Review of Crotty's "Keynes Against Capitalism" (forthcoming in ROKE)

It should not be a surprise that John Maynard Keynes is often seen as being relatively conservative by many progressively inclined or radical economists, that often tend to prefer the views of Michal Kalecki, or the more radical approach of Keynes’ favorite disciple, Joan Robinson. That is not the case in James Crotty’s book Keynes Against Capitalism, who takes a diametrically opposite view. He tells us that: “It is almost universally believed that Keynes wrote his magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money [GT from now on], to save capitalism from the socialist, communist, and fascist forces that were rising up during the Great Depression era”, but in his view, that “was not the case with respect to socialism. The historical record shows that Keynes wanted to replace then-current capitalism in Britain with what he referred to as ‘Liberal Socialism’” (Crotty, 2019: 1-2). His Keynes was anti-capitalist and, in some sense, a socialist. The notion that Keynes was a socialist often encounters as much resistance as the notion that he was somewhat conservative, of course.

The book is divided in three parts. The first part of the book traces the development of Keynes’ ideas in the inter-war period starting with his significant role during the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles, and the publication of his instant bestseller, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, that made him a worldwide celebrity, to development of the revolutionary ideas in the GT. The second part analyzes the theoretical ideas of the GT, and how they provide the foundations for a radical and socialist remaking of British capitalism. The third and last part discusses Keynes’ program in action, in the buildup to the war, and during World War-II, and its relevance for our days.

The first part of the book suggests that the Keynesian Revolution started in the 1920s with the slow evolution of Keynes’ thinking about the problems of the British economy, and his rethinking of neoclassical economics. Crotty uses the term classical, as did Keynes, creating unnecessary confusion, in particular because of his own sympathies with Marxist economics, that builds critically on the classical surplus approach. Crotty makes an important point, often neglected in the discussions of Keynesian economics. For Keynes the need for a new theory derived from an appreciation of the historical and institutional changes of British capitalism. Crotty argues: “Keynes’s core belief [was] that the West had entered a completely new historical era in which the institutions and policies currently used to regulate economic life were totally inappropriate. He associated himself with the American institutionalist economist John R. Commons’s view that Europe and America were currently in transition to a new historical epoch in which the main task was to create a new ‘regime which deliberately aims at controlling and directing economic forces’” (Ibid.: 81).

The doctrines of laissez-faire, that were well adapted to the Victorian Era, were not suited for the world that emerged from World War-I, in which mass production, mass consumption and the rise of organized labor required a certain degree of government intervention to manage the economy. This is the best and most original part of the book, in which Crotty reminds us that: “Keynes’s enthusiastic and consistent support for state control of most large-scale capital investment is not the only ‘radical’ policy position overlooked by mainstream ‘Keynesian’ economists; his support of detailed industrial and labor-market policy has escaped their attention as well” (Ibid.: 87). The emphasis on the importance of industrial and labor policies, in particular, their direct connection with Keynes’ opposition to the return to Gold Standard and his support of the coal miners’ strike of 1926, are central to understand his need to rethink his economic theory.

However, even in this part, there is a neglect of an important element of Keynes’ trajectory, and for the development of the ideas exposed in the GT. Crotty forgets to note that Cambridge monetary theory was quite underdeveloped in the 1920s, and was based mostly on an Appendix to Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics, and his evidence to some Royal Commission, and was in fact being developed by Keynes and his colleague Dennis Robertson during the 1920s. At that point it was unclear that this was a complete rupture with Marshallian economics on monetary affairs, as much as Piero Sraffa was starting to break with the marginalist theory of value and distribution with Keynes’ support. In fact, Keynes’ thought that his book A Treatise on Money was the culmination of the development of the alternative theory, which he defended as a member of the Macmillan Committee, and that argued that the Depression resulted from the high interest rates, that prevented investment from adjusting to full employment savings, as a result of the Gold Standard. This view was perfectly compatible with neoclassical economics, even if Keynes already advocated for public works, an unorthodox policy, as a solution for the crisis.

However, it was at this point, exactly as a result of the criticism of his book by the young economists of the Circus – a group that included besides Sraffa and Robinson, the latter’s husband, Austin, Richard Kahn, and James Meade – that Keynes finally developed in 1932, relatively late, his main theoretical contribution to economics, the Principle of Effective Demand. In other words, while the 1920s were formative, it was only with the Great Depression and his immersion in pure theory in the early 1930s that Keynes finally broke with orthodoxy in theory. The fact that he changed his diagnosis of the Depression, and adopted a whole new theory right after the publication of what should have been his major theoretical work to the date, led to the traditional complain that Keynes was inconsistent and held more than one view at the same time. Friedrich Hayek and Keynes’ opponents at the London School of Economics would make a of this inconsistency one of their main criticisms of Keynesianism.

This is also relevant because it shows that Peter Clarke is correct when he argues that: “The Suggestion that he [Keynes] wrote The General Theory because he had an axe to grind in immediate policy arguments is wide of the mark” (Clarke, 1991: 163). In other words, Keynes’ views on policy issues could be defended, and in fact he did defend them in the 1920s as noted by Crotty, even before he developed the notion that changes in the level of income were the mechanism by which savings adjusted to investment, and not the other way round. The fact that Crotty suggests that the GT was written: “to convince economists and members of Britain’s intellectual, business, and political elites that the theory that informed their economic worldview and provided essential support for the disastrous conservative economic policies of the era was fundamentally flawed” (Crotty, 2019: 161) seems incorrect.

This is compounded by the fact that Crotty accepts Keynes’ theory of interest and the notion of a marginal efficiency of capital in the second part of the book, and as such is forced, as Keynes was, in particular in the famous 1937 paper in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (QJE) amply cited by Crotty, to use the argument of fundamental uncertainty to preclude the possibility that a sufficiently low interest rate would equilibrate investment to full employment savings. Crotty centers his analytical interpretation of Keynes on chapter 12 of the GT, and his defense of the GT in the QJE paper. The argument is essentially one associated with uncertainty and financial instability. In his words: “The outbreak of pessimism and the loss of confidence in the conventions that underlie expectation formation will also cast a pall over the bond market, a point Keynes also stressed in his 1937 defense of The General Theory in the QJE” (Ibid.: 266). It is clear that the abandonment of the marginalist, or neoclassical, notion of a marginal efficiency of capital would actually strengthen Crotty’s point, but for some reason he neglects the important results that followed from the capital debates in the 1960s, which were central for the completion, on a theoretical level, of the Keynesian Revolution in theory.

On the issue of Keynes’ adherence to some form of socialism, Crotty also makes a valiant case for his position. He provides copious circumstantial evidence, and quotes the famous phrase by Keynes in which he says that: “I am sure that I am less conservative than the average Labour voter; I fancy that I have played in my mind with the possibilities of greater social changes than come within the present philosophies of Mr. Sidney Webb, Mr. Thomas, or Mr. Wheatley. The republic of my imagination lies to the extreme left of celestial space” (Keynes, 1926: 308-309). The part that Crotty forgets to cite is the subsequent phrase, in which he tells us: “Yet—all the same—I feel that my true home, so long as they offer a roof and a floor, is still with the Liberals” (Ibid.). Certainly, many of Keynes’ policy proposals were radical. They moved in the direction that was compatible with socialist or social democratic views. And he recognized he had many common goals with Labour and the Fabian Socialists. But he called his views liberal socialism, and remained an Asquith New Liberal all his life.

Liberalism also spoke to Keynes political and social outlook in ways that Labour or Socialism never did. He was an elitist, the product of Eton and King’s College, Cambridge, and a member of the Apostles and the Bloomsbury group. To some extent Labour reciprocated. Philp Snowden, Labour’s first chancellor of the exchequer, was a committed defender of the Treasury View, and an avowed anti-Keynesian. Hugh Dalton, Clement Atlee’s first chancellor of the exchequer, was averse to Keynesian policies, and for him Keynesianism: “was virtually a deathbed conversion, for only in his fourth, final, fatal Budget of November 1947 did he explicitly relate his measures, which stepped taxes across the board, to the problem of controlling inflation… The paradox is that a Keynesian approach was directed chiefly to the problem of keeping demand down, not up” (Clarke, 1991: 186-87). But if there is a future for socialism, Crotty’s view that Keynes’ ideas remain relevant is correct, and there could be no sensible socialism without a good dose of Keynesianism.

References:

Clarke, P. 1991. A Question of Leadership: Gladstone to Thatcher, London: Hamish Hamilton.

Crotty, J. 2019. Keynes Against Capitalism: His Economic Case for Liberal Socialism, London: Routledge.

Keynes, J. M. 1926. “Liberalism and Labour,” in A. Robinson and D. Moggridge (eds.), The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes: Essays in Persuasion, Volume IX, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

"The Question of Confidence" According to Marriner Eccles

From an address at a Conference on "Debt, Taxation, and Inflation" organized by the Wharton Institute of the University of Pennsylvania in May 8, 1936, and held at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York. In his words:

"Leaving aside plans which involved fundamental and far-reaching changes in our whole economic organization, the solutions offered to the country in 1933 were of two main types. On the one hand there were those who contended that all that was needed was the restoration of confidence. They insisted that it was essential to balance the budget... On the other hand there were those who, like myself, felt that recovery in the present situation could only be achieved by bold and aggressive intervention by the government, largely through underpinning the entire private credit structure which had collapsed, and undertaking to restore purchasing power through relief, public expenditures and other measures.
...
What businessman would have added to his plant, when he already possessed a great amount of excess capacity, merely because he read that the budget had been balanced? It is difficult to understand why people would be expected to invest money in new enterprise when existing investments were becoming less profitable every day. It should not require any great insight to understand that a reduction of government expenditures while everybody else as a matter of self-protection was being forced to reduce expenditures, could only accentuate the processes of deflation by reducing buying power.
...
A belief that industry would have voluntarily entered upon capital expenditures in 1933 if the government had restricted its expenditures and raised taxes is unrealistic to the highest degree. It displays an utter miscomprehension of the considerations that influence a business man in planning expenditures. There must be reason to believe that capital expenditures can be profitably made before they are undertaken."

Note that this argument builds on a clear comprehension of the accelerator mechanism. Firms buy machines when  they expect demand to increase and, hence, higher profits. In this sense, the empirical evidence on the accelerator should be relevant not just to show that low interest rates are not sufficient for expanding demand, but also to put a nail in the coffin of the confidence fairy. Austerity hurts confidence and private investment.

Ideology, theory and investment

Krugman is basically correct in today's New York Times to argue that investment is low because of ideology. In his words, the "inability to invest doesn’t reflect something wrong with 'Washington'; it reflects the destructive ideology that has taken over the Republican Party", which ultimately is based on "an overwhelming hostility to government spending of any kind." And he is also correct that the solution would be the "obvious policy response to this situation: public investment."

The graph below shows Gross Capital Formation (investment) as a share of GDP. It is at a low level indeed. And the recovery since the Great Recession has been moderate at best.

Krugman in his post seems to suggest that, since "America has been awash in savings" and there is a "mismatch between desired saving and the willingness to invest", then this is what "has kept the economy depressed." Notice that this diagnostic would be perfectly compatible with the confidence fairy that he argues always against. If the government didn't cause investors to be unwilling to invest, everything would be okay, or so the argument would go (remember that Krugman likes his fairies too; in his argument the Fed has to increase the expectations of future inflation and that would lead to investment), since savings are large enough to finance investment.

Note that, as discussed several times in this blog, investment basically responds to income growth (in all fairness sometimes Krugman remembers this, and his column today says correctly that "Corporations are earning huge profits, but are reluctant to invest in the face of weak consumer demand"). The accelerator works. So investment is low because the recovery is weak. That's why government spending is the solution. Because the Federal government can inject autonomous spending. That also means that savings is the endogenous variable (autonomous spending, which includes public investment, determines income, and the part not consumed of income would be saved).

It is important to get this right to avoid the confidence fairy argument. Not just ideology has been a problem, but also the reluctance of reasonable mainstream economists to part with the neoclassical theory of investment, in which the latter depends on its productivity and, hence, its remuneration (or expected remuneration). In this sense, as I have said before, Krugman's arguments would be more coherent, and stronger from the point of view of evidence, if he parted with neoclassical theory. On the ideology front he is fine, he knows that sometimes government is the solution.

On Paul Krugman and his call to stop listening to paranoid inflationists

From Alternet:

It’s been nearly six years since the demise of Lehman Brothers “ushered in the worst economic crisis since the 1930s,” and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman would like to move on. But he can’t, and by extension we can’t, because recovery is nowhere near complete. And going for the wrong policies at this moment of fragile improvement but enduring “economic weakness” would spell disaster, and possibly “permanent depression,” according to Krugman. The years since the start of the crisis have been largely defined by two camps, the “too-muchers” and “not-enoughers,” The too-muchers have warned incessantly that the things governments and central banks are doing to limit the depth of the slump are setting the stage for something even worse. Deficit spending, they suggested, could provoke a Greek-style crisis any day now —  within two years, declared Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles some three and a half years ago. Asset purchases by the Federal Reserve would “risk currency debasement and inflation,” declared a who’s who economists, investors, and pundits in a 2010 open letter to Ben Bernanke.

Read rest here.

Baker & Bernstein on The Incipient Inflation Freak-out

By Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein 

As predictable as August vacations, numerous economists and Federal Reserve watchers are arguing that the nation’s central bank must raise interest rates or risk an outbreak of spiraling inflation. Their campaign has heated up a bit in recent months, as one can cherry pick an indicator or two showing slightly faster growth in prices or wages. But an objective analysis of the recent data, along with longer-term wage trends, reveals that the stakes of premature tightening are unacceptably high. The vast majority of the population depends on their paychecks, not their stock portfolios. If the Fed were to slam on the breaks by raising interest rates as soon as workers started to see some long-awaited real wage gains, it would be acting to prevent most of the country from seeing improvements in living standards. To understand why continued support from the Fed is unlikely to be inflationary, consider three factors: the current state of key variables, the mechanics of inflationary pressures and the sharp rise in profits as a share of national income in recent years, along with its corollary, the fall in the compensation share.

Read rest here.

Notes on the Policy Implications of the New Macroeconomic Consensus

The New Macroeconomic Consensus (NMC) model is based on three simple equations. An IS equation that, contrary to what most discussions within the heterodoxy suggest, is based on a Ramsey model intertemporal approach to savings and investment, a Phillips curve (PC) equation, normally with rational expectations, and a monetary policy (MP) rule, typically Taylor’s rule. From the IS and the MP an aggregate demand (AD) curve is derived, while the PC provides an aggregate supply (AS) curve, similar to Lucas’ supply curve. Business cycles are seen as being determined by shocks, either monetary, that affect the AD curve, or real, which impact the AS curve.

A few things are important to note with respect to the NMC model. First, the IS curve now is not based on the traditional Keynesian multiplier process, by which savings adjust to investment (or in more sophisticated models with endogenous investment, to autonomous demand) as a result of variations to the income level. Agents make intertemporal decisions on consumption and savings, and investment adjusts, in the absence of imperfections, to full employment savings as in the pre-Keynesian models. That is the reason why in order to stimulate the economy it is often suggested that what is needed is higher inflationary expectations (which in this framework could be caused by the central bank announcing a higher inflation target), which would in turn lead to an increase in current consumption (since inflation would reduce future consumption possibilities; see my critique of this view, which I refer to as the inflation expectations fairy, here).

Second, both the New Keynesian Phillips Curve and the Taylor rule presuppose the existence of a natural rate of unemployment, in line with Milton Friedman. Further, stabilizing the rate of inflation around its target is tantamount to stabilizing output around its full employment level, a result sometimes referred to as the ‘Divine Coincidence.’ Thus, inflation is always the result of a level of unemployment that is below its natural level, or in other words caused by demand-pull. Supply-side shocks may eventually cause inflation too, but those are seen, at least by most New Keynesians as being of secondary importance. Even Lucas, who has accepted for the most part the Real Business Cycle story, admits that one cannot explain the Great Depression and other such crises with real shocks.

Third, the MP rule implies that money is endogenous, and that central banks control the rate of interest and NOT the quantity of money. In other words, the old Monetarist rules about the rate of growth of money supply are out, since actual central banks very rarely have behaved in that way. This ‘innovation’ (not much of an invention since Wicksell used more than a century ago) within the mainstream took place without ever acknowledging the contributions of Kaldor (accomodationist tradition to endogenous money), Minsky (financial innovation tradition to endogenous money), Moore and other post-Keynesian authors.

Finally, it is rather clear that the NMC is essentially a neo-Wicksellian model (for a simple description go here), rather than Keynesian (New or otherwise). Not only the multiplier model was abandoned (and with it even the basis for fiscal policy activism, since the logic of Barro’s Ricardian Equivalence has been incorporated; see Wren-Lewis here), but also the concept of the natural rate that Keynes at least tried to get rid of has become central for policy analysis. And here is the Achilles’ heel of the NMC model.

Note that if the natural rate is not fixed, and in particular if it presents hysteresis or path dependence, and moves with the actual level of unemployment, then the basis of the NMC model falls apart. In other words, expanding demand might reduce the natural rate of unemployment and would not trigger inflation, and as a result would not require the central bank to hike the rate of interest to lean against the wind. That was, in a sense, the rationale for not hiking the rate of interest when unemployment fell below 6%, which many identified as the natural rate, during the Clinton boom. Greenspan suggested that productivity was going up (note that he didn’t necessarily say that productivity went up, and the natural rate down, as a result of the expansion of demand).

There are good logical reasons for not believing the natural rate story, as we know, associated to the limitations of the marginalist theory (see here). However, there are also reasonably well-established empirical problems with the natural rate hypothesis. The Real Business Cycles authors, in particular Nelson and Plosser in their classic paper (here), have long ago shown that output follows a random walk. In other words, changes in output are permanent, and there is no tendency for output to revert to its former trend following a shock, contradicting the natural rate hypothesis, or suggesting if one prefers that the natural rate moves with supply-side shocks and that the business cycle is the result of agents adjusting their behavior to the change in the natural rate.

As I noted before (here), the actual measure of productivity (Total Factor Productivity, TFP) used by RBC authors does NOT measure productivity, and most of their conclusions are irrelevant really. Also, as suggested above, it would be impossible to pin down the real shock that caused the Great Depression or the Great Recession, that have structural causes that are profound (in the patterns of consumption, private indebtedness and inequality) and that were triggered by financial shocks. However, the notion that the natural rate is not fixed, and that it changes significantly is actually quite important, since as we indicated, it suggests that policies that try to lean against the wind hiking the rate of interest when the economy is below the natural rate of unemployment are without foundation.

Heterodox authors would add to the RBC empirical observation about the fact that output is not mean reverting, that the supply or capacity limit of the economy is endogenously determined by autonomous spending (the supermultiplier that extends Keynes’ effective demand to explain potential output; for more go here). This does NOT mean that one can expand the economy without limits, since if the expansion of demand is faster than the movement of the capacity limit, eventually full employment would be reached and inflation (demand-pull inflation) might follow. Note, however, than since the 1930s in the US unemployment was below 4% (to say a relatively low number) only for four short periods, during the mid-40s, early 50s, late 60s and late 90s, with inflation occurring in the first three periods. Also, it suggests that the main barrier to the use of demand policies to achieve full employment, at least in developed countries with no balance of payments problems, is political. As Kalecki noted long ago, sound finance would be the political instrument to keep workers’ demands for higher wages in line. The NMC model is the modern incarnation of what Kalecki’s referred to as sound finance. So who is really surprised with the dominance of austerity policies?

Paul Krugman's The Phony Fear Factor

Much has been said on how economic demagoguery continues to reign supreme, particularly by heterodox writers, so I won't delve much into this topic. Nevertheless, it is interesting to see that in his NYT op-ed, Paul Krugman, a pretty mainstream economist, disparages the 'confidence fairy' by citing Kalecki's “Political Aspects of Full Employment” (a Monthly Review link, interestingly enough). Though, Krugman somehow can't see much of Marx in Kalecki...does he not want to see it?

From the article:

"We live in a golden age of economic debunkery; fallacious doctrines have been dropping like flies. No, monetary expansion needn’t cause hyperinflation. No, budget deficits in a depressed economy don’t cause soaring interest rates. No, slashing spending doesn’t create jobs. No, economic growth doesn’t collapse when debt exceeds 90 percent of G.D.P. And now the latest myth bites the dust: No, “economic policy uncertainty” — created, it goes without saying, by That Man in the White House — isn’t holding back the recovery. 

First, however, I want to recommend a very old essay that explains a great deal about the times we live in.The Polish economist Michal Kalecki published "Political Aspects of Full Employment" 70 years ago. Keynesian ideas were riding high; a “solid majority” of economists believed that full employment could be secured by government spending. Yet Kalecki predicted that such spending would, nonetheless, face fierce opposition from business and the wealthy, even in times of depression. Why?"

Read rest here.

PS: Check also this earlier entry on Kalecki's paper.

Larry Summers should not be appointed to the Fed

There are increasing rumors that Larry Summers rather than Janet Yellen might be chosen to substitute Ben Bernanke as the head of the Fed. Dean Baker has summarized all the correct reasons for not doing so. As he says:

"Summers was a key actor in the Clinton economic team that pushed for bigger and less regulated banks. He was there for the repeal of Glass-Steagall. He was also among those hectoring Brooksley Born, when the then head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission argued that it would be a good idea to regulate derivatives. And he famously ridiculed as Luddites those warning of the risks of financial deregulation at the Fed's Greenspanfest in 2005."

I'm less keen than Dean on the issue of US trade deficits, since in my view global imbalances are actually too small (the US would need to stimulate global demand and actually run higher deficits, which given the role of the dollar would have no significant impact on the American economy).

Also, the Money Illusion blog notes the Summers rumors, while also including a particular quote from Summers that is instructive. Summers said:

"In the model I understand, inflation is mostly driven by demand, and when you increase demand, you increase inflation. And if you don’t increase demand, you don’t increase inflation. But if you’ve solved demand, you’ve solved your problem."

This is basically a result of the believe in the natural rate. Inflation results only from a level of activity that is beyond the natural rate. The Money Illusion is correct in pointing out that this confuses changes in quantities with changes in prices. However, this is in fact probably a problem with all the candidates to the position of Fed chairperson, since they are all from the mainstream.

That's why even Krugman [which the Money Illusion thinks doesn't have the right personality to chair the Fed, why because Summers does?] wants to increase inflationary expectations to raise demand. The confidence fairy is very pervasive.

PS: The Money Illusion has a list of the candidates that would be even better than Yellen (preferred to Summers), namely: "Lars Svensson, Mark Carney, Michael Woodford, Christina Romer, Robert Hetzel, Nick Rowe, anyone from the Reserve Bank of Australia, even the janitor ... Greg Mankiw ... [and] I could even add Krugman." I don't know the janitor, but it seems reasonable. If I had to choose one it would be Jamie Galbraith. Hope springs eternal!

PS: Pablo Bortz (h/t) pointed out this post by Yves Smith that somehow I missed.

Harry Dexter White on Austerity and Confidence Fairies

There is a fantastic and incredibly modern quote from White in Benn Steil's book on Bretton Woods:

"The cry of “loss of confidence” is largely a smokescreen let loose by certain conservatives who are traditionally opposed to almost any Government expenditure, who object to any increase in taxes, and are too shortsighted to know that the perpetuation of the present level of unemployment constitutes de most dangerous threat to their own interests ... The statement that the bond market could not absorb Government bonds has been made ever since the first unbalanced budget, yet today Government bond prices in the United States are higher than ever. ... If [companies] do not employ the potential purchasing power [of the unemployed], the Government can do so at virtually no expense to the community."

Of course several would dismiss White as a commie spy, even though the best evidence is that we do not know if he was a spy at all. But it's easier to blacklist Keynesians as commies than to deal with their arguments.

Dude seriously, it's the accelerator

Once again I get to discuss on whether investment depends on 'animal spirits', Schumpeterian entrepreneurialism or other confidence fairies. The evidence, as I noted here before, is quite overwhelming in favor of a simple and logical empirical regularity, namely: the accelerator. Below the last results from the Fair Model.

KK is the capital stock, RBA is the bond rate, and Y is income. Note that the coefficient on bond interests is insignificant, both statistically and in economic terms. What drives the change in the capital stock are the contemporaneous and lagged changes in the levels of income (demand). This is not only in the data, but is also quite logical. It says that firms increase their capital stock when demand increases (note that firms have always some spare capacity, so they are looking for permanent increases in demand). If there is no increasing demand there is no need to invest.

Not a surprising result, unless you for some other reason need the Superman theory of investment, in which the firm, the entrepreneur, the job creator is the hero that will save humanity from its mediocrity [have you been reading Ayn Rand again?].

PS: Ray Fair model uses the old Cowles Commission approach to macroeconometrics, which is much better than the new Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models, that rely more heavily on calibration rather than estimation. He discusses the issue here.

How is that confidence thing working for you?

One comic strip is worth a thousand words. Nough said!

Krugman and the natural rate again

Krugman again (re-channeling Hicks) restates his argument that the problem with the US economy is that the natural rate of interest is negative. Note that he also admits, as did recently Goldman Sachs or anybody that looks at data, that the accelerator is what determines investment. Not only his stance has serious logical problems, but also it weakens his own arguments about confidence fairies and so on. And there is no empirical evidence favoring the view that in any period, not just now, non residential investment is significantly affected by variations of the rate of interest. But yes we do need more fiscal expansion, even if lack of full employment is not simply a market failure.

PS: Note that Krugman's second graph, showing the equilibrium of I and S with a negative natural rate, implies that either we had a negative shock to I or a positive shock to S. That is, either a negative productivity shock or a change in preferences about present and future consumption. Real shocks. So what, now he is a Real Business Cycle (RBC) guy? Just drop the natural rate already. Evidence and logic require it.

The natural rate is 6.5%

At least according to the Fed's new press release. The release says:

"the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal."

So if unemployment falls below 6.5% expect higher rates of interest, associated to what would be in Bernanke's view the risk of excess demand.

Note that the inflation target continues to be 2%, so even Blanchard's mild-mannered rethinking of macroeconomics (that Krugman and others having been pushing) for a higher inflation target has not been accepted by Bernanke. Obama should get rid of Bernanke next time he has the chance.

PS: In contrasting news the Reserve Bank of India seems to be suggesting, at least according to The Economist, that it would raise its inflation target above 5%. Good for them.

Sraffa and the Confidence Fairy

Sraffa's views on macroeconomic issues are difficult to gather since he didn't directly write on the issue. However, there is some evidence that he believed in the accelerator, that is, the idea that investment is induced demand, depending on variations of the level of income. Franklin Serrano points out the following passage in a paper by Terenzio Cozzi (my translation, so remember that in this case it is true that il traduttore è un traditore):

“In the spring of 1963 or in the fall of 1964, I asked Sraffa why he had chosen to take as a given, not the real wage, but the rate of profit, and had suggested that the level of the latter could be influenced in particular by the monetary rate of interest. He replied that in the past entrepreneurs, in deciding how much to invest, were strongly influenced by the general state of economy and how the level of activity evolved in recent periods. At the first sign of a decline in production levels, they decided to stop investing. Now, however – we are in 63 or 64 – the entrepreneurs expect that the authorities will still be able to adjust the performance of the system back to its normal growth path. Even bankers think in this way. That's why the interest rate is an indicator of the normal rate of profit. And that's also why the fluctuations of the past are no more, and economic growth is stabler.” Terenzio Cozzi (1986), “Un teoria con un grado di libertà,” in Riccardo Bellofiore (a cura di) Tra teoria economica e grande cultura europea: Piero Sraffa, Franco Angeli, Milano, p. 208.

In the original:

“Nella primavera del 1963 o nell' autunno del 1964, ho chiesto a Sraffa come mai egli avesso preferito assumere come dato, non il tasso di salario, ma il tasso di profitto e avesse sostenoto que che il livello de quest'ultimo poteva essere influenziato in particolare dai livelli dei tassi dell' interesse monetario. Mi rispose che nel passato gli imprenditori , nel decidere quanto investire, erano fortemente influenziati dall' andamento generali dell' economia e da come si erano manifestati questi andamenti nei periodi ricenti. Al primo accenno di caduta di livelli produttivi, decidevano bloccare gli investimenti. Attualmente invece - siamo nel 63' o 64' - essi si aspettano che la autorità saranno comunque in grado di regolare l' andamento del sistema riportandolo in condizioni di crescita normale. Si aspettano, quindi, che la redditività dei loro investimenti tornerà rapidamente al livello normale. Anche i banchieri ragionano in questo modo. Ecco perché i tassi di interesse rappresentano un indicatori del tasso di profitto normale. Ed ecco perché questo non ha piu' le oscillazioni del passato, e cosi la crescita del sistema è piu' stabile.”

No doubt that Sraffa didn't believe in confidence fairies.

Romney's economic plan and the confidence fairy

Romney's economic plan is out, and not surprisingly is all about confidence fairies. Glenn Hubbard, one of the co-authors (with John B. Taylor, Greg Mankiw and Kevin Hassett) argues in the Wall Street Journal that the recession has been caused by uncertainty. In his words:

As a consequence, uncertainty over policy—particularly over tax and regulatory policy—slowed the recovery and limited job creation. ...  the Obama administration's large and sustained increases in debt raise the specter of another financial crisis and large future tax increases, further chilling business investment and job creation.

So too much regulations and spending is what is causing the slow recovery. This is interestingly enough what the manuals of Hubbard, Mankiw or Taylor would say (all are supposedly New Keynesian economists, whatever that means), which still present the simple Keynesian model in which spending determines the level of output (the old 45o degree Hansen model, which encapsulates the logic of the multiplier).

So what is the solution for these GOP New Keynesians? Four points:
growth and recovery first, and it stands on four main pillars:

• Stop runaway federal spending and debt. The governor's plan would reduce federal spending as a share of GDP to 20%—its pre-crisis average—by 2016. This would dramatically reduce policy uncertainty over the need for future tax increases, thus increasing business and consumer confidence.

• Reform the nation's tax code to increase growth and job creation. The Romney plan would reduce individual marginal income tax rates across the board by 20%, while keeping current low tax rates on dividends and capital gains. The governor would also reduce the corporate income tax rate—the highest in the world—to 25%. In addition, he would broaden the tax base to ensure that tax reform is revenue-neutral.

• Reform entitlement programs to ensure their viability. The Romney plan would gradually reduce growth in Social Security and Medicare benefits for more affluent seniors and give more choice in Medicare programs and benefits to improve value in health-care spending. It would also block grant the Medicaid program to states to enable experimentation that might better serve recipients.

• Make growth and cost-benefit analysis important features of regulation. The governor's plan would remove regulatory impediments to energy production and innovation that raise costs to consumers and limit new job creation. He would also work with Congress toward repealing and replacing the costly and burdensome Dodd–Frank legislation and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Romney alternatives will emphasize better financial regulation and market-oriented, patient-centered health-care reform.

In short, reduce taxes (the effective corporate income tax is well below 25% and several corporations do not pay much or anything in fact), which mainly helps the wealthy, and has little impact on income, cut spending (contradicting what they teach), cut and privatize Social Security and health programs, and more deregulation. The non sequitur with cutting welfare programs or the craziness (or dishonesty) of arguing for deregulation (eliminate Dodd-Frank) even if they call this disingenuously 'better financial regulation' is astonishing. And yes the idea is that somehow all these measures would create an environment in which job creators would feel safe to invest.

Brad DeLong and Menzie Chinn do a great job debunking this terribly poor and dangerous economic plan.

The real world vs. the confidence fairy

By Paul Davidson

Recently I went to a well-known restaurant in Evanston, Illinois. This restaurant has a reputation for providing excellent food and service. But the night I was there, it was less than half full. I asked the manager if he would he hire more waiters and chefs if his taxes were reduced and/or government removed the existing regulations controlling the way his restaurant could operate. His answer was that even if his taxes were reduced and regulations eliminated, he would only hire more staff if more customers came in for dinner. On the other hand, if there were twice as many customers for dinners than there were on this night (and there were many more customers before the recession began in 2007) he would gladly double the number of workers he employed even if his taxes were not reduced or regulations changed.

Read the rest here.

Heterodox and Mainstream Economics: The Great Confusion

Simon Wren-Lewis has a post on heterodox versus mainstream macroeconomics in which he seems surprised by what he calls the Great Divide between the two groups. He claims to be sympathetic to the heterodox project, at least along the lines of Steve Keen, but argues that the "rejectionist strategy is of course unlikely to win friends within the mainstream."

Wren-Lewis also suggests that a Minsky model developed by Keen (which according to Keen was rejected by several mainstream journals) is very similar to his ideas, but he fails to note that the Keen's model, as well as Minsky's theory, does not include a crucial characteristic of mainstream models, New Keynesian (NK), New Classical (NC), Real Business Cycle (RBC) and New Neoclassical Synthesis (NNS) alike, namely: Friedman's natural rate hypothesis.*

If you accept that cycles are just a shock (monetary or real) to an optimal trend and that the only thing that prevents the return of the economy to its optimal level is some sort of rigidity, then the obvious solution, at least in the long run, is to eliminate the rigidities. By the way, that is the reason why the NKs and NNSs authors end up believing in a confidence fairy, very much like NCs and RBCs authors. The NK and NNS fairy being about higher inflation expectations allowing for more investment demand, rather than directly about the less uncertainty allowing for more investment.

Wren-Lewis' confusion is to assume that the proximity of heterodox Keynesian groups and NKs like him on policy issues implies that on a deeper theoretical level there must be agreement too, and that this does not happen because of the sectarian nature of the heterodoxy.

Krugman's views, by the way, are very similar, in the sense that he seems to not quite understand why he is not seen as Keynesian by some heterodox economists. In a recent post, he argues that:

"Some devotees of Keynes claim that people like me aren’t really Keynesians – and while there are some serious grounds for the charge, part of the reason is precisely that we’ve treated Keynes as an inspiration to be modified in the face of evidence rather than as holy writ."

The confusion is incredible. Keynes himself accepted some neoclassical ideas that made his argument limited and heterodox authors actually have discarded a lot of Keynesian concepts (I myself believe that both the marginal efficiency of capital and liquidity preference are highly problematic, but that is material for other posts). The problem with Krugman is that he maintains (yes you guessed) the natural rate (a concept that a least Keynes wanted to drop from his theory), and suggests that unemployment and the recession are caused by the downward rigidity of the interest rate (a liquidity trap), propositions for which there is little evidence. Krugman is the one that treats neoclassical principles (the idea that a natural rate exists) as holy writ!

Both Krugman and Wren-Lewis seem to believe that economics (and science) is about convincing the others on a political level and are puzzled by the fact that heterodox do not fall in line with the NKs. That is why a less rejectionist, to use Wren-Lewis term, strategy is suggested (a similar view by Colander is criticized here). The problem is that evidence and logic (for the logical critique of the natural rate you must get the capital debates) suggest that the natural rate does not exist. Don't get me wrong, on political issues most heterodox authors are with Krugman, Wren-Lewis and company, against austerity, but science implies (as Krugman himself notes) adherence to facts.

So why don't NKs just renounce to the idea of a natural rate once and for all. For one they would make lots of friends within the heterodox community, which is way ahead in understanding the crisis (and foreseeing it too), and also would make their models more realistic.

* I have my own troubles with the kind of model presented in that paper by Keen, which are related to his profit driven investment function, but that is better discussed in another post.

Has Econ 101 done just fine?

Krugman tells us that:

"huge government deficits could fail to raise interest rates in a depressed economy ... is what Econ 101 said – and it has been completely right. Basic IS-LM macro also said that under these conditions printing lots of money would not be inflationary, and that cutting government spending sharply would cause the economy to shrink. All of this has come true. So Econ 101 has done just fine ..."

Note, however, that Krugman basically believes that this is the case because the economy is in a liquidity trap, and the natural rate of interest for him is negative. That is, the rate of interest that would stimulate enough investment to bring about full employment savings is below zero. As I have argued here there are several empirical and logical reasons why one should doubt that kind of imperfectionist argument.

So, yes the Old Keynesians policy prescriptions do work, and have done quite well, even if their theories do fail miserably, as much as any other neoclassical approach that presumes that markets work by the magic of supply and demand producing optimal outcomes.

And that is also why what we need is not more monetary stimulus, or any hocus pocus to convince investors that inflation is going to be higher. We need more demand. And as Paul Davidson said in his reply to Tyler Cowen, only the government can do this now:

"if the government were to let contracts for, say, $1 trillion to private enterprise to rebuild our failing highways, bridges, and municipal water and sewage systems, and provide resources for our shrinking public and higher education systems, this would quickly restore companies’ confidence in the profit opportunities that are available if they hire workers and buy materials from other United States companies. When these newly hired workers go out and spend their wages, the confidence of United States retailers would immediately surge as these additional customers break down the doors to get at the merchandise on the shelves.  Nothing will build the confidence and trust of business and workers quicker than the continuous ringing of cash registers."

So Paul, that has complained about Econ 101 for a long time, is quite correct. We need spending and not the inflation expectations fairy.

PS: On my views on the ISLM go here.

Can we stop talking about inflation when we mean output growth?

Brad DeLong has a nice post on the euro crisis. Q&A session with himself (and yes he throws himself some soft balls, but hey those are relevant questions!). However, he says on the third question:

"(3) Q: How Should Greece Balance Its Spending on Imports and Its Exports Going Forward?
A: Borrowing to cover the gap between imports and exports that exists at current exchange rates and price and wage levels is not going to happen, so Greece has a choice between (a) deep prolonged depression to make Greeks too poor to afford imports, (b) Grexit, devaluation, and a subsequent export boom, and (c ) Germans opening up the monetary spigots to produce higher inflation in northern Europe and meanwhile giving Greece an additional fortune to keep the pain in Greece low enough for adjustment to take place within the Eurozone framework (emphasis added)."

If Germany actually went for fiscal expansion (or even monetary) and more demand for goods and services, including a few Greek ones (more olive oil, and a few more sunny vacations) it would not lead to inflation. Unless somebody thinks Germany is close to full capacity and growing fast. Why Keynesians have accepted the inflation expectations fairy is beyond me!

Fed up with the full empoyment target?

The debate on Bernanke's views on inflation targeting -- whether it should be 2 or 4% -- as I noted in a previous post is peculiar, to say the least. After all the Fed has a dual mandate, and inflation preoccupations have to be tempered by the pressing question of unemployment. The preoccupation in some quarters is that the Fed has already accepted as a matter of fact that it has single mandate (see here and here). It seems to me that critics (e.g. Krugman, DeLong and others) are correct for the wrong reasons.

The graph below shows the effective Fed Funds rate in the last three recessions (represented by the shaded areas). The rate of interest falls in all three during or just before the recession.

Further, after the trough of the recession the Greenspan Fed took 46 and 35 months to start raising the rate in the previous two recessions. So far, 35 months after the last trough, the Bernanke Fed has not increased the rate. This time around it has done Quantitative Easing allowing for lower long term rates too, which was not done during the Greenspan era. If anything the Fed has done more now than under Greenspan, and unless you believe in the inflation expectations fairy, the old Eccles maxim is still true, monetary policy now is like pushing on a string.

So how is that critics of the Fed are correct and I believe that the dual mandate (full employment and inflation) is gone. Well look at the graph below. It shows the Fed Funds, again, with the 10 year Treasury bonds rate.

Notice that the Fed eventually raises the Fed Funds sufficiently to surpass the bond rate, and invert the yield curve. The point is to slowdown the economy, and avoid full employment. Even in the 1990s, when Greenspan allowed the bubble to continue and unemployment to fall below the then official limit of 6%, he eventually took action, when wages started to increase. Full employment has not been a target, but keeping workers demands for higher wages checked has been very much part of the reaction function. Jamie Galbraith has written about it (go here for a technical paper). So the Fed has a single target mandate, but is not an inflation target, it is a "fear of full employment target."

The Fed can do practical things like helping distressed borrowers (with defaulted or underwater mortgages), but it cannot directly increase spending, and in the absence of private spenders (domestic or foreign), or local governments, it must be the federal government. Bernanke is not the problem right now. Geithner is (and so is Congress).

PS: The New Keynesian view that if you increase expected inflation spending goes up is now defended by Brad DeLong. He says: "an extra $100 billion of quantitative easing boosts the expected price level ten years hence by 1%--and boosts expected inflation after the next decade by an average of 0.1%/year. That is enough to spur higher spending and a more rapid and satisfactory recovery." I'm not against QE per se, the idea of maintaining long term rates low. But the notion that it would lead to inflation (printing money generates inflation) and that expected inflation generates a boost in productive spending is clearly another confidence fairy story.