Capital controls in the US?

In a recent Financial Times op-ed, Michael Pettis argued that the US should impose capital controls. In his view, the traditional view according to which capital inflows necessarily lower domestic interest rates and spur productive investment is based on a misunderstanding of how capital flows affect modern economies. This might have been true for rapidly growing developing economies with high investment needs and limited domestic savings, where foreign capital truly relieved a saving constraint. However, since the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, modern financial systems can expand credit largely unconstrained. In this environment, capital inflows into advanced economies like the US, do not primarily finance new, productive investments.

In the modern context, capital inflows often lead to an increase in household or fiscal debt. Policymakers use this credit growth to sustain domestic demand and prevent recessions that would otherwise be caused by the leakage of demand abroad due to trade deficits. This is a "beggar thy neighbour" dynamic -- a term coined by Joan Robinson, and the reason she appears in the FT piece, even though she was referring to competitive depreciation and trade restrictions, not capital flows -- where trade deficits are caused by shifts in spending to foreign goods, forcing domestic businesses to reduce output. Further, this reliance on rising household or fiscal debt to absorb foreign capital inflows and the resulting trade deficits is unsustainable in the long run. It leads to rising debt levels and distorted economic structures. He concludes that restricting capital inflows would directly address the problem of aligning a country's external position with its domestic needs.

There are many problems with these views. On a theoretical level, he does suggest, as Vicky Chick in a paper that Lance Taylor liked and used in his courses, in the earlier period savings was necessary for investment. Essentially Say's Law. That is certainly not the case. Even in the 19th century, with less developed financial markets, banks had the ability to create credit, and savings (a flow) did not finance investment. Also, interest rates do not depend on the capital flows and the available funds, and are essentially an exogenous variable controlled to a great extent by the monetary authority (that was true in the past too).

More importantly, it is unclear that the external situation of the US, indebted in its own currency is unsustainable. What is the problem that this would be solving? There is no fiscal problem either, irrespective of the downgrade of US debt by Moody's recently (Standard & Poor's and Fitch had done it years ago). In fact, capital controls would affect the international role of the dollar and would be a major misstep, since it would directly affect the ability of foreigners to use dollars, and restrict its use in international financial markets. Not that this would have any chance of happening with Bessent, a Wall Street operator, as Treasury Secretary.

Private debt (not public) is considerably more dangerous than public debt, since when the government gets indebted, if it uses the money to promote growth, it directly affects its ability to pay back the debt, since its revenue is tied to the level of economic activity. That is why public debt tends to fall not by cutting spending and promoting adjustment and reducing the amount of debt, but by promoting growth and reducing the relevance of debt with respect to ability to repay. So, Pettis is not incorrect in noting that the US has depended more on private debt, which is riskier. But capital controls would do little to limit this dynamic. Policies that expand the remuneration (wages) of the people at the bottom (i.e. better income distribution) and that are more lenient with private debtors would have better results.

Regulation of financial markets too should play a role. In particular, the predatory lending practices that are still rampant in the US more than a decade and half after the 2008-9 financial crisis. But in all fairness, if there is something the US can do to grow faster and avoid financial problems, it would simply be more spending (perhaps a mix of infrastructure and social transfers) and lower interest rates. One can hope.

Brad DeLong Principles of Stabilization Policy and their Application

The 8th Godley-Tobin Lecture in full. No edits, and not the best lighting, but audio and images of PowerPoint are clear.

On the AS/AD model and the micro/macro relation

I promised to discuss Nick Rowe's claim that one must start with Aggregate Demand and Supply (AS/AD) to explain macroeconomics. Nick's argument is that the AS/AD model is useful to analyze monetary economies, and he quite correctly points out that money must be part of the discussion from the start. In his words:

And if you don't start with money, monetary exchange, and AD and AS, you are doing macro wrong. Because the only thing that makes macro different from micro general equilibrium theory is the fact that macro incorporates the fact of monetary exchange, which microeconomists ignore.

While I tend to agree that macro should deal directly with monetary economies, it's far from clear that the only difference between macro and General Equilibrium (GE) micro is the existence of money. But before I get to that a few things about the AS/AD model in general and Nick's suggestions.

Sure money matters, but it's worth remembering that the basic macro principle, the idea of effective demand and the multiplier can be described without directly discussing money. Sure, Keynes noted that effective demand works in a monetary economy of production, and suggested that it was similar to Marx's capitalism (M-C-M') in the drafts of the General Theory (GT). But that was just to note that that the process of production is not about consumption, but about accumulation, something relevant for debunking Say's Law.

But the idea that investment (in this case as a proxy for autonomous spending) determines savings, and the adjustment process results from increases in income, does not require a previous discussion of money. So much so that Keynes himself suggests that he only came up with the theory of liquidity preference, and the monetary rate of interest, after the development of the multiplier (and his version the psychological law, and the propensity to consume below one; Kalecki does it by the share of income going to wages below one, and with workers consuming all their income).

So why is AS/AD important in my view, you may ask. I actually start with the Quantity Theory of Money to provide an AD curve (as suggested by Nick; but he prefers to make M endogenous as in a Wicksellian model), and a simple production function and labor market story for a vertical AS at the natural level of output to describe the neoclassical model. Exactly to show that in this case output is supply constrained and money does not matter. And that would contrast with the Keynesian view of a demand determined level of income and employment, and a world in which money matters.*

The worst part of using the AS/AD framework is that most students will mechanically believe in something along those lines, and in particular the notion that the two curves are independent. And even though by the end of the course I try to emphasize that the AS (potential output) can be moved by changes in the AD, along the lines of the Kaldor-Verdoorn, it is harder once they have been using both curves independently.

That leaves the issue of the micro/macro relations and Nick's notion that money, which he sees as a medium of exchange in typical neoclassical fashion rather than as a unit of account that represents the power of the State, is the main difference with micro. In my course, the first thing I discuss is the different views of what macroeconomics is, simply the aggregation of individual rational behavior, or as in Keynes' notion of the fallacy of composition something beyond simple aggregation. One example I use is Keynes' notion of financial markets as a beauty contest, that is, the idea that agents in financial markets are concerned with the average view of where the markets should be. So the behavior of one agent affects the behavior of others.

But the main problem with the notion of conventional neoclassical micro is more complicated than the lack of interdependence of preferences, or the lack of money for that matter, but the very core notion of the principle of substitution. I only discuss this in my course, briefly when I have to deal with investment behavior and Keynes' acceptance of the marginal efficiency of capital. And yes, that requires some understanding of the capital debates.

* I should add that I make the distinction that you could have short run effects of money in the simple neoclassical story, but not in the long run, in which cycles are dominated by technological shocks (phlogiston as Romer would aptly call them). In my view, in the long run the main effect of money would be on the level of the normal rate of interest, and it's impact on income distribution and the dynamics of debt. But those are discussed only cursorily in the undergraduate course.

On Keynes and the Quantity Theory

Slow posting will continue for quite a while. Backlogged with work. At any rate, I've been reading (almost done now) Richard Davenport-Hines new book on Keynes, Universal Man: The Lives of John Maynard Keynes. Nothing new really. And that should not be a surprise after the biographies by Skidelsky and Moggridge.

There are many little issues here and there, which is inevitable, given Keynes' own contradictions, and the overwhelming number of interpretations of his work. There is one point, which is repeated by Davenport-Hines, based on a monetary interpretation of the development of the Principle of Effective Demand (PED), which I think is completely misguided. He says that: “Keynesian economics developed from its progenitor’s rejection of the quantity theory of money [QTM].” Not really. The theory developed from the rejection of Say's Law. The rejection of the QTM is a side effect.

In fact, in terms of the monetary views, Keynes had moved from the QTM in his Tract in 1923, to a Wicksellian model in his Treatise in 1930, with endogenous money, to having exogenous money, and, in that respect being closer to the QTM, in the General Theory (GT) in 1936. Many posties like the Treatise more than the GT for that reason. I prefer the GT, since it has investment and savings being adjusted by income (PED), rather then the rate of interest. And he at least tries to get rid of the notion of a natural rate of interest in the GT.

Davenport-Hines gets closer to the real contribution of the GT, and the reasons for its development, when quoting Austin Robinson, who said in 1947:

“a great step forward in economic thought when Keynes insisted that we should have a general theory – a theory which was valid not only with full (or near-full) employment, but also with unemployment – and that we should know clearly which of the propositions of economics were universally valid, and which were valid only in conditions in which it might be true that an increase of one activity was possible only at the expense of another activity. In the Cambridge thought of my time I believe that no single forward step has been so important.”

The real revolutionary thing in the GT is that the system does not have a tendency to full utilization of resources, no natural rate.* Full employment is one possibility. That's why his theory was general. What Keynes was trying to reject is the neoclassical version of Say's Law, that implies that changes in the rate of interest guarantee that investment equilibrates to full employment savings.

In fact, changes in aggregate demand, and that would include increases in the exogenous supply of money, would have inflationary consequences with full employment. Keynes' views on inflation remained very conventional, as they had been during the German hyperinflation, based on excess demand.

* To do that requires getting rid of the marginal efficiency of capital, but that's another story.

Keynes and the abandonment of the Quantity Theory of Money

I've been reading Peter Temin and David Vines new book Keynes: Useful Economics for the World Economy (see also this). It is a very introductory and conventional reading of Keynes, with the distinctive characteristic that describes the development of Keynes' ideas in the proper historical context. This is good, since Temin is an illustrious economic historian. But he is not a history of economic thought scholar, and that has important implications in this case.

If there is any doubt about the conventional reading of Keynes, one is reminded by them that Keynes theoretical innovation is that: "he abandoned the assumption that prices are flexible which had been made by almost all previous economists—including by him in his Treatise on Money—for the more appropriate assumption for the 1930s: sticky prices.” No notice that the whole chapter 19 of the General Theory (GT) is about wage and price flexibility to show that it does not solve the unemployment problem, and it actually makes it worse.

But that is not the the main problem with the book. That is, in fact, the common reading among both Old and New Keynesians, with the latter providing microfoundations for rigidities. The authors claim that: “in order to free the analysis from the assumption of full employment, Keynes had to free himself from the Quantity Theory too.” Actually that is incorrect, since one can have endogenous money, and abandon the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM), without getting rid of Say's Law, or the neoclassical version of it which implies full employment, as indeed Keynes had done in the Treatise on Money (TM), his Wicksellian book.

The view of the Keynesian Revolution as a movement from price flexibility to price rigidity is well documented, and even if it has no basis in Keynes, it might acceptable to some authors. Krugman, who is not a historian of thought, explicitly says he does not care what Keynes actually said, for example. Note that saying that Keynesian policies are necessary as a result of price rigidities is not the same that saying that Keynes actually said that. And for historians of economic thought the difference is important.

More problematic is the idea of the Keynesian Revolution as a movement away from the QTM. There is a lot of scholarship in this direction, including some from Keynes' own disciples, like Richard Kahn in his The Making of the Keynesian Revolution. Actually in the GT Keynes goes back to an exogenous money approach, and in that sense is closer to the QTM than in the TM, which had endogenous money. The important thing in the GT is that Keynes noted that the natural rate of interest in his TM should be abandoned. That is, the idea that the interest rate brings investment into equilibrium with full employment savings had to be substituted by the notion of changes in income bringing savings into equilibrium with autonomous investment. The theory of interest or monetary theory comes later as a result of the abandonment of the Loanable Funds Theory. This is not to say that the abandonment of the Quantity Theory of Money is not important, but clearly it is not sufficient to lead to a theory of effective demand. 

The book also tries to show that there is a continuity in thinking between The Economic Consequences of the Peace and the discussions about the reorganization of the world economy at Bretton Woods. This is hard to defend, in particular since the book itself shows that Keynes' theoretical views changed as a result of the economic policy events, like the return to the Gold Standard at the pre-war parity, and the Great Depression. One of the important things about Keynes is exactly that, as stated in the phrase often attributed to him, when he was proven wrong, he changed his mind.

Petri on Say's Law

Profs. Serrano and Petri

I somehow missed this paper so far. It explain the several additional problems with Say's Law even if one does not rely on the capital debates to show the limitations of the downward-sloping investment curve.

From the abstract:

Neoclassical capital-labour substitution correctly understood is unable to prove a tendency toward the full employment of resources because it leaves investment indeterminate if the full employment of labour is not assumed to start with; then Say's Law loses plausibility because of the inevitable presence of accelerator-type influences on investment, even neglecting the inconsistencies of neoclassical capital theory; and wage decreases cause a decrease of investment, undermining the 'neoclassical synthesis' criticism of Keynes. The way a negatively interest-elastic investment function is obtained by Romer without assuming the full employment of labour, that is through adjustment costs, relies on several grave mistakes. The recent DSGE models which directly assume that investment equals savings are not supported by general equilibrium theory because the latter theory is admitted by the specialists not to be a positive theory, nor can those models rely on the neoclassical synthesis or monetarism because of the critique of this paper (besides the capital critique), so they must be discarded too.

Read rest here.

Kicking away the ladder too

The table below comes from Broadberry and O’Rourke's The Cambridge Economic History of Modern Europe. It shows that national control of the money supply, the monopoly of emission, is a 19th century phenomena, something we discussed with L-P. Rochon in this paper back in 2003.

Note that before the mid-19th century period, which Charles Goodhart aptly calls the Victorian era, central banks had been created for supporting the State’s financing needs. Also, the role of lender-of-last resort (LOLR) in the late 19th century, associated to Bagehot, did not lead to a significant change in the Victorian preoccupation with price stability.

It is only with the Great Depression that the Victorian dreams of a self-adjusting economy with a tendency to full employment and an orderly division of labor, where the periphery only produced commodities and imported manufactured goods, were utterly shattered. In my view, an contrary to Goodhart, the crucial element on the rise of Keynesian Central Banks was the abandonment of Say's law, not of the Real Bills Doctrine, as we discuss here with Esteban Pérez.

I wrote a paper (in Spanish), when I was at the Central Bank of Argentina, that has not been published on these topics, titled 'Kicking Away the Ladder Too,' in obvious allusion to Ha-Joon Chang's use of List's expression. The point is that central banks were used as tools of economic development (the Bank of England for sure), but once central economies went up the ladder they kicked it, suggesting that central banks should only be concerned with inflation. Now that the Keynesian moment has passed, the mainstream has gone back to the inflation obsession.

Paul Davidson on The Gross Substitution Axiom, Heart of Mainstream Economics

By Paul Davidson, [h/t] Lars P. Syll

The gross substitution axiom assumes that if the demand for good x goes up, its relative price will rise, inducing demand to spill over to the now relatively cheaper substitute good y. For an economist to deny this ‘universal truth’ of gross substitutability between objects of demand is revolutionary heresy – and as in the days of the Inquisition, the modern-day College of Cardinals of mainstream economics destroys all non-believers, if not by burning them at the stake, then by banishing them from the mainstream professional journals. Yet in Keynes’s (1936, ch. 17) analysis ‘The Essential Properties of Interest and Money’ require that:

1. The elasticity of production of liquid assets including money is approximately zero. This means that private entrepreneurs cannot produce more of these assets by hiring more workers if the demand for liquid assets increases. In other words, liquid assets are not producible by private entrepreneurs’ hiring of additional workers; this means that money (and other liquid assets) do not grow on trees.

2. The elasticity of substitution between all liquid assets, including money (which are not reproducible by labour in the private sector) and producibles (in the private sector), is zero or negligible. Accordingly, when the price of money increases, people will not substitute the purchase of the products of industry for their demand for money for liquidity (savings) purposes.

Read rest here.

Say's Law of Markets: Classical and Neoclassical versions

Teaching macroeconomics, and having to deal, as always with the confusion generated by all manuals (to a great extent Keynes' fault for using the term classical for everybody that came before him) between the old classical political economy tradition and the marginalist (or neoclassical, other misnomer, this one Veblen's fault) school.

Not all classical authors accepted Say's Law, to which Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand (PED) was contrasted, but all neoclassical authors do accept it (last week the Societies for the History of Economics, aka SHOE, had a very confusing discussion on Say's Law, in which this simple fact got completely lost by a few debaters). Marx certainly was critical of Say's Law.

Ricardo in chapter XXI of his Principles famously says:

"M. Say has, however, most satisfactorily shewn, that there is no amount of capital which may not be employed in a country, because demand is only limited by production. No man produces, but with a view to consume or sell, and he never sells, but with an intention to purchase some other commodity, which may be immediately useful to him, or which may contribute to future production. By producing, then, he necessarily becomes either the consumer of his own goods, or the purchaser and consumer of the goods of some other person. It is not to be supposed that he should, for any length of time, be ill-informed of the commodities which he can most advantageously produce, to attain the object which he has in view, namely, the possession of other goods; and, therefore, it is not probable that he will continually produce a commodity for which there is no demand."

The Ricardian notion is relatively simple. It suggests that the objective of production is consumption (what Marx would call later the "simplest form of the circulation of commodities," or simple exchange, where commodities are produced for exchange for commodities, with money being just an intermediary, C-M-C'). Further, Ricardo suggests that nobody would continue to produce something for which there is no demand over the long run. Yes there might be mistakes and excess production, but over time producers learn from their mistakes. In this simple story if a capitalist saves, it is by definition because he intends to invest and be able to produce more in the future. Think of the corn model; the corn not consumed, for wages (for the reproduction of the system), goes by definition into expanded reproduction.

The Ricardian model has no adjusting mechanism between investment and savings, which are by definition one and the same. Also, there is no guarantee that the system fully utilizes labor resources, or that the system would be at full employment. The rate of interest was regulated by the rate of profit, and adjusted to its level in the long run, but it did not adjust savings and investment.

This is, in fact, the main difference between the old classical version of Say's Law when compared to the marginalist or neoclassical one. In the neoclassical version the rate of interest (the natural rate of interest indeed) becomes the adjusting mechanism in what is often referred to as the Loanable Funds Theory (LFT) of the Rate of Interest (for a simple discussion of Wicksell's version of the LFT go here). Now an excess supply of funds (savings) for investment would be eliminated by the tendency of the monetary rate of interest to equilibrate with the natural rate, guaranteeing that investment is at the level of full employment savings. Investment can deviate from the equilibrium level of savings only in the short run, and neoclassical theory (including Wicksell of course; a few in the SHOE discussion seemed confused about this) would accept Say's Law in this new version in the long run. Note that in order for a rate of interest to lead to increasing investment demand, it must be the case that labor is fully utilized, and firms decide to substitute labor for capital. In the marginalist version Say's Law implies full employment in the labor market.

Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand, by suggesting that savings were simply a residual (income not spent), famously argued that, instead of supply creating its own demand, it was autonomous spending decisions (which Keynes associated with investment) generated income and, hence, made the supply effective. It was the variations of the level of income that made the adjustment of savings to investment possible, and there was no guarantee that autonomous spending would provide for the full utilization of resources.

For a thorough analysis of Keynes' PED, this book remains in my view one of the best around.

Prabhat Patnaik - Finance and Growth Under Capitalism

By Prabhat Patnaik

Once we reject Say’s Law and recognize that capitalism is prone to deficiency in aggregate demand, we have to accept that sustained growth in this system requires exogenous stimuli. By exogenous stimuli I mean a set of factors which raise aggregate demand but are not themselves dependent upon the fact that growth has been occurring in the system; that is, they operate irrespective of whether or not growth has been occurring in the system. Moreover, they raise aggregate demand by a magnitude that increases with the size of the economy, for instance with the size of the capital stock. They are in other words different from “erratic shocks” on the one hand, and “endogenous stimuli”, such as the multiplier‐accelerator mechanism, on the other: the latter can perpetuate or accelerate growth only if it has been occurring anyway.

Read rest here.

On Marx and Keynes, the NAIRU and Say's Law, again

Many of the entries in this blog directly or indirectly deal with the relation between the old classical authors of the surplus approach and the more radical authors that followed after the Keynesian Revolution (see here, for example).  David Fields has pointed out this post by Michael Roberts on Marx and Keynes, from a Marxist point of view (after a debate with someone he refers to as left post-Keynesian).

This is not a bad post at all. The interpretation of Keynes given by the post-Keynesian author (in Roberts' description) is not the best, but it is one of the possible interpretations for sure. The unknown postie also correctly notes that:

"Keynes and Marx were united in their critique of Say’s law (that supply creates its own demand) as a common starting point for theorising about the possibility of insufficient effective demand and the realisation problem."

Which is important to emphasize, since some Marxists tend to have an attachment to Say's Law. In this respect the postie [again in Robert's description of what he said] is actually unfair to Marx and Ricardo, suggesting that:

"But he [Marx] did (like the other classical political economists) expected the economy to always tend towards full capacity utilisation even if he (like Ricardo) theorised about technological unemployment in an economy operating at full capacity utilisation."

Actually there is no indication that Marx or Ricardo suggested full capacity utilization. Ricardo's version of Say's Law does not require full employment, and there is no mechanism to bring investment to the level of full employment savings. Investment equals savings by definition, and it might be at a level with significant levels of unemployment and spare capacity. Reductions in the real wage or the rate of interest would not bring about full utilization of resources. That's a concept that appears only with Marginalism.

When Roberts comes to his argument, it starts with a discussion of Keynes' political position (saving Capitalism) rather than the analytical elements of his theory. Then he discusses the limits to Keynesian policies, which he narrowly defines as fiscal activism (note that this could have been the position of an Old or New Keynesian, defending fiscal activism on the basis of market imperfections). Roberts misses the radical component in Keynes analysis, which implies that market economies are NOT efficient in the allocation of resources, and that long-term equilibrium could imply unemployment (yes long-term equilibrium unemployment, not disequilibrium, and not short-term unemployment is Keynes' central proposition).

Further, Keynes' Principle of Effective Demand requires to be fully operational the abandonment of the neoclassical (Marginalist) theory of distribution, since variations of the rate of interest (or the real wage) do not lead to full utilization of capacity, and are compatible with a coherent recovery of the old and forgotten theories of the classical authors and Marx. So, complementing the postie, Keynes and Marx are united, not only the rejection of Say's Law, but also on the need for an alternative to the Marginalist theory of distribution, one in which conflict is necessary.

Keynes didn't get to this point, but understood the need of getting rid of the natural rate of interest concept. And that leads to an abandonment of the neoclassical theory of distribution per force.

Then Roberts gets to his main point. He says:

"Keynes says the crisis comes about through a lack of ‘effective demand’, namely an unaccountable fall in investment and consumption and this causes profits and wages to fall. Marx says: let’s start with profits. If profits fall, then capitalists would stop investing, lay off workers and wages would drop and consumption would fall."

This is a variation of the traditional Marxist theory of the business cycle. There are multiple versions, from Andrew Glyn profit squeeze to Goodwin predator prey (which by the way suggests full utilization of resources in his model in Marxo-Marginalist fashion), and many others. All rely, like Roberts above on the notion that the rate of profit (or the profit margin in Marglin and Bhaduri) drives investment.

In this case, high employment generates wage inflation which can increase the wage share of workers in output; but this will, in turn, reduce the profits of capitalists and thus reduce future investment and output, leading to a recession. The recession, in turn, reduces labor demand and employment and consequently leads to lower wage inflation or even deflation and reduces the wage share of workers. But as workers wage share declines, then profits increase and, with them, investment and a new boom starts.

There are a few problems with this view, the profit-led view of investment, discussed here before (and here). As mentioned before, from a theoretical point of view, it is difficult to justify why a firm would invest, even if the rate of profit is high, if demand is not growing. And, in reverse, why would a firm not invest, and increase its capacity, if demand is growing even if the rate of profit is relatively low. Wouldn't it make sense to keep pace with demand, rather than let the competition take advantage of expanding demand? From an empirical point of view (as noted here, and here) the accelerator principle rules the roost.

Finally, note that all of the profit-led based theories of cycles and growth are fundamentally dynamic Say's Law stories, in which savings, determined by profits determine the behavior of investment, and the system fluctuates around a level of output in which worker's bargaining power does not lead to inflation, or in other words stable inflation. That is the so-called Marxist version of the NAIRU (see my previous post on the late Andrew Glynn on the subject; for a relatively recent Marxist defense of the NAIRU see Pollin here; subscription required). As I noted before (and here) there are reasons to be skeptical about the Phillips curve and the NAIRU, in all their versions.

PS: Comment by Franklin Serrano, that I paste in full:

"In Marx there is indeed no indication of a tendency to full capacity utilization nor full employment of labour. But the author is right about Ricardo. Ricardo assumed Say's law which means that all that "demand is only limited by production", this DOES imply that investment is equal to and determined by full capacity savings as in Ricardo it is only capital (full capacity) not labor that determines potential output. Ricardo did NOT contemplate "spare capacity"  and yes his technological unemployment was based on the fully capacity output not generating enough jobs for the economy to get to full employment. You are right that in Ricardo investment does not adapt to full employment savings. But it does adapt if arbitrarily to full capacity saving."

Same issue brought up by PGB below. I conflated full capacity with full employment. Mind you, I suspect that this is what the post-Keynesian author referred in the post was doing, and hence my mistake.

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.

Did Inflation Bring Down the Allende Government?

Allende's glasses

Roberto Frenkel, the well-known Argentine economist, gave an interesting radio interview (transcribed, in Spanish, here) in which, as always, there is a lot to learn. In that interview he tells a touching story about his experience during the Allende government. Apparently he was told by the Finance Minister Carlos Matus to make a presentation on inflation, and warned of the dire consequences of not pursuing contractionary demand policies. After that he says (I keep his Spanish version and translate below):

"Yo había explicado cómo la inflación se iba a acelerar, la situación iba a empeorar rápidamente... y entonces se me acerca Allende con quien yo había tenido la oportunidad de estar en pocas oportunidades, y me dice '¿Por qué no me lo dijeron antes?' Y es una cosa que me pesó en el corazón... al poco tiempo el hombre se suicidó en La Moneda. Y eso se lo conté a algunos que estuvieron con el gobierno de Kirchner hasta hace poco y ahora salen preocupados y tratan de abandonar el barco y no hundirse con él, y les conté esta anécdota y los insté a hablar y a hacer explícita su alarma y preocupación por la situación (...)."

"I explained that inflation was going to accelerate, and things would worsen precipitously... and then Allende, with whom I had opportunity to meet in a few occasions, approaches me and says: 'Why didn't anybody tell me?' And that sunk my heart ...not long after that he committed suicide in La Moneda [presidential palace]. I told that story to some people that were members of the Kirchner's government until recently and now leaving the boat to avoid sinking with it and encourgaed them to speak up..."

So now we know. Inflation actually brought down Allende, and Frenkel almost saved the government, but was too late to avoid the military coup. And his concerns with Argentine inflation are similar now, since we are on the verge of total collapse.

All jokes asides, the notion that inflation brought the government down is silly to say the least. As noted here, if anything the nationalization of copper, that did hurt transnational corporations and local elites was certainly more important [note also that by 1973 inflation was not a Chilean problem, but a global one associated to the oil shocks and wage resistance]. So resistance to reforms by powerful groups within the country were at center stage. The connections of Pinochet with US corporations and security and intelligence apparatus are also well documented. Even if Frenkel had told Allende in time about inflation ... Oh well.

There are other nuggets in this interview, in particular the insistence that demand has to be curtailed even when it is admitted that inflation is essentially inertial, but I'll leave those for other posts. It seems that more and more authors at the Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) are converging to mainstream positions, like the economists at the Catholic University in Rio (PUC-RJ) and sociologists like Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil did back in the 1990s.

Scope and flexibility of alternative economic paradigms

Teaching the basics of the surplus approach this week. One important feature of what Garegnani refers to as the core of the surplus approach, shown in the figure below, is the flexibility that it provides for the development of alternative theories.

In the core output, technology and real wages are taken as data of the system. With output and technology one can determine the labor requirements for production. Further, with real wages one can get the necessary consumption needed to reproduce the labor force. Finally, extracting necessary consumption from output one obtains the surplus, and the surplus is what allows for expanded reproduction or accumulation, the main preoccupation of classical political economy authors.

An important thing to emphasize is that the relations within the core do not imply that the theories regarding the data must be similar. For example, while Ricardo accepted Say's Law, Marx clearly rejected it. Hence, the core is compatible with alternative theories of output, and similarly about the determination of real wages and technological change. The core is flexible and capable of encompassing different theories.

Further, nothing precludes the existence of feedback mechanisms and relations between the data of the system in classical analysis. The level of surplus might certainly have a relation to output, and that is central for the theories of accumulation, but those relations lack the generality that is attributed to the core relations. In those, less rigid relations, the role of institutional and historical elements loom large.

In the marginalist approach, in contrast, output and distributive variables (the real wage and profits, which are part of the surplus and, thus, residual for surplus authors) are determined simultaneously by supply and demand. There is no space for alternative views on the determination of output or the real wage. Full employment (a version of Say's Law) is a necessary result with flexible prices (hence, rigidities are necessary to get unemployment).

Suggested Reading:

Garegnani, P. (1984), “Value and Distribution in the Classical Economists and Marx,” Oxford Economic Papers, 36, pp. 291-325. Link here (subscription required).

PS: A complementary post, diagram and suggested reading at Robert Vienneau's Thoughts on Economics.

More on income distribution and growth (wonskish)

Kaldor and Kalecki

A few years back Sam Bowles presented a paper (Kudunomics: Property rights for the information-based economy) at the University of Utah. At dinner he reaffirmed his conviction that Arrow-Debreu General Equilibrium (GE) is compatible with different kinds of behavior and can be a force for progressive economics. Conventional marginalist theory suggests that income distribution is the result of relative scarcities, and, as a result, real wages should equal the marginal product of labor, i.e. labor productivity. When asked how he squares the belief in GE with the fact that wages in the US do NOT follow productivity since the 1970s, Bowles seemed puzzled. And the relation of income distribution and growth remains puzzling for the mainstream and its sycophants.

In the heterodox camp, the discussion has been centered, for the most part, between the so-called Kaleckian and Kaldorian models. First, I should note that from a history of ideas point, the Kaleckian name is a misnomer. Kalecki’s models where about the interaction of multiplier and accelerator, with shocks and lags, to produce fluctuations. In the various forms of his accelerator equation Kalecki included a trend, producing fluctuations around a trend. The so-called Kaleckian models derive from Harrod and Joan Robinson’s attempts to extent Keynes’ Principle of Effective Demand (PED) to the long run.

The PED says that an increase in investment is matched by an exact increase in savings, and that the level of income is the main adjusting variable (rather than the interest rate as in the Loanable Theory of Funds). The Kaleckian models basically normalize the IS identity by the capital stock, assume (in the extreme case) that the propensity to save out of wages is zero, and a propensity to save out of profits (s) between zero and one, and in Keynesian fashion have investment determine savings. The difference with the short-run story is that now accumulation (investment-to-capital ratio) determines income distribution (the rate of profits), a result often referred to as the Cambridge equation.

The various incarnations of the Kaleckian models are defined by the way the investment function is specified. For example, in the influential paper by Bhaduri and Marglin (B-M) (subscription required) they argue that investment and savings are functions of the profit share (h) and capacity utilization (z). In other words:

I(h, z) = shz

Solving for z and deriving with respect to h we have:

dz/dh = (Ih – sz)/(sh – Iz)

Where Ih is the response of investment to profitability and Iz to capacity utilization. Assuming stability, that is, that savings respond to profitability more than investment to capacity utilization and the denominator is positive, the sign of the equation depends on the numerator. If investment is strongly responsive to profitability (Ih > sz), then the system is profit-led (exhilarationist in B-M terms). If not we have the wage-led (stagnationist) regime.

As I suggested in my previous post, there are some theoretical problems with the type of model used to argue that the US economy is profit-led, besides the empirical ones alluded before. The independent investment function suggests that capacity utilization affects capital formation, if capacity is low there is more investment, and vice versa when z is high. In other words, firms would try to adjust capacity to demand. If that is the case you would expect that a normal relation between capacity and demand would be established in the long run (in the neoclassical view demand adjusts to capacity; that’s Say’s Law), which could be seen as the relatively stable output-to-capital ratio over the whole period for the US, in my previous post.

If that is the case, investment is determined by the adjustment of capacity to exogenous demand in order to reach the normal capacity utilization, and it is essentially derived demand (the accelerator principle). It is not instrumental in determining the normal level of capacity utilization, which must be determined by the exogenous components of demand. This is the basis of the supermultiplier models, first developed by Hicks, and then by Nicholas Kaldor, and referred to as Kaldorian in the heterodox literature (for more on that see this paper).

That is the essential difference between the Kaleckian and Kaldorian models, whether investment is partially autonomous and determined by profitability or it is derived demand. Of course income distribution in Kaldorian models might have ambiguous effects on growth, but firms would not investment more if profits went up, if there is no increase in demand. In this sense, worsening income distribution might lead to higher growth if demand keeps going for some reason (say more private debt stimulates consumption; or stimulates the consumption of a higher income group). But in general profit-led growth that stimulates investment, as in the M-B framework seems hard to explain from a theoretical point of view. Hence, the confusion it generates empirically (e.g. in the case of the US the notion that a debt-led consumption boom is a profit-led story).

PS: The typical Kaldorian model is based on Thirlwall's work, but the book by Bortis and Serrano's dissertation (or his paper; subscription required) are essential readings.