NPR Visits Keynes' (Sister's) Grandchildren

One of the pleasures of teaching is the opportunity to re-read the articles I assign to my students; one particular favorite that I look forward to each semester is Keynes' essay "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren."  NPR's Planet Money recently did an episode about it, focusing on Keynes' famously incorrect (thus far) prediction of a 15-hour workweek.  Although Keynes had no progeny, they did check in with his sister's grandchildren, as well as Harvard economist Richard Freeman - all of whom seem to be hard workers. I discussed some ideas about why we're not enjoying so much leisure in a post last year.  Tim Harford also has some thoughts on his blog.

The prediction about leisure was part of Keynes' more general forecast that economic growth would solve the "economic problem" of scarcity (and his guess about the rate of growth was pretty accurate), and speculation about the social change that would result.  In a similar spirit, in his Bloomberg column, Noah Smith suggested that a post-scarcity world might be like Star Trek: The Next Generation.  He concludes:

In other words, the rise of new technology means that all the economic questions will change. Instead of a world defined by scarcity, we will live in a world defined by self-expression. We will be able to decide the kind of people that we want to be, and the kind of lives we want to live, instead of having the world decide for us. The Star Trek utopia will free us from the fetters of the dismal science.

Or, as Keynes put it in 1930:

Thus for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem- how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.

Professor Keynes is Optimistic

An archive of British Movietone newsreels has been added to YouTube, including one of John Maynard Keynes commenting on Britain's departure from the gold standard in 1931: Another newsreel discusses leaving the gold standard and includes footage of Sir Josiah Stamp explaining the decision: This Telegraph article describes some of the correspondence between the bank and the government about the crisis.  Britain's exit - after painfully resuming the gold standard at its prewar parity in 1925 - was one episode in a series of sterling crises in the 20th century. Last year, I posted some newsreels from the 1949 and 1967 devaluations.  

Note: An earlier post from 2011 had a fragment of the same Keynes newsreel, but now we are fortunate to have it in full.

Lucas on Keynes

Robert Lucas appears in the history of macroeconomics as the leader of a methodological "revolution" which supplanted the approach, predominant in the postwar era, of aggregate macro models based on Keynes' ideas, with general equilibrium models grounded in the optimizing behavior.  In his keynote address to the 2003 HOPE (History of Political Economy) convention, Lucas reminisced about his training in Keynesian economics as a grad student at Chicago (yes, at Chicago) in the 1960's.  He closes with an appreciative note on what he thinks Keynes was trying to accomplish:

I think that in writing the General Theory, Keynes was viewing himself as a spokesman for a discredited profession. That’s why he doesn’t cite anyone but crazies like Hobson. He knows about Wicksell and all the “classics,” but he is at pains to disassociate his views from theirs, to overemphasize the differences. He’s writing in a situation where people are ready to throw in the towel on capitalism and liberal democracy and go with fascism or corporatism, protectionism, socialist planning. Keynes’s first objective is to say, “Look, there’s got to be a way to respond to depressions that’s consistent with capitalist democracy.” What he hits on is that the government should take some new responsibilities, but the responsibilities are for stabilizing overall spending flows. You don’t have to plan the economy in detail in order to meet this objective. And in that sense, I think for everybody in the postwar period—I’m talking about Keynesians and monetarists both—that’s the agreed-upon view: We should stabilize spending flows, and the question is really one of the details about how best to do it. Friedman’s approach involved slightly less government involvement than a Keynesian approach, but I say slightly.

So I think this was a great political achievement. It gave us a lasting image of what we need economists for. I’ve been talking about the internal mainstream of economics, that’s what we researchers live on, but as a group we have to earn our living by helping people diagnose situations that arise and helping them understand what is going on and what we can do about it. That was Keynes’s whole life. He was a political activist from beginning to end. What he was concerned about when he wrote the General Theory was convincing people that there was a way to deal with the Depression that was forceful and effective but didn’t involve scrapping the capitalist system. Maybe we could have done it without him, but I’m glad we didn’t have to try.

This is consistent with the "Neoclassical Synthesis" view that Keynes himself presaged in chapter 24 of the General Theory, which Brad DeLong discussed on his WCEG blog yesterday and Krugman commented on today (the quote from Lucas makes me wonder if perhaps Lucas and Krugman aren't quite as far apart as they think after all?).

Keynes' Over-worked Grandchildren?

In a New Yorker book review essay, Elizabeth Kolbert revisits one of my favorites, "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" by John Maynard Keynes:

Keynes delivered an early version of “Economic Possibilities” as a lecture at a boys’ school in Hampshire. He was still at work revising and refining the essay when, in the fall of 1929, the stock market crashed. Some might have taken this as a bad sign; Keynes was undeterred. Though he quickly recognized the gravity of the situation—the crash, he wrote in early 1930, had produced a “slump which will take its place in history amongst the most acute ever experienced”—over the long run this would prove to be just a minor interruption in a much larger, more munificent trend. In the final version of “Economic Possibilities,” published in 1931, Keynes urged readers to look beyond this “temporary phase of maladjustment” and into the rosy beyond.

According to Keynes, the nineteenth century had unleashed such a torrent of technological innovation—“electricity, petrol, steel, rubber, cotton, the chemical industries, automatic machinery and the methods of mass production”—that further growth was inevitable. The size of the global economy, he forecast, would increase sevenfold in the following century, and this, in concert with ever greater “technical improvements,” would usher in the fifteen-hour week.

To Keynes, the coming age of abundance, while welcome, would pose a new and in some ways even bigger challenge. With so little need for labor, people would have to figure out what to do with themselves: “For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem—how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won.”

As Kolbert notes, Keynes' predictions about growth were pretty well on-target. He wrote: "I would predict that the standard of life in progressive countries one hundred years hence will be between four and eight times as high as it is to-day."  That implies an annual growth rate between 1.39% and 2.08%.  According to Maddison project data, UK real GDP per capita rose 4.37 fold between 1930 (when Keynes wrote) and 2010, which gives an annual growth rate of 1.84%.

While Keynes was correct about growth, his prediction about leisure has not come true.  At least not fully - hours worked have fallen, though much more in Europe than in the US -

but even Western Europe is far short of "three hour shifts or a fifteen-hour week." 

That we're still working so much calls into question how we think about work, leisure and preferences.

Among the explanations are:"conspicuous busyness" - i.e., that appearing overworked is a signal; Paul Krugman discussed this on his blog a while back:

First of all, [James Surowiecki is] right that for what he calls knowledge workers — I’d just say elite workers in general — the whole time ethos has changed. When I was growing up on Long Island, there was a clear class hierarchy on commute times. Early trains were filled with menial workers; the later the train the more and fancier suits, with executives starting their day at 9:30 or 10. These days it is if anything reversed: lots of hard-driving suits on the early trains, much more mixed later on.

So what is this about? Surowiecki emphasizes the incentives of employers, and their difficulty in taking the negative effects on productivity into account. My sense, however, is that the most important factor — which he alludes to but doesn’t put at the center — is signaling. Working insane hours is a sign of commitment, of willingness to sacrifice for the job; the personal destructiveness of the practice isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

This may be true in parenting, as well - as Kolbert writes (referring to "Overwhelmed" by Brigid Schulte): 

One theory she entertains early on is that busyness has acquired social status. The busier you are the more important you seem; thus, people compete to be—or, at least, to appear to be—harried. A researcher she consults at the University of North Dakota, Ann Burnett, has collected five decades’ worth of holiday letters and found that they’ve come to dwell less and less on the blessings of the season and more and more on how jam-packed the previous year has been. Based on this archive, Burnett has concluded that keeping up with the Joneses now means trying to outschedule them. (In one recent letter, a mother boasts of schlepping her kids to so many activities that she drives “a hundred miles a day.”) “There’s a real ‘busier than thou’ attitude,” Burnett says. 

Another hypothesis is that people derive satisfaction and a sense of identity from work.  Kolbert quotes from "Revisiting Keynes" - 

A third group of economists challenges the Keynesian presumption that leisure is preferable to labor. Work may not set us free, but it lends meaning to our days, and without it we’d be lost. In the view of Edward Phelps, of Columbia University, a career provides “most, if not all, of the attainable self-realization in modern societies.” Richard Freeman, of Harvard, is, if possible, more emphatic. “Hard work is the only way forward,” he writes. “There is so much to learn and produce and improve that we should not spend more than a dribble of time living as if we were in Eden. Grandchildren, keep trucking.”  

Phelps and Freeman are correct that our standard treatment of work (bad) versus leisure (good) often misses something important.  This was present in the early "romantic" Marx, who said, "man is a tool-using animal".  The relevance varies a great deal, I suspect - some of us have the good fortune not to feel "alienated" from our labor, though, for many, work is the drudgery that standard economic theory assumes it to be. 

A third explanation relates to the fact that "quality" is a relative concept and the desire for ever-higher quality goods keeps the consumption motive from slackening - this was explained well by Robert Frank in an NYT column.

Cassidy on Keynes and Reagan

Econ 302 midterm question 2(a):

The fiscal policies enacted by the Reagan administration included significant cuts in taxes and increases in (military) spending. Illustrate the effects of this fiscal policy using an IS-LM diagram. 

While my students were asked to work out the results in (Keynesian) theory, the data are consistent with its prediction:

The red line (right-hand scale) is GDP growth, which is negative in 1982, but strongly positive in 1983 and 84 ('Morning in America'), and the blue line is the federal deficit as a percentage of potential GDP, which shows the effect of Reagan's fiscal policy.

Apropos of this, John Cassidy has a nice post arguing that Reagan was a closet Keynesian:

In strict terms, Reagan’s neglect of the deficit wasn’t Keynesian. Keynes himself believed in letting the deficit rise in a recession and paying down debts in the good times. In America, though, Keynesianism has always been associated with stimulus programs, big government, and deprioritizing the deficit. In all of these ways, Reagan was a Keynesian. But a word to the wise: don’t waste your time trying to tell that to anybody in the Republican Party.

John Maynard Keynes

The Economist posts its beautiful 1946 obituary of John Maynard Keynes, which begins:

The sudden death of Lord Keynes on Easter morning has removed a great man. In turn civil servant, pamphleteer, don and college bursar, editor, company chairman, patron of the arts, government spokesman and adviser, member of the Upper House—he touched no career that he did not brilliantly adorn. More than any other man of his time he had the power to arouse informed opinion to the acceptance of novel proposals and if the public mind is better prepared in this country than in many others to face the problems of the period that is now opening, Keynes can claim far more than one man’s share of the credit. The story is told that when he was appointed a director of the Bank of England, he was accused by a friend of turning orthodox in his old age and replied, with his perfect self-assurance, “You are wrong. Orthodoxy has caught up with me.” What would have been conceit in another was the simple truth in his case. He had the gift that comes only to real leaders, of being well ahead of his generation and yet able to pull it along behind him. For this, more than intellect and more than lucidity are needed—though Keynes had both in plenty. He had also the integrity of the philosopher and, when he wished, the fervour of the prophet.

Cardiff Garcia brings my attention to Robert Skidelsky's memoir of writing his Keynes biography, which concludes:

"But, soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or ill," Keynes wrote, in one of his most famous passages. I have often puzzled about the word "dangerous". Keynes was a most careful user of words. How can ideas be dangerous for good? A more obvious word would be "powerful"; the thought behind it being that ideas have a stronger influence on events, for good or bad, than have interests. And this is how the passage is usually interpreted. But the word "dangerous" adds a subtlety characteristic of Keynes: the thought that ignorance is dangerous, but that knowledge, too, is dangerous, because it tempts to hubris - the usurpation by men of divine powers - whose inevitable fruit is nemesis. That Keynes great revolutionary manifesto, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money should have ended on this oblique note of warning is striking testimony to a greatness that transcended economics. An intellect that could soar, seemingly without limit, accepted the discipline of earth- bound limits in the management of human affairs. This is the Keynes I love, and whose personality and achievements I have tried to convey.

The Trend of Things

Amid all our concern about financial crises, zero lower bounds, stimulus packages and the euro, its worth remembering that they are related to a short-term fluctuation (albeit a relatively large one) around a long-run trend, and it is the trend that ultimately determines how well-off people will be in the future.  Or,

The prevailing world depression, the enormous anomaly of unemployment in a world full of wants, the disastrous mistakes we have made, blind us to what is going on under the surface to the true interpretation of the trend of things. For I predict that both of the two opposed errors of pessimism which now make so much noise in the world will be proved wrong in our own time-the pessimism of the revolutionaries who think that things are so bad that nothing can save us but violent change, and the pessimism of the reactionaries who consider the balance of our economic and social life so precarious that we must risk no experiments. 

as J.M. Keynes wrote in "Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" (1931).*

The rise in living standards over time - the long-run growth rate - depends on labor productivity (i.e., output per hour of work).  That, in turn, depends on capital per worker and technological progress (broadly defined as our ability to wring more output from a given amount of capital and labor).  Since capital has diminishing returns, it is really technological progress that ultimately matters.

At his Conversable Economist blog, Tim Taylor notes that growth in per capita real GDP over the past two centuries in the US has been remarkably consistent in the long run.  Using Measuring Worth's series, it looks like this:

[Note: plotting the logarithm means that the slope of the line is proportional to the percentage growth rate; the gridlines at 7.5, 9 and 10.5 correspond to $1800, $8100 and $36300, respectively]**

Technological progress essentially determines the slope, and a seemingly small rate of change, compounded over a few decades, is a big deal - a much bigger deal, measured in output, than the "great recession" (whether output is the right thing to count is another, more complicated, matter). So it may be cause for concern that productivity growth, after picking up in from the mid-1990's through the early 2000's, appears to have slowed again.

Average TFP growth rates, US Private Sector (source: BLS)

1948-73:      1.9%

1973-95:      0.4%

1995-2007:  1.4%

2007-11:      0.4%

The New Yorker's John Cassidy has some interesting musings on why that might be.  The alarming possibility is that the productivity resurgence associated with the internet is petering out already.  However, in the short-run, productivity measurements can be volatile and affected by business cycles, so its we may want to hold off on worrying that the trend has turned down.

*I'd actually started writing this and forgotten to finish it put it aside some time before Niall Ferguson's repellent remarks (that he quickly apologized for) about Keynes not caring about the future because he was childless; "Economic Possibilities" is not only evidence that Keynes cared about the long-run, but that he had considerable insight into the process of long-run growth which anticipated some of the implications of Robert Solow's work in the 1950's.  Though it should be admitted that  Keynes' essay also shows that he wasn't entirely above invoking offensive stereotypes himself.

**If anyone knows of a graphing program that easily does a nice job with log scales, I'd love to hear about it (the ones Excel makes don't come out very well and I'm repeatedly aggravated by trying).

From 'The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill'

J.M. Keynes, "The Economic Consequences of Mr. Churchill" (1925):

The truth is that we stand mid-way between two theories of economic society.  The one theory maintains that wages should be fixed by reference to what is "fair" and "reasonable" as between classes.  The other theory - the theory of the economic Juggernaut - is that wages should be settled by economic pressure, otherwise called "hard facts," and that our vast machine should crash along, with regard only to its equilibrium as a whole, and without attention to the chance consequences of the journey to individual groups.

The gold standard, with its dependence on pure chance, its faith in "automatic adjustments," and its general regardlessness of social detail, is an essential emblem and idol of those who sit in the top tier of the machine.  I think that they are immensely rash in their regardlessness, in their vague optimism and comfortable belief that nothing really serious ever happens.  Nine times out of ten, nothing really serious does happen - merely a little distress to individuals or to groups.  But we run a risk of the tenth time (and are stupid into the bargain) if we continue to apply the principles of an Economics which was worked out on the hypotheses of laissez-faire and free competition to a society which is rapidly abandoning these hypotheses.

Basic economic theory typically ignores the role of social norms in labor markets.  To some degree, that's ok - we can't have everything in every model, and the basic models (i.e., intermediate micro) give some useful insights.  The danger comes when economists - and the consumers of economics - forget that the models are (over) simplifications.

The context for Keynes's essay was Britain's return to the gold standard at an overvalued level - Winston Churchill was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time - but much of it holds up well 88 years later as an essay on the danger of "internal devaluation" such as we're seeing now in Spain.

Skidelsky: Keynes, Hobson, Marx

Keynes biographer Robert Skidelsky:

President Lyndon Johnson asked John Kenneth Galbraith to write him a speech on economic policy. After glancing at it LBJ said 'You know Ken, the trouble with economics is it's like peeing in your pants. It feels hot to you, but leaves everyone else cold'.

He follows that nugget with a nice essay about Keynes, J.A. Hobson and Karl Marx in light of recent economic history.  This discussion of how Keynes linked his theory of fluctuations in The General Theory to his essay on economic growth, Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, was particularly interesting:

However, by 1943, he had sorted out his thoughts on the matter. He now envisaged three phases after the war. In Phase I, which he thought might last 5 years, investment demand would exceed full employment saving, leading to inflation in the absence of rationing and other controls. In this phase consumption should be restricted in order to reconstruct the war damaged industries.

 

In phase 2, which he thought might last between 5 and 10 years, he foresaw a rough equilibrium between full employment saving and private plus public investment, with the state pursuing an active investment policy.

 

In Phase 3, i.e. by about 1960, he thought that investment demand would be so saturated that it would not be able to match full employment saving without the state having to embark on wasteful and unnecessary programmes. In this phase, the aim of policy should be to encourage consumption and absorb some of the unwanted surplus of saving by increasing leisure and more frequent holidays. This would mark the entrance to the 'golden age' of capital abundance. Eventually Keynes thought that 'depreciation funds would be almost sufficient to provide all the gross investment that is required'.

On a related note, John Quiggin recently had an interesting essay on Keynes' prediction in Economic Possibilities, of much greater leisure time (Matthew Yglesias suggests it is coming true, a little bit).

Economic Pessimism in Historical Perspective

US industrial production (log scale), 1790-2011:

From Davis, QJE 2004 (1790-1915); Miron and Romer, JEH 1990 (1916-1918); Federal Reserve, 1919-2011.

J.M. Keynes (Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren, 1930):

The prevailing world depression, the enormous anomaly of unemployment in a world full of wants, the disastrous mistakes we have made, blind us to what is going on under the surface - to the true interpretation of things.  For I predict that both of the two opposed errors of pessimism which now make so much noise in the world will be proved wrong in our own time - the pessimism of the revolutionaries who think that things are so bad that nothing can save us but violent change, and the pessimism of the reactionaries who consider the balance of our economic and social life so precarious that we must risk no experiments.

Keynes and His Rivals

The New Republic has a very nice review essay by Robert Solow (the founding father of modern growth theory) on Sylvia Nasar's new book "Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius." I particularly liked these three sentences:

SCHUMPETER thought of Keynes as his natural rival for the title of “greatest economist.” They were born in the same year, 1883. Keynes probably did not believe that he had a natural rival.

Zing!

Keynes on YouTube!

Rules-based Keynesian Policy?

John Taylor, who is one of the most prominent academic critics of administration and Fed policy over the past several years, grapples with the label "anti-Keynesian" that was pinned on him by The Economist.  He writes:

In a follow-up to the Economist article, David Altig, with basic agreement from Paul Krugman, argued that it was a misnomer because I developed and used macro models (now commonly called New Keynesian) with price and wage rigidities in which the government purchases multiplier is positive (though usually less than one), or because the Taylor rule includes real variables in addition to the inflation rate. In my view, rigidities exist in the real world and to describe accurately how the world works you need to incorporate such rigidities in your models, which of course Keynes emphasized. But you also need to include forward-looking expectations, incentives, and growth effects—which Keynes usually ignored.

In my view the essence of the Keynesian approach to macro policy is the use by government officials of discretionary countercyclical actions and interventions to prevent or mitigate recessions or to speed up recoveries. Since I have long been critical of the use of discretionary policy in this way, I think the Economist is correct so say that I am anti-Keynesian in this sense of the word. Indeed, the models that I have built support the use of policy rules, such as the Taylor rule for monetary policy or the automatic stabilizers for fiscal policy, which are the polar opposite of Keynesian discretion. As a practical prescription for improving the economy, the empirical evidence is clear in my view that discretionary Keynesian policy does not work and the experience of the past three years confirms this view. 

"Keynesian" means different things to different people - at its broadest, it means accepting that there are frictions in the economy which mean that aggregate demand matters and policy can have real effects.  This is in contrast to the pure classical view, in which Say's law holds, demand is irrelevant, and output depends on technology and preferences.  In the version of Keynesian economics in our undergraduate textbooks - the IS-LM/AS-AD framework - the frictions are nominal rigidities and the Keynesian model deals with "short run" fluctuations around a "long run" equilibrium determined by the classical model.  In this setting, both monetary and fiscal policy matter (by shifting the LM and IS curves, respectively), though early Keynesians emphasized fiscal policy and "monetarists" (most prominently Milton Friedman), gave primacy to monetary policy.  The version of Keynesian economics in our graduate textbooks and academic journals - "New Keynesian" - combines dynamic optimization with sticky prices, and explicitly addresses the lack of "forward looking expectations" in the traditional textbook version.  Furthermore, some argue that both the IS-LM and New Keynesian incarnations really miss the point and gloss over more fundamental irrationality and instability Keynes saw in the capitalist system.

As Taylor describes his views of the economy (and from what I know of his academic work), it seems consistent with mainstream New Keynesian economics (though his version has been less favorable to fiscal policy than some others).   His criticism of recent fiscal and monetary policy grows out of another longstanding conundrum in macroeconomics, "rules versus discretion."  He is not claiming that countercyclical fiscal and monetary policy are fundamentally impossible, which is what I would say is the true "anti-Keynesian" view.  Rather, he is arguing that discretionary policy may do more harm than good, and policy should be based on stable, predictable rules. 

A primary argument for rules is that discretionary "fine tuning" is impractical based on "long and variable" lags associated with (i) recognizing the state of the state of the economy, (ii) designing and implementing a policy and the (iii) the policy's impact reaching the economy.  Often lurking behind this argument is a political philosophy that is skeptical of government (no coincidence that Milton Friedman was the most famous proponent of rules - Brad DeLong recently argued this is how he resolved the contradiction between an economics that said monetary policy can be effective with a libertarian political philosophy).

Taylor is careful to say that he opposes "discretionary Keynesian policy" - I think "anti-discretion" might be a better characterization of his critique than "anti-Keynesian."  Of course, that only matters if it is possible to be "anti-discretion" without being "anti-Keynesian."  I think it is.

I don't share the political philosophy, but the experience of the last several years has underscored the practical difficulties of discretionary policy.  The early-2009 Obama administration with large congressional majority is about as close to government by center-left mainstream Keynesian technocrats as the American political system is likely to ever give us.  In retrospect, it is clear they misjudged the scope and duration of the downturn and were not able make adjustments as that became apparent.

Monday morning quarterbacking in April, I suggested that the stimulus should have been designed in a "state-contingent" fashion to remain in place until the recovery reached certain benchmarks.  It is a small step from there to a "rules based" countercyclical fiscal policy - policies like aid to state governments, extended unemployment benefits, payroll tax cuts and even increased infrastructure spending could be designed to kick in and ramp down automatically based on the state of the economy (e.g., with triggers based on the unemployment rate).   To me, that's very "Keynesian", but also "rules-based", and its easy to imagine that might have worked better than the actual policies that were put in place. 

Practical Lessons in Keynesian Economic Policy

Ezra Klein writes:

Keynes — and others who later elaborated on his work, like Hyman Minsky — taught us that although markets are usually self-correcting, they occasionally enter destructive feedback loops in which a shock to, say, the financial system scares business and consumers so badly that they hoard money, which worsens the damage to the system, which further persuades other economic players to hoard, and so on and so forth.

In that situation, the role of the government is to break the cycle. Because businesses and consumers have stopped spending, the government breaks the cycle by spending. As clean as that theory is, it turned out to be a hard sell.

The first problem was conceptual. What Keynes told us to do simply feels wrong to people. “The central irony of financial crises is that they’re caused by too much borrowing, too much confidence and too much spending, and they’re solved by more confidence, more borrowing and more spending,” Summers says.

The second problem was practical. “What I didn’t appreciate was the extent to which we only got one shot on stimulus,” Romer says. “In my mind, we got $800 billion, and surely, if the recession turned out to be worse than we were predicting, we could go back and ask for more. What I failed to anticipate was that in the scenario that we found we needed more, people would be saying that what was happening showed that stimulus, in general, didn’t work.”

Many of us economists believe Keynesian policies have been successful, and that more would have been better, but politics doesn't judge outcomes relative to a counter-factual scenario.  That is, the argument that things would have been far worse in the absence of a policy isn't a winner, even if it is correct.  Unfortunately, that means future policy makers are likely to draw exactly the wrong lessons, and do even worse next time (at least on the fiscal side; central bank independence gives monetary policy some space to follow academic rather than political views).

Furthermore, as Paul Krugman explains, the economics profession (or at least some parts of it) isn't playing an entirely helpful role.

Krugman on Keynes

Vox has published Paul Krugman's speech at a conference commemorating the 75th anniversary of The General Theory.  The speech brings together a number of themes Krugman has addressed at his blog.  Among other things, Krugman says:

The brand of economics I use in my daily work – the brand that I still consider by far the most reasonable approach out there – was largely established by Paul Samuelson back in 1948, when he published the first edition of his classic textbook. It’s an approach that combines the grand tradition of microeconomics, with its emphasis on how the invisible hand leads to generally desirable outcomes, with Keynesian macroeconomics, which emphasises the way the economy can develop what Keynes called “magneto trouble”, requiring policy intervention. In the Samuelsonian synthesis, one must count on the government to ensure more or less full employment; only once that can be taken as given do the usual virtues of free markets come to the fore.

It’s a deeply reasonable approach – but it’s also intellectually unstable. For it requires some strategic inconsistency in how you think about the economy. When you’re doing micro, you assume rational individuals and rapidly clearing markets; when you’re doing macro, frictions and ad hoc behavioural assumptions are essential.

So what? Inconsistency in the pursuit of useful guidance is no vice. The map is not the territory, and it’s OK to use different kinds of maps depending on what you’re trying to accomplish. If you’re driving, a road map suffices. If you’re going hiking, you really need a topographic survey.

But economists were bound to push at the dividing line between micro and macro – which in practice has meant trying to make macro more like micro, basing more and more of it on optimisation and market-clearing. And if the attempts to provide “microfoundations” fell short? Well, given human propensities, plus the law of diminishing disciples, it was probably inevitable that a substantial part of the economics profession would simply assume away the realities of the business cycle, because they didn’t fit the models.

The result was what I’ve called the Dark Age of macroeconomics, in which large numbers of economists literally knew nothing of the hard-won insights of the 30s and 40s – and, of course, went into spasms of rage when their ignorance was pointed out.

I share Krugman's view that the "textbook" Keynesian apparatus remains a useful apparatus for thinking about the economy.  However, I think his portrayal of the turn macroeconomics has taken over the past forty or so years is a bit unfair.  As Krugman notes, contemporary macroeconomic models are grounded in microeconomic optimization.  Although a foolish desire for consistency can be the hobgoblin of our little economist minds, there is more to the story - the shift in methodology was also motivated by real deficiencies in the Keynesian framework identified by Friedman and Lucas, as well as the "stagflation" of the 1970's, which appeared to contradict Keynesian theory.

Kittens are Cute

In chapter 12 of The General Theory, Keynes made a famous analogy:

[P]rofessional investment may be likened to those newspaper competitions in which the competitors have to pick out the six prettiest faces from a hundred photographs, the prize being awarded to the competitor whose choice most nearly corresponds to the average preferences of the competitors as a whole; so that each competitor has to pick, not those faces which he himself finds prettiest, but those which he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors, all of whom are looking at the problem from the same point of view. It is not a case of choosing those which, to the best of one's judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those which average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion to be. And there are some, I believe, who practise the fourth, fifth and higher degrees.

NPR's Planet Money decided to put this to a test.  They posted three cute animal videos - a loris, a kitten and a baby polar bear - on their website (videos here).  One group of people was asked to vote on which was the cutest (i.e., to make a judgment about "fundamentals"), while the other voted on which was most likely to be voted cutest (to be the "speculators" in the market). The first group voted for the kitten, which received 50% (vs. 27% for the loris and 23% for the bear), and the second group also favored the kitten, by 76%.

That's a clever test, but if prices in financial markets played out like this example, then there wouldn't be a problem - the speculators are moving the market towards the correct fundamental value (that kittens are cutest).  Indeed, the speculators get it right more decisively than the fundamental investors.

That's not the point Keynes was trying to make.  He was very skeptical of the workings of financial markets.  In the same chapter, Keynes wrote:

The outstanding fact is the extreme precariousness of the basis of knowledge on which our estimates of prospective yield have to be made. Our knowledge of the factors which will govern the yield of an investment some years hence is usually very slight and often negligible. If we speak frankly, we have to admit that our basis of knowledge for estimating the yield ten years hence of a railway, a copper mine, a textile factory, the goodwill of a patent medicine, an Atlantic liner, a building in the City of London amounts to little and sometimes to nothing; or even five years hence. In fact, those who seriously attempt to make any such estimate are often so much in the minority that their behaviour does not govern the market.

I think that indicates a weakness of the experiment - there really is no uncertainty that kittens are cute, or that kittens will be cute in the future, so the market can get that one right pretty easily.

Personally, though, I liked the polar bear.

And Keynes, too

Ahem.  A notable Bloomsbury figure is curiously omitted from the Times' report on 36 Hours in Cambridge:

Punting down the River Cam in a flat-bottom boat is the classic way to see Cambridge, but mastering the long wooden pole takes practice. Book a 90-minute lesson with Scudamore’s Punting Company (Granta Place, Mill Lane; 44-1223-359750, scudamores.com), which will assign a well-muscled tutor to punt you down the gorgeous stretch of river that runs behind the colleges. Halfway through, the pole is handed to you, for a lesson in propelling the unwieldy craft. If you didn’t come to Cambridge for tutoring, rent a kayak from Scudamore’s and paddle to the Orchard Tea Garden (45-47 Mill Way, Grantchester; 44-1223-551125; orchard-grantchester.com), where E. M. Forster, Virginia Woolf, and Bertrand Russell hung out a century ago. 

Its a bit of a hike, but you can walk there (though it was beastly hot the day I did it - punting might have been better).

Keynes on the Science and Art of Economics

J.M. Keynes to Roy Harrod, July 1938:

Economics is the science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world.

That comes to my attention via David Colander, "The Death of Neoclassical Economics" (HT: Frances Woolley).

Going for the Permanent Semi-Slump

Some vital statistics of the US economy as of Aug. 13, 2010:

• Inflation (12-mo. CPI): 1.2%
• Unemployment rate: 9.5%
• 10-year Treasury yield: 2.74%

So, therefore,
Really?!?

KC Fed President Thomas Hoenig (via NY Times):

“In judging how we approach this recovery, it seems to me that we need to be careful not to repeat those policy patterns that followed the recessions of 1990-91 and 2001,” he said. “If we again leave rates too low, too long, out of our uneasiness over the strength of the recovery and our intense desire to avoid recession at all costs, we are risking a repeat of past errors and the consequences they bring.”

John Maynard Keynes:

Thus the remedy for the boom is not a higher rate of interest but a lower rate of interest! For that may enable the so-called boom to last. The right remedy for the trade cycle is not to be found in abolishing booms and thus keeping us permanently in a semi-slump; but in abolishing slumps and thus keeping us permanently in a quasi-boom.

The Postulates of the Classical Economics

At Project Syndicate, Keynes biographer Robert Skidelsky writes:

The chief task that John Maynard Keynes set himself in writing his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was to uncover the deep axioms underlying the economic orthodoxy of his day, which assumed away the possibility of persistent mass unemployment. The question he asked of his opponents was: “What must they believe in order to claim that persistent mass unemployment is impossible, so that government ‘stimulus’ to raise the employment level could do no good?” In answering this question, Keynes reconstructed the orthodox theory – and then proceeded to demolish it.

He goes on to provide a nice quick sketch of Keynes' critique of "classical" economic assumptions; the original argument, which is well worth reading today, is found in chapter 2 and chapter 12 of the General Theory.