WEBVTT

NOTE 2. Postulates of Keynesian Economics

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.000
Chapter 2. Postulates of Keynesian Economics

2
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:15.000
What is the Classical Theory of Employment?

3
00:00:15.000 --> 00:00:23.000
Chapter 2 of the General Theory is called The Postulates of the Classical Economics.

4
00:00:23.000 --> 00:00:40.000
Most treatises on the theory of value and production, Keynes begins, are primarily concerned with the distribution of a given volume of employed resources between different uses and with the conditions which determine their relative rewards.

5
00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:50.000
But the pure theory of what determines the actual employment of the available resources has seldom been examined in great detail.

6
00:00:50.000 --> 00:00:57.520
I doubt whether this factual statement can be supported.

7
00:00:57.520 --> 00:01:04.040
Many treatises before 1936 had explained in great detail how labor and other resources

8
00:01:04.040 --> 00:01:10.800
may come to be idle, and how goods already produced may long remain unsold, because of

9
00:01:10.800 --> 00:01:18.520
the rigidity or stickiness of some wages or prices, i.e. because of the refusal of unions

10
00:01:18.520 --> 00:01:42.520
The Classical Theory of Employment, supposedly simple and obvious, has been based, Keynes thinks, on two fundamental postulates, though practically without discussion, page 5.

11
00:01:42.520 --> 00:01:49.520
The first of these is 1. The wage is equal to the marginal product of labor.

12
00:01:49.520 --> 00:01:52.520
Page 5.

13
00:01:52.520 --> 00:01:56.520
This postulate is correctly and clearly stated.

14
00:01:56.520 --> 00:02:01.520
It is not, of course, part of the classical theory of employment.

15
00:02:01.520 --> 00:02:07.520
That adjective should be reserved in accordance with custom and in the interests of precision

16
00:02:07.520 --> 00:02:15.520
for Theory Prior to the Subjective Value or Marginalist Revolution of Jevons and Menger.

17
00:02:15.520 --> 00:02:22.520
But the postulate has become part of orthodox theory since its formulation by the Austrian School,

18
00:02:22.520 --> 00:02:27.520
and particularly in America by John Bates Clark.

19
00:02:27.520 --> 00:02:33.520
Having written this simple postulate, Keynes adds eight lines of explanation

20
00:02:33.520 --> 00:02:40.500
Explanation, which are amazingly awkward and involved, and do more to obfuscate than to clarify.

21
00:02:41.120 --> 00:02:47.600
He then proceeds to state the second alleged fundamental postulate of the Classical Theory of Employment,

22
00:02:48.320 --> 00:02:50.320
to wit, 2.

23
00:02:50.620 --> 00:02:57.400
The utility of the wage, when a given volume of labor is employed, is equal to the marginal

24
00:02:57.960 --> 00:03:00.520
disutility of that amount of employment.

25
00:03:00.520 --> 00:03:04.560
Employment, page 5.

26
00:03:04.560 --> 00:03:13.440
He adds as part of his explanation, disutility must be here understood to cover every kind

27
00:03:13.440 --> 00:03:20.820
of reason which might lead a man, or a body of men, to withhold their labor rather than

28
00:03:20.820 --> 00:03:27.280
accept a wage which had to them a utility below a certain minimum.

29
00:03:27.280 --> 00:03:38.040
Page 6 This utility is here so broadly defined as to be almost meaningless. It may be seriously

30
00:03:38.040 --> 00:03:44.580
doubted in fact whether this whole second fundamental postulate, as Keynes frames and

31
00:03:44.580 --> 00:03:51.740
explains it, is or ever was a necessary part of the classical or traditional theory of

32
00:03:51.740 --> 00:04:01.380
of Employment. Keynes does name, and later quote, as one whose theories rested on it.

33
00:04:01.380 --> 00:04:08.140
Yet it may be seriously questioned whether this second postulate is representative of

34
00:04:08.140 --> 00:04:14.420
any substantial body of thought, particularly in the complicated form that Keynes states

35
00:04:14.420 --> 00:04:16.500
it.

36
00:04:16.500 --> 00:04:21.300
The orthodox marginal theory of wages and employment is simple.

37
00:04:21.300 --> 00:04:28.300
It is that wage rates are determined by the marginal productivity of workers, that when

38
00:04:28.300 --> 00:04:35.280
employment is full, wage rates are equal to the marginal productivity of all those seeking

39
00:04:35.280 --> 00:04:42.280
work and able to work, but that there will be unemployment whenever wage rates exceed

40
00:04:42.280 --> 00:04:46.020
this marginal productivity.

41
00:04:46.020 --> 00:04:53.140
Change rates may exceed this marginal productivity either through an increase in union demands

42
00:04:53.140 --> 00:04:57.700
or through a drop in this marginal productivity.

43
00:04:57.700 --> 00:05:04.940
The latter may be caused either by less efficient work or by a drop in the price of or demand

44
00:05:04.940 --> 00:05:10.600
for the products that workers are helping to produce.

45
00:05:10.600 --> 00:05:15.040
That is all there is to the theory in its broadest outlines.

46
00:05:15.040 --> 00:05:23.680
The second postulate, in the form stated by Keynes, is unnecessary and unilluminating.

47
00:05:23.680 --> 00:05:30.640
Subject to certain qualifications, Keynes contends, the volume of employed resources

48
00:05:30.640 --> 00:05:37.200
is duly determined according to the classical theory by the two postulates which Keynes

49
00:05:37.200 --> 00:05:39.240
has named.

50
00:05:39.240 --> 00:05:43.520
The first gives us the demand schedule for employment.

51
00:05:43.520 --> 00:06:01.520
The second gives us the supply schedule, and the amount of employment is fixed at the point where the utility of the marginal product balances the disutility of the marginal employment, page 6.

52
00:06:01.520 --> 00:06:06.520
Is this indeed the classical theory of employment?

53
00:06:06.520 --> 00:06:13.260
The first postulate that the wage is equal to the marginal product of labor does not

54
00:06:13.260 --> 00:06:21.760
merely give us the demand schedule for labor, it tells us the point of intersection of both

55
00:06:21.760 --> 00:06:26.540
the demand schedule and the supply schedule.

56
00:06:26.540 --> 00:06:32.560
The demand schedule for workers is the wage rate that employers are willing to offer for

57
00:06:32.560 --> 00:06:34.420
workers.

58
00:06:34.420 --> 00:06:42.920
The supply schedule of workers is fixed by the wage rate that workers are willing to take.

59
00:06:42.920 --> 00:06:50.520
This is not determined, for the individual worker, by the disutility of the employment,

60
00:06:50.520 --> 00:06:56.920
at least not if disutility is used in its common sense meaning.

61
00:06:56.920 --> 00:07:02.720
Many an individual unemployed worker would be more than willing to take a job at a rate

62
00:07:02.720 --> 00:07:09.480
below a given union scale, if the union members would let him, or if the union leader would

63
00:07:09.480 --> 00:07:13.080
consent to reduce the scale.

64
00:07:13.080 --> 00:07:16.360
But we can return to this subject later.

65
00:07:16.360 --> 00:07:20.720
After all, Keynes is not here stating his own theory.

66
00:07:20.720 --> 00:07:25.880
He is merely giving a garbled version of the orthodox theory.

67
00:07:25.880 --> 00:07:38.880
Further, according to Keynes, classical theory allows only for two possibilities, frictional unemployment and voluntary unemployment.

68
00:07:38.880 --> 00:07:49.880
The classical postulates do not admit of the possibility of the third category, which I shall define below as involuntary unemployment.

69
00:07:49.880 --> 00:07:59.280
Here is a classification that would trouble any logician. Unemployment must be either

70
00:07:59.280 --> 00:08:07.200
voluntary or involuntary. Surely these two categories exhaust the possibilities. There

71
00:08:07.200 --> 00:08:16.440
is no room for a third category. Frictional unemployment must be either voluntary or involuntary.

72
00:08:16.440 --> 00:08:22.000
In practice it is likely to be made up of a little of each.

73
00:08:22.000 --> 00:08:28.160
Frictional unemployment may be involuntary through illness, disability, failure of a

74
00:08:28.160 --> 00:08:34.680
firm, unexpected cessation of seasonal work or discharge.

75
00:08:34.680 --> 00:08:41.240
Frictional unemployment may be voluntary because a family has moved to a new place, because

76
00:08:41.240 --> 00:08:47.160
As a man has relinquished an old job in the hope of getting a better one, because he thinks

77
00:08:47.160 --> 00:08:55.320
he can get more pay than he is offered, or because he is taking a vacation between jobs,

78
00:08:55.320 --> 00:09:02.000
such unemployment is the result of a decision, good or bad, on the part of the man who is

79
00:09:02.000 --> 00:09:03.480
unemployed.

80
00:09:03.480 --> 00:09:10.880
Friction, though a traditional term, is perhaps not the most fortunate metaphor to describe

81
00:09:10.880 --> 00:09:30.880
One reason Keynes's thought is so often difficult to follow, above all in the general theory, is that he writes so badly, not withstanding the dithyrambic admiration of the lucidity, charm and brilliance of his style.

82
00:09:30.880 --> 00:09:39.280
And one reason he writes so badly, at least in the general theory, is that he is constantly

83
00:09:39.280 --> 00:09:47.880
introducing technical terms that are not only unnecessary but inappropriate and misleading.

84
00:09:47.880 --> 00:09:53.940
Most of his worst terms are of his own coinage, but if someone else's term is sufficiently

85
00:09:53.940 --> 00:10:03.940
Thus, at this point, he introduces the term wage goods industries, describing it as

86
00:10:03.940 --> 00:10:11.940
Professor Pigot's convenient term for goods upon the price of which the utility of the money wage depends.

87
00:10:11.940 --> 00:10:19.940
He then contrasts wage goods with non-wage goods.

88
00:10:19.940 --> 00:10:25.940
This introduces a terminology that seems as needless as it is confusing.

89
00:10:25.940 --> 00:10:31.940
Do wage goods mean anything essentially different from consumer goods?

90
00:10:31.940 --> 00:10:38.940
Do non-wage goods mean anything essentially different from capital goods?

91
00:10:38.940 --> 00:10:44.940
No doubt wage goods would not include mink coats or vias on the Riviera,

92
00:10:44.940 --> 00:10:51.700
by Viviera, but the common sense of the reader might be trusted not to introduce these items

93
00:10:51.700 --> 00:10:57.260
into an imaginary index of consumers' goods' prices.

94
00:10:57.260 --> 00:11:03.200
It hardly seems necessary to invent a special term to keep them out.

95
00:11:03.200 --> 00:11:09.520
This bad term is unfortunately continued throughout the general theory.

96
00:11:09.520 --> 00:11:16.160
The reader is forced to translate it back each time into the familiar consumer's goods,

97
00:11:16.160 --> 00:11:22.800
and to remind himself that it does not mean goods the production of which requires the

98
00:11:22.800 --> 00:11:26.780
payment of wages.

99
00:11:26.780 --> 00:11:31.400
Wage Rates and Unemployment

100
00:11:31.400 --> 00:11:38.320
Section 2 of Chapter 2 is notable as the first attempt by Keynes in the general theory to

101
00:11:38.320 --> 00:11:45.440
to disprove a fundamental proposition of traditional economics, that the most frequent cause of

102
00:11:45.440 --> 00:11:53.880
unemployment is excessive wage rates. This, of course, for classical economics, is merely

103
00:11:53.880 --> 00:11:59.760
the parallel of the proposition that the most frequent cause for an unsold surplus of a

104
00:11:59.760 --> 00:12:06.660
commodity is the refusal of sellers to accept a price that will clear the market. If the

105
00:12:06.660 --> 00:12:12.820
The proposition is not true with regard to labor, it is not true with regard to commodities

106
00:12:12.820 --> 00:12:14.940
either.

107
00:12:14.940 --> 00:12:19.660
Both propositions rest upon the same line of reasoning.

108
00:12:19.660 --> 00:12:27.520
Both are special cases of a wider proposition covering both commodities and services.

109
00:12:27.520 --> 00:12:34.220
It is instructive to notice that Keynes never challenges this proposition head-on or by

110
00:12:34.220 --> 00:12:38.020
and any coherent and clear-cut argument.

111
00:12:38.020 --> 00:12:45.220
He attacks it, rather, by a series of oblique sallies in which the argument is usually involved

112
00:12:45.220 --> 00:12:50.080
and obscure and often clearly fallacious.

113
00:12:50.080 --> 00:12:57.320
He begins by contending that labor is usually more interested in its money-wage than in

114
00:12:57.320 --> 00:13:00.820
its real wage.

115
00:13:00.820 --> 00:13:07.180
Ordinary experience tells us beyond doubt that a situation where labor stipulates within

116
00:13:07.180 --> 00:13:14.300
limits for a money wage rather than a real wage, so far from being a mere possibility,

117
00:13:14.300 --> 00:13:16.500
is the normal case.

118
00:13:16.500 --> 00:13:22.420
Whilst workers will usually resist a reduction of money wages, it is not their practice to

119
00:13:22.420 --> 00:13:27.700
withdraw their labor whenever there is a rise in the price of wage goods.

120
00:13:27.700 --> 00:13:30.420
page 9.

121
00:13:30.420 --> 00:13:37.860
So far as the United States is concerned, and, I suspect, so far as nearly every industrially

122
00:13:37.860 --> 00:13:43.900
advanced country is concerned, this contention is already obsolete.

123
00:13:43.900 --> 00:13:51.300
The big American unions all have their economists and directors of research who are acutely

124
00:13:51.300 --> 00:13:57.260
aware of the monthly changes in the official consumer price index.

125
00:13:57.260 --> 00:14:05.260
Because of January 1958, more than 4 million workers, moreover, mainly in the heavy industries

126
00:14:05.260 --> 00:14:13.020
– steel, automobiles, railroads – had insisted on and secured contracts providing

127
00:14:13.020 --> 00:14:18.800
for automatic wage increases with increases in the cost of living.

128
00:14:18.800 --> 00:14:25.340
So while it is true that unions will resist a fall in money wage rates, even if it is

129
00:14:25.340 --> 00:14:46.340
Even if Keynes's contention, moreover, had been factually true, it would still have been irrelevant to the classical contention.

130
00:14:46.340 --> 00:15:02.340
The classical contention is that if wage rates, whether considered in terms of money wage rates or real wage rates, are above the level of the marginal productivity of labor, there will be unemployment.

131
00:15:02.340 --> 00:15:13.340
Why is Keynes so concerned to make this point about labor's attitude toward money wage rates and real wage rates respectively?

132
00:15:13.340 --> 00:15:28.340
The collectivist word labor implies that we need not think in terms of what individual workers would wish or do, but only in terms of what union monopolists wish or do.

133
00:15:28.340 --> 00:15:39.840
He is concerned because he will be later eager to prove that while it is impossible to persuade unions to accept a cut in money wage rates,

134
00:15:39.840 --> 00:15:52.340
it will be easy to deceive them into accepting a cut in real wage rates by the simple process of monetary inflation, erosion of the purchasing power of the monetary unit.

135
00:15:52.340 --> 00:16:09.340
It will be noticed that even this argument, however, tacitly accepts the classical contention that the chief reason for unemployment is the existence of wage rates above the point of labor's marginal productivity.

136
00:16:09.340 --> 00:16:26.340
Moreover, Keynes goes on to maintain, the contention that the unemployment which characterizes a depression is due to a refusal by labor to accept a reduction of money wages is not clearly supported by the facts.

137
00:16:26.340 --> 00:16:49.340
It is not very plausible to assert that unemployment in the United States in 1932 was due either to labor obstinately refusing to accept a reduction of money wages, or to its obstinately demanding a real wage beyond what the productivity of the economic machine was capable of furnishing.

138
00:16:49.340 --> 00:16:51.340
page 9

139
00:16:51.340 --> 00:16:57.340
The reader will notice that there is no argument here, merely assertion.

140
00:16:57.340 --> 00:17:00.340
It is not very plausible.

141
00:17:00.340 --> 00:17:05.340
That is, it is not very plausible to Keynes, which proves nothing.

142
00:17:05.340 --> 00:17:11.340
Most of us require something more than ex cathedra pronouncements.

143
00:17:11.340 --> 00:17:19.340
A trick that Keynes uses here and elsewhere is the attempt to discredit a doctrine by overstating it.

144
00:17:20.340 --> 00:17:28.340
The causes of the 1929 crisis and of the Depression from 1930 to 1940 were complex.

145
00:17:28.340 --> 00:17:31.340
I shall not try to go into all of them here.

146
00:17:31.340 --> 00:17:44.340
But I do not know of any serious economist who maintained or maintains that the initiating cause of the 1929 crisis was excessive wage rates.

147
00:17:44.340 --> 00:17:52.340
What responsible economists did and do assert is that once the crisis had developed,

148
00:17:52.340 --> 00:18:06.340
and demand and prices had collapsed, it was necessary for wage rates to adjust themselves to the reduced level of demand and of prices if mass unemployment was to be averted.

149
00:18:06.340 --> 00:18:14.340
It was the failure of this wage adjustment to occur that led to prolonged mass unemployment for ten years.

150
00:18:14.340 --> 00:18:30.340
The insistence of unions on excessive wage rates, it is true, may not always be a full explanation of total unemployment at any given time, but it is always part of the explanation.

151
00:18:30.340 --> 00:18:40.340
Though it is not always a sufficient cause, it cannot be dismissed also, as Keynes dismisses it, as a necessary cause.

152
00:18:40.340 --> 00:18:53.340
Rigidity or stickiness of contractual interest rates and rents, or unusual uncertainty or fear among buyers and consumers, may also be causes.

153
00:18:53.340 --> 00:18:57.340
But they are likely to be temporary causes.

154
00:18:57.340 --> 00:19:08.340
The longer mass unemployment is prolonged, the more warranted we are in assigning excessive wage rates as the dominant cause of it.

155
00:19:08.340 --> 00:19:20.340
Even Keynes feels the need for offering reasons why he finds the attribution of unemployment to excessive wage rates not very plausible.

156
00:19:20.340 --> 00:19:27.340
But the reasons he offers are either fallacious or contrary to established fact.

157
00:19:27.340 --> 00:19:32.340
In explanation of the passage I have just quoted, he goes on,

158
00:19:38.340 --> 00:19:45.220
and apparent change either in the minimum real demands of labor or in its productivity.

159
00:19:45.220 --> 00:19:51.940
Labor is not more truculent in the depression than in the boom, far from it, nor is its

160
00:19:51.940 --> 00:19:54.780
physical productivity less.

161
00:19:54.780 --> 00:20:00.940
These facts from experience are a prima facie ground for questioning the adequacy of the

162
00:20:00.940 --> 00:20:03.660
classical analysis.

163
00:20:03.660 --> 00:20:05.780
Page 9

164
00:20:05.780 --> 00:20:07.540
Are they?

165
00:20:07.540 --> 00:20:11.540
This has here tumbled into a glaring fallacy.

166
00:20:11.540 --> 00:20:20.540
The absence of change in physical productivity is completely irrelevant to money wage rates.

167
00:20:20.540 --> 00:20:31.540
What counts in economics is only value productivity, and value productivity stated in this case, of course, in monetary terms.

168
00:20:31.540 --> 00:20:44.540
If the marginal productivity of a worker is a given unit of a commodity that previously sold for $10 and the price of that unit has now fallen to $5,

169
00:20:44.540 --> 00:20:54.540
then the marginal value productivity of that worker, even though he is turning out the same number of units, has fallen by half.

170
00:20:54.540 --> 00:21:13.540
If we assume that this fall in prices has been general and that this represents the average fall, then the worker who insists on retaining his old money wage rate is in effect insisting on a 100% increase in his real wage rate.

171
00:21:13.540 --> 00:21:19.540
Whether the worker is truculent or not is entirely beside the point.

172
00:21:19.540 --> 00:21:28.540
If prices fall by 50% and unions will accept a wage cut but of no more than 25%,

173
00:21:28.540 --> 00:21:36.540
then the unions are, in effect, demanding an increase in real wage rates of 50%.

174
00:21:36.540 --> 00:21:57.540
The only way they can get it and retain full employment is by an increase of 50% in their physical, or real value, marginal productivity to make up for the drop in the price of the individual unit of the commodity they helped to produce.

175
00:21:57.540 --> 00:22:07.540
The passage I have just quoted is in itself prima facie ground for questioning the adequacy of the whole Keynesian analysis.

176
00:22:07.540 --> 00:22:23.540
It would be interesting to see the results of a statistical inquiry, writes Keynes, into the actual relationship between changes in money wages and changes in real wages, pages 9 through 10.

177
00:22:23.540 --> 00:22:31.620
But, without waiting for the results, he proceeds to tell the reader what they would be.

178
00:22:31.620 --> 00:22:36.740
When money wages are rising, it will be found that real wages are falling.

179
00:22:36.740 --> 00:22:40.980
And when money wages are falling, real wages are rising.

180
00:22:40.980 --> 00:22:42.900
Page 10.

181
00:22:42.900 --> 00:22:46.620
The second half of this statement is historically correct.

182
00:22:46.620 --> 00:22:53.020
The first half, in the modern world, is demonstrably not correct.

183
00:22:53.020 --> 00:22:59.460
The statistical results which Keynes expressed such an interest in seeing already existed,

184
00:22:59.460 --> 00:23:03.140
but he did not bother to look them up.

185
00:23:03.140 --> 00:23:05.860
Let us cite a few.

186
00:23:05.860 --> 00:23:14.300
In the 18-year period between 1939 and 1957, weekly wages in manufacturing in the United

187
00:23:14.300 --> 00:23:33.700
States rose from $23.86 in 1939 to $82.39 in 1957, an increase of 245%.

188
00:23:33.700 --> 00:23:39.820
This compared with an increase in the official consumer price index for the same period of

189
00:23:39.820 --> 00:23:50.580
only 102%, making an increase in real weekly wages in the period of 71%.

190
00:23:50.580 --> 00:23:56.620
The comparison is not very different if we take hourly wage rates as the base of comparison

191
00:23:56.620 --> 00:23:59.980
instead of weekly wages.

192
00:23:59.980 --> 00:24:12.660
These rose from $0.63 an hour in 1939 to $2.07 in 1957, an increase of 229%.

193
00:24:12.660 --> 00:24:20.260
In other words, when money wages were rising in this period, real wages were also rising.

194
00:24:20.260 --> 00:24:26.720
Whatever historical foundation there may be for the traditional belief that in an inflation

195
00:24:26.720 --> 00:24:33.500
When prices rise first and wages lag behind, the proposition has not been true for the

196
00:24:33.500 --> 00:24:39.560
United States or for many other countries in the last 20 years.

197
00:24:39.560 --> 00:24:46.520
The second half of Keynes's proposition, that when money wages are falling, real wages

198
00:24:46.520 --> 00:24:50.980
are rising, is, however, generally true.

199
00:24:50.980 --> 00:24:57.480
It is not easy to find in American statistical history extensive periods when money wages

200
00:24:57.480 --> 00:25:06.940
were falling, but two such periods do exist in recent times, between 1920 and 1922, and

201
00:25:06.940 --> 00:25:11.760
between 1929 and 1933.

202
00:25:11.760 --> 00:25:18.120
I append a comparison for a selected series of years taken from a table published by the

203
00:25:18.120 --> 00:25:46.120
The Government comparing average hourly earnings of workers in manufacturing industries in current prices, i.e. in terms of the actual money wage rates paid, and in 1954 prices, i.e. in terms of real wage rates, or money wage rates expressed in terms of a dollar of assumed constant purchasing power.

204
00:25:46.120 --> 00:26:00.840
In the year 1920, current prices were 0.555 dollars. 1954 prices were 0.743 dollars.

205
00:26:00.840 --> 00:26:13.320
In the year 1921, current prices were 0.515 dollars. 1954 prices 0.773 dollars.

206
00:26:13.320 --> 00:26:25.800
In the year 1922, current prices were 0.487 dollars. 1954 prices were 0.780 dollars.

207
00:26:25.800 --> 00:26:37.080
In the year 1923, current prices were 0.522 dollars. 1954 prices 0.822 dollars.

208
00:26:37.080 --> 00:26:49.080
In the year 1924, current prices were $0.547. 1954 prices $0.859.

209
00:26:49.080 --> 00:27:02.440
In the year 1929, current prices were $0.566. 1954 prices were $0.886.

210
00:27:02.440 --> 00:27:14.440
In the year 1930, current prices were $0.552, 1954 prices $0.887.

211
00:27:14.440 --> 00:27:26.440
In the year 1931, current prices were $0.515, 1954 prices $0.910.

212
00:27:26.440 --> 00:27:38.440
In the year 1932, current prices were $0.446. 1954 prices were $0.876.

213
00:27:38.440 --> 00:27:51.440
In the year 1933, current prices were $0.442. 1954 prices $0.917.

214
00:27:51.440 --> 00:28:06.440
In the year 1934, current prices were $0.532, 1954 prices $1.68.

215
00:28:06.440 --> 00:28:12.440
Let us look first at the period from 1920 to 1924.

216
00:28:12.440 --> 00:28:19.480
Between 1920 and 1922 there was a substantial drop in money wage rates, yet they did not

217
00:28:19.480 --> 00:28:27.260
not drop as much as consumer prices, and therefore real wage rates or wage rates in constant

218
00:28:27.260 --> 00:28:33.880
dollars actually increased between 1920 and 1922.

219
00:28:33.880 --> 00:28:42.160
Beginning in 1923, money wage rates started up again, but real wage rates also rose, once

220
00:28:42.160 --> 00:28:49.280
more refuting Keynes's proposition that when money wages are rising, it will be found that

221
00:28:49.280 --> 00:28:53.040
that real wages are falling.

222
00:28:53.040 --> 00:28:59.080
Take now the period between 1929 and 1934.

223
00:28:59.080 --> 00:29:08.440
From 1929 to 1933, money wage rates fell, but real wage rates rose.

224
00:29:08.440 --> 00:29:16.800
There was a sole exception between the years 1931 and 1932, but it did not change the comparative

225
00:29:16.800 --> 00:29:21.000
of Trend over the whole period.

226
00:29:21.000 --> 00:29:28.840
Between 1933 and 1934, however, there was a dramatic jump both in money wage rates and

227
00:29:28.840 --> 00:29:35.440
in real wage rates, once more contradicting Keynes's law.

228
00:29:35.440 --> 00:29:42.640
It is only fair to point out that this jump in both money and real wage rates in 1934

229
00:29:42.640 --> 00:29:46.960
was the direct result of governmental intervention.

230
00:29:46.960 --> 00:29:52.760
The National Recovery Administration's codes put into effect under government pressure

231
00:29:52.760 --> 00:29:56.240
in the first years of the New Deal.

232
00:29:56.240 --> 00:30:03.240
But it is precisely this jump in both money and real wage rates that helps to explain

233
00:30:03.240 --> 00:30:08.480
the continuance of mass unemployment throughout the 30s.

234
00:30:08.480 --> 00:30:15.420
This again is a statistical disproof of Keynes's central thesis that unemployment has nothing

235
00:30:15.420 --> 00:30:22.400
to do with the height of wage rates, or even that unemployment is rather owing to wage

236
00:30:22.400 --> 00:30:28.300
rates being too low than to their being too high.

237
00:30:28.300 --> 00:30:36.800
From 1931 through 1939, both money wage rates and real wage rates rose.

238
00:30:36.800 --> 00:30:46.880
Money wage rates rose from 51 cents an hour in 1931 to 63 cents in 1939.

239
00:30:46.880 --> 00:31:00.080
In constant 1954 prices, real wage rates rose from 91 in 1931 to 122 in 1939.

240
00:31:00.080 --> 00:31:02.260
What was the result?

241
00:31:02.260 --> 00:31:10.260
In that 10-year period, there was an average annual unemployment of 10 million men and women.

242
00:31:10.260 --> 00:31:17.260
Before we proceed further with a direct consideration of Keynes's argument on this point,

243
00:31:17.260 --> 00:31:23.260
it may be more profitable to digress a moment to consider the kind of argument,

244
00:31:23.260 --> 00:31:29.260
and particularly the set of assumptions, with which we have to deal.

245
00:31:29.260 --> 00:31:34.460
It is pertinent here to make three observations.

246
00:31:34.460 --> 00:31:43.940
One, when Keynes writes about classical theory or traditional theory, it almost invariably

247
00:31:43.940 --> 00:31:51.940
turns out that what he is discussing is neither of these, strictly speaking, but some caricature

248
00:31:51.940 --> 00:31:59.340
or the specific theories of the Cambridge School, consisting mainly of Marshall, Edgeworth

249
00:31:59.340 --> 00:32:02.940
and Pigot, in which he was brought up.

250
00:32:02.940 --> 00:32:04.480
2.

251
00:32:04.480 --> 00:32:12.940
This school never quite rid itself of a cost-of-production theory of prices, and neither did Keynes.

252
00:32:12.940 --> 00:32:14.460
3.

253
00:32:14.460 --> 00:32:21.340
Keynes is even inferior to the Cambridge economists he criticizes in his addiction to lump-thinking

254
00:32:21.340 --> 00:32:24.540
Thinking in Block Thinking.

255
00:32:24.540 --> 00:32:31.180
Once we recognize the existence of these assumptions in Keynes's thinking, we can economize our

256
00:32:31.180 --> 00:32:33.540
detailed criticism.

257
00:32:33.540 --> 00:32:40.100
We can ignore many of his criticisms of the theories of Marshall and Pigot, for example,

258
00:32:40.100 --> 00:32:46.400
because those theories had already been superseded by the best economic thought long prior to

259
00:32:46.400 --> 00:32:49.860
the appearance of the general theory.

260
00:32:49.860 --> 00:32:56.520
And we need not waste too much time over Keynes's criticisms when we find that these themselves

261
00:32:56.520 --> 00:33:01.020
rest on crude, lump thinking.

262
00:33:01.020 --> 00:33:04.460
Keynes writes on page 11, for example,

263
00:33:04.460 --> 00:33:11.660
The traditional theory maintains, in short, that the wage bargains between the entrepreneurs

264
00:33:11.660 --> 00:33:15.140
and the workers determine the real wage.

265
00:33:15.140 --> 00:33:24.220
Now, there is no such thing as the real wage. Neither is there any such thing as the general

266
00:33:24.220 --> 00:33:26.700
level of money wages.

267
00:33:26.700 --> 00:33:39.140
The wage, real or money, is a figment of the bad economist's imagination. It is a violent

268
00:33:39.140 --> 00:33:45.700
over simplification that assumes away the thousands of differences in individual wages

269
00:33:45.700 --> 00:33:49.540
and salaries that make up reality.

270
00:33:49.540 --> 00:33:57.160
In the same way, the general level of wages, like the general level of prices, both of

271
00:33:57.160 --> 00:34:03.880
which concepts are central to Keynes's thought, has no existence in reality.

272
00:34:03.880 --> 00:34:13.880
It is a statistician's construct, a mathematical average which has a limited value in simplifying certain problems.

273
00:34:13.880 --> 00:34:19.880
But it simplifies away some of the chief dynamic problems in economics.

274
00:34:19.880 --> 00:34:27.880
The same relationship between an average of prices and an average of wages in two different periods

275
00:34:27.880 --> 00:34:36.880
may conceal gross changes in the relationship of specific prices to specific wages.

276
00:34:36.880 --> 00:34:42.880
It is precisely the latter that may be relevant to equilibrium or the lack of it,

277
00:34:42.880 --> 00:34:50.880
to the health of specific industries, to full employment or to substantial unemployment.

278
00:34:50.880 --> 00:34:59.480
The word level can give rise to an additional false assumption, that prices and wages rise

279
00:34:59.480 --> 00:35:03.760
or fall evenly or uniformly.

280
00:35:03.760 --> 00:35:10.080
It is precisely their failure to do so that creates most of the problems of inflation

281
00:35:10.080 --> 00:35:12.480
or deflation.

282
00:35:12.480 --> 00:35:19.920
It is also the failure of specific prices or wages to rise or fall as much as the average

283
00:35:19.920 --> 00:35:26.680
that permits the continuous structural changes in production and in the labor force necessary

284
00:35:26.680 --> 00:35:32.240
for continuous economic efficiency and progress.

285
00:35:32.240 --> 00:35:35.160
Keynes writes on page 13,

286
00:35:35.160 --> 00:35:41.280
There may be no method available to labor as a whole whereby it can bring the wage-goods

287
00:35:41.280 --> 00:35:47.600
equivalent of the general level of money-wages into conformity with the marginal disutility

288
00:35:47.600 --> 00:35:50.760
of the Current Volume of Employment.

289
00:35:50.760 --> 00:35:57.540
There may exist no expedient by which labor as a whole can reduce its real wage to a given

290
00:35:57.540 --> 00:36:02.600
figure by making revised money bargains with the entrepreneurs.

291
00:36:02.600 --> 00:36:05.680
This will be our contention.

292
00:36:05.680 --> 00:36:13.000
I shall not attempt here to analyze thoroughly this highly implausible contention.

293
00:36:13.000 --> 00:36:19.640
It is enough to point out for the moment that labor does not act or do anything else as

294
00:36:19.640 --> 00:36:24.720
a whole any more than business does.

295
00:36:24.720 --> 00:36:29.320
Labor certainly doesn't set its wage rate.

296
00:36:29.320 --> 00:36:35.680
There are thousands of different wage rates being set every working day, sometimes industry

297
00:36:35.680 --> 00:36:43.360
Industry by Industry, more often Company by Company, or Union by Union, and most often

298
00:36:43.360 --> 00:36:47.200
Individual by Individual.

299
00:36:47.200 --> 00:36:55.660
Even an industry-wide union sets not a single uniform rate, but a complicated scale of rates

300
00:36:55.660 --> 00:36:58.920
fixed by classifications.

301
00:36:58.920 --> 00:37:05.360
The whole dilemma that Keynes presents, as we shall later see, exists not only in the

302
00:37:05.360 --> 00:37:12.800
real world of economics, but in his own confused method of thinking.

303
00:37:12.800 --> 00:37:17.760
No General Level of Wage Rates

304
00:37:17.760 --> 00:37:24.720
Section 3 of Keynes' Chapter 2 is less than a page and a half in length, and yet it is

305
00:37:24.720 --> 00:37:32.160
is so packed with fallacies and misstatements of fact, and these fallacies and misstatements

306
00:37:32.160 --> 00:37:38.320
are so crucial to Keynes's whole theory, that it requires more than a page and a half

307
00:37:38.320 --> 00:37:40.200
of analysis.

308
00:37:40.200 --> 00:37:47.000
Keynes's argument in this section rests on three major confusions.

309
00:37:47.000 --> 00:37:48.520
1.

310
00:37:48.520 --> 00:37:54.600
The word wages is sometimes used in the sense of wage rates, and sometimes in the sense

311
00:37:54.600 --> 00:37:58.920
of Wage Income or Total Payrolls.

312
00:37:58.920 --> 00:38:04.480
There is no warning to the reader as to when the meaning shifts, and Keynes himself is

313
00:38:04.480 --> 00:38:07.400
apparently unaware of it.

314
00:38:07.400 --> 00:38:14.120
This confusion runs through the general theory and gives birth to a host of sub-confusions

315
00:38:14.120 --> 00:38:15.120
and sub-fallacies.

316
00:38:15.120 --> 00:38:16.120
Fallacies

317
00:38:16.120 --> 00:38:19.060
2.

318
00:38:19.060 --> 00:38:25.560
Labor is treated in a Marxian manner as a lumped total with a lumped interest opposed

319
00:38:25.560 --> 00:38:30.000
to an equally lumped interest of entrepreneurs.

320
00:38:30.000 --> 00:38:35.520
This kind of treatment overlooks both the frequent conflict of interest between different

321
00:38:35.520 --> 00:38:42.200
groups of workers and the frequent identity of interest between workers and entrepreneurs

322
00:38:42.200 --> 00:38:47.360
in the same industry or firm 3.

323
00:38:47.360 --> 00:38:54.140
Keynes is constantly confusing the real interest of workers with their illusions regarding their

324
00:38:54.140 --> 00:38:56.700
interests.

325
00:38:56.700 --> 00:39:01.920
Take this strange sentence from page 14.

326
00:39:01.920 --> 00:39:08.500
Any individual or group of individuals who consent to a reduction of money wages relatively

327
00:39:08.500 --> 00:39:14.720
Relatively to others will suffer a relative reduction in real wages, which is a sufficient

328
00:39:14.720 --> 00:39:19.000
justification for them to resist it.

329
00:39:19.000 --> 00:39:26.040
To see how bad this argument is, let us try to apply it to commodities.

330
00:39:26.040 --> 00:39:32.980
We would then have to say, for instance, that if wheat fell in price relatively to corn,

331
00:39:32.980 --> 00:39:40.220
The wheat farmers would be justified in combining to refuse to accept the lower price.

332
00:39:40.220 --> 00:39:46.480
If they did so, of course, they would simply leave part of their wheat unsold on the market.

333
00:39:46.480 --> 00:39:53.060
The result of this would be to hurt both wheat farmers and wheat consumers.

334
00:39:53.060 --> 00:40:01.740
In a free, fluid, workable economy, relative changes in prices are taking place every day.

335
00:40:01.740 --> 00:40:06.820
There are as many gainers as losers by the process.

336
00:40:06.820 --> 00:40:13.700
If the losers refused to accept the situation and kept their prices frozen or raised them

337
00:40:13.700 --> 00:40:20.180
as much as the general level had risen, the result would merely be to freeze the economy,

338
00:40:20.180 --> 00:40:26.520
restrict consumption and lower production, particularly of the goods that otherwise have

339
00:40:26.520 --> 00:40:30.120
fallen relatively in price.

340
00:40:30.120 --> 00:40:36.260
This is precisely what happens in the labor field when the members of a single union refuse

341
00:40:36.260 --> 00:40:41.480
to accept a relative reduction of real wage rates.

342
00:40:41.480 --> 00:40:46.760
By refusing to accept it, they do not, in fact, improve their position.

343
00:40:46.760 --> 00:40:54.200
They merely bring about unemployment, particularly in their own ranks, and hurt their own interests

344
00:40:54.200 --> 00:40:59.280
as well as those of the entrepreneurs who employ them.

345
00:40:59.280 --> 00:41:06.680
Keynes remains blind to the most glaring fact in real economic life, that prices and wages

346
00:41:06.680 --> 00:41:15.880
never, except perhaps in a totalitarian state, change uniformly or as a unit, but always

347
00:41:15.880 --> 00:41:16.880
relatively.

348
00:41:16.880 --> 00:41:25.280
It is individual prices and individual wages that go up or down and adjust to each other

349
00:41:25.280 --> 00:41:39.880
After a given calendar year or month has closed, along comes a statistician and figures out

350
00:41:39.880 --> 00:41:42.200
a new average.

351
00:41:42.200 --> 00:41:48.760
If he is a bad statistician, he tells us that there has been such-and-such a change in the

352
00:41:48.760 --> 00:41:52.440
average level of prices or wages.

353
00:41:52.440 --> 00:41:59.320
Then, bad economists build false theories on this misleading terminology.

354
00:41:59.320 --> 00:42:03.400
They reify this alleged level.

355
00:42:03.400 --> 00:42:10.060
Their next step is to announce that if the wages or prices in a free economy do not act

356
00:42:10.060 --> 00:42:17.200
in this completely uniform or lump way, there must be outrageous injustice going on, and

357
00:42:17.200 --> 00:42:32.200
This means that there is sufficient justification for any group of workers to resist a relative reduction in real wage rates, even though by resisting it they merely create unemployment in their own ranks.

358
00:42:32.200 --> 00:42:37.200
This is adding pseudo-ethics to pseudo-economics.

359
00:42:37.200 --> 00:42:45.200
It is like telling a man that he is justified in cutting off his nose to spite his face.

360
00:42:45.200 --> 00:43:10.200
It would be impracticable, Keynes continues, for any group of workers to resist every reduction of real wages, due to a change in the purchasing power of money which affects all workers alike, and in fact reductions of real wages arising in this way are not, as a rule, resisted unless they proceed to an extreme degree.

361
00:43:10.200 --> 00:43:12.200
Page 14

362
00:43:13.200 --> 00:43:21.200
The second part of this statement, as we have already seen, is contrary to the facts of the modern world.

363
00:43:21.200 --> 00:43:32.200
Unions now insist on escalator contracts or wage boosts to offset changes as small as 1% in the cost of living index.

364
00:43:32.200 --> 00:43:40.200
Nor is it ever true that a change in the purchasing power of money affects all workers alike.

365
00:43:40.200 --> 00:43:49.200
Such a change in purchasing power is always accompanied and, partly caused by, increases in some wage rates.

366
00:43:49.200 --> 00:43:59.200
Keynes's fallacy here arises once more from the crude supposition that the price level as a whole goes up in an inflation

367
00:43:59.200 --> 00:44:03.200
while the wage level as a whole stays where it is.

368
00:44:03.200 --> 00:44:08.200
Statistical averages may sometimes make this seem to happen,

369
00:44:08.200 --> 00:44:17.200
but this is precisely because mirror averages hide the real diversity and dispersions of the economic process.

370
00:44:17.200 --> 00:44:23.200
Keynes is constantly falling into this fallacy of averages or aggregates.

371
00:44:23.200 --> 00:44:32.180
His aggregate or macroeconomics is not a step in advance, it is a retrograde step which

372
00:44:32.180 --> 00:44:39.880
conceals real relationships and real causation and leads him to erect an elaborate structure

373
00:44:39.880 --> 00:44:45.860
of fictitious relationships and fictitious causation.

374
00:44:45.860 --> 00:44:51.520
The effect of combination on the part of a group of workers, Keynes goes on, is to protect

375
00:44:51.520 --> 00:44:58.440
their Relative Real Wage. The general level of real wages depends on the other forces

376
00:44:58.440 --> 00:45:05.680
of the economic system. Thus it is fortunate that the workers, though unconsciously, are

377
00:45:05.680 --> 00:45:13.040
instinctively more reasonable economists than the classical school. Inasmuch as they resist,

378
00:45:13.040 --> 00:45:19.160
reductions of money wages, which are seldom or never of an all-around character, whereas

379
00:45:19.160 --> 00:45:25.960
As They Do Not Resist Reductions of Real Wages, page 14

380
00:45:25.960 --> 00:45:30.680
Notice first of all the semantics of the word protect.

381
00:45:30.680 --> 00:45:38.160
The purpose and effect of unions, of course, is to increase the relative wage rates of

382
00:45:38.160 --> 00:45:42.420
the union members as compared with other workers.

383
00:45:42.420 --> 00:45:50.220
The general level of real wages is merely the composite average of individual wage rates.

384
00:45:50.220 --> 00:45:55.420
It does not depend on the other forces of the economic system.

385
00:45:55.420 --> 00:45:59.840
It depends on the calculations of statisticians.

386
00:45:59.840 --> 00:46:06.440
Of course, any debasement of the monetary unit through inflation causes a rise in the

387
00:46:06.440 --> 00:46:10.260
average of wages and prices.

388
00:46:10.260 --> 00:46:17.220
But this occurs in actuality through a different, though sometimes only slightly different,

389
00:46:17.220 --> 00:46:24.660
percentage rise in the price of each individual commodity or each individual wage rate.

390
00:46:24.660 --> 00:46:31.620
The exchange ratio of wheat and corn is determined by the value both of a bushel of wheat and

391
00:46:31.620 --> 00:46:37.940
of a bushel of corn, and never merely by the value of one of them.

392
00:46:37.940 --> 00:46:44.160
A monetary price or wage rate is determined both by the exchange value of the monetary

393
00:46:44.160 --> 00:46:50.960
unit and the exchange value of a unit of a commodity or service, and not merely by the

394
00:46:50.960 --> 00:46:54.240
value of the monetary unit alone.

395
00:46:54.240 --> 00:47:02.200
Finally, the ironical remark about workers being more reasonable economists than the classical

396
00:47:02.200 --> 00:47:09.480
School is based on a misconception both of how wages change and how classical economists

397
00:47:09.480 --> 00:47:11.720
think.

398
00:47:11.720 --> 00:47:18.840
No reductions of wages, except those that might be imposed by an authoritarian government,

399
00:47:18.840 --> 00:47:23.400
are ever of an all-round character.

400
00:47:23.400 --> 00:47:30.640
If the economy is free, individual wage rates vary as much as individual prices, and there

401
00:47:30.640 --> 00:47:37.360
There is great dispersion both when they go up and when they go down.

402
00:47:37.360 --> 00:47:42.720
Non-Euclidean Economics

403
00:47:42.720 --> 00:47:49.320
Sections 4 and 5 of Keynes's chapter 2 are outstanding even in the general theory for

404
00:47:49.320 --> 00:47:55.800
the involution and obscurity of their style, and for Keynes's remarkable propensity for

405
00:47:55.800 --> 00:47:58.900
stating everything backwards.

406
00:47:58.900 --> 00:48:06.460
He begins by telling us that classical theory does not admit even the possibility of involuntary

407
00:48:06.460 --> 00:48:09.900
unemployment in the strict sense.

408
00:48:09.900 --> 00:48:16.640
Whether this is true or not depends upon the definition we give to involuntary, and also

409
00:48:16.640 --> 00:48:23.380
upon whether we interpret the word in relation to the plight of an individual worker or in

410
00:48:23.380 --> 00:48:31.380
in relation to unions that insist on a given scale of wage rates and see to it by their methods of intimidation

411
00:48:31.380 --> 00:48:40.380
not only that none of their own members, but nobody else, accepts employment below that wage rate.

412
00:48:40.380 --> 00:48:47.380
But here is Keynes's own definition of involuntary unemployment.

413
00:48:47.380 --> 00:48:54.880
Men are involuntarily unemployed if, in the event of a small rise in the price of wage-goods

414
00:48:54.880 --> 00:49:01.040
relatively to the money-wage, both the aggregate supply of labor willing to work for the current

415
00:49:01.040 --> 00:49:07.660
money-wage and the aggregate demand for it at that wage would be greater than the existing

416
00:49:07.660 --> 00:49:10.300
volume of employment.

417
00:49:10.300 --> 00:49:13.140
Page 15

418
00:49:13.140 --> 00:49:20.260
It would be hard to imagine a definition more wordy, involved, or obfusc.

419
00:49:20.260 --> 00:49:26.780
I have read it an indefinite number of times, and as nearly as I can make out, it means

420
00:49:26.780 --> 00:49:28.760
simply this.

421
00:49:28.760 --> 00:49:35.740
Men are involuntarily unemployed if an increase in prices relatively to wage rates would lead

422
00:49:35.740 --> 00:49:38.980
to more employment.

423
00:49:38.980 --> 00:49:44.660
As soon as we translate Keynes's statement into plainer English, its falsity becomes

424
00:49:44.660 --> 00:49:47.180
evident.

425
00:49:47.180 --> 00:49:52.340
Keynes's statement overlooks the fact that such an increase of employment would have

426
00:49:52.340 --> 00:49:58.260
been brought about equally well by a lowering of money wage rates with commodity prices

427
00:49:58.260 --> 00:50:00.740
remaining the same.

428
00:50:00.740 --> 00:50:06.620
To recognize this possibility, however, would have been to recognize that the unemployment

429
00:50:06.620 --> 00:50:10.220
was not in fact involuntary.

430
00:50:10.220 --> 00:50:17.020
Keynes tries to dismiss the possibility by pretending, on quite unconvincing grounds,

431
00:50:17.020 --> 00:50:23.320
that there would have to be a uniform and simultaneous reduction of wages throughout

432
00:50:23.320 --> 00:50:28.060
the entire economic system to make this result possible.

433
00:50:28.060 --> 00:50:35.060
But, as I have already pointed out, wages never do go up or down uniformly or simultaneously.

434
00:50:36.620 --> 00:50:47.620
We shall not now spend further time over sections 4 and 5, though they are full of further involved and implausible propositions.

435
00:50:47.620 --> 00:50:58.620
Keynes advises us that the theory of wages in relation to employment, to which we are here leading up, cannot be fully elucidated.

436
00:50:58.620 --> 00:51:04.620
However, until Chapter 19 and its appendix have been reached,

437
00:51:04.620 --> 00:51:14.620
Page 18. We, too, can wait for that chapter before we make any further analysis of Keynes's theory on this point.

438
00:51:14.620 --> 00:51:27.620
Before leaving these sections, however, it is worth taking note of an extravagantly pretentious claim that has apparently taken in some of Keynes's more fervent disciples.

439
00:51:27.620 --> 00:51:35.620
The classical theorists, he writes, resemble Euclidean geometers in a non-Euclidean world

440
00:51:35.620 --> 00:51:42.620
who, discovering that in experience straight lines apparently parallel often meet, rebuke

441
00:51:42.620 --> 00:51:44.940
the lines for not keeping straight.

442
00:51:44.940 --> 00:51:51.780
Yet, in truth, there is no remedy except to throw over the axiom of parallels and to work

443
00:51:51.780 --> 00:51:55.260
out a non-Euclidean geometry.

444
00:51:55.260 --> 00:52:01.580
Something similar is required today in economics, page 16.

445
00:52:01.580 --> 00:52:07.700
If we are to talk in these pretentious terms, I should like to suggest that the real economic

446
00:52:07.700 --> 00:52:14.340
world in which we live is, after all, pretty Euclidean, and that we had better stick to

447
00:52:14.340 --> 00:52:19.380
sound Euclidean economics in describing it.

448
00:52:19.380 --> 00:52:25.300
It is precisely Keynes, as we shall find, who starts rebuking the real economic world

449
00:52:25.300 --> 00:52:31.660
for not acting according to his theories, as when he contends, for example, against all

450
00:52:31.660 --> 00:52:39.020
experience under free economies, that wage rates ought to go up or down to adjust themselves

451
00:52:39.020 --> 00:52:45.340
to the price level, uniformly and simultaneously, or not at all.