More on the possibility and risks of a recession

So both the (inverted) yield curve and the Sahm rule indicate a recession. This together with two months of slower employment creation, and the slightly higher unemployment rate, has many wondering whether the economy will crash soon. I discussed before -- a while ago, before the pandemic recession, that had nothing to do with the yield curve -- why an inverted yield curve doesn't necessarily mean a forthcoming recession. The Sahm rule, like the inverted yield curve has an impressive track record. It suggests that if three month moving average of the rate of unemployment rises 0.5 or more above the minimum of the same averages for the previous twelve months a recession is under way. Figure below, although scale doesn't help, shows that we are at 0.57 for last August [ominous music here].

This is essentially an a-theoretical measure, contrary to the yield curve which could have different explanations, including the Wicksellian one used by the mainstream. It expresses basically a trend. Unemployment rates go up in recessions, and after a while going up, you're basically in one. The two episodes in which it fails, as far I can tell, were in 1959 and 2003. No clear reason for why, as opposed to housing market measures that failed in 1951, 1967, and perhaps now (if you believe me), because of two wars (Korea and Vietnam) and fiscal packages (Bidenomics).

In a few weeks now, the Fed is very likely, almost certainly really, going to reduce interest rates. I don't expect that to stimulate the economy much, and it certainly will not create any danger about an inflationary resurgence. Also, as I noted on Marketplace a week or so ago, there are some positive signs about the economy. Real wages at the bottom are growing, and consumption went up. And no, you should not be concerned with the low savings rate. I was a little less sanguine that I sound in that short soundbite, but overall I think that's correct.

Sure enough a recession could certainly imply a return of Trump, and Trumponomics. I doubt that it would cause inflation and that his election would deepen the recession, as some had argued. Not because tax cuts for the wealthy would stimulate the economy. But the truth is that Republicans in power don't care about the deficit or debt. They care about cutting social benefits, and about facilitating the lucrative relations between the corporate sector and government. What Jamie Galbraith called the Predator State. Trumponomics shares with Reaganomics, and other GOP supply side voodoo economics notions, a persistent characteristic. It is always against unions and higher wages, and always for lower taxes for the wealthy.

Dems are less consistent, but certainly less keen on both (and Kamala seems to have accepted Bidenomics and the pro-union agenda). The problem with that is that it has opened the door for right wing populism. The differences with previous versions of conservative economics are subtle, and in some sense rhetorical, since they do very little for working people. On right wing populism economics and their connection to the working class, and the problematic relation of Dems with the working class, I suggest the recent piece by Kim Phillips-Fein on the London Review of Books. She says:

"In 1968 George Wallace talked to a working class that was afraid of dispossession. Trump speaks to workers too, but more directly uses the language of money and corporate success; his appeal derives from identification with the boss -- reflecting the extent to which he seeks to win the allegiance of small business owners. Just as American political institutions have been hollowed out since the 1960s, so has the country's political economy, in ways that have helped to increase Trumps' appeal."

The self-made man myth, an American neologism (Henry Clay, if I'm not wrong), is incredibly corrosive. I hope I'm right and we can avoid a recession, and Trump.

Friedman vs. Wicksell

Slowly, but steadily the Wicksellian concept of a natural, normal or neutral rate of interest is making a come back and becoming more relevant and cited than Friedman's natural rate of unemployment and its awkward twin the Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU).

Note that up to Friedman's infamous presidential address the normal rate dominated the field. But in all fairness, even thought it has lost space it seems that Friedman's natural rate of unemployment has a lot of inertia, and might be with us for a while.

The Economist and the natural rate of unemployment

The Economist new series on 'big ideas' tackled in a recent issue the concept of the natural rate unemployment (subscription required; other ideas included Say's Law and Human Capital, just to give you the broad picture of what they think it's big). I will only comment very briefly on two issues, one related to the history of ideas and the other to the concept itself.

The Economist suggests that the natural rate of unemployment can somehow be connected to the ideas of Keynes. In their words:

John Maynard Keynes, the great British economist, took a first step towards the natural-rate hypothesis when he focused minds on 'involuntary' unemployment. In his book 'The General Theory'.

The idea of a natural rate of interest can be clearly traced back to marginalist economics, and was a central concept discussed by Knut Wicksell. The idea of the natural rate of unemployment, as The Economist correctly points out, is essentially related to Milton Friedman's American Economic Association Presidential address of almost half a century ago, and the Monetarist interpretation of the Phillips Curve (PC).

However, Keynes' Wicksellian days were over by about 1932, when in the aftermath of the Circus discussions, he abandoned the theoretical framework of the Treatise on Money and started on his way to effective demand and the General Theory (GT). Note that the idea of a natural rate of interest is intrinsically connected to the natural rate of unemployment, since the former would be the rate of interest that corresponds to full employment and stable prices, meaning the equilibrium in the labor market.

On the natural rate of interest, Keynes had this to say in chapter 17 of the GT:

... it was a mistake to speak of the natural rate of interest or to suggest that the above definition would yield a unique value for the rate of interest irrespective of the level of employment. I had not then understood that, in certain conditions, the system could be in equilibrium with less than full employment. 

I am now no longer of the opinion that the concept of a 'natural' rate of interest, which previously seemed to me a most promising idea, has anything very useful or significant to contribute to our analysis.

There is little room for doubt that Keynes rejected the natural rate rather than taking the "first steps" in its direction, as The Economist suggests. He was clearly moving away decisively from that flawed concept, which leads me to discuss the concept itself and what the magazine (they think somehow they're a newspaper, strangely enough) thinks one must do to reject the concept.* The Economist says:

... to reject the natural rate entirely, you would need to believe one of two things. Either central banks cannot influence the rate of unemployment even in the short term, or they can peg unemployment as low as they like—zero, even—without sparking inflation. Neither claim is credible.

The second part shows that they presume that the absence of a natural rate means that the economy could be driven to zero unemployment without inflation (I'll deal with the first statement about the effect of monetary policy on employment subsequently). This is the case because for The Economist, as much as for many in the mainstream of the profession, inflation is always a demand phenomenon. Too much spending, often government (meaning fiscal policy) is behind inflationary pressures. Of course, the PC only works empirically when supply side factors, like the price of oil, are included as explanatory variables. So they think that if you reject the natural rate you must think there is no limit to demand expansion.**

Inflation, more often than not, is a cost push phenomenon associated to higher prices of commodities, devalued exchange rates, and more social conflict reflected in higher wage resistance. So, lower unemployment would eventually strengthen the labor force, and would lead to higher wages, and that combined with possible sectoral shortages of raw materials, which would also be more expensive, would lead to inflation. So you might very well get inflation before you reach zero unemployment rate, but the reasons are not the ones the magazine authors think. The point is that there is no reason to think that there is one level of unemployment that magically would lead to inflation. No natural rate, but several possible rates of unemployment compatible with stable prices, depending on a whole set of social and institutional conditions.

And the central bank can affect unemployment, even if its ability is not straightforward and is asymmetrical. In a recession, a lower rate of interest is, as Eccles famously said (he really popularized the phrase, but he did not coin it), like pushing on a string. You need fiscal spending in that situation, as has been painfully obvious during the long Obama recovery. But in a boom a hike to the rate of interest, in particular if it affects debtors, might cause a recession. So The Economist is wrong (I'm shocked, shocked!). You can believe that central banks affect unemployment and that there is some inflation barrier, but that does NOT mean that there is a natural rate.

Interestingly enough, they do admit that they (and economists in general) have no clue what is the correct natural rate of unemployment, and that should make the natural rate concept of limited usefulness for policymakers. So what they propose central banks should do? Use a flawed concept that cannot be measured as the guide for policy? That's some serious thinking, isn't it?

* Too many posts on the problems with the natural rate have been discussed over the years in this blog, just click on the hashtag and check a few if you're interested.

** Note, also, that when demand goes up, firms do invest to adjust capacity, which means that the capacity limit is not fixed either.

The “Natural” Interest Rate and Secular Stagnation: Loanable Funds Macro Models Don't Fit Today’s Institutions or Data

By Lance Taylor

Can America recover ideal rates of growth through interest-rate policies? This important analysis suggests that most economists misunderstand the issue. Updating Keynes, the analysis suggests that fiscal stimulus, labor union bargaining power, and more progressive income taxes are needed to support growth. (The article includes some algebra, which some readers may choose to skip.)

The main points of this paper are that loanable-funds macroeconomic models with their “natural” interest rate do not fit with modern institutions and data. Before getting into the numbers, it makes sense to describe the models and how to think about macroeconomics in the first place.

Today’s “New Keynesian” orthodoxy says that short- to medium-run performance is determined by interest-sensitive “loanable funds.” Unimpeded interest-rate adjustment should support robust macroeconomic equilibrium. Examples of this thinking include the (visibly nonexisting) “zero lower bound” on rates, which allegedly holds down saving and contributes to secular stagnation, the global “savings glut” keeping market rates near zero, and the “dynamic stochastic general equilibrium” (DSGE) models beloved by freshwater economists and central banks in which investment is determined by saving as a function of financial return.

Loanable-funds doctrine dates back to the early nineteenth century and was forcefully restated by the Swedish economist Knut Wicksell around the turn of the twentieth (with implications for inflation not pursued here). It was repudiated in 1936 by John Maynard Keynes in his General Theory. Before that he was merely a leading post-Wicksellian rather than the greatest economist of his and later times.

Macroeconomic models are built around assumptions about behavior imposed upon accounting relationships such as value of output (or demand) equals cost of output (which generates income), and value of assets in a balance sheet equals value of liabilities plus net worth. Keynes said that changes in income dominate in making sure that the first accounting balance is satisfied. He switched Wicksell’s assumptions about macro causality—or, in the jargon, the “closure” of the model—to fit his understanding of the system. New Keynesian economists reswitch the closure back to Wicksell.

Institutions have evolved since Wicksell and Keynes were writing—the welfare state materialized and international trade expanded. Both thought, correctly for their times, that most saving comes from households and that most investment is done by business. Unlike Keynes, Wicksell argued that “the” interest rate as opposed to the level of output adjusts to ensure macro balance. If potential investment falls short of saving, then, maybe with some help from inflation and the central bank, the rate will decrease. Households will save less (and possibly also run up debt to buy into a financial bubble as prior to 2007), and firms seek to invest more. The supply of loanable funds will go down and demand up, until the two flows equalize with the interest rate at its “natural” level.

In New Keynesian thinking, demand for investment can be so weak and the desire to save so strong that the natural rate lies below zero. The “distortion” imposed by the zero lower bound short-circuits the adjustment process, leading to calls for central banks to raise their inflation targets to reduce the “real” interest rate (nominal rate minus inflation). More straightforward interventions—such as restoring American labor’s bargaining power so that rising wages can push up prices from the side of costs, expansionary fiscal policy, or redistributing from the top 1 percent to households in the bottom half of the income size distribution whose saving rates are negative—are apparently impossible for “political” reasons.

Read the rest here.

Lance Taylor on Loanable Funds and the Natural Rate

New paper on INET. Here is from Lance's conclusion:

... writing in the General Theory after leaving his Wicksellian phase, Keynes said that “... I had not then understood that, in certain conditions, the system could be in equilibrium with less than full employment….I am now no longer of the opinion that the concept of a ‘natural’ rate of interest, which previously seemed to me a most promising idea, has anything very useful or significant to contribute to our analysis (pp. 242-43).” Today’s New “Keynesians” have tremendous intellectual firepower. The puzzle is why they revert to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes’s innovations. Maybe, as he said in the preface to the General Theory, “The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones… (p. viii).”

His point is that while there are good reasons to believe in the forces of stagnation, the reasons are not the Wicksellian ones given in New Keynesian models. Worth reading.

On the return of the natural rate of interest

The natural rate is an old concept, well explained in Wicksell, that almost vanished (Keynes was explicitly against it, even though he partially failed to get rid of it), and has made a come back with the Neo-Wicksellian model that dominates macro today (misnamed New Keynesianism). Below the estimates published in the speech by John Williams.

Note that what seems to drive the natural rate of interest is the basic rate determined by the central bank. Either the fall of the natural rate caused the crisis, or more plausibly, the crisis forced the central banks to reduce the basic rates, and the average of the fed funds rate (which is essentially how they get the natural rate) has subsequently fallen. The same goes for the twin concept of the natural rate of unemployment that keeps falling.

Interesting thing is that for a while the very concept had lost some of its prominence. After the Keynesian Revolution, and particularly after the capital debates, mainstream economists were more cautious about bringing up the natural rate of interest. Friedman used a subterfuge to bring it back with the idea of the natural rate of unemployment. In part because of that, as it can be seen below, the use of the term natural rate of interest in four of the central mainstream journals (American Economic Review, Economic Journal, Journal of Political Economy and Quarterly Journal of Economics) fell in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.

Since the 2000s, there seems to be an increase in the use of the term (in my JSTOR search; note we have a few more years left in the last decade), and if Ngram viewer is correct, a decline in the use of natural rate of unemployment (although the increase in natural rate of interest is not visible in Ngram; one was a limited search in academic journals and the other is a very broad search in books, which may explain the different results). I might be wrong, but my guess is that the natural rate of interest, now that the capital debates are long forgotten, is being rehabilitated.

PS: First paper in 1913 by Irving Fisher, in the JSTOR search.  Roy Harrod is the one with the most papers using the term natural rate of interest, followed by Dennis Robertson. In recent times the one with more papers is Michael Woodford. I excluded papers that were about history of thought, rather than about theory (very few anyway).

More on Murphy, and Rowe on the Natural Rate of Interest

My post on Robert Murphy's critique of Piketty generated a few comments, and a good debate (see the comments section here). But there are a few things worth clarifying, and also Robert pointed out a post by Nick Rowe, which is also worth discussing in more detail.

As I noted before there seems to be a confusion among Austrians, which think that their notion of the rate of interest is purely based on intertemporal consumption (savings) preferences, and is not open to the problems of the capital debates (this is as old as Austrian economics, by the way; for more below). It would not be, in their view, equivalent to the natural rate of interest of Wicksell and the Loanable Funds Theory of the rate of interest.

First, let me get back to Robert Murphy's original post, which led to my previous post. Just to remind you his argument was that the non-Austrian mainstream (and Piketty, as a result) confused financial or monetary measures of capital with purely physical ones. It's worth quoting extensively from his post. He says:

"If a firm hires a specific capital good for a unit of time, the payment is the rental price of the capital good. For example, suppose that a warehouse pays $100,000 per year to an independent company that maintains fleets of forklifts. These annual payments are clearly due to the "marginal product" of the forklifts; the warehouse can sell more of its own services to its customers when it has use of the forklifts. 

However, these technological facts tell us nothing about the rate of interest enjoyed by the owners of the forklifts. In order to determine that, we would have to know the market price of the forklifts. For example, if the forklifts that the independent company rents out to the warehouse could be sold on the open market for $1 million, then their owners would enjoy a 10-percent return each year on their invested capital. But if the forklifts could be sold for $2 million, then the $100,000 payments—due to the "marginal product" of the forklifts—would correspond to only a 5-percent interest rate. As this simple example illustrates, knowledge of the marginal product of capital, per se, does not allow us to pin down the rate of interest."

Note that this is a triviality, and by no means contradictory with the conventional neoclassical analysis. It only says that the rate of interest specific to a particular capital good (forklifts) and its price are inversely related. That per se, certainly does NOT mean that "the relationship between the productivity of capital and the interest rate is not [direct]." The point is that, in marginalist economics, the entrepreneur would 'hire' more capital to the point were the additional (marginal) cost would equalize the additional (marginal) revenue that can be obtained from using one more unit of capital, and the latter would depend on how much more output the additional capital (forklift in this case) unit would bring. So according to changes in prices of the capital good, and, as a result, of its rate of return, the capital good would be used if it provides a gain over the interest rate. If there is an advantage in using the capital good (forklift), then more will be used, pushing its price up, and bringing its remuneration down into equilibrium with the rate of interest (the natural one).

The point of the capital debates (go here) is that there is no reason to believe that a certain technology (forklifts) would be more profitable at low rates of interest, while at higher rates of interest firms would switch to manually powered hoists (more labor intensive, arguably), for example, to lift the cargo. It would be even impossible to define clearly that one technology (forklifts) is more capital intensive than another (manual hoists). The point is that there is no relation between intensity (relative scarcity) of the use of a capital good and its remuneration.

For example, in the conventional story if the price of the forklift goes down, more capitalists would be willing to buy it, supposedly substituting other technologies (which are now relatively more expensive for the cheaper one). Yet, the fall in the price of the forklift might reduce the remuneration of the producer of forklifts, even if demand increased, since the increase in the quantity sold might very well be trumped by the effect of a lower price. Also, and more importantly for us, the decrease in the price of forklifts might lead to a reduction in the demand for forklifts. This could be the case, for instance, if the decrease in the price of forklifts and lower remuneration reduces the forklift producers' demand for other goods, which are produced, in turn, using forklifts, leading to a lower demand for forklifts. The changes in the price of the forklift, and its remuneration, are not directly correlated to its relative use (how many forklifts are bought and used in production).

Note that the fact that forklifts are produced by means of forklifts, is central to this perverse effect (the absence of any discussion of re-switching in Robert's discussion of the capital debates is telling). Here it is also worth understanding why Sraffa used the old classical and Marxist terminology of means of production rather than factors of production. A means of production is produced (like the forklift) by using means of production (including forklifts). Robert is actually utilizing the notion of a factor of production, even though he uses emptily the same terminology as Sraffians (means of production), which means that the impact of the production on capital goods (forklifts) on the production of capital goods is actually ignored.

Further, Robert does NOT deny that supply and demand determine prices and by substitution lead to allocation of resources (which makes him, and all Austrians, marginalist).* He seems just to be suggesting that a monetary rate of interest might be at some point different than the rate of remuneration of forklifts.** And it sure can. However, there must be some reason, for an agent not to invest in forklifts if the remuneration is higher than the monetary rate of interest. With free entry, and using Robert's conventional (Austrian) supply and demand logic, the entry should bring prices down, univocally lead to more demand for forklifts and equalize the marginal productivity of the forklifts and remuneration to the natural rate of interest.

Note that this opens up the question of the time preference, the other leg in Loanable Funds Theory of the rate of interest. Assume that you start from a situation in which the rate of return on forklifts is the same as the monetary rate of interest. Now assume that for some reason (Robert would say a change in intertemporal consumer preferences) the monetary rate of interest changed. Then, all of a sudden the demand for forklifts should increase, and the prices of forklifts go up, reducing its remuneration to the new equilibrium. This is when Nick's post comes in handy (again, link here).

Nick shows a very conventional story of the Loanable Funds Theory. On the one hand, we have the conventional Production Possibilities Frontier (PPF, in red), which shows how much more consumption in the future can be obtained by using less resources to produce consumption goods in the present. That is basically the marginal productivity story, in this case with the traditional neoclassical assumption of marginal diminishing returns, since the technology only allows for more consumption tomorrow at a decreasing rate (graph from Nick's post).

On the other hand, you have the indifference curve (in blue) and its slope represents the marginal intertemporal rate of substitution, which gives you how much economic agents are willing to part with consumption today in order to obtain more consumption tomorrow. When the two curves are tangential, and the marginal productivity of capital equals the marginal rate of substitution you are in equilibrium. Two things are important to note here. The intertemporal notion used in this discussion, is not exactly the same as the intertemporal notion of equilibrium used in General Equilibrium models. Not only the notion of capital above is aggregative, but more relevantly, the individual capital goods, when they are considered, would have to obtain a long-term uniform rate of profit. In fact, Bhöm-Bawerk used this notion, which was then lifted by Wicksell and Fisher (cited by Nick).***

In addition, Nick suggests that the marginal productivity of capital is NOT necessary to determine the rate of interest, but the marginal rate of transformation at which we transform less consumption goods today into more tomorrow does. Actually this is an empty distinction, since the rate at which one investment good allows you to produce (transform) more consumption goods in the future is, essentially, its marginal productivity.

This is an old and well-known confusion by Bhöm-Böhm-Bawerk, who wanted to suggest that interest rates were not the remuneration of marginal productivity of capital. His solution revolved about the notion of roundaboutness of productive process, and it does not scape the notion that marginal productivity is still relevant in the Austrian framework, and Wicksell, as well as Fisher (and if I recall correctly even J.B. Clark was too) seemed to be aware of the limitations of Böhm-Bawerk's analysis (a full explanation would require another post).

In sum, this is another case of a mainstream author that does think that markets (supply and demand) determine prices efficiently, producing the correct allocation of resources (in this case capital) confused with his own theory (for a similar lack of understanding of his own neoclassical theory by Noah Smith go here). There is the added perversity of trying to use a critique of his own theory (the capital debates) to show that the theoretically challenged but politically progressive Piketty is wrong (he is, but that idea of wealth taxes is NOT the problem).

The lack of understanding of neoclassical economics by neoclassical economists is, not surprisingly, a result of their defeat in the capital debates, and the fragmentation of teaching thereafter, something that I referred to as the return of vulgar economics. It could be said that the mainstream graduate programs are now basically the production of confused economists by means of confused economists.

* Actually his argument against Piketty's tax is that it would distort prices, and hence the incentives for entrepreneurs to invest, being detrimental to growth. So there is a lot of faith in the powers of supply and demand to allocate resources efficiently.

** One wonders if Robert read the Hayek-Sraffa debate on own rates of interest, in which Hayek committed a similar mistake.

*** Again here there is a terrible confusion in Robert's understanding of the meaning of the intertemporal models, since the latter presume, inconsistently, that the notion of a uniform rate of profit can be abandoned. That's why the intertemporal General Equilibrium models remain short-term models. By the way, as shown in the graph above the determination of the rate of interest (1+r), which is the slope at the tangential point of the PPF and the indifference curve, is the natural rate and is open to the capital debates critique.

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.

Keynes on the causes of the Great Depression

By 1932 a draft of the General Theory (GT) was basically finished, including the central concept of effective demand, and Keynes have moved away from the Wicksellian framework of the Treatise on Money (TM). From a policy point of view the new view implied that the cause of the Great Depression was less the high rates of interest (above the natural rate), and the emphasis on the Gold Standard, that had dominated his views in the TM, to a more straightforward blame on reduced spending in the US.

In The Means to Prosperity from 1933, in which most of his policy views were expounded (and published before the GT) Keynes argues that:

Note that he clearly suggests that the global crisis had its epicenter in the US. Also, even though he is concerned with the role of expenditure in the level of activity, he still refers to the recovery as having price effects ('raising world prices').

PS: Arguably those authors like Eichengreen and Temin that emphasize the role of the Gold Standard remain closer to the TM and its Wicksellian framework (which would make sense for New Keynesian authors), while Romer, even though she remains firmly wedded to the idea of a natural rate, would be closer to the Keynes of The Means to Prosperity and the GT. See older post here.

On the natural rate of interest one more time

After one of my last posts Warren Mosler sent me a link to his paper with Mathew Forstater on the natural rate of interest (here). In the paper they suggest that the natural rate is zero. Note that Warren and Mat actually are talking about a normal (rather than natural) rate of interest, that would be set in a particular institutional framework (they emphasize State money, i.e. Chartalism, and flexible exchange rates).

The conventional argument about the natural rate of interest is mainly associated with neoclassical economics, and with the work of Knut Wicksell. Axel Leijonhufvud, in the New Palgrave entry on "Natural and Market rate of Interest"  (subscription required) says that:

"the ‘natural rate’ ... divulges Wicksell's engagement in the ancient quest for a ‘neutral’ monetary system, that is, a system neutral in the original sense that all relative prices develop as they would in a hypothetical world without paper money. Wicksell asserted three equilibrium conditions that the interest rate should satisfy; the first of these was that the market rate should equal the rate that would prevail if capital goods were lent and borrowed in kind (in natura). This criterion was later shown by Myrdal, Sraffa and others not to have an unambiguous meaning outside the single input–single output world of Wicksell's example. The further development of Wicksellian theory, therefore, centered around the two remaining criteria: saving–investment coordination and price level stability."

In all fairness the last two arguments fall with the first too. If there is no unambiguous relation between capital intensity and the rate of interest, then there is no way of finding a rate of interest that would equalize investment to the full employment savings and as a result no reason to believe that there is a rate that by guaranteeing the equilibrium with full utilization of resources it will be associated with price stability (no excess demand). The reasons for that were discussed several times here and are associated to the capital debates.

The point that Warren and Mat make is quite different. The basis of their arguments relies on the following notions:

"Under a state money system with flexible exchange rates, the monetary system is tax driven. The federal government, as issuer of the currency, is not revenue constrained. Taxes do not finance spending, but taxation  serves to create a notional demand for state money. Spending logically precedes tax collection, and total spending will normally exceed tax revenues. The government budget, from inception, will therefore normally be in deficit, which also allows the non government sector to “net save” state money (this in fact has been observed in all state currencies)."

I tend to agree with the main thrust of their idea, but it is important to add a caveat. Flexible rates exchange rates might not be sufficient to eliminate current account deficits (and capital flows might not be attracted even by very high rates of interest) in peripheral countries, which might imply that a foreign constraint imposes a limit to the fiscal space for the state. But assuming we are talking about the United States or other countries unconstrained by the external accounts, then we can proceed with their argument.

Their point quite correctly is that, again quoting directly:

"Since the currency issuer [the State] does not need to borrow its own money to spend, security sales, like taxes, must have some other purpose. That purpose in a typical state money system is to manage aggregate bank reserves and control short-term interest rates (overnight interbank lending rate, or Fed funds rate in the United States)."

Finally, they note that if the central bank has a positive short-term interest rate target, then it must either: "pay interest on reserves or otherwise provide an interest-bearing alternative to non-interest-bearing reserve accounts ... by offering securities for sale in the open market." Hence, their conclusion:

"In a state money system with flexible exchange rates running a budget deficit—in other words, under the 'normal' conditions or operations of the specified institutional context—without government intervention either to pay interest on reserves or to offer securities to drain excess reserves to actively support a nonzero, positive interest rate, the natural or normal rate of interest of such a system is zero."

Again, with the caveat that peripheral countries might need to maintain a positive (and high) rate of interest to attract capital or at least avoid capital flight, the argument is not incorrect. But it is strange, to say the least, to assume that there is something normal about a zero rate. In fact, the point of State money is that the State does provide an asset free of risk (government bonds) that allows financial accumulation to take place.

In the long transition to the capitalist system, one of the initial steps in the transformation of feudal societies was the resurgence of public debt (in Northern Italian City States), well before the consolidation of National States and national currencies. Normal interest rates were always relatively high until recently [Sidney Homer's classic book A History of Interest Rates provides the evidence].

In reality, without a risk-free asset financial markets cannot develop [a problem for developing countries that need to import capital and intermediary goods in foreign currency, and are, hence, always subjected to foreign exchange and sovereign risk] and this might hinder the process of capital accumulation. The normal rate can actually be any rate that the social conditions and the pressures imposed on the monetary authorities would permit. That was the point made by Sraffa when he suggested that the money rate of interest set by the monetary authority was exogenous and determined the normal rate of profit.

The meaning of short and long-term and the natural rate

From a history of economic thought point of view the turning point in the demise of the Keynesian Consensus based on the Neoclassical Synthesis was Friedman's rediscovery of Wicksell's natural rate. It was peculiar, in a sense, that it happened in the 1960s when the capital debates demonstrated (and was accepted by Samuelson, the High Priest of the Neoclassical Synthesis) that the natural rate made no theoretical sense. That led to a more significant and insidious change in economics. The abandonment of the notion of long-term equilibrium method, as noted by Garegnani.

Briefly stated, what the process entailed is that confronted with the fact that there is no possible way to relate some measure of capital with its remuneration (the idea that abundant capital would lead to a low level of remuneration, i.e. a low rate of interest, and the analogous one that full employment of capital could be obtained with a sufficiently low rate of interest) the mainstream reverted to the Arrow-Debreu (AD) notion that different types of capital had different remunerations and there was no tendency to a uniform rate of profit (interest). That, as noted by Garegnani, was a departure from the traditional method of economics. Up to the 1930s all economists, including the marginalists (neoclassical) ones did follow it.

Note that the long-term, associated with the uniform rate of interest (or profit), is a methodological instrument, not a particular period of chronological time. The long-term is just a period in which no variables are constant or fixed, and the process of competition, that allows for new entrants in every sector (with perfect competition) to lead to a uniform rate of interest. The short-term is by symmetry a situation in which something precludes the long-term situation to be achieved. For example, a typical short-term macroeconomic assumption is to assume a given level of productive capacity. The demand effect of investment (demand for equipment and installations) is taken into account, but not the capacity effect (the increase in the number of machines and plants).

That's why this comment by Miles Kimball (a supply-side liberal, talk about oxymoron) is so revealing of the confusion that now dominates the mainstrem. He says:

"To think clearly about economic fluctations at a somewhat more advanced level, I find I need to use these four different time scales:

• The Ultra Short Run: the period of about 9 months during which investment plans adjust—primarily as existing investment projects finish and new projects are started—to gradually bring the economy to short-run equilibrium. 

• The Short Run: the period of about 3 years during which prices (and wages) adjust gradually bring the economy to medium-run equilibrium.

• The Medium Run: the period of about 12 years during which the capital stock adjusts gradually to bring the economy to long-run equilibrium. 

• The Long Run: what the economy looks like after investment, prices and wages, and capital have all adjusted. In the long run, the economy is still evolving as technology changes and the population grows or shrinks."

Yes, that now passes for clarity of thinking. Short-term is a period of chronological time, long-term is conceptual methodological position. The confusion is compounded by the fact that he is trying to clarify what he sees as "a lot of confusion about the natural interest rate ... [and] the main source of confusion is that there is both a medium-run natural interest rate and a short-run natural interest rate." The natural rate is by definition a long-term position.

Old marginalists, like Wicksell or Marshall didn't think the system was at the natural rate in the short-run. It gravitated around it in the long-term. This idea of a short-run natural rate, derives from the AD short-run notion of a system that is always in equilibrium. And then he does use an aggregative version of an ISLM model (which is a long term sort of equilibrium notion). But he has no clue about the capital debates and its consequences. Oh well.

Knut Krugman vs. Krugman von Hayek

Lance Taylor suggested that if you look closely into Paul Krugman's ideas you actually find the ghost of Knut Wicksell. Now Nathan Tankus argues in a post here that Krugman looks more like Friederich Hayek. The crucial thing is that:

"Both Krugman and Hayek have argued quite consistently that there was a 'natural rate of interest' which according to Krugman is “the rate of interest that would match desired savings with desired investment at full employment. “ Hayek makes the same argument in his writing. This interest rate is not the interest rate set by the central bank, indeed it is not an interest rate set on any market. It is a hypothetical interest rate which we will finally know if or when full employment returns."

Note also that Hayek's model, like Keynes' in the Treatise on Money, was quite Wicksellian. So Nathan and Lance might be onto the same thing in fact.

Johan Gustaf Knut Krugman or Naked Wicksellianism

Dr. Krugman, I presume

Lance Taylor has a new paper on Krugman's liquidity trap model, showing that it is fundamentally Wicksellian, rather than Keynesian. In fact, Krugman has put his Naked Wicksellianism on display recently (see here). You should read the whole paper, but as a teaser, here is what Lance says about Krugman's policy stance (that the Fed should stimulate inflationary expectations to increase investment):

In a Knut-shell (very punny) Wicksell is okay, but Keynes is better.

Thomas Tooke and the Gibson Paradox

The Gibson Paradox is the name that Keynes suggested for a particular empirical regularity, namely: the positive correlation between the rate of interest and the price level. He had read about in a series of articles in the Banker's Magazine by A. H. Gibson, hence the name. Keynes suggested in his Treatise on Money that the Gibson Paradox was "one of the most completely established empirical facts in the whole field of quantitative economics." The graph below is from Gibson's 1926 piece.

However, the correlation was first noted by Thomas Tooke (for more see Pivetti's entry in the New Palgrave; subscription required), the leader of the Banking School, in the 19th century, and author of the massive and underappreciated History of Prices ( Vols. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 available on-line).

In that book, and contrary to Ricardo and the Bullionist authors (the precursors of the Currency School), he argued that inflation during the Napoleonic Wars (1793-1814) was not caused by money printing by the Bank of England (bank notes were inconvertible from 1797 to 1821), but the result of bad crops and higher prices of agricultural goods, import restrictions associated to the blockade and higher import prices, and exchange rate depreciation that added to the costs of imported goods. The last cause he cites is associated to what Keynes called the Gibson Paradox (p. 347):

"A higher rate of interest, in consequence of the absorption by the war loans of a considerable proportion of the savings of individuals; such higher rate of interest constituting an increased cost of production."

In other words, the rate of interest enters the costs of production [some heterodox authors, like Lance Taylor, have referred to this as the Cavallo-Patman effect]. Note that there is no particular paradox in the effect, which according to Lawrence Klein [yes the same that won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize, aka the Nobel] is still doing fine (and yes also needs subscription; sorry).

The reason that the correlation seemed like a paradox to Keynes is because he thought along marginalist lines and assumed that a higher rate of interest would lead to lower investment, and hence reduce demand pressures on prices. He expected a negative correlation between the two variables. Wicksell noted that if the economy was hit by a real shock (to the marginal productivity of capital, for example) then you would have a bank rate of interest lower than the new and higher natural rate of interest (implying higher remuneration for the more productive capital), and the excess investment associated to this situation would lead to higher prices. Eventually, banks would note that the bank rate was too low, and would raise it, leading to an increase in the rate of interest together with higher prices (a positive correlation). Of course Wicksell and the natural rate cannot survive the capital critique. For more on Wicksell go here.

Ramblings on 21st century macroeconomics

Guillermo Calvo wrote a post on what he thinks is the new macroeconomics. Minsky gets cited, but that's pretty much the only concession to heterodox macroeconomics. The interpretation of what the "new" macro for the 21st century should be is basically New Keynesian price/wage rigidities models cum debt-deflation (the finance and Minsky part). But even the understanding of debt-deflation is limited to the notion of sudden stops (slowdown or reversal of capital inflows).

According to him:

"many of us have been involved in developing and testing theories in which imperfections in financial markets play a central role – and coining new terms like Sudden Stop and Phoenix Miracles. The dominant view, however, was that financial crises in EMs reflected weak institutions in that part of the world, and could not possibly take place in advanced economies. Unfortunately, the subprime crisis revealed, to the dismay of many in advanced economies, especially in Europe, that the world is more uniform than we thought!"

In other words, he seems to think that market imperfections are pervasive and that developed countries are vulnerable to sudden stops, like emerging markets (a terrible name popularized in the 1990s for developing countries, as if the only thing were the 'markets'). Note that while developing countries have not experienced sudden stops with the financial crash of 2008, and have used international reserves to insure against the volatility of financial markets (and often introduced capital controls too, when those were not already in place), no significant sudden stop affected the US, the epicenter of the crisis.

As noted by several heterodox economists the crisis in the US the deep causes of the crisis were associated to wage stagnation (worsening income distribution) and the associated increase in private debt, which led to a collapse of spending in the aftermath of the Lehman crisis. Mind you, at that point capital flows went into Treasury bonds, and no sudden stop affected the American economy (in contrast to say Argentina in 2002). So no, the world is not flat or "more uniform" that Calvo thought.

Just for those that might not remember, on dollarization this is what Calvo (paper with Carmen Reinhart) used to say back in 2000 (a few years before the Argentinean crisis; he was rumored as a possible finance minister at the time in Argentina, and the notion was that he was for dollarization):

"Exchange rate movements are costly in this environment. If policymakers take a hard look at the options for exchange rate regimes in emerging economies, they may find that floating regimes may be more of an illusion and that fixed rates--particularly, full dollarization--might emerge as a sensible choice for some countries, especially in Latin America or in the transition economies in the periphery of Euroland."

The sensible choice was dollarization (sic)! Note that his point was that with sufficient fiscal austerity, credibility would be restored, and capital would flow in the right direction (if you are from Greece, you should be afraid if this is the 'new' macro).

But back to sudden stops, which is the basis of his claim to have introduced financial markets into modern macro, here is what he had to say in his post, about the puzzles ahead:

"As recent empirical research has amply demonstrated, financial crisis follows credit boom; this is somewhat of a puzzle, but the most challenging puzzle in my opinion is that credit flows (both gross and net) increase in the run up of crisis, only to crash precipitously after the crisis' onset. ... In other words, if herding is the key word, forget about microfoundations of macroeconomics. I must confess that I am not ready to take such a radical stance. My view is that perhaps this very puzzling phenomenon is linked to liquidity and, more to the point, endogenous liquidity, a phenomenon that has been largely ignored in 20th century macroeconomics."

In other words, sudden stops are associated with collapse of liquidity, and those might be associated to herding behavior, which is irrational and is not amenable to formalizing microfoundations along conventional lines. There are so many misconceptions in this quote that one wonders when is he going to get the Sveriges Riksbank Prize (the often referred to as Nobel).

Endogenous liquidity, or endogenous money is no puzzle, and in fact, mainstream models that accept a Taylor rule have basically incorporated it, like Wicksell. Herding is not that complicated to understand, and is NOT the main problem with microfoundations. The problem with microfoundations is not lack of rationality of economic agents, but the fact that even with very rational (even by the limited mainstream standards) you cannot prove that markets lead to full utilization of resources, with flexible prices and full information (yes please go read on the capital debates).

Note that the effects of debt-deflation on demand are not discussed by Calvo. Or income distribution for that matter. Let alone the recognition that the idea of a natural rate is very difficult to defend, and I don't even mean logically, just empirically after this crisis. The essential information out of this piece is about the degree of confusion of the mainstream. It is increasingly clear that that we are living in a period of decadence of economics as a science, in which the profession is dominated by Vulgar economics.

What's the deal with PPP?

In a previous post I suggested that there might some problems with using Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) measures of income per capita, the traditional measure of well-being used by the World Bank, for example. And although some might think that the main problems are basically empirical, my fundamental preoccupation is theoretical (see this paper, which in fact comes from my thesis).

PPP was developed by Gustav Cassel as an extension of the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM) to international matters. The quantity of money determined domestically the internal price level, and the exchange rate was determined as the ratio of domestic and foreign prices (or vice versa depending on how you define the exchange ratio), or in dynamic versions, the change in the exchange rate was defined as the difference of the inflation rates.

Wicksell was very critical of Cassel's theory, as I note in my paper [there were significant personal differences between the two main authors of the Swedish school, beyond their divergences on economic theory]. He basically suggested that the rate of interest, the natural rate determined by the productivity of capital and the savings decisions of economic agents, was the key variable, not the money supply. Hence, the bank rate, if it was lower than the natural rate, would not only generate his famous cumulative process of inflation, but it would also lead to flows of capital, provided that it was not in line with the bank rate of interest in other countries, and would basically determined the foreign exchange rate [note that Wicksell, and not the Keynes of the Tract, as is often argued, is the first, in 1919, to defend what we would today refer to as the uncovered interest parity condition].

From our perspective what matters here is that, even within the marginalist approach, the notion that the Quantity of Money, and prices, determine the equilibrium exchange rate is ultimately incorrect, once money is endogenous, as Wicksell assumed [note that the modern consensus in macroeconomics, both the New Keynesians and the so-called New Neoclassical Synthesis, assume an exogenous rate of interest, using some sort of rule, typically a variation of Taylor's rule]. Further, if we assume free capital movement, which implies a uniform rate of profit, marginalism would require that capital would flow to places in which it is scarce, and eventually (in the long run) the rate of profit or the natural rate of interest would be equalized.* Hence, the exchange rate that would be establish after the process is complete, would correspond to the uniform natural rate, which governs the bank rate, which as we saw is what Wicksell suggested determines exchange rate. So there must exist a natural exchange rate that corresponds to the natural rate of interest (and the natural rate of unemployment and its correspondent real wage, Friedman would argue).

It is obvious that there are 'imperfections' and the natural rate of interest is not equalized in the real world, so the exchange rate also deviates from the natural rate. But that isn't the main problem with the mainstream view. As we saw, the capital debates undermine the theoretical basis for a natural rate of interest, and hence for a natural exchange rate (or a natural rate of unemployment for that matter). Hence, it is the Keynesian (and Sraffian) institutional rate of interest, as determined by monetary authorities that rules the roost. The conventional rate of interest is then connected to a conventional exchange rate [then institutional factors become relevant, like the existence or not of capital controls, etc.].

Leave aside the theoretical problems of purchasing power parity measures, since they are NOT attractors of the actual exchange rates [the reasons why Argentina had a 1 to 1 exchange rate with the dollar for a decade, or Greece has a 'fixed' parity too are political and institutional], and even if for some purposes you may want to use PPP rates as a measure of material welfare, one may also be interested in actual market exchange rates for other purposes. Indeed, for most of the relevant matters that concern economic well being, particularly in peripheral countries, like the capacity to repay foreign debt and avoid default and import capital goods to promote growth, it is the market exchange rate that is central to convert incomes in different countries into a common numeraire.**

* The fact that capital does NOT flow to developing countries is something that still puzzles very much mainstream economists like Robert Lucas (see here).

** Which means that China is considerably less developed than Argentina and Brazil, even if it is growing fast, it has a regional hegemonic project, and is, by sheer size, one of the most important economies in the world.

Yield curves and recessions

Let me get back to my discussion of the neo-Wicksellian macro model. One important feature of the model, is that it suggests that the central bank controls the rate of interest, and it should try to flatten the yield curve. That is, the bank rate (short run) should adjust to the natural rate (long run). In many respects this is the general rule behind all conventional stories about central banking. The Taylor Rule or the New Keynesian ideas behind Clarida, Galí and Gertler are basically a variation of Wicksell's story.

One thing that is also important about Wicksell's rule is that if the yield curve is negatively sloped (the bank rate is higher than the natural rate) then a recession (deflationary forces) are to be expected. The graph below uses the Fed Funds for the bank rate and the 10 year Treasury bond rate for the natural rate. In between the gray lines the official NBER recessions are shown.

As it can be seen, after the red line (Fed Funds) moves above the blue line (Treasury bonds rate) a recession always follows. There are many problems with the Wicksellian model, not the least the assumption of a natural rate of interest, that was severely criticized by Keynes in the General Theory. But the empirical notion that an inverted yield curve forecasts a recession seems to survive any possible theoretical critique. More on the critique will be left for other posts.

Neo-Wicksellian macroeconomics

Modern macro has more to do with Wicksell's Interest and Prices than with Keynes' General Theory. For one, the idea of a natural rate of unemployment derives directly from Wicksell's natural rate of interest, as Friedman noted. So here is a brief explanation of Wicksell's main argument in that book.

Wicksell distinguished between the natural rate of interest (R*) and the monetary or bank rate of interest (R). The former was determined by the marginal productivity of capital (I) and the intertemporal decisions of consumption (leading to savings S), along the lines of what became known as the loanable funds theory. The monetary rate was determined by bank decisions. That is, banks supplied credit (Ms) at the chosen rate of interest (R), according to money demand (Md). Monetary equilibrium occurred when the two rates coincided (see figure below). The natural rate is the gravitational center around which the bank rate fluctuates. Real and monetary shocks could cause deviations of the bank rate from equilibrium.

Wicksell assumes that a positive productivity shock raises the natural rate of interest, and that banks maintain the initial monetary rate. Thus, with a low bank rate, investment exceeds savings and once the system reaches full employment prices would go up. However, continuous lending would reduce bank reserves, and as a result banks would be forced to increase the monetary bank until a new equilibrium was reached. Inflation resulted from a bank rate that was too low, as much as deflation (and temporary unemployment) from a bank rate that was too high.

The low bank rate implies overinvestment, and the need for additional savings. The inflationary process by reducing the ability of consumers to spend provides the additional 'forced savings.' Inflation acts as a tax that provides the additional resources needed to finance investment. The business cycle can be explained by exogenous shocks to productivity (the I curve), changes in consumers preferences (shocks to S), or by the misconduct of the banking sector (shocks to Ms). Wicksell, as much as the modern Real Business Cycle (RBC) School, favored the former.

Dr. Krugman and the natural rate of interest

So I have said a few times here that, while Krugman has been extremely useful for Keynesians in recent policy debates, as a New Keynesian (neo-Wicksellian would be a better term for this school of thought), he is not properly a real Keynesian.  In a recent post he shows exactly my point.  He says:

"There is still a sufficiently low real interest rate that would produce recovery, but it’s a rate that’s hard to achieve."

In other words, there is a rate of interest that would increase investment and bring about the full employment level of savings.  In this post he surprisingly seems to say that liquidity traps or lower zero bound limits (rigidities) for nominal rates do not matter.

The reason seems to be connected to the fact that creditors must have a positive effect on their net wealth in a deflationary balance sheet recession, and their spending should go up.  Hence, creditors should spend more with a slightly lower interest rate.  Wealth effects have been the traditional neoclassical argument for a self-equilibrating economy since Pigou.  If this were true no fiscal policy would be actually necessary.

It's hard to believe that Wall Street bankers would spend sufficiently more for a recovery to follow.  And I doubt that Krugman believes that this effect is sufficiently strong in the real world.  But he does believe in some sort of natural rate, like Wicksell did, which is compatible with Friedman's natural rate of unemployment.

Keynes, on the other hand, thought that the very concept of a natural rate should be discarded.  In chapter 17 of the General Theory Keynes states that:

"In my Treatise on Money I defined what purported to be a unique rate of interest, which I called the natural rate of interest — namely, the rate of interest which, in the terminology of my Treatise, preserved equality between the rate of saving (as there defined) and the rate of investment. I believed this to be a development and clarification of Wicksell’s “natural rate of interest”, which was, according to him, the rate which would preserve the stability if some, not quite clearly specified, price-level. ... I had not then understood that, in certain conditions, the system could be in equilibrium with less than full employment.
I am now no longer of the opinion that the concept of a “natural” rate of interest, which previously seemed to me a most promising idea, has anything very useful or significant to contribute to our analysis."

So, in fact, there might be the case that NO long term rate of interest, a highly conventional one according to Keynes, would be compatible with full employment.  The socialization of investment, in Keynes' terms, then would be necessary.  In other words, effective demand matters in the long run, not just the short run, because there is no tendency for self-adjustment.

Since Friedman's infamous Presidential address to the American Economic Association the neo-Wicksellian approach has dominated macroeconomics.  In this view, the central bank pins the short run policy rate to the long run natural rate, and the economy (save for rigidities and imperfections) moves automatically to full employment.  No fiscal policy is necessary, again with the exception of short run imperfections.  That's why long term considerations about deficits and debt are important. 

My question is: should we be surprised that with this theoretical model as the dominant one, we are in a situation in which the administration is unable to understand and unwilling to promote the fiscal expansion necessary to get us to full employment (or at least lower levels of unemployment)?

PS: Keynes developed the ideas in chapter 17 on the basis of Sraff'a's critique of Hayek's theory of capital in 1932 (here; subscription required).  Note that while Keynes understood that the idea of a natural rate of interest that equalized investment to full employment savings had to be discarded, he did not get that his negatively sloped marginal efficiency of capital actually provided the basis for such a rate.