Prices and quantities

Mainstream economics suggests that prices and quantities should be treated simultaneously, as it should be if market prices as determined by supply and demand are at the center of the analytical framework. With supply and demand, it must be the case that the quantity produced, and the equilibrium price, both are determined simultaneously. Further, it is the case that, with price flexibility, the quantity produced is optimal from the perspective of the utilization of resources and the preferences of the agents. And if that is true for bananas, or any other commodity for that matter, it must be true too for labor and ‘capital.’

As I discussed before, in particular with respect to capital, this approach (supply and demand or marginalist), which contrasts with the surplus approach, has serious problems. Even if we dismiss, for simplicity sake, the subjective part (about preferences) and concentrate just on supply conditions, the difficulties are insurmountable. Producers only supply more at higher prices, which means that they must encounter increasing costs (diminishing returns). It cannot be the case that they are only willing to supply more at higher prices (higher remuneration) even if costs are not higher, since if one producer obtained higher remuneration free entry of new producers (attracted by the higher remuneration) would imply that more would be produced. So the supply curve depends on diminshing returns.

And diminishing returns are a highly improbable proposition, as Sraffa argued back in the 1920s. Not many producers, if any, would tell you that they don’t produce more because their costs would go up (and that would reduce demand as prices get higher). Most simply would reply that, although they could produce more at the same price, they don’t have enough demand. But the diminishing returns fetish dominates the profession (I won’t say anything here about imperfect competition, but Franklin Serrano noted here that this would be related to barriers to entry).

In the surplus approach, that concerns itself with the way in which societies reproduce themselves (usually in an amplified scale and with accumulation), prices and quantities are treated separately. Since costs of production, for a given technology, seem to be independent from the quantity produced (i.e. the cost would be the same if you produced slightly more or less), then the quantity can be taken as given for the discussion of the determination of prices. It is well know that, in that case, prices depend on the technology, which must allow for reproduction (including of the labor force) and by the way in which the surplus (what is left over, above and beyond the needs of reproduction) is divided between classes.

This separation between prices and quantities has been called by Garegnani the 'method of given quantities.' Note that it does not imply that the quantities are determined by supply or given at a level that is optimal from the point of view of utilization of resources. And that is why it is perfectly compatible with Keynes’ notion of a demand determined level of activity (yes you can, and should, add Sraffa to your Keynes, or Kalecki). Also, it does not mean that there is no technical change or that distribution does not affect output (all propositions that have been discussed here in the blog).

Be that as it may, I’m more interested in the macroeconomic implications of the mainstream views about prices and quantities. Since the late 1960s, these views have coalesced around the notion that, whereas there is a short run tradeoff between prices and quantities (the so-called Phillips Curve, PC), in the long run the tradeoff vanishes. Put simply, if you push demand too much (through fiscal and monetary policy), output would increase, unemployment fall (as per Okun’s Law: higher output implies lower unemployment) and inflation would accelerate. In the long run, however, the economy is self-adjusted and output cannot be above the optimal level, so the only effect of the expansionary policies would be inflation (Friedman dixit).

By the way, the same (the mainstream loves symmetry) is true for deflation. Yes it may cause some problems, but the system returns to full employment, even in the face of contractionary policies (the Greek should not worry about contraction, because markets would produce full employment if they are allowed to work; hence, the need of labor market flexibility). In the long run contractionary policies only would affect prices. In sum, supply and demand would lead to the optimal price and quantity, so if you get off my market (cranky old neoclassical guy would say), and stop expanding demand, there would be no inflation.

The evidence for a natural rate or for a PC is incredibly weak. In order to argue that there is a natural rate, the mainstream has basically suggested that it moves around all the time. So in the 1980s the natural rate was higher (in the US), when the actual unemployment was higher, than in the 1990s (particularly towards the end of the decade), when the actual rate was also lower. The ad hoc nature of the solution is evident. They tell you that the natural (which they measure as an average of the actual) is the attractor of the actual rate, and not the reverse.

The continuous ad hocery of the mainstream is on display now too. This is evident in discussion about the fears of inflation in the US, according to which the tripling of the monetary base would lead to hyperinflation (Krugman criticizes that here, and in several other places). Inflation does not take place, but it must be that expectations of inflation are low.

Also, it is evident in the IMF, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other international institutions (since last year at least) arguments for fiscal and monetary contraction in the periphery (which is still growing faster than the center). The IMF believes fiscal expansion is no longer needed since “private demand has, for the most part, taken the baton” (IMF, 2011: xv). Moreover, the BIS argues that inflation is presently the main risk in an otherwise recovering world economy, and therefore suggests “policy [interest] rates should rise globally” (BIS, 2011: xii). According to this view then, if demand is controlled then prices would stop growing fast, and inflation would be under control.

Brazil actually did that last year, that is, fiscal contraction (with some monetary easing, but from a very tight stance, since it still maintains very high real interest rates). Output decelerated from 7.6% growth in 2010 to a mere 2.7% growth last year. A reduction of almost 5%. Did inflation then fell significantly as it should according to the mainstream? The Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the Fundação Getúlio Vargas increased from 6.24% to 6.36% in the same period, that is, it was almost constant. Something similar took place in Argentina between 2008 and 2009, when output decelerated around 10% (from high growth to negative growth), and inflation remained at high levels (fell perhaps around 6% or so, in an year that commodity prices collapsed). The mainstream argument is that the policies were not credible and as a result inflation expectations remained high.

In other words, it is not that the theory does not work, even though facts show that their predictions are false. It's a problem of the complexity of the phenomenon, and the need to account for expectations (anything can enter here, and no hypothesis can be tested if you take this seriously).

A simpler solution would be to admit that prices have little to do with demand (at most weaker demand and lower employment reduce the bargaining power of workers and reduce wage resistance). In other words, get rid of the notion of natural rate of unemployment and of a PC for which there is no reliable evidence (as should be done by any serious scientist). The contractions demanded by the IMF and the BIS led to recession (they affect quantities), and prices in Brazil did not fall because costs (which include imported goods and wages) did not fall. No need to suggest that expectations are responsible for inflation not falling. [Keen on his debate with Krugman has also referred to these subterfuges to keep theory in the face of lacking evidence; epicycles if you will]. By the way, expectations have been traditionally a way to argue that anything can happen, and allow theories that are not consistent with facts to get away with the incoherence. But I'll let that for another post.

References:

BIS (2011). 81st Annual Report. Basel, Bank for International Settlements, June.

IMF (2011). World Economic Outlook. Washington, DC, April.

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.

The meaning of heterodox economics, and why it matters

Heterodox economics is often defined as potpourri of of schools, too many to mention. Further, most of these heterodox schools are defined against marginalism (or neoclassical economics, which is also a fragmented school of economic thought).  In this sense, the heterodox camp is defined in a negative (against orthodox) and fragmented (depending on what aspect of orthodoxy is contested) way.  I think that is a counter productive approach, and that heterodoxy should be seen as a set of principles.  A positive (in its own terms) and unified (in the sense of the minimum set of propositions that are universally accepted) definition of heterodoxy is necessary.

Two things are central from my point of view.  First, heterodox economists are concerned with the amplified reproduction of society, and this implies that the production and distribution of the social surplus is central for their theories.  This is part of a tradition that harks back to classical political economy.  The determinantion of the surplus implies that distribution is determined exogenously by social and institutional conditions (be that the real wage as affected by the bargaining position of the labor class, or the rate of profit as determined by the monetary rate of interest influenced by the central bank).  Further, the determination of surplus, for an externally determined distribution, and a given technology, provides an explanation of relative prices (value).

It is important to note that there are several particular theoretical ways of approaching each of these questions associated to the reproduction of the economy.  For example, some Marxists emphasize that relative prices are proportional to the amounts of labor directly and indirectly needed to produce the commodities.  Sraffa provides a different approach, that is compatible with Marx's views of the working of the economy.  Post Keynesian groups that emphasize the determination of prices according to full cost pricing are also compatible with this general preocupation about the determination of the social surplus.  In other words, several schools of thought are heterodox in the acceptance of the necessity of understanding how the surplus is generated and distributed, even if they have different theories (that are not always compatible among them).

The second essential proposition that defines heterodoxy is related to the theory of output and employment determination.  Heterodox economists believe that output is demand determined.  That is, autonomous spending determines the level of activity.  There are a few implications to this simple proposition.  First, the level of autonomous spending will only generate full employment of productive resources by chance, and unemployment is a permanent feature of the economic system.  Second, as the level of income equilibrates savings to investment, the rate of interest must be a monetary (not real phenomenon). Additionally, heterodox economists argue that effective demand is valid in the long run.

In sum, if one believes that prices reflect, for a given technology, the way classes struggle for higher income shares within the process of reproducing the material conditions for survival (including processes in which there is accumulation), and one believes that output and the process of accumulation are driven by the exogenous forces of demand, one may be called heterodox.

Some other issues are often seen as central for defining heterodox economics.  Endogenous money is a typical example.  And it is true that most, if not all, heterodox economists follow some version of endogenous money theory.  However, it is clear that even if money is not endogenous, the rate of interest is still a monetary variable in heterodox economics (e.g. in Keynes' General Theory).  Also, several mainstream economists have endogenous money, from Wicksell to those using the Taylor rule now. The same could be said about true or non-probabilistic uncertainty.  It is important, but neither the determination of prices of production or effective demand are directly affected by uncertainty.  And several Austrians (hardly heterodox according to the criteria above) are very fond of the idea of uncertainty.  The last additional issue that sometimes is used to define heterodoxy is complexity (or non-ergodicity), but is the least relevant.  The main difference between heterodox and orthodox are related to causality issues, and they can be reproduced in simple or complex theoretical frameworks.

The obvious question that anyone may pose is why does it matter to define heterodox economics precisely.  For example, Colander, Holt and Rosser (CHR) suggest that heterodox economists should not consider themselves heterodox but just economists, and try to influence the mainstream working with the best among the orthodox.  The problem is that logic and evidence can support either prices of production or supply and demand, and, by the same token, either Say's Law or Effective Demand must be wrong.  In economic policy compromise might be possible, but in theory principles cannot be compromised.  I replied to their paper here.

PS: My paper is published in the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, with CHR's reply (subscription required).

More on income distribution and growth (wonskish, as Krugman would say)

A few years back Sam Bowles presented a paper (Kudunomics: Property rights for the information-based economy) at the University of Utah. At dinner he reaffirmed his conviction that Arrow-Debreu General Equilibrium (GE) is compatible with different kinds of behavior and can be a force for progressive economics. Conventional marginalist theory suggests that income distribution is the result of relative scarcities, and, as a result, real wages should equal the marginal product of labor, i.e. labor productivity. When asked how he squares the belief in GE with the fact that wages in the US do NOT follow productivity since the 1970s, Bowles seemed puzzled. And the relation of income distribution and growth remains puzzling for the mainstream and its sycophants.

In the heterodox camp, the discussion has been centered, for the most part, between the so-called Kaleckian and Kaldorian models. First, I should note that from a history of ideas point, the Kaleckian name is a misnomer. Kalecki’s models where about the interaction of multiplier and accelerator, with shocks and lags, to produce fluctuations. In the various forms of his accelerator equation Kalecki included a trend, producing fluctuations around a trend. The so-called Kaleckian models derive from Harrod and Joan Robinson’s attempts to extent Keynes’ Principle of Effective Demand (PED) to the long run.

The PED says that an increase in investment is matched by an exact increase in savings, and that the level of income is the main adjusting variable (rather than the interest rate as in the Loanable Theory of Funds). The Kaleckian models basically normalize the IS identity by the capital stock, assume (in the extreme case) that the propensity to save out of wages is zero, and a propensity to save out of profits (s) between zero and one, and in Keynesian fashion have investment determine savings. The difference with the short-run story is that now accumulation (investment-to-capital ratio) determines income distribution (the rate of profits), a result often referred to as the Cambridge equation.

The various incarnations of the Kaleckian models are defined by the way the investment function is specified. For example, in the influential paper by Bhaduri and Marglin (B-M) (subscription required) they argue that investment and savings are functions of the profit share (h) and capacity utilization (z). In other words:

I(h, z) = shz

Solving for z and deriving with respect to h we have:

dz/dh = (Ih – sz)/(sh – Iz)

Where Ih is the response of investment to profitability and Iz to capacity utilization. Assuming stability, that is, that savings respond to profitability more than investment to capacity utilization and the denominator is positive, the sign of the equation depends on the numerator. If investment is strongly responsive to profitability (Ih > sz), then the system is profit-led (exhilarationist in B-M terms). If not we have the wage-led (stagnationist) regime.

As I suggested in my previous post, there are some theoretical problems with the type of model used to argue that the US economy is profit-led, besides the empirical ones alluded before. The independent investment function suggests that capacity utilization affects capital formation, if capacity is low there is more investment, and vice versa when z is high. In other words, firms would try to adjust capacity to demand. If that is the case you would expect that a normal relation between capacity and demand would be established in the long run (in the neoclassical view demand adjusts to capacity; that’s Say’s Law), which could be seen as the relatively stable output-to-capital ratio over the whole period for the US, in my previous post.

If that is the case, investment is determined by the adjustment of capacity to exogenous demand in order to reach the normal capacity utilization, and it is essentially derived demand (the accelerator principle). It is not instrumental in determining the normal level of capacity utilization, which must be determined by the exogenous components of demand. This is the basis of the supermultiplier models, first developed by Hicks, and then by Nicholas Kaldor, and referred to as Kaldorian in the heterodox literature (for more on that see this paper).

That is the essential difference between the Kaleckian and Kaldorian models, whether investment is partially autonomous and determined by profitability or it is derived demand. Of course income distribution in Kaldorian models might have ambiguous effects on growth, but firms would not investment more if profits went up, if there is no increase in demand. In this sense, worsening income distribution might lead to higher growth if demand keeps going for some reason (say more private debt stimulates consumption; or stimulates the consumption of a higher income group). But in general profit-led growth that stimulates investment, as in the M-B framework seems hard to explain from a theoretical point of view. Hence, the confusion it generates empirically (e.g. in the case of the US the notion that a debt-led consumption boom is a profit-led story).

PS: The typical Kaldorian model is based on Thirlwall's work, but the book by Bortis and Serrano's dissertation (or his paper; subscription required) are essential readings.

Is the American economy profit-led?

In a recent post I showed the evolution of real wages and long-term real rates of interest in the United States from 1950 until now. The figure below shows the real rate of output (GDP) growth for the same period. Between 1950 and 1973 the average (red line) rate of growth was 4.2% and in the subsequent period it was 2.7%. In other words, the change in income distribution dynamics, with a significant slower rate of growth of wages, was accompanied by a significant reduction in the pace of economic growth (we also saw in the previous post that it also went hand in hand with higher real rates of interest).

Many authors (e.g. the late David Gordon), in particular when looking at the evidence post-1970s, argued that the American economy is profit-led. In other words, as profits (some emphasized profit shares while others prioritized profit rates; the profit rate time the level of capacity utilization gives the profit share) expanded, it stimulated investment, and this, in turn, led to output growth. Growth was driven by profits.

The idea is that, even though the reduction in wages has a negative effect on consumption and output growth, this is more than compensated by the increase in investment. However, there are some empirical problems (there are some theoretical issues that I’ll deal with in another post) with this kind of model (often referred to as Kaleckian, even though it seems that their origin should be traced to Joan Robinson’s Accumulation of Capital and the influential formalization by Bob Rowthorn in the early 1980s).

For starters, growth actually fell significantly after real wages stagnated. Also, the output-to-capital ratio (shown from 1960 to 2008 using a OECD measure), as can be seen in the graph below, does not indicate a marked shift in the 1970s. The output-to-capital ratio goes up in the Johnson and Clinton booms, and falls otherwise. The Reagan boom was mild at best. This is consistent with the accelerator. As the economy moves closer to full employment, the output-to-capital ratio, a proxy for capacity utilization, moves close to its maximum. The accelerator would suggest that investment adjusts capacity to output. Investment is not the locomotive of the system, is the rear car (the idea behind the accelerator principle).

Since the 1970s the drivers of accumulation in the United States have been consumption booms driven by debt accumulation. In other words, as Barba and Pivetti have argued, increasing debt has allowed American families to continue to consume, in spite of stagnated wages. This has been mistaken in the empirical literature as a profit-led boom. The suggestion here is that the booms have continued to be driven by consumption (as in more traditional wage-led cases), and that the benefits for capital have been financial and associated to higher interest rates. The last three booms have been more Wall Street debt-led booms, rather than profit-led investment booms. Wall Street, not the Silicon Valley, defines the current American economy. After all, we all remember Gordon Gekko’s “greed is good” (uttered in real life by Ivan Boesky) and nobody remembers an iconic phrase by Bill Gates!