Robert Skidelsky and the Many Lives of Maynard Keynes

Keeping up with the Keyneses

The death of Robert Skidelsky last week marks the passing of one of the most important interpreters of John Maynard Keynes. He will be remembered above all for his monumental three-volume biography of Keynes, widely regarded as the definitive account of Keynes’s life and times. That work, written over several decades, together with the publication of the Collected Writings edited by Donald Moggridge, did much to reposition Keynes as a historical figure. It also humanized him in ways that earlier accounts, such as Roy Harrod’s, had not. In that sense, Skidelsky’s contribution helped bring Keynes back into the conversation at a time when Keynesian economics itself was in retreat.

Skidelsky was also, importantly for us, a member of the editorial board of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE), and a supporter of its broader intellectual mission. As I noted in my short piece on Robert Solow, the journal was conceived as a counter-cultural project, aiming to reestablish Keynesian economics, understood broadly, and without hyphens, as a central framework for macroeconomic analysis. Skidelsky understood that mission and supported it, at a moment when such a project was far from obvious or widely accepted.

At the same time, Skidelsky’s interpretation of Keynes was not without its limitations. In his own critique of Roy Harrod’s biography, he rightly argued that it sanitized Keynes and obscured important aspects of his life and work. Yet his own work, written in the context of the dominance of the Neoclassical Synthesis and the broader retreat of Keynesian ideas, often did not fully break with that framework. Skidelsky’s biography, while more historically accurate and richer in detail, remained in important respects defensive, accepting the view that Keynes’s theory rested on imperfections rather than representing a fundamental break with orthodox economics.*

This matters because the interpretation of Keynes is never neutral. The postwar Keynesianism associated with the Neoclassical Synthesis reduced Keynes to a theory of market failure, wage rigidities, and short-run stabilization, leaving intact the core of marginalist theory and Say’s Law in the long run. In that reading, Keynes becomes a useful supplement to an essentially self-correcting market system, rather than a critic of it. Skidelsky did much to restore Keynes the person, but less to fully recover Keynes the theorist.

None of this should detract from his achievements. Skidelsky was a serious scholar, a prolific writer, and a public intellectual engaged with the issues of his time. He consistently defended a moderate, pragmatic Keynesianism, what he himself sometimes described as a middle way between the excesses of unregulated capitalism and the failures of central planning.

For those of us working in the Keynesian and heterodox traditions, his legacy is therefore a mixed but important one. He helped keep Keynes alive during decades in which the profession largely moved in other directions. He supported efforts, like ROKE, to rebuild a broad (pluralistic) Keynesian consensus in the profession. But his interpretation also reflects the limits of the period in which it was developed, a period in which Keynesianism was often reframed in more conventional, and less radical, terms.

Each generation, gets its own Keynes. Skidelsky gave us one that was richer, more human, and more historically grounded than the sanitized versions that preceded it. The task remains to recover, more fully, the theoretical and political implications of Keynes’s work.

* See the more recent work by Zachary Carter that connects Keynes' biography with the ideas of Joan Robinson and John Kenneth Galbraith, and the development of heterodox views based on Keynes thought. 

Paul Davidson (1930-2024)

 

Paul (I'm next to him) and the Brazilians at the UMKC, PK Conference in 2002

Paul has passed away a few days ago. He wasn't in good shape for a while, and this was expected. He lived a long and productive life. I wasn't personally close to him, even though I met him several times from the mid-1990s onward. He went to two conferences I co-organized at the Federal University in Rio, always with Louise, which was a central figure of Post Keynesian (PK) life, and basically run the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics (JPKE) for him.

He was more effective as an institutional organizer, and as an observer of economic reality (and his main book was called Money and the Real World) than in his theoretical endeavors. His views on Keynes stayed close to the flawed discussion of the Principle of Effective Demand in chapter 3 of the General Theory, and an insistence on the importance of uncertainty and non-ergodicity in Keynes' work, that proved to be somewhat of a dead alley for PKs. He also emphasized the ideas of Tony Thirlwall, and his export-led model of growth, as a central PK contribution to economic theory. Finally, he tended to accept the views of Robert Skidelsky on Keynes' intellectual development, who, as I noted here, accepted a conventional on interpretation of Keynes' ideas, relying on imperfections to explain unemployment, even if he provided a much needed accurate biography of Keynes (in contrast to Harrod).

JPKE, that he created with Sidney Weintraub, and help from John Kenneth Galbraith among others, was central for a generation of PKs. He was part of the Trieste Summer Conferences that, in the early 1980s, that included many heterodox groups, and was the closest to Marc Lavoie's broad tent in real life, but failed to provide a unified view, and an alternative to mainstream marginalist theory. Many thought that the PK project was sectarian, and could not incorporate other views. I tend to think that the failure resulted from the fragmentation of the mainstream, that was reflected in the fragmentation of the heterodoxy, and were part of the era. Certainly not Paul's fault, who, at least in my experience, was very open and willing to debate, even if he did stick to his views. At least, not his personal fault.

When LP (Rochon) invited me to start a new journal, more or less at the time Paul was substituted as the editor of the JPKE by Jan Kregel and Randy Wray, on PK monetary economics, I suggested we needed a journal that would bring other Keynesians into the conversation. Hence, the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE).* Paul wrote to me once he knew about the new name of the journal. I knew from him that they had thought of naming their journal the Journal of Keynesian Economics, but the acronym would have been JOKE, so they opted for Post Keynesian, and the name stuck to the school of thought. He wasn't happy. But he understood that our project was very different.

Ours was not a journal to propagate the ideas of the heterodox followers of Keynes, and to emphasize the notion that effective demand mattered, at times that Keynesians were under attack with the neoliberal turn, and the rise of Monetarism and New Classical economics (Paul was in the book of debaters with Milton Friedman, that included also Jim Tobin, and a few other more conventional Keynesians). Ours was an attempt to recreate a Keynesian big tent (not an heterodox one) to reinforce the commonalities with all Keynesians (in spite of the many differences).

Paul was combative, forceful in his discussions, particularly about Keynes' legacy, and a key figure in the preservation of Keynesian ideas, when those were considerably less popular, and the profession moved incorrectly away from the Keynesian Consensus. Later many would gladly talk about the return of the master. Paul never abandoned him, and he was right. A great loss for the profession.

* On that see Tom Palley here and my discussion of Bob Solow's role here.

My short piece on Solow and his relation to the Review of Keynesian Economics

(1924-2023)

Robert Solow, who was a member of the editorial board of the Review of Keynesian Economics (ROKE), died in December 2023. Solow holds a special place in the history of macroeconomics, and he was a strong supporter of the ROKE project. In this brief note I want to honor Solow’s contribution to economics and to place on record his contribution to ROKE.

Histories of macroeconomics tend to emphasize the disputes between Keynesians and Monetarists, at least up to the 1970s. Those disputes very often pitted Milton Friedman against either Paul Samuelson, with whom he alternated in a famous Newsweek column, or James Tobin who was, perhaps, the most prominent of Friedman’s opponents when the Journal of Political Economy edited a debate with Friedman’s critics. In the broader cultural wars, Friedman was often pitted against John Kenneth Galbraith, and his Free to Choose series was seen as a response to the latter’s BBC series The Age of Uncertainty. Solow appears, if at all, as Samuelson’s co-author of a paper on anti-inflation policy (Samuelson and Solow 1960), which is widely viewed as introducing the Phillips curve to the American economics profession.

Yet Solow is, in many ways, the central figure of ‘American’ Keynesianism, and he was awarded the 1987 Nobel Prize in Economics. His work was central to the building of what Samuelson referred to as the Neoclassical Synthesis, which was dominant during the post-war era up to the 1970s. This synthesis combined microeconomic competitive general equilibrium theory, Keynesian macroeconomics, and Solow’s (1956) Neoclassical growth theory. It gave short-run space for Keynesian policy effectiveness but asserted a long-run belief in market forces and Say’s Law, which Solow defended in his growth model and in the Cambridge debates with more heterodox Keynesians. Additionally, Solow contributed decisively to the development of what eventually would be called New Keynesian Economics, with the development of the efficiency wage model in the late 1970s. He lived long enough to see fiscal policy rehabilitated after the Great Recession of 2007–2009, and to see what many view as the return of Keynesian Economics.

Read rest here.

Robert Solow (1924-2023), who was on the board of ROKE, is dead

Over the years, I had the opportunity to interact with Bob Solow, who was very open to discuss with people he disagreed with, and debate the substantive analytical and empirical issues, taking seriously the ideas of others. I first met him because when I was an Assistant Director at CEPA (now Schwartz Center, SCEPA), back in 2000 or 2001, working for Lance Taylor, I found out he was spending some time in NY at the Russell Sage Foundation, and I invited him for a talk (if memory doesn't fail me the title was, The Good Five Years, about the Clinton boom). He presented, according to him, his first overhead projector slide.

At any rate, after that I invited him to be part of the board of ROKE, which he accepted. In his letter, he explained what he thought ROKE was about and what it should do to avoid the fate of other heterodox journals.

He also published this paper on Friedman's presidential address in 2017. His obit at the NYTimes here.

Bob Solow on Friedman's Presidential address and the natural rate failure

His full paper was published in the Review of Keynesian Economics. He reminds us that it was a talk to undermine 'eclectic Keynesianism' about which he says:

Milton Friedman's famous presidential address of 1968... aims to undermine the eclectic American Keynesianism of the 1950s and 1960s, the habits of thought to which Joan Robinson attached the (unintentionally) complimentary label of ‘bastard’ Keynesianism. I will only say a little about what that was. In fact, the adjective ‘eclectic’ is meant to remind you that it was not a tight axiomatic doctrine but rather the collection of ideas in terms of which people like James Tobin, Arthur Okun, Paul Samuelson and others (including me) discussed macroeconomic events and policies.

More substantively, he argues, correctly my view, that Friedman's misperception model was not accurate, and that the Volcker shock was not caused by any misperception. In fact, Solow suggests that:

So the Fed was in fact able to control (‘peg’) its real policy rate, not for a year or two but for at least six years, certainly long enough for the normal conduct of counter-cyclical monetary policy to be effective.

Note that this is the real, not nominal rate. But perhaps Solow's most important conclusion, drawing from the evidence and Blanchard's more recent contributions is that: "findings imply that there is no well-defined natural rate of unemployment, either statistically or conceptually." In that regard, I think that Solow goes further than Blanchard, and I'm glad he does.

Technological determinism and economic growth

Technological determinism is widespread. The Solow model basically suggests that it is technological progress, measured incorrectly as Total Factor Productivity (TFP), that drives growth. The same is true of Schumpeterian models with a demiurgic role for the innovating entrepreneur.

But technological determinism is not just typical of economics, historians too tend to accept that technology drives history. Leo Marx and Merritt Roe Smith tell us in the intro to their edited book titled Does Technology Drive History? that:

The collective memory of Western culture is well stocked with lore on this theme. The role of the mechanic arts as the initiating agent of change pervades the received popular version of modern history. It is embodied in a series of exemplary episodes, or mini-fables, with a simple yet highly plausible before-and-after narrative structure. Before the fifteenth century, for example, Europeans are said to have known little or nothing about the western hemisphere; after the compass and other navigational instruments became available, however, Columbus and his fellow explorers were able to cross the Atlantic, and the colonization of the New World quickly followed. Newly invented navigational equipment is thus made to seem a necessary precondition, or "cause," of as if it had made possible Europe's colonization of much of the world. 

Similarly, the printing press is depicted as a virtual cause of the Reformation. Before it was invented, few people other than the clergy owned copies of the Bible; after Gutenberg, however, many individual communicants were able to gain direct, personal access to the word of God, on which the Reformation thrived. As a final example, take the story, favored by writers of American history textbooks, about the alleged link between the cotton gin and the Civil War. In the late eighteenth century, slavery was becoming unprofitable in the American states; but after Eli Whitney's clever invention, the use of African slaves to harvest cotton became lucrative, the reinvigorated slavery system expanded, and the eventual result was a bloody civil war.

And when it comes to economics technological determinism is not only a trait of the mainstream of the profession. The editors argue that Heilbroner (who was very open, but more conventional in is economics than people think) is the closest in their book's collected essays to accept technological determinism. Heilbroner's classic paper "Do Machines Make History?" starts with Marx's (Karl not Leo) epigraph (from The Poverty of Philosophy) according to which: "the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." Mind you, I think that regarding Marx, the quote might be misleading. Marx clearly thought that there was a technological component to the mode of production, but social relations of production mattered too.

What is NOT discussed in most analyses of the technological determinism by conventional and more than a few heterodox authors is the role of demand in creating the conditions for technological change. In that case, technological change is not the cause of growth, but the result. As in Adam Smith's story, it is the extent of the market (demand) that limits the division of labor (productivity). In modern parlance the idea is known as the Kaldor-Verdoorn Law.*

Obviously there is a certain serendipity in the process of technological innovation, and, hence, it is not uniquely determined by the pressures of a growing market. The point is more that there is no reason for an invention to be pursued systematically if it does not somehow provide for an existing and pressing need. Think of steam engines (the ones that give you the industrial capitalist), which were known for millennia, way before Newcomen and Watt, but had no relevant productive use until they were employed for pumping water out of mines. Only then the potential of the machine was comprehended, and the real work of incremental improvements that made it really useful started.

The question is then one of causality (as it often is between heterodox and mainstream views). Do innovations cause growth or are caused by growth (even if there is some two-way causality the question is which one predominates)? Were the high wages in England that forced capitalists to economize on labor (Principle of Substitution) and led to the Industrial Revolution, as Robert Allen suggests, or did the high wage economy, and the extended domestic markets (let alone the external markets) that provided the stimulus for technological change? I still believe that the weight of the historical evidence suggests that demand rules the roost.

The notion that technology is demand driven is also the only alternative, even though that is not understood very well by historians (economic or otherwise) to technological determinism. In this case, the reasons behind innovations are associated to the more complex social forces that determine the expansion of demand. They involve issues related to income distribution (high or low wages), or the social patterns that determine tastes and consumption (the reasons why the British consumed Indian calicos and porcelain pottery), the access to foreign markets, and the geopolitical forces that explain why some won and others lost in the pursue of those markets, to name a few. Note that power and politics are central to technological innovation, since they involve issues like income distribution and global access to markets. How can you understand the US National Innovation System (NIS)** without the Military-Industrial Complex and its role in providing access to global markets?

Sure enough a demand driven story has space for the sort of external supply-side effects that allow technology and innovations to thrive. So the expansion of demand in a society like England that was going through a Scientific Revolution would have more chances to lead to technological innovation (there is a gap between science and technology, of course) and  provide certain advantages over their competitors for global hegemony, to say the least. In other words, a demand driven story does not imply that supply side factors are irrelevant, they are simply not the prime movers.

* Neo-Schumepterians often refer to this view as the demand-pull hypothesis, due to Jacob Schmookler's Invention and Economic Growth.

** Another Neo-Schumpeterian beloved concept.

A Taxonomy of Piketty's reviews

Brad DeLong wrote a lengthy review of Piketty's Capital, paraphrasing in the title the famous ISLM (ISLL in Hick's original terminology) paper by John Hicks, which deserves a review by itself. In particular the discussion of Piketty's analytical model, which is, as noted before, incredibly problematic. It is worth noticing that Brad argues somehow that there two kind of reviews, namely: those that are useful and worth reading, in which he includes Tyler Cowen's review (which I've only indirectly alluded to here and here), and the ones that are wrong and are 'distracted by irrelevances,' which include Galbraith and Palley's reviews.*

Brad's idea is not bad, I mean of a taxonomy of the reviews of Piketty, but his take is neither useful to understand the differences, nor constructive for dialogue. So here is my very brief taxonomy.

There are only a few that I included, not because these are the more important necessarily, but because they seem to be representative. I made two analytical distinctions. Mainstream and Heterodox, which is based on the theoretical background, and whether the authors accept the Neoclassical paradigm or not (Murphy and Austrians do, in a confused way). Also, reviews are classified as favorable or critical of the policy prescriptions in Piketty's book. Basically, one distinction is theoretical and the other is policy oriented.

Note that the interesting thing that emerges is that there are NO, at least to my knowledge, Critical Heterodox views, that is, heterodox authors that are against higher taxes and wealth taxes.

The basis for the mainstream critiques (Cowen and Murphy) is that taxes create distortions and lead to lower growth making things worse. After all greed is good, or something like that. This comes from the more radical fringe of the pro-markets are efficient wing of the profession. The conventional defense of Piketty is basically based on New Keynesian (or old in the case of Solow) views, and it suggests that market imperfections are sufficiently large that there is space for redistribution, and tax policy is the main way to go to redress the increase in inequality of the last 30 years.

Finally the Heterodox views (Galbraith, Palley and Lance Taylor), and here I included a non-economist, David Harvey that follows a distinctly Marxist view,** which all suggest that Piketty raises and important point, which has been discussed by heterodox economists forever, that the empirical analysis is also an addition to our understanding of inequality, but that there are theoretical flaws, which both mainstream groups (Piketty would be closer to a New Keynesian, and he is a Socialist, or at least supported Holland in the last election) share, and that this limits, but does NOT disqualify the argument for redistribution.

This illustrates also a point made in this blog for a while. On the one hand, heterodox groups are politically closer to some New Keynesian authors, which, however, remain firmly based on the orthodox notion that markets unimpeded by imperfections produce optimal outcomes. Once, the New Keynesians get rid of some of the limitations of their theoretical framework, the essential being the natural rate (of interest or unemployment), their political argument would be more coherent and stronger.

* The ones that are wrong or distract point to the logical flaws in Piketty's theoretical model, by the way.

** I didn't include Cassidy's good review, simply because as a journalist the mainstream/heterodox distinction doesn't quite apply, but his views are fundamentally favorable. By the way, the Financial Times, also would not fit that dichotomy, but it certainly fits more clearly the political one, and has come clearly against Piketty for his empirical mistakes (here). For a response see Branko Milanovic here (h/t Daniele Tavani).

The quotable Solow or ridicule and New Classical Economics

So my quote of Monty Python reminded a reader (h/t Brandt) of a famous Solow quote about Friedman: "Everything reminds Milton of the money supply. Well, everything reminds me of sex, but I keep it out of the paper." Below my favorite Solow quote:

"Suppose someone sits down where you are sitting right now and announces to me that he is Napoleon Bonaparte. The last thing I want to do with him is to get involved in a technical discussion of cavalry tactics at the battle of Austerlitz. If I do that, I’m getting tacitly drawn into the game that he is Napoleon. Now, Bob Lucas and Tom Sargent like nothing better than to get drawn into technical discussions, because then you have tacitly gone along with their fundamental assumptions; your attention is attracted away from the basic weakness of the whole story. Since I find that fundamental framework ludicrous, I respond by treating it as ludicrous – that is, by laughing at it – so as not to fall into the trap of taking it seriously and passing on to matters of technique." 

(Robert Solow in Arjo Klamer, 1983, p. 146; Italics added)

His quotes were often better than his models. 

Solow on Greenspan's new book and the misrepresentation of the mainstream

Solow's review was published in the New Republic here (h/t Robert Vienneau). Solow has lost nothing of his ironic and acerbic style of criticism. As noted by Vienneau there is a great line at the end about Greenspan's mentor Ayn Rand:

"It is sometimes claimed that Alan Greenspan is a closet follower of Ayn Rand; he certainly had an early association with her circle. I got through maybe half of one of those fat paperbacks when I was young, the one about the architect. Since then I have found it impossible to take Ayn Rand seriously as a novelist or a thinker. In the past I have gone on the assumption that Greenspan’s ideas about economic life are his own, just what is contained in his writings, and the Ayn Rand question does not arise. But now there is this book, with its particular misinterpretation of mainstream economics, which might be thought to reopen the question if anyone is interested."

So basically he says Greenspan might be a crank after all. Yet, Solow has actually a couple of nice things to say about the old 'maestro.' For him, the injection of liquidity after the 1987 crash, and allowing the unemployment rate to fall below 6% or so (what most considered the natural rate) suggest that "it is only fair to say that he was a very good chairman of the Fed."

This in spite of his "two big mistakes." One mistake was allowing (I would say almost promoting) the housing bubble. The other, the relevant one for Solow, was his:

"deep-seated conviction that the unregulated financial system was self-stabilizing, that the self-interest of all those clever and experienced participants with a lot of their wealth at stake would keep the accumulation of risk within tolerable bounds. So he promoted deregulation and financial consolidation (as did others, of course) and, when this simple faith proved wrong, allowed disaster to strike."

If  being a monetary crank that shares responsibility for the deregulation of the financial sector and the current global crisis (let alone his role in the Bush tax cuts, or his promotion of cutting Social Security benefits) does not make him a terrible Fed chairman, I don't know what would.

Also, I think Solow is right, Greenspan does not represent well the more moderate New Keynesian mainstream. Yet, in many respects his sort of fringe radical right wing Ayn Rand version of the mainstream, like supply side and Austrian economics, is also part of the mainstream and shares several crucial elements. I would argue that the problem with Greenspan is NOT that he misrepresents the mainstream, but that his deregulation mantra is perfectly compatible with the mainstream. Lets not forget that Larry Summers (a New Keynesian that favors fiscal expansion and is concerned about the possibility of secular stagnation now) was during the Clinton era presiding over deregulation.

Krugman vs. Galbraith via Lars Syll

Lars dug up this on-line debate from the 1990s between Paul and Jamie. He linked to the full debate here. The part he posted is about the use of math and models in economics. There are other interesting parts in the debate, even if it is dominated by a discussion of the effects of free trade policies on manufacturing wages in the US (these was after the publication of Adrian Wood's book on North and South trade; mind you my problem with Wood's book is that it still uses Heckscher-Ohlin, but that is a different discussion).

Here is a brief comment by Jamie on two other topics that are quite relevant today, and that 'serious' economists did not (and still don't) agree.

"The merits of cutting the budget deficit. Do serious economists all agree that cutting the budget deficit will raise savings and investment, and increase the rate of productivity growth? They do not. The late, great Bill Vickrey, who died just three days after receiving this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, was only one of many who think our present preoccupation with deficit reduction is dangerously counterproductive. I'm another. 

The 'natural rate of unemployment.' Do serious economists agree that there exists a 'natural rate of unemployment?' No. Do those who do believe in this concept agree on what the natural rate is? No. Do those who have estimated the natural rate agree on how quickly inflation will accelerate if unemployment goes below the natural rate? Again, no. (The next issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives will carry a symposium airing this argument.)"

I actually think that on the second most 'serious' economists do agree on the existence of the natural rate (including Paul), but not on what it is. As I referred to before, Bob Solow once said during a talk at the New School that the natural rate of unemployment didn't exist, but then by the end of the talk he suggested that it was 5.2% (this was in 2000).

The natural rate is actually the key issue for the mainstream suggestion that markets are efficient, and the more reasonable policy activists within the mainstream (like Paul or Brad DeLong, that are for fiscal activism, even if in very limited conditions) that think that imperfections (price or wage rigidities, lack of information, etc) preclude markets left alone to be self-regulating.

PS: Philip Pilkington has also posted on this here. Worth reading.

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.

How to solve the crisis without doing a thing

Are you concerned with unemployment and the effects of austerity on the very slow recovery? The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), with the help of mainstream theory, has a solution. Just hike the natural rate of unemployment. Now there are less people involuntarily unemployed, and we are only about 2.2% above 'full employment.' If they hike it a bit more we are done, and John Taylor and Martin Feldstein will be correct in pressing the Fed to hike the rate of interest.

It is a convenient solution no doubt. Mind you the most typical way of deriving the natural rate is from some kind of average of the actual unemployment. In other words, they [mainstream] tell you that the average of a series is the attractor of the actual series. Talk about having things upside down!

This reminds me of the time Bob Solow gave a talk at the New School (in 2001) and suggested at the beginning that the idea of the natural rate was incorrect and should be avoided. By the end of the talk he argued that most analysts think that the natural rate was, back then, at around 5.2%. There it is, the natural rate doesn't exist, but it is 5.2%.