John Maynard Keynes, Back in Fashion

keynes1Because I’m geeky that way, I’ve been working through Robert Skidelsky’s biography of John Maynard Keynes. In some circles, Keynes is just as bad as Darwin, a godless heathen taking away the divinely ordained tax cuts on the rich. It probably doesn’t help that he was gay, married to a Russian (a woman, but we all know what Russians symbolize in economics), and a member of the Bloomsbury Group.

Keynes has become shorthand for “spend more than you make in the hopes of improving the economy.” But that’s not what he stood for at all. He made his mark after the first World War with The Economic Consequences of the Peace , a discussion of the problems with the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty required Germany to pay reparations to England, France, and the U.S., and Keynes pointed out that Germany did not have the money, would print money to meet the demand, and would sacrifice its domestic economy and political stability to give money to nations that did not need it. And Keynes was right: the German government spent money it did not have on reparations. It printed money, leading to hyperinflation, and created a climate that allowed a madman to come to power in an attempt to assert Germany superiority over those it was forced to pay.

It’s not that Keynesian theory recommends deficit spending. Instead, it recommends government spending during those times when consumer spending and private-sector investing would not be enough to support economic growth.

The basic equation is C + I + G = GDP, where C is consumer spending, I is business investment, and G is government spending. Added together, they equal gross domestic product. If the government taxes people in order to spend money, it could crowd out consumer spending and business investment. But if consumer spending and business investment are falling, then government spending is the way to force GDP back up.

In other words, there are times when it makes sense for the government to spend money, and times when it does not. Because I don’t see consumers and businesses rushing to pick up the slack right now, it would seem that the responsibility falls to our duly elected and appointed leaders. On the other hand, if consumers and businesses were throwing cash around, it would be all right for the government to cut back.

If the government finds itself in a situation where it needs to spend money regardless of the economic climate – such as in a war – it would be acceptable to reduce consumer and business spending through tax increases in order to keep prices from inflating. This is contrary to the conservative conventional wisdom that tax cuts, especially for rich folks, cure all economic ills.

Right now, all of those loyal Republicans who supported George Bush’s tax cuts during a time of war have suddenly decided that they stand for fiscal conservatism. Not only are they hypocrites, but their weak will got us into this mess in the first place. Their foolish tax cuts not only led to a record Federal deficit, but also inflation. We have had asset price inflation in the real estate and commodity markets and cost inflation in the health care and financial services industries. The Federal Reserve bank tried to fight inflation by keeping interest rates artificially low, and that lead to our current deflationary climate when those bubbles finally burst.

Consumers borrowed money during the run-up, so they have no money left to spend. Businesses took advantage of the low rates of the early 2000s to invest, so they don’t need to expand now. Instead, most businesses are cutting back to match the cutbacks in consumer spending. The parts of our nation’s infrastructure that lag are those that are best handled by government such as road construction, education, and healthcare. These create good jobs, for engineers and construction workers, teachers from preschool through college, nurses’ aides and surgeons. (Businesses aren’t interested because the profit potential in these sectors isn’t very big.)

The Keynesian prescription of deficit spending by the government fits what ails us now. When we get past this, whether in ten months or ten years, the government can scale back so that consumers and businesses can grow. Tax cuts got us into this mess; they can’t get us out.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • Derek
    Your right!

    George Bush dramatically cut government spending to give those tax cuts to the rich, right? What income brackets got those tax cuts again? And those tax cut defiantly made revenue go down, right?

    May I kindly suggest Austrian Economics at Mises.org. They have an interesting insight. There are infinite ways that Keynes' General Theory. To get more knowledge out of less time invested go to Campaignforliberty.com

    If Keynes was so smart about German hyper inflation, why did we copy the fiat based monetary system of Germany? (A system derived from Karl Marx.)

    I don't believe it is efficient to continually put faith in the power of one man or the other or an oligarchy. Stop investing your intellect into politicians.

    "Go red team!"
    "No! Go blue team!"

    This is all I'm hearing from this article: regurgitation.

    To think that maybe if stop playing the red vs. blue game, maybe we can all win if we deserve it.

    "What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists."

    -Friedrich August von Hayek (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992) was a Nobel laureate in economics, social scientist and political theorist.
  • Mises
    It would be so funny if it wasn't so important. Not only do you get things just plain wrong, you get them backwards. How can you all be so blind to history, philosophy, and just plain common sense? You people in media are singing to destroy the American legacy the same way you did in the Progressive Era. Don't you know anything about the history? Don't you know anything about the philosophy? Obviously not. You're also so obviously blind somehow to all the damage you are doing. That's why I'm moving to Switzerland, and I'm going to sit back with my gold and just watch you all excitedly and unknowingly disgrace and destroy yourselves.
  • So much hyperventilating, so few points. Are you sure Switzerland wants you?
  • This is great. Glad you're on-board, Ann!
  • JonCummings
    Welcome to the fold, Ann!

    It was your second-to-last paragraph that really hit me, and that we should spend some more time unpacking: the fact that the kinds of jobs created by government stimulus aren't the kinds that will prove profitable for big business, and therefore aren't interesting to conservatives.

    (It was such a complete misunderstanding of the value of any job that doesn't improve Wall Street's bottom line that led dim-bulb Michael Steele to claim that infrastructure & education spending don't create or save "jobs," they just create "work." Apparently, any labor that doesn't line his buddies' pockets through stock dividends isn't worth doing.)

    Keynes and the New Deal have been taking it on the chin a lot lately, from people who think the way out of our predicament is by continuing to dig the hole that got us into it. Now the media is starting to complain that the stimulus doesn't create "signature projects," like new bridges or the Interstate Highway System, and that Americans may not maintain their support for infrastructure spending if it merely fixes what's broken, but doesn't result in grand accomplishments to which they can point.

    Obama's good fortune is that, since the Reagan era at least, infrastructure spending has lagged so much that there are masses of projects ready to go, that have just been waiting for money. They're not glamorous, but (assuming they're undertaken efficiently) they should get a bunch of people working in short order.

    His trick tonight is to convince us to keep going, to use this Keynesian moment to get serious about revamping the energy and health care sectors -- to make further cash outlays that will get people working now, and set us up to reap economic rewards later. (Of course, how he'll do that while simultaneously arguing for halving the budget deficit by 2012 is beyond me. That should have been a conversation for next year.)
blog comments powered by Disqus