On Posner the Keynesian

by Don Boudreaux on September 25, 2009

in Economics

Here’s a letter that I sent yesterday to the New Republic:

Richard Posner courageously opens up shop in the highly competitive seventy-three year-old industry of telling the world what John Maynard Keynes meant in his 1936 book The General Theory (“How I Became a Keynesian,” Sept. 23).  That this industry still thrives and attracts new and prominent suppliers speaks volumes.

Judge Posner, alas, misses some vital points of economic history.  For instance, it’s untrue that “a general fall in the price level – deflation – imperils economic stability.”  In the U.S. the price-level fell pretty steadily from 1865 through 1898 – a period of rapid economic growth unmarred by any unusual instability.  Deflation is desirable if it is caused by rising productivity (as was the case in the late 19th century) and not by contractions of the money supply (as happened in the early 1930s).

Judge Posner also gives undue credit to Keynes for two insights that are not original to Keynes.  First, Adam Smith beat Keynes to the punch in emphasizing that the ultimate goal of economic activity is not production, but consumption.  Second, the importance of uncertainty was brought to economists’ attention, not by Keynes, but by Frank Knight.  In 1921 Knight argued that profit is entrepreneurs’ reward for dealing with uncertainty.  Unlike Keynes, Knight understood that uncertainty poses no special threat to free markets operating with sound money.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • indianajim
    Great post Don; Keynes was no Adam Smith, nor was he a Frank Knight. Keynes by no means should be credited for others' contributions; the history of economic thought is such an out-of-vogue area that your vigilence is ever more valuable. Ditto the importance of economic history, another unfashionable discipline amongst the Econ; again the value of your insights in this regard are of growing importance.
  • Keynes was primarily a statistician - I’m currently reading “A Treatise on Probability” because my wife bought it for me not knowing I put it on my Amazon wish list as a joke.

    Philosophical paradox:

    Stat-guy Keynes proposes failed AD theory and general gov’t goodies progs., but Chicago/Austrian guy Friedman (& Dr. Schwarz), produce the seminal empiric economic work of the century, if not millennium.

    Actually, “Treatise” is very insightful in small doses for those who 1) wish to know Keynes’ mind, and 2) are insomniacs.
  • vikingvista
    Not a very good statistician, apparently. What kind of statistician would take presumed correlations and assume that intervention in one or more of them would not change their meaning, but would have the same effect as pushing their corresponding line around on a graph?
  • vikingvista
    How about economic analysis that masks the seeds of economic recovery in a mass of aggregate functions so as to give the illusion of a single underproductive market equilibrium? Can we credit Keynes with that innovation?
  • It's like what Rothbard said about Smith- "The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong;"
  • JeffreyEdelman
    Do you mean Keynes instead of Smith?
  • No. Rothbard thought Adam Smith to be highly overrated among his peers. See this article he wrote: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard104...

    I believe he discussed this more at length in his 2-volume 'History of Economic Thought'.
  • JeffreyEdelman
    Thanks. That is shocking to discover.
  • vikingvista
    I like Rothbard's writing clarity and attempts at completeness--and am sympathetic to his program--but don't think too highly of him. You won't get 40 pages into _Man, Economy, and State_ before you encounter rather glaring (though easily correctable) errors. And that is the second edition. It just reveals that he wasn't such an intellect that he couldn't miss obvious analytical problems.

    Not that he didn't have some valid criticisms of Smith. But no hero is perfect, and despite his failings, Smith's positive impact on Rothbard's values are greater even than Rothbard's.
  • Jeff
    Knight's book "Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit" is especially illuminating for people who believe incorrectly that government can run single payer "insurance."
  • stevenmcduffie
    I thought Keynesianism was dead from the neck up, ever since they said Stagflation was impossible, and thus failed to predict it in the 1970s, and THEN had no solution for it.
  • danielkuehn
    No solution for it? Were you asleep for the 80s, 90s, and 00s? Ever heard of "New Keynesian"????

    Regardless - Phillips is to blame for that really, not Keynes anyway. A simple theory and limited evidence came up with a wrong answer - improvements have been made in the meantime. Singular events can kill specific theories, but they don't kill schools of thought. That's not how science works.
  • johnpapola
    Daniel,

    But isn’t it the case that “The General Theory” has no explanation for inflation or the price level? Instead, it seems to pitch the idea of a free lunch in times of slack labor.

    If the theory is meant to be “general”, I would think the role of money supply should be in there somewhere.

    Plus, don’t we have ample examples of inflation amid “slack” resource utilization? South America? Etc.
  • danielkuehn
    I've commented here before on how I think the term "general theory" is very ironic - I agree. Most of it deals with the very specific case of a depressed economy, so he predictably talks very little about inflation (all the more reason not to blame him for stagflation! blame Phillips!). Of course Keynes does talk about inflation elsewhere.

    I think his thinking behind calling it a "general theory" (aside from the obvious fact that that sounds better!) is related to his introduction of macroeconomic aggregates. This is especially clear in the infamous preface to the German edition. A lot of people think he's saying "my ideas are totally in sync with Nazism!". If you read the whole thing, of course he's not saying that at all (and of course at that time he didn't know how bad Nazism really was). If you read the whole preface he talks about how neoclassical theories of competition aren't helpful in the corporatist German economy that doesn't really function under those conditions. In contrast (he argues) his approach using aggregates is as applicable in a command economy as it is in a free one. I'm not sure he's entirely right on THAT either, but I think that preface is a good indication of why he thought of it as a "general theory".

  • johnpapola
    Before you know how things go wrong, you should have some clue how they could ever go right.

    That’s the problem with Keynesian economics. His contradictory if not outright scatterbrained handling of savings, interest, inflation and investment make for a pretty incoherent view of things in general. Moreover, the “circular flow” consumption-is-king model offers no mechanism for how a market economy could ever develop in the first place. You must forgo consumption today if you want to build a more productive process that can yield greater consumption tomorrow. That’s how we go from subsistence to something more. You save. You build. You grow.

    And what of the root causes of these changes in liquidity preference? They are simply brushed aside as “no matter the reason”. But that can’t be right. A systemic change in the savings rate has a cause. If that cause is a financial crisis and panic, perhaps the reason savings isn’t translating into investment is because the banking system is insolvent and must liquidate.

    Keynesianism appears to be the worst of both worlds. It’s conservative in the sense of trying to hold in place the status quo of production and consumption patterns even as natural forces and real preferences have changed. It’s progressive in it’s utter abandon of well established concepts like the loanable funds market as well as it’s willingness to grant power to the state without any acknowledgement of the fact that the state is run by men who are subject to the same psychological forces it blames for the market’s volatility.

    Smart guy? Yes. But stick to “The economic consequences of peace”. It all goes down hill after that.
  • danielkuehn
    Have you ever considered the prospect that critics who promote a "consumption is king" interpretation of Keynes might (1.) have an interest in misrepresenting him, or (2.) not understand him?
  • Or maybe the critics are just pointing out the obvious.
    Is it misrepresenting Keynes to quote him?

    "The theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [eines totalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory."

    So there is no irony in naming it "General." He simply acknowledges that he can't get what he wants without a totalitarian government.
  • danielkuehn
    I'm not sure that says what you think it says.
  • It must be too nuanced and subtle and argument for my feeble little mind to comprehend.
  • danielkuehn
    Ah yes - feigned victimization by an imagined intellectual snobbiness. Not very classy, Justin.

    Why is feigned victimization so common on here? "Oh I must not be smart enough" - I hear it all the time! Why don't you just tell me why you're right??? Clearly you think you're right - you don't ACTUALLY think it's too subtle for you. So you must have reasons. Don't give me this feigned victimization crap.
  • louh
    He was wrong about that also. Despite his cries to the contrary the so called "Carthaginian Peace Treaty" did nothing to slow Germany's rise to an Uber power
  • sandre
    JM Keynes says it clearly in the preface to the German edition to the "General Theory", why he chose to name it General Theory:
    "The theory of aggregate production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire. This is one of the reasons that justifies the fact that I call my theory a general theory."
  • Didn't see you had the same quote until after I posted mine...lol
  • danielkuehn
    Ya - explain to us what you imagine that means. And try to square it with this:

    "The advantage to efficiency of the decentralisation of decisions and of individual responsibility is even greater, perhaps, than the nineteenth century supposed; and the reaction against the appeal to self-interest may have gone too far. But, above all, individualism, if it can be purged of its defects and its abuses, is the best safeguard of personal liberty in the sense that, compared with any other system, it greatly widens the field for the exercise of personal choice. It is also the best safeguard of the variety of life, which emerges precisely from this extended field of personal choice, and the loss of which is the greatest of all the losses of the homogeneous or totalitarian state. For this variety preserves the traditions which embody the most secure and successful choices of former generations; it colours the present with the diversification of its fancy; and, being the handmaid of experiment as well as of tradition and of fancy, it is the most powerful instrument to better the future... The authoritarian state systems of today seem to solve the problem of unemployment at the expense of efficiency and of freedom."

    Yes - Keynes writes that individualism is "the most powerful instrument to better the future".

    Read the whole German preface. It's abundantly clear that he is saying that his theory is more applicable to the German case because his theory of aggregate demand doesn't require the assumption of economic freedom to make sense. He claims that the neoclassical school doesn't have much to offer analytically if there isn't economic freedom. THAT'S the argument for why it's a "general theory", not that totalitarianism is Keynesian.

    This passage is just like "in the long run we're all dead" - it's amazing to me how much critics trick themselves into reading into it.
  • sandre
    If I look hard enough, I might be able to find a Marx quote saying that he is an individualist. The quote from JM Keynes is written in English, so it should be very clear what it means.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "The quote from JM Keynes is written in English, so it should be very clear what it means."

    That's what I thought too until I read this the other day: http://blog.mises.org/archives/010680.asp
  • sandre
    So?

    As always, I will wait for you to say the last word on this thread. Apparently, it is very important to you. So go ahead.
  • It's not that hard to square it.
    Keynes just playing lip service to individualism. He admits that his theory would be better if the State had ever more control, it's only if people could learn to be better, hence "if it can be purged of its defects and its abuses." You know the whole socialism could work if we could only find the right people to put in charge.
  • danielkuehn
    I don't know if it was you, but somebody did this the other day too (actually I think it was vidyohs).

    You take Keynes seriously when he makes a claim you disagree with, but you insist he's being insincere when he makes a claim you agree with. Why???? How does that make any sense???? It's a pretty convenient thing to claim on your part, isn't it?
  • Probably not me, I haven't been on the internet much lately because of work.

    Not really all that convenient, when someone says two opposing things, you have to make a choice on which to trust and which you think he is misrepresenting himself on.

    You know I don't like Keynesian economics and policies. I've said many times on here, that I think Keynesian polices lead to an increasing State. As such, I will use Keynes own words against him in that respect, like his socializing of investment. I will be skeptical when he says thing to the contrary...or should I take everything he says as true and just trust that he knows better than I?
    You do the same thing too, like the topic on Chu.
  • danielkuehn
    How did I do the same thing with Chu?

    I just expect you to maybe scrutinize your own basis for thinking it's a contradiction. And if it is a contradiction, maybe not assume that you know which version is the right one - particularly if you assume the version that puts him in the worst light is the right one.
  • Hell we all could be wrong...you could be wrong too you know.
  • danielkuehn
    I'm daily humbled by that awareness.

    Which is honestly why I straddle the fence so much on here. Everybody has something reasonable to add - there's no shame in hedging.
  • MichaelSmith
    You take Keynes seriously when he makes a claim you disagree with, but you insist he's being insincere when he makes a claim you agree with. Why???? How does that make any sense???? It's a pretty convenient thing to claim on your part, isn't it?

    I can't speak for Justin Palmer, but speaking strictly for myself, I say this:

    The issue is not whether or not Keynes is being "sincere" when he praises individualism; the issue is that such praise -- even if it is completely sincere -- does not rehabilitate, alter or in any fashion change the fundamental nature of what Keynes advocates, which is nothing less than the infringment and cancellation of a significant portion of our individual rights via government intervention into the economy.

    It is entirely possible that Keynes was a man of mixed, contradictory premises -- some good, some not-so-good, and some downright rotten -- all held in some sort of woozy, ill-defined, vague fashion that permitted him to evade the contradictions inherent in such a mixture. However, none of that changes the nature of the government actions that he advocated.
  • danielkuehn
    Now that's what I call a internally consistent critique of Keynes. Obviously I have differences with it, but that makes a lot more sense to me. It's not selective - it accepts the world as given.
  • JeffreyEdelman
    Don't you think , possibly, that JMK is saying that it would be easier for a "totalitarian" state ( a term that is properly too suffused with baggage to placidly contemplate) to actually deflate the bubble before it burst i.e. do something politically unpopular at the time rather than just keep riding the horse until it falls off of the cliff? That would be my perception of reading Keynes, since it's not like he comes off as an authoritarian himself.
  • Everything is possible. I just don't see it likely. Keynesian econ is loved by politicians of all stripes as a cover for an ever increasing State.
  • johnpapola
    The fact that classical economics is not applicable to a command economy or totalitarian state is a feature, not a bug. Command economies are illegitimate and inefficient. Totalitarian states are illegitimate.

    Good economics, classical or otherwise, shows why that is the case. The fact that Keynesian economics can be employed by tyrants effectively gives at least a clue that it's missing important mechanics of human decision making, incentives and dynamics that are the heart of economic activity.
  • danielkuehn
    That makes absolutely no sense, johnpapola. It wasn't a good thing that Hitler was working on the bomb - but would you celebrate or praise an atomic physics that only made sense in democratic countries? No - that would be a huge hint that there's probably a better physics out there. A science of human action should be able to explain all human action, not just good human action. I'm not sure what you mean by "employed by tyrants effectively" - it's an analytical tool, like calculus or the periodic table. What they do with it doesn't reflect on the tool itself.
  • johnpapola
    My point is simple. More importantly, I think it is a mistake for you to apply any logical correlation between economic theories and natural sciences like physics. That’s a recipe for fallacy.

    The economics of Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek lay out why a command economy is inefficient and unworkable due to the problems of dispersed knowledge and importance of specialization and productivity in creating economic growth and prosperity (among other things). Never mind the ethics for now, which are a problem immaterial of the economic efficiency.

    You can’t apply Smith/Hayek to a totalitarian state because to implement it you would need to dismantle the totalitarian state. That’s not a flaw in Smith or Hayek. Smith and Hayek demonstrate the flaw in totalitarianism.

    Keynes, on the other hand, fails to even recognize any of the things that drive economic calculation and change and buries them in meaningless aggregates. And so, his “economics” sees no inherent problem with a totalitarian state. The “General Theory” can be applied happily by a totalitarian state because its missing everything that’s important in what makes an economic order emerge, coordinate and grow.

    That’s my point. The applicability of The General Theory to a totalitarian state is a bug, not a feature. The inapplicability of classical liberal economics of Smith/Hayek to a totalitarian state is a feature, not a bug.
  • So the Keynesian answer to a question they didn't have an answer for was to come up with a new theory.
    HA HA HA

    RE: "Singular events can kill specific theories"
    So would you say that Stagflation, should have killed Keynes' General Theory as written? So in essence Keynes was wrong no?
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "So the Keynesian answer to a question they didn't have an answer for was to come up with a new theory. "

    Huh? Are you refering to the New Keynesians? No - there was one specific theory about inflation that got disproved, but there was no disproof of the general Keynesian framework. So people went back to work and researched it more. What's wrong with that?

    When Gould realized the fossil record didn't exhibit phyletic gradualism he didn't say "oh well - we better give up Darwin because this doesn't make sense". No - he came up with punctuated equilibrium because the broader Darwinian framework still works well.

    RE: "So would you say that Stagflation, should have killed Keynes' General Theory as written? So in essence Keynes was wrong no?"

    What does stagflation have to do wtih the General Theory? And besides - even if Keynes was visited from the future by Phillips and included the Phillips curve in the General Theory, it's not the ONLY thing in the General Theory. Stagflation would disprove that portion. It wouldn't disprove the rest of it.



  • Hasn't the Philips curve been debunked too or at least isn't used anymore?
  • danielkuehn
    Yes - that's what we're talking about. The Phillips Curve predicted that stagflation couldn't occur.

    It HAS been augmented to incorporate expectations and some other things, and I think it's still generally accepted as a rule of thumb with those modifications... but it's still not actively used much.

    But ya, that's the point. Keynes didn't deny the possibility of stagflation, Phillips did. But even if the Phillips Curve WAS in the General Theory, the disproof of that one point wouldn't disprove the whole General Theory.
  • Okay then...now to turn the tables...what point according to you disproves Hayekian Austrian Econ?
  • danielkuehn
    I've always said I like Hayek, and as far as Austrian econ I've always said that I agree with the Austrian business cycle theory, I just don't think it provides a complete explanation of the business cycle. You assume I comment here just to fight - I actually agree with these things, I just have some differences in how far they're taken and certainly some political differences.

    Not that there isn't stuff to disprove (just like there was and probably is stuff to disprove in Keynesianism). But you're going to have to give me a specific example to approach - your question is somewhat broad and unwieldy. Better yet - challenge me again when a specific example comes up in this blog.

    btw - I plan on reading some Mises you suggested this weekend... probably business cycle stuff to start. It's just been busy this week.
  • johnpapola
    Great letter, Don! Bravo. Man, the role of interest rates in Keynes as presented by Posner are truly contradictory:

    #1. "the greater propensity or hoard, the higher the interest rates on capital for investment"

    #2. the Fed can reduce interest rates by filling the banks with money in exchange for assets.

    #3. the government can borrow against people's cash balances through bonds to finance spending.

    What the hell is going on here?

    So the Fed's money lowers interest rates but private saving does not? The government can finance spending out of private savings, but private business cannot? Business men are impacted by "animal spirits" but politicians are not?

    That posner can write this summary and miss these contradictions really makes me think he's not so good with the economics. Or am I confused?
  • vikingvista
    "So the Fed's money lowers interest rates but private saving does not?"

    To the Keynesiac, not enough.


    "The government can finance spending out of private savings, but private business cannot?"

    To the Keynesiac, private business DOES not.


    "Business men are impacted by "animal spirits" but politicians are not?"

    To the Keynesiac, yes. And if by "animal spirits" is meant a rational reaction to real circumstances, I agree.

    At least, that's the liquidity clap-trap as I understand it.
  • Anybody who considers politics "above the fray" must have trouble seeing the real world.

    Politics IS the fray.
  • Nicholas Weininger
    Is it really true that 1865-1898 was a period "unmarred by any unusual instability"? There were two severe panics in that period, in 1873 and 1893, both of which were followed by very sharp downturns. In particular, the 1890s saw a huge spike in unemployment. Wikipedia may well be wrong about this, but it says here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Depression

    that "Following the end of the episode in 1879, the U.S. economy would remain unstable, experiencing recessions for 114 of the 253 months until January 1901."

    Now that same article does point out, in keeping with your main thesis, that the "Long Depression" is terribly misnamed, as output and real GDP rose despite the deflation. Nonetheless I'm not sure your "no unusual instability" contention is clearly supported.
  • vikingvista
    This plot supports the thesis that it was the most stable monetary interval in US history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical...
  • It's because Keynes wasn't that good of a writer and General Theory was very poorly written.
  • JeffreyEdelman
    It's still a very cool, very cool read. Tough as hell in some ways, but I think it is overall penetrable by persistent people. And the Chapter (12) on the stock market is a thing of beauty to read.
  • Not really, it's boring.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "Not really"
    Justin - this may surprise you, but Jeffrey's reaction to the General Theory is what we call a "subjective opinion".

    As such "not really" is patently false on it's face for you to say.

    My favorite is the end of chapter 10, but ch. 24, which we discussed elsewhere, is good and thought provoking too.
  • Yes very subjective. Which I gave my subjective response too.

    Sometimes I think we argue just for the sake of arguing.

    Chpt 24, might be thought provoking to you....to me it's crap.
  • danielkuehn
    RE: "....to me it's crap."

    Much better than "not really"

    RE: "Sometimes I think we argue just for the sake of arguing."

    :) naaaah ;)
  • Now we are just arguing semantics. Ha
  • danielkuehn
    lol - you can't even stand his style, huh? I thought it was great - good dry wit. The toughest part for me was that a lot of the terminology isn't used anymore, so a little harder to work with.
  • Yeah I agree his use of language is different but not my basis for boring.
    Just as you said you hadn't read "Human Action" because it isn't high on your list...General Theory isn't high on my list either...it's dull and advocates policies that I disagree with.
  • danielkuehn
    Wait a minute - you have feelings on a book you've never read???

    I can understand having thoughts on Keynes and Keynesianism without reading it (like I have strong thoughts on Mises and the Austrian school) - but how can you express thoughts on a book that you haven't read?!?!?!
  • No I've read it...and just reread chapter 24....but my point was...it's low on my list because I didn't like it.
    I'm an atheist, and I put the Bible low on my list as well....but I've read it twice.
  • JeffreyEdelman
    You actually encouraged me to read it some months ago. I bought the "Laboratory Management Press" edition off of Amazon, which is just a shoddy, crappy, terrible edition full of typos,etc. I still read it at about 5 pages a day and thought it was impossible to understand.

    So I bought the beautifully reproduced Harcourt edition (the original publisher, I believe) and am reading it again.

    One must read this book at least twice to even grasp it's general arguments. It also helps to buy a couple of old "What Keynes means" books off of Amazon as well, just to have a study aid.

    Anyway, I like to read Mises and this blog and agree with alot of what is posted here and there. And I love to listen to Peter Schiff. I'm just very, very skeptical of when people talk about "keynesian nonsense" since what is described in the General Theory seems to me to be a good description of how a modern economy actually works (not nonsense)
  • danielkuehn
    NICE!!! Wow, you've made my day.

    It is a slow read. It took me twice as long as it normally takes me to finish a book. I've actually considered rereading it recently, given the new prominence of Keynes. There's a lot in there so I'm sure there's a lot I missed.

    It was shocking to me when Posner said he hadn't read it until this year. POSNER!!!! Economic students, people who care about this stuff, etc. - they can get by without actually reading it. But people who are shaping the discussion like Posner? That was very surprising to me. I'm just operating off the assumption that Don and Russ have both read it, but maybe my expectations are too high. Not that I think everyone needs to read it, but you know - if you've got a strong opinion on it you should actually read what you have an opinion on.

    RE: "It also helps to buy a couple of old "What Keynes means" books off of Amazon as well, just to have a study aid."

    Do you have any suggestions? I recently bought Lawrence Klein's "The Keynesian Revolution" at a used bookstore, which I like precisely because it is an old one so it gives a view of Keynes before the tumult of the 70s.

    This blog is very good - I disagree with a lot, but it's thought provoking - and I think it's FAR better than Mises.org. Ugh... sorry... can't agree on Peter Schiff. I can't believe people even take him as an authority.

    Good talking to you.
  • sandre
    mises.org is 8th most visited economics website in the world. Whether you like it or not, they are having influence on a lot more minds than you would like. Most of the other 7 econ websites are government statistics/"economic indicator" sites.
  • simonkinahan
    So you'd like to think. Someone who works for mises.org knows some SEO tricks, since it crops up endlessly in search results on pretty much every topic in economics.
  • danielkuehn
    I'm not sure what your point is. There's no doubt the Austrian blogosphere is active. Are you saying that's an indication of quality?

    Keynes wasn't that popular before the crisis, now he's surged back into popularity. Maybe I have a newfound appreciation of his relevance, but he hasn't become "more accurate" to me as a result.
  • louh
    It is a self fulfilling prophesy, as long politicians continue to embrace big government, as long as we sit by and watch our personal freedoms erode then JMK and his nonsense will be at the table.
  • JeffreyEdelman
    Although I respect Keynes alot (like Daniel on this forum) quotes like this bug me

    "We have learned since September that the present generation of economists has not figured out how the economy works. The vast majority of them were blindsided by the housing bubble and the ensuing banking crisis; and misjudged the gravity of the economic downturn that resulted; and were perplexed by the inability of orthodox monetary policy administered by the Federal Reserve to prevent such a steep downturn; and could not agree on what, if anything, the government should do to halt it and put the economy on the road to recovery. By now a majority of economists are in general agreement with the Obama administration's exceedingly Keynesian strategy for digging the economy out of its deep hole."

    Ugh. First it that's economists all agree that everything was rosy (when it was not). Now, it's that everything that Obama is doing is rosy (which may or may not be true, it's just that agreeing economists are no barometer of accuracy).
  • danielkuehn
    Agreed. Healthy skepticism is always important, particularly because Keynes offered an explanation for why this type of solution might be necessary - he didn't really offer a blueprint for what it would look like or it's prospects for success.

    But I don't think it's saying that anybody thinks it's "rosy". It's just saying they agree. And empirically that's true. Cato is obviously able to draw up a list of dissenters. That doesn't mean there's any ambiguity in the field over the general question of the fiscal and monetary response.
  • JeffreyEdelman
    Thanks. One thing that my reading of Keynes (Harcourt edition which is really very good) has not given me is a sense that his theories are "left-leaning". It could be that they are and I'm just being naive, but it doesn't seem to me that describing how a capitalist economy might function best is how a leftist would approach the question.
  • danielkuehn
    I strongly concur. You need to comment on here more!

    No doubt it's not a conservative or libertarian position either (although his economic framework is perfectly consistent with conservative or libertarian outlooks... just ask Greg Mankiw, or now Posner) - but just because it's not conservative or libertarian doesn't mean it's leftist. It's a modern, interventionist take on a pretty standard classical liberal worldview and set of principles.
  • yetanotherdave
    Re: "It's a modern, interventionist take on..."
    I don't know (or care) very much about Keynes or Keyneism (new or old), but in my observation, those who call themselves Keynesians tend to be no friends of liberty (or at best good-time friends).

    Thanks for very succinctly explaining why.
  • brotio
    Wow, it's been ten hours and Daniel didn't reply. I expected he'd write something like, "I'm a friend of liberty, except when I'm not."
  • louh
    Only the most dangerous of leftists.
  • sandre
    Don Boudreax says:
    Deflation is desirable if it is caused by rising productivity (as was the case in the late 19th century) and not by contractions of the money supply (as happened in the early 1930s).


    That might be true. However, there have been situation in history when government pursued a deliberate policy of monetary contraction and economy grew rapidly. 1870s would be one such example. After circulating a lot of greenbacks during the civil war, a decision was made to go back to the pre-civilwar parity with gold.
  • vikingvista
    How about the Volker contraction in the 1980's?
  • The next book Posner should read is probably "The failure of new economics".
  • How is it that so many people have so much time to read so many books?

    Oh, wait, I have two young ones to look after and other work to do. I actually used to read a great deal in my youth.

    It seems to me that Keynesian economics is about managed economies, managed via fiscal policy.

    Why does that bother me?

    Someone has to have the power to do the management.

    Hmmm. Seems to me Public Choice theory comes in here somewhere.

    Where does the idea of impartial government come from?

    I hear talk of such, but I don't see much evidence of it.
  • simonkinahan
    Well quite, but I'm not sure the neo-Keynesian mainstream position that the economy should be managed via monetary policy is actually any better.

    There's less scope for corruption perhaps, but I was thinking the other day (yes, I have no kids yet) that there's still a public choice issue whether to favour inflation (which favours wage earners and debtors) or deflation (which favours those on fixed incomes and creditors). I wonder if there's a relationship between Japan's deflation and their greying population.
  • Public choice indicates that whichever is most politically profitable will be the more likely pursuit.

    My thinking is that managed economies (via fiscal/monetary policy) are perhaps well described by Keynesian economics.

    Keynesian economics therefore do not describe unmanaged economies (including free banking).
  • simonkinahan
    Which fits the evidence that we mostly have inflation, since most people work for wages and are net debtors. Keynesian econonmics is extremely broad, so as such I'm not sure it can be said to accurately model anything. I mean everything from the Philips curve (definitely wrong) to monetarism (correct but too naive to be useful) to neo-Keynesian interest rate/inflation based demand management (possible correct but still hard to do right), to post-Keynesian ideas about fiat money actually being credit money are Keynesian, since they include a role for aggregate demand.

    Clearly none of the policy prescriptions from any of these schools (except perhaps the post-Keynesians) would apply in a free banking system since there is no single monetary authority. Some Keynesian models might still work - the post-Keynesian credit-money model basically says the central banks is impotent to really affect the quantity of money anyway, so it might well still apply.
  • I missed where the commenters are actually commenting on what Don has written.

    Not that there's a rule that comments be relevant, but it seems disingenuous to skip specific points that the blog author brings up and jump right to more vague opinions on how Keynes is wrong or right.

    Personally I've not studied Keynes in depth, but what I know of him he differs from the likes of Hayek on many ideas, and so I tend to read him with a jaundiced eye. (I am biased, being a Hayekian and not a Keynesian - I liked the uniforms better.)

    Judging from the comments, I don't think anyone else here really knows any more about Keynes than what they've picked up in excerpts from some type of "Keynes for Idiots" kind of book.

    Perhaps the reason he "seems" more left of center than his advocates believe him to be is that his basic ideas rely heavily on government intervention and an overly centralized state power structure. This kind of ideology of course attracts left of center folks, and so maybe it's true that his ideas have become more leftist in application than even he intended.

    But how someone can advocate the kind of government involvement in the economy his ideas require, and then say he wasn't - or his ideas are not - left of center is simply illogical.
  • freelunch
    In the U.S. the price-level fell pretty steadily from 1865 through 1898 – a period of rapid economic growth unmarred by any unusual instability.

    But there were two depressions in that time period: 1873 and 1893. Care should be taken when writing letters to the editor.
  • vikingvista
    It wasn't an off-the-cuff invention of Dr. B's. Nor is it an observation not long shared by some other economists. There are data to support the contention:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical...
  • freelunch
    How is the inflation data information about economic stability?
  • vikingvista
    Because P is proportional to M * V / GDPreal.

  • Isn't Moore's law in which computers become twice as fast or half the cost a deflationary pressure? If deflation should be something to be feared why does one of the most competitive industries is racked by deflation high job loss inequality and large ammounts of skilled and unskilled immigration. The tech industry has a laundry list of what is supposedly bad for workers but it has the highest pay and the most dynamic industry.
  • Greg Webb
    It is amazing how someone supposedly as smart as Judge Posner could read a book that was first published in 1936 and conclude that John Maynard Keynes has the right prescription for the current recession. Apparently, Judge Posner did not think to see if that prescription had been tried before. It has and it has failed every time it has been used, including the Great Stimulus Bill of 2009.

    My guess is that the General Theory fits well with Judge Posner's personal views. He accepts the view that markets (made up of millions of common people) are irrational, while government (made up of the so-called elite) are rational. This idea is, of course, just nonsense. Everyone, including elites, can be, and often are, irrational. An irrational decision, and its effects, just last longer and are more severe if it is imposed by government. Masonomics has it exactly right in saying that markets fail, but use markets anyway. Life is not perfect, and it is time we all gave up on the illusion of a utopian society.
  • Matt_Matson
    "the U.S. the price-level fell pretty steadily from 1865 through 1898 – a period of rapid economic growth unmarred by any unusual instability."

    Although real GDP was growing during this period, that growth was, in reality, marred by unusual instability. Even if you don't consider the "long depression" to be a "usual" marring of growth, a faster growing money supply would have likely increased real GDP and employment, and perhaps increased growth of real GDP.

    At a minimum, Boudreaux's letter fails to indicate that the author's view of history is one not generally accepted by economists (http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html) or the people living through the time period in question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893).

    And even if we grant Boudreaux his view of late 19th century history, what does it show? I would wager that a large majority of economist would agree that "deflation . . . imperils economic stability," even though it may not guarantee it.

    The other "vital parts" of economic history overlooked by Posner do not appear very vital to Posner's essay. The central concern of the essay was the framework Keynes explicated and how he applied it to the great depression, the fact that Keynes built on previous economists' works can be assumed and was not a vital concern of the essay.
  • vikingvista
    "Although real GDP was growing during this period, that growth was, in reality, marred by unusual instability"

    It was the single greatest period of monetary stability in US history:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical...


    "faster growing money supply would have likely increased real GDP and employment, and perhaps increased growth of real GDP."

    That is not an argument, but a disputed conclusion that is central the Austrian school's criticism.


    "I would wager that a large majority of economist would agree that..."

    If you are looking to have an impact from appeals to authority, you could not have come to a worse place. There is little respect for the "large majority of economist" here.

    I for one love a good idea, however. You can add or detract nothing from an idea by its attribution.
  • Matt_Matson
    I said real GDP growth--growth in the value of goods and services produced and consumed--was marred by instability, I did not refer to "monetary" stability.

    And, if you would like further discussion of the "unusual instability" during this era, please see: Michael D. Bordo, Joseph G. Haubrich PDF

    Your point regarding conventional wisdom is well taken, and it is unlikely any discussion thread has sufficient space to challenge a person's economic paradigm, but my main criticism of Boudreaux's letter is that it chastises Posner on a point by making a dubious claim regarding the late 19th century economy that, even if true, fails to establish Posner erred.
  • vikingvista
    Thanks for the link. Looks interesting.

    The period Don talks about does not stand out for its unstable GDP. Sure, the postbellum 19th century real GDP was more dynamic with deeper recessions than the antebellum GDP (at least to the available quality of those numbers), and more dynamic than our last half century. But, it differed from both of those periods by a higher overall growth rate. And GDP was more stable with shallower recessions than in the preWW2 20th century.

    So it makes for a mediocre point. It does seem that greater GDP growth is associated with dynamism, so I'm not so sure GDP stability per se is a desirable goal. It seems first and foremost you want GDP growth. Perhaps then a highly dynamic GDP with relatively shallow recessions should be the goal (who cares if positive growth is widely erratic, as long as it is positive). But then, that's what we had during the postbellum half century.
  • JoeCushing
    Falling prices due to productivity improvements is not deflation. It's a real price decrease. Inflation is only a monetary phenomenon. If productivity improves and prices stay the same, that's inflation.
  • vikingvista
    That's a good point. There is a great ambiguity in the use of "inflation". Some define it merely as increasing prices. Others define it as monetary inflation--growth in the money supply. A monetarist would define it has EXCESS growth in the monetary supply relative to GDP and velocity.

    Without manipulation of the money supply, you expect deflation as a consequence of economic growth because there is a fixed money supply representing increased wealth. That is not a bad thing. But increasing the money supply at such a time cannot reasonably be construed as helping the economy. The only effect it has is to redistribute wealth from those furthest from the central bank to those nearest. That is a redistribution of rewards away from those who produced the rewards. That is not a good incentive for economic growth.

    The realization that money is no more in need of manipulation than any other thing of value is what exposes monetarists like Milton Friedman as the central planners that they really are. For me, it is a great disillusionment against someone who said many good things.
  • martinbrock
    I don't pretend to know precisely what Keynes meant, but I can't simply dismiss his "aggregate demand" and the idea that rapid dissolution of much established productive organization can depress consumption and thus production of goods that idle resources would consume if employed and will again consume when reemployed. So why idle even more resources when we'll only want them employed again, producing the same goods, when other idle resources are reemployed producing different goods? It's a fair question, particularly when established organization dissolves catastrophically, as when 10-20% of the labor force is idled in only a year or two. I don't expect this catastrophic dissolution to occur often in a sufficiently free capital market, but it did occur in the thirties for whatever reason.

    On the other hand, we can't trust statesmen to replace demand lost to severe recession with demand for goods that individuals actually want to consume. Bushniks tried to construct this form of "stimulus" with temporary tax rebates, but it didn't seem to work well, possibly because the timing was off, possibly because employed people won't buy 10% more milk than they would otherwise have bought just because 10% of the labor force is unemployed, even if you give them a 10% bonus check. The needed "stimulus" is something like unemployment insurance, but $100/week doesn't replace most people's consumption, and $1000/week can discourage seeking other employment.

    Of course, a state can employ everyone doing something. The issue is not some gross volume of stuff produced. The issue is how much free consumers value the particular goods produced. That's what we need markets to gauge.
  • Robert Fortuno
    I agree that price declines due to rising productivity are desireable, but I am puzzled by your statement that the period 1865-98 was "unmarred by any unusual instability." Didn't we have two financial panics during that period (1873 and 1893) followed by depressions (1873-79 and 1893-98)?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: