Palley on the destruction of shared prosperity and the role of economics



Tom Palley's new book is out. From the blurb:

"The U.S. economy today is confronted with the prospect of extended stagnation. This book explores why. Thomas I. Palley argues that the Great Recession and the destruction of shared prosperity is due to flawed economic policy over the past thirty years. One flaw was the growth model adopted after 1980 that relied on debt and asset price inflation to fuel growth instead of wages. The second flaw was the model of globalization that created an economic gash. Financial deregulation and the house price bubble kept the economy going by making ever more credit available. As the economy cannibalized itself by undercutting income distribution and accumulating debt, it needed larger speculative bubbles to grow. That process ended when the housing bubble burst. The earlier post–World War II economic model based on rising middle-class incomes has been dismantled, while the new neoliberal model has imploded. Absent a change of policy paradigm, the logical next step is stagnation. The political challenge we face now is how to achieve paradigm change."

You can read a larger excerpt here. Tom correctly puts the roots of the crisis on policy decisions, that led to debt-driven fragile consumption bubbles, with weakening labor institutions and stagnating income, and suggests that solutions must go beyond expansionary macroeconomic policies (even if those help). This is Keynesian economics at its best, and it emphasizes that economic ideas did play an important role in getting us into this crisis, and will need to play one if we do get out. As noted by Jamie Galbraith:

"In the depths of the Great Depression, John Maynard Keynes wrote that 'nothing is required, and nothing will avail, except a little clear thinking.' Thomas Palley here renews that message for our time."

It's a must read.

Jan Toporowski on Julio López on Kalecki

EH.net published in their book review series a nice one on Julio López and Michaël Assous book titled Michal Kalecki, just published by Palgrave-Macmillan. Jan says:

"The excellence of Tony Thirlwall’s series for Palgrave on Great Thinkers in Economics is confirmed by this volume on Michał Kalecki, written by Kalecki’s former student, Julio López Gallardo (Professor at UNAM, Mexico City), and Michaël Assous (Maître de Conferences at the University of Paris, Panthéon-Sorbonne). The book is important in part because of the very enigmatic quality of Kalecki’s ideas which, expressed by him in a dry, lapidary style with few references, appear to have come from nowhere to anticipate the Keynesian Revolution that Keynes labored so long to wrest from the legacy of Alfred Marshall. As Robert Solow, quoted in this book (p. 214), remarked: “Michal Kalecki ... seems to have sprung, full-grown, from his own brow; and his important work on macroeconomics is written not in opposition to the orthodoxy of his time, but in utter independence of it."

Read the rest here.

Three things you thought you knew about economics

Great post by Robert Vienneau who correctly claims that the three propositions below are well-established, namely :

"1. Adam Smith did not use the phrase "The invisible hand" to refer to the optimality properties of a static general equilibrium supposedly brought about by the workings of competitive markets. 

2. Thomas Carlyle did not coin the phrase "The dismal science" to refer to Thomas Malthus's anti-utopian theory of population. According to that theory, human population responds endogenously to increased prosperity, thereby making impossible any rapidly established, long-lasting general rise in per capita income beyond the custom and habits of mankind. 

3. John Maynard Keynes, in The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, did not explain widespread and persistent unemployment by sticky, rigid, or slowly adjusting money wages and prices - a pre-Keynesian theory that, in fact, he opposed. Many economists, I claim, teach the opposite of these propositions. 

(...) 

It seems to be a quixotic and never-ending task to oppose demonstrably false statements about economics, often made by economists."

It is absolutely true. I would even say the majority of economists teach the opposite. I have insisted more on 3 here, but 1 and 2 are equally true, and 1 at least as important as 3. I should probably use this in my history of thought lectures from now on.

A beautiful blind

Sylvia Nasar wrote a new book (the old and famous was the one on Nash's mind and life) on the history of economic ideas. Robert Solow is not too happy, since he thinks the book is superficial, and spends too much time on the economists lives and on what he thinks are second rate minds (e.g. Beatrice Webb, and I suspect for him Joan Robinson too). I did not finish reading the book, and hence will not review it here now, but I can comment on Solow's review, which is quite misguided.

In fact, the preoccupation with policy issues and the general context in which theories are developed is one of the good aspects of this book. In this sense, Nasar's book is in the direct line of descent of those, like Robert Heilbroner, that think that economics is (and should be) about the great questions (accumulation and the wealth of Nations, the quintessential themes of classical political economy) and that the economist's vision is as essential as, if not more so, than the analytical tools utilized.

For example, Solow complains that the book does not spend enough time discussing the theoretical achievements of Alfred Marshall. The fact, that somebody, with Solow's credentials, can write that after Piero Sraffa's devastating critique of Marshallian partial equilibrium (still in all textbooks, by the way), as if his technical achievement was not simply incoherent and irredeemably incorrect is a testimony about the poor state of our discipline.

Solow's complaints about Nasar discussion of Keynes are more puzzling, since he should be as neoclassical synthesis Keynesian be very comfortable with the 'developments' of Keynesian theory within the mainstream, which are after all the dominant model (the New Keynesian model with an IS, a monetary rule and a Phillips curve). He was instrumental in the creation of the current macroeconomic consensus, and his growth model (for which he won the Sveriges Riksbank Prize, also known as the Nobel in economics, although it's not one of the original Nobels) is the dominant view on growth. If the profession has failed, Solow is certainly responsible for it to a great extent.

If anything the problem with the book is that it shares with the mainstream (including Solow) a certain view of economics, and progress in the discipline, that has been established since the rise of marginalism in the latter part of the 19th century. In this view, there is a direct line of descent from Smith and Ricardo to Marshall (via Stuart Mill) to modern economics. According to this approach, the critical authors are, not the true heirs to classical political economy (that is from Smith/Ricardo to Keynes/Kalecki, via Marx), but critics of some aspects of capitalism that seem to have more heart than brains.

In all fairness, however, it's not surprising that a journalist/writer that is not an specialist economist buys the conventional wisdom on the history of ideas. The conventional history of ideas texts are fundamentally, like the parable in Bruegel's painting, written by blind professors to guide their blind students.

PS: The Sveriges Riksbank has been awarded to two professors (Sargent and Sims) that most likely believe that government intervention in the middle of the crisis is worse than some version of laissez faire. This is the reason, not the predictions about the end of times, why this is a dismal science.

Macro vs. Micro

A debate on the relation between micro and macroeconomics has been raging in the mailing list of the Societies for the History of Economics (SHOE; yep that's the acronym they went for!).  The main question being discussed is whether micro-foundations are necessary for coherent macroeconomic theory. I have argued in a previous post that, in fact, this is the other way round, macro-foundations for microeconomics are essential.

From a history of thought point of view, it is important to note that the distinction is a relatively modern one, starting in the 1930s.  The term macroeconomics was first used, most likely, by Ragnar Frisch in his lectures notes in 1933-34, and first used in print by Jan Tinbergen and Eric Lindahl in 1936 and 1939, respectively (for a full discussion see Vela Velupillai, 2009; subscription required).  Keynes did not use the term in his General Theory, even though the book is considered the foundational book of macroeconomics. To a great extent the work of John Hicks -- both his ISLM paper and his Value and Capital -- is central to understand the direction in which the profession developed.

Yet, Keynes book was central in the eventual split of macroeconomics and microeconomics.  In particular, because Keynes defied the conventional wisdom, associated with marginalism, that the rational maximizing behavior of firms and individuals would lead to the optimal (meaning full) utilization of resources, including obviously labor resources.  Full employment was not the normal equilibrium position of the economy.  In that sense, Gary Mongiovi provided the most enlightened note to the SHOE debate.  He tells us:

"the macro/micro distinction actually arose after Keynes's theory took root, and students had to be taught two distinct and apparently incompatible stories about how market economies work: (1) a neoclassical distribution theory in which the real wage adjusts to bring the S & D for labor into line with one another; and (2) a Keynesian story about how the economy could settle into an equilibrium in which the labor market doesn't clear."

That incompatibility and incoherence is still with us.  Students are taught that markets are efficient in their micro text, and some imperfectionist story is told in order to provide a foundation for the Keynesian macro story (at least in salt-water departments).  Of course an alternative would be to discard the marginalist approach altogether, since it does have insurmountable problems as admitted by Paul Samuelson during the capital debates in the 1960s.  But that's another story for a different post.