable system10. Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then the speculative units will quickly evaporate leading to a collapse of asset values. The financial instability hypothesis is a model of capitalist economy, which does not rely upon exogenous shocks to generate business cycles of varying severity.

The Austrians accept the instability hypothesis as describing what is happening, but also feel it does not provide a satisfactory explanation, hence cannot indict capitalism as such. They conclude that the instability is yet another failure of big government intervention through central banks. For example: if Jack deposits £100 of real savings (say from farming) in a bank. Jack has the right to demand his £100 at any time. Let us say that the bank then lends £50 out to Jill. At this stage, we have £150 backed by £100 (a universal practice in modern banking called fractional reserve banking). To make it clear, let us say Jack and Jill purchase £100 and £50 worth of goods with cheque payments from a shop. The bank now faces a shortfall of £50. The Austrians argue that in a free market, if a bank engages in unbacked expansion of credit, it runs the risk of being caught, and therefore the threat of bankruptcy is likely to serve as a deterrent. Hence Minsky’s instability hypothesis only applies to the modern capitalist economy with its institutional setup and not free market capitalism devoid of big governments11.

The causes cited by the instability hypothesis is psychological and pathological in nature, and the cause cited by the Austrians is institutional in nature. Both do not provide founded alternatives that provide stability. Absolute free market anarchy could never be sustainable, would never be accepted by any community and is self-contradictory, for the one who enforces the free market is intervening by definition. As for the Keynesians and the post Keynesians, there would always be disputes on what regulations and limits are appropriate. The market would evolve perpetually, facing crisis after crisis, as it suits its ideas based in reality (often parsimoniously) rendering the economy vulnerable to internal and external fluctuations.

It is undeniable that the central bank model is central to the problem facing the economy. For it allows the bank to directly borrow or sell some of its assets for cash. The key question is where does the central bank get its liquidity? – it just prints it with no backing. The bank could also borrow from other banks, but that could increase interest rates, which slows down demand from borrowers. The modern banking system is guided and coordinated by the central bank, which ensures sufficient liquidity for investments and expenditures by injecting money through a joint expansion of unbacked credit.

Evidently, it was the loose monetary policy of the Fed between Dec. 2000 and Jun. 2004 i.e. lowering Fed funds rate (interest rate of lending federal funds) from 6.5% to 1% that laid the foundation for the emergence of the bubble activities. And then between Jun. 2004 and Sep. 2007, the Fed raised the Fed funds rate from 1% to 5.25%. This tightening of liquidity undermined the bubble housing market (which had ample warnings); gaining bust-level pressure by the end of 2007. The Fed funds rate is one of the open market levers to regulate the economy. The sheer volume, globalisation, securitisation and a veritable explosion in complex derivatives have combined in a way to make for a calamitous bust, rivalling the great depression of 1929. The above provides a reasonable backdrop to highlight two fundamental systemic elements, which underlie the causes of boom and bust:

1. Lack of a standard such as the gold standard (allows unbacked minting).

2. Interest based banking (which encourages debt accumulation for high returns).

There is already considerable concern, even in the west, over both of the above. The return to the gold standard is supported by many including followers of the Austrian School of Economics, objectivists and libertarians largely because their free market ideals i.e. their objection to the role of the government in issuing fiat currency through central banks. Even Alan Greenspan had attested to the importance of the gold standard, “The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation… Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.” 12.

Any alternative model should not possess these weaknesses. The fixed currency standard and interest free banking form some of the key institutional basis for a sustainable system.