Say's Law Keynesians

In the 1990s Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the one time sociologist and dependency theory author, turned politician and president of Brazil said that people should forget about what he had written in the past (on dependency theory). Something similar could be said about the economists at Catholic University in Rio de Janeiro, who were the main economic advisors to Cardoso during his presidency.* They seem to have forgotten what they wrote in the past.

An interesting case of the switcheroo from heterodox to mainstream is Edward Amadeo (Labor Minister during the Cardoso administration, even though he had connections to the Worker's Party up to the early 1990s), author of a very good book on Keynes (Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand), based on his dissertation at Harvard supervised by Murray Milgate and co-supervised by Lance Taylor (who was at MIT at that time), with a preface by Vicky Chick. The book is still the best interpretation of Keynes' General Theory, and its relation with the Treatise on Money.

Among other things Amadeo shows that the conventional view which assumes that Keynes moved from an interpretation of the system with flexible prices and fixed quantities in the Treatise to one of fixed prices and flexible quantities in The General Theory (GT), as interpreted by Leijonhufvud for example (see his classic On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes), is incompatible with a careful reading of chapter 19 of the GT (Amadeo, 1989, p. 4).

Further, Amadeo correctly points out that the transition from the Treatise to the GT involves a change from a dynamic theory of the trade cycle in historical time to an equilibrium theory of the level of output, one in which the flexibility of prices does not guarantee full employment. And obviously the level of activity is determined by demand. Amadeo also wrote a few papers on what we would now call the Kaleckian models of growth (see here; subscription required).

That is why is interesting to read a recent paper by Amadeo (in Portuguese here; originally published in O Globo). He says that Cardoso's agenda, which would have been carried by Serra (defeated presidential candidate in 2002), would have:

"redoubled the emphasis on education, promoted savings, done the labor reform, flattened the tax structure, promoted global integration, invested in infrastructure and modernized the public administration."

Note that the emphasis is on supply-side policies (with the exception of investment in infrastructure, which was actually accelerated during the Lula administration so-called PAC). And yes he suggests that savings would have lead presumably to investment and growth in a typical Solow model result, meaning Say's Law.

One could go on and discuss the other incompatibilities with almost all his previous work (not sure if he wrote something theoretical in a neoclassical perspective), for example the defense of labor reform (meaning lower wages) to promote growth and employment (the opposite of what the GT says). Or the silliness of suggesting at this point that more liberalization (global integration) along the lines of the Washington Consensus would really work. Or the fact, that he seems to believe that fiscal adjustment is necessary now in Brazil and that this would be compatible with higher growth (contractionary expansions).

But the remarkable thing is at the end of the day the complete 180 degree change in theoretical perspective, with no justification of what made him change his mind. I assume that in his case we can paraphrase Keynes and suggest that when proven correct, he changes his mind.

* Other economists close to Cardoso, like Serra from the more radical Unicamp, also moved to the right, favoring privatization and fiscal adjustment, but arguably abandoned academic economics long ago, being like Cardoso politicians. Finally, some economists from the Fundação Getúlio Vargas from São Paulo, like Bresser Pereira, remained more heterodox, and defend now something called New Developmenatlism. I'll leave comments on that for another post.

In the long run we are NOT all dead

Niall Ferguson has apologized for his offensive suggestion that Keynes' phrase on being dead in the long run was somehow related to his sexuality or the fact that he was childless (more here and here). Good for him. Note, however, that in that famous phrase from the Tract on Monetary Reform, from 1923, Keynes was still very much a conventional Marshallian author who thought that full employment would reassert itself, and that the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) worked pretty well. In fact, it is often said that the Tract was Milton Friedman's favorite among all of Keynes' books.

The full quote says:

"But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again."

The point of the quote is that in the long run everything would be fine, since markets do get to full employment, and so, even without intervention, deflation and inflation do its magic, but the process is too long and painful, so it would be more reasonable to act in the short run. This was typical of the Cambridge version of Marginalism, which was very much in favor of government intervention to deal with market imperfections in the short run. This is true of Marshal and Pigou, as well as Robertson, and certainly Keynes, before the General Theory. Note that this does not mean, as most people think, that one should only be concerned with the short run. The point is that action in the short run facilitates the road towards the fully adjusted equilibrium in the long run.

This was still essentially Keynes' view by 1930, when he published the Treatise on Money, a book that is at heart Wicksellian [so at least he got rid of the QTM in this book], and that suggests that unemployment results from a monetary rate of interest that is too high with respect to the natural rate, in practice as a result from the Gold Standard rules, which Keynes wanted to abandon. [This precedes the modern views that the Gold Standard caused the Depression, by the way, as say defended by Barry Eichengreen]. This was a cyclical crisis that could be solved by reducing the monetary rate of interest, and in the short run employment programs, something Keynes defended in Can Lloyd George Do It?

The point of the General Theory (GT) is that there is no natural rate of interest, meaning that reducing the rate of interest would not bring investment to the full employment level of savings, and that the crisis was caused by lack of demand. The equilibrium between investment and savings was determined by variations in the level of output, and in the long run we are not self adjusted to full employment. Hence, the very logic of the phrase above is debunked by Keynes, when he became Keynesian, so to speak, and got rid of the old modes of thinking. Intervention is not needed because in the long run we are dead, but because the long run depends on the short run, and we tend to fluctuate around a sub-optimal position.

So in the long run we are NOT dead in the GT, in the absence of counter-cyclical policies we are all in deep trouble. Keynes was very much concerned about the possibility of capitalism to promote well being for all in the long run. In other words, not only is Ferguson wrong about the effects of Keynes' sexuality and lack of children on his economic reasoning, but he does not even get the point of the phrase.

PS: The best book to understand the theoretical changes in Keynes' views is still Edward Amadeo's  Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand, his PhD dissertation, supervised by Murray Milgate, and co-supervised by Lance Taylor, published with an intro by Vicky Chick.