WEBVTT

NOTE 4. Overture

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.000
Chapter 4. Overture.

2
00:00:08.000 --> 00:00:12.000
Effective Demand

3
00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:24.000
Chapter 3 of The General Theory bears the impressive title, The Principle of Effective Demand, but the title gives a wrong impression of its contents.

4
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:39.000
Its function in Keynes's book is rather like that of an overture to a light opera, in which the composer weaves together and writes variations on the principal themes that are to follow.

5
00:00:39.000 --> 00:00:50.000
The chapter consists of three sections. The first two are technical and scientific. The third, gay and satiric.

6
00:00:50.000 --> 00:01:02.000
As the whole chapter merely foreshadows what is to be unfolded in detail in the following pages, we need not make a lengthy analysis of it here.

7
00:01:02.000 --> 00:01:13.000
But as the first two sections purport to present the essence of the general theory of employment, some general comments seem called for.

8
00:01:13.000 --> 00:01:23.240
The whole of the general theory might be described as an exercise in obfuscation, and the obfuscation

9
00:01:23.240 --> 00:01:31.360
begins at an early point. L. Albert Hahn has compared the reading of Keynes to watching

10
00:01:31.360 --> 00:01:38.280
a sort of trick film. Everything happens in a manner that is exactly the opposite of what

11
00:01:38.280 --> 00:01:48.840
The Comparison is apt. Keynes is constantly reversing cause and effect, putting the cart

12
00:01:48.840 --> 00:01:56.240
before the horse. Entrepreneurs, he tells us, will endeavor to fix the amount of employment

13
00:01:56.240 --> 00:02:02.400
at the level which they expect to maximize the excess of the proceeds over the factor

14
00:02:02.400 --> 00:02:13.300
Cost, p. 24-25. Now, this statement is not flatly untrue, but it is certainly a misleading

15
00:02:13.300 --> 00:02:21.780
way of describing what happens. Entrepreneurs do not endeavor to fix the amount of employment

16
00:02:21.780 --> 00:02:29.780
at any preconceived level. Each entrepreneur is trying to make a profit by producing and

17
00:02:29.780 --> 00:02:32.820
and Selling a Certain Product.

18
00:02:32.820 --> 00:02:39.700
The product having been decided upon, he then decides what sort of factory to put up, what

19
00:02:39.700 --> 00:02:46.820
sort of equipment to install, what raw materials to order, and what particular kinds of labor

20
00:02:46.820 --> 00:02:49.300
to employ.

21
00:02:49.300 --> 00:02:55.140
His decision regarding his total output will depend in part upon the amount of capital

22
00:02:55.140 --> 00:03:08.060
In determining the relative amounts of equipment he will buy or labor he will hire, he will

23
00:03:08.060 --> 00:03:13.900
be guided by the prices of the first and the wage rates of the second.

24
00:03:13.900 --> 00:03:20.260
His proportions may vary depending upon this price-wage relationship.

25
00:03:20.260 --> 00:03:26.000
As a result of this complex of decisions, a certain number of workers of different kinds

26
00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:35.400
will be hired, but this is simply one of the consequences of the total complex of decisions.

27
00:03:35.400 --> 00:03:43.480
Entrepreneurs are certainly not endeavoring to fix, in advance, any given level of employment.

28
00:03:43.480 --> 00:03:51.040
The amount of employment is not their object, it is merely incidental to their object.

29
00:03:51.040 --> 00:03:57.180
If the foregoing sentence from Keynes had existed in isolation, it would not be worth

30
00:03:57.180 --> 00:03:59.280
all this discussion.

31
00:03:59.280 --> 00:04:04.960
But Keynes repeatedly and chronically describes the manner in this way.

32
00:04:04.960 --> 00:04:11.160
His mathematical equations implicitly take for granted that entrepreneurs think in this

33
00:04:11.160 --> 00:04:16.640
This way and decide the amount of employment they will provide.

34
00:04:16.640 --> 00:04:25.820
His equations also often seem to imply that all entrepreneurs are organized as a monopoly.

35
00:04:25.820 --> 00:04:33.860
This way of thinking and of stating the case, in fact, seems to be essential to his theory.

36
00:04:33.860 --> 00:04:40.040
And Keynes launches early upon a great deal of quite unnecessary and merely confusing

37
00:04:40.040 --> 00:05:04.040
In fact, it may be doubted whether this algebra is either appropriate or valid as applied to the loose abstractions with which Keynes deals.

38
00:05:04.040 --> 00:05:10.040
The first equations in his book occur on page 25.

39
00:05:10.040 --> 00:05:17.040
Let z be the aggregate supply price of the output from employing n men.

40
00:05:17.040 --> 00:05:25.040
The relationship between z and n being written z equals phi n,

41
00:05:25.040 --> 00:05:29.040
which can be called the aggregate supply function.

42
00:05:29.040 --> 00:05:52.040
Similarly, let d be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of n men, the relationship between d and n being d equals f n, which can be called the aggregate demand function.

43
00:05:52.040 --> 00:06:09.040
As aggregate supply price in this context merely means aggregate cost or marginal cost, this paragraph could have been simply written without any mathematical ostentation about as follows.

44
00:06:09.040 --> 00:06:17.040
The total cost of producing a given output will vary with the number of men employed,

45
00:06:17.040 --> 00:06:27.040
and the proceeds that entrepreneurs expect to receive from the sale of that output will also vary with the number of men employed.

46
00:06:27.040 --> 00:06:41.040
Roughly speaking, this may often be true, but Keynes, by putting his statements into the form of mathematical equations, affects to be speaking precisely.

47
00:06:41.040 --> 00:07:02.040
To assert, in a mathematical equation, that one quantity is a function of another, is to assert that, at least within a specified range of values, there is always a precise, determinant and predictable relationship between the two quantities.

48
00:07:02.040 --> 00:07:08.040
I choose a definition from the nearest algebra text on my shelves.

49
00:07:08.040 --> 00:07:27.040
If a variable y is related to a variable x in such a way that each assignment of a value to x definitely determines one or more values of y, then y is called a function of x.

50
00:07:27.040 --> 00:07:34.040
As soon as we apply rigorous standards, Keynes's equations simply fade away.

51
00:07:34.040 --> 00:07:41.720
Is there a constant, precise, determinate and predictable relationship between the number

52
00:07:41.720 --> 00:07:48.560
of men a manufacturer employs and either his costs or his gross receipts?

53
00:07:48.560 --> 00:07:50.800
Obviously not.

54
00:07:50.800 --> 00:07:58.160
Both his costs and his receipts will depend not merely upon the number of men he employs

55
00:07:58.160 --> 00:08:05.240
but upon the quality of the individual men and the nature of their skills.

56
00:08:05.240 --> 00:08:13.760
His costs will depend not only upon the individual and total wage rates he pays, but upon his

57
00:08:13.760 --> 00:08:21.600
plant, the equipment he installs, the raw materials he buys, his transport costs, and

58
00:08:21.600 --> 00:08:25.680
the changing prices of all of these.

59
00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:31.760
His receipts will depend upon the changing prices he gets for his output.

60
00:08:31.760 --> 00:08:38.400
The price he pays for raw materials may change in relation to the price he gets for his finished

61
00:08:38.400 --> 00:08:44.920
product, and the prices he pays or gets will constantly change in relation to the wage

62
00:08:44.920 --> 00:08:48.280
rates he has to pay.

63
00:08:48.280 --> 00:08:55.280
Changes in relative costs or technical progress may constantly alter the relationship of the

64
00:08:55.280 --> 00:09:07.200
In short, any relationship between payrolls and total costs on the one hand, and payrolls

65
00:09:07.200 --> 00:09:14.800
and expected gross receipts on the other, will exist only for an instant of time.

66
00:09:14.800 --> 00:09:22.560
There is no assurance whatever that any change in the number of men employed, i.e. any change

67
00:09:22.560 --> 00:09:31.880
in N will mean any precise or predeterminable change in either Z or D.

68
00:09:31.880 --> 00:09:39.600
Many other things are wrong with Keynes's formulation, besides its mere invalidity.

69
00:09:39.600 --> 00:09:47.200
No manufacturer says to himself, I shall hire N number of men and this will give me total

70
00:09:47.200 --> 00:09:53.200
Total Cash Costs of Z and Total Cash Receipts of D

71
00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:56.760
He begins the other way around.

72
00:09:56.760 --> 00:10:04.320
He begins by deciding either how much money he can afford to lay out, say Z, or how much

73
00:10:04.320 --> 00:10:12.080
of a product he could make or sell, getting receipts of D, and then he decides how many

74
00:10:12.080 --> 00:10:15.560
men he will need or can afford.

75
00:10:15.560 --> 00:10:22.120
So if a functional relationship could be posited at all, it ought to be the converse of the

76
00:10:22.120 --> 00:10:30.900
one posited by Keynes, and n would be, say, a function of d, or a function of z.

77
00:10:30.900 --> 00:10:35.200
There are further difficulties with the formulation.

78
00:10:35.200 --> 00:10:42.820
Z is apparently defined as a real sum, and n is certainly defined as a real sum, but

79
00:10:42.820 --> 00:10:47.860
Let D is defined merely as an expectation.

80
00:10:47.860 --> 00:10:54.900
Let D be the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive from the employment of n

81
00:10:54.900 --> 00:10:56.900
men.

82
00:10:56.900 --> 00:11:04.160
No doubt expectations concerning the future, if reasonable, can bear a rough relationship

83
00:11:04.160 --> 00:11:06.740
to present realities.

84
00:11:06.740 --> 00:11:16.100
But can we posit a constant, determinate or precise relationship of expectations to realities?

85
00:11:16.100 --> 00:11:22.060
Can we put expectations into a meaningful mathematical equation?

86
00:11:22.060 --> 00:11:29.720
If Keynes, here or elsewhere, uses the word function as a mere figure of speech, we might

87
00:11:29.720 --> 00:11:31.860
let it pass.

88
00:11:31.860 --> 00:11:53.860
But to put these alleged relationships solemnly into the form of an equation, without attempting to support this equation with any rigorous deductive argument, or any appeal to statistical confirmation, or anything but a bald dogmatic ipsydixit, is another matter.

89
00:11:53.860 --> 00:12:10.860
Moreover, Keynes continues, the value of D at the point of the aggregate demand function where it is intersected by the aggregate supply function will be called the effective demand, page 25.

90
00:12:10.860 --> 00:12:18.860
But as D has been defined as the proceeds which entrepreneurs expect to receive,

91
00:12:18.860 --> 00:12:24.860
surely this should be called only the expected effective demand.

92
00:12:24.860 --> 00:12:29.860
If it is merely expected, it can hardly be called effective.

93
00:12:29.860 --> 00:12:37.860
The whole term effective demand is today either nonsensical or confusing anyway.

94
00:12:37.860 --> 00:12:56.860
Modern economists do not need the adjective effective in front of demand. Demand is effective by definition. If it is not effective, it is not called demand, but need, desire, wish, or longing.

95
00:12:56.860 --> 00:13:04.860
The word demand implies the requisite desire along with the requisite purchasing power.

96
00:13:04.860 --> 00:13:12.860
If Keynes meant aggregate demand, then that is the adjective he should have used and stuck to.

97
00:13:12.860 --> 00:13:19.860
If he meant aggregate monetary demand or aggregate monetary purchasing power,

98
00:13:19.860 --> 00:13:25.860
then these are the terms he ought to have used when this was what he meant.

99
00:13:25.860 --> 00:13:32.860
The confusions in his terminology merely compound the confusions in his thought.

100
00:13:32.860 --> 00:13:39.860
Immediately after the equation and the definition I have just quoted, Keynes tells us,

101
00:13:39.860 --> 00:13:46.860
this is the substance of the general theory of employment, page 25.

102
00:13:46.860 --> 00:13:54.860
And on the baseless fabric of this vision are all his cloud-capped towers built.

103
00:13:54.860 --> 00:14:02.860
This invalid equation is part of Keynes's disproof of Say's law.

104
00:14:02.860 --> 00:14:14.860
The classical theory assumes, he writes, that the aggregate demand price, or proceeds, always accommodates itself to the aggregate supply price.

105
00:14:14.860 --> 00:14:32.860
Thus, Say's law, that the aggregate demand price of output as a whole is equal to its aggregate supply price for all volumes of output, is equivalent to the proposition that there is no obstacle to full employment.

106
00:14:32.860 --> 00:14:35.860
Page 26

107
00:14:35.860 --> 00:14:42.860
This passage misstates both classical theory and the substance of Say's law.

108
00:14:42.860 --> 00:14:55.860
Classical theory does not assume that the demand price, aggregate or otherwise, always accommodates itself to the aggregate supply price.

109
00:14:55.860 --> 00:15:05.860
Neoclassical theory asserts that, under conditions of equilibrium, such and such consequences or corollaries follow.

110
00:15:05.860 --> 00:15:12.860
But it does not assert that conditions will necessarily be in equilibrium.

111
00:15:12.860 --> 00:15:24.860
It does assert that, under conditions of free competition, with flexible and fluid prices and wages, there will always be a tendency toward equilibrium.

112
00:15:24.860 --> 00:15:26.860
The Propensity to Consume

113
00:15:54.860 --> 00:15:59.980
Introduction to The Propensity to Consume.

114
00:15:59.980 --> 00:16:06.940
This is the proposition that the psychology of the community is such that when aggregate

115
00:16:06.940 --> 00:16:15.740
real income is increased, aggregate consumption is increased but not by so much as income.

116
00:16:15.740 --> 00:16:18.180
Page 27.

117
00:16:18.180 --> 00:16:24.400
There will be plenty of time later for full analysis of this curious proposition, about

118
00:16:24.400 --> 00:16:32.680
which there has been so much ado, but one or two observations may be made here.

119
00:16:32.680 --> 00:16:39.120
By speaking of the psychology of the community and by using the slightly contemptuous term

120
00:16:39.120 --> 00:16:46.560
propensity, Keynes manages to insinuate the notion that the way people spend their incomes

121
00:16:46.560 --> 00:16:51.920
is essentially non-rational or irrational.

122
00:16:51.920 --> 00:17:00.160
It will also be noticed that his proposition is vague and open to several different interpretations.

123
00:17:00.160 --> 00:17:07.920
If the community, as it grows richer, spends the same proportion of its income or consumption,

124
00:17:07.920 --> 00:17:15.920
then of course consumption will not increase by the same absolute amount as income, but

125
00:17:15.920 --> 00:17:23.440
But the difference will presumably be made up by the same proportional increase in investment.

126
00:17:23.440 --> 00:17:30.840
If the community, as it grows richer, spends a smaller proportion of its income on consumption,

127
00:17:30.840 --> 00:17:36.400
then of course it must spend a larger proportion on investment.

128
00:17:36.400 --> 00:17:42.760
But Keynes never tells us unequivocally which or what he means.

129
00:17:42.760 --> 00:17:50.520
In drawing inferences from his psychological law, he goes on to declare, Thus, to justify

130
00:17:50.520 --> 00:17:57.200
any given amount of employment, there must be an amount of current investment sufficient

131
00:17:57.200 --> 00:18:03.940
to absorb the excess of total output over what the community chooses to consume when

132
00:18:03.940 --> 00:18:07.080
employment is at the given level.

133
00:18:07.080 --> 00:18:12.640
Page 27 Here is a truism introduced under the guise

134
00:18:12.640 --> 00:18:14.680
of a great discovery.

135
00:18:14.680 --> 00:18:21.320
Naturally, if we divide all spending under a full employment equilibrium into two kinds

136
00:18:21.320 --> 00:18:27.840
– consumption and investment spending – there must be sufficient investment spending to

137
00:18:27.840 --> 00:18:33.560
make up the difference between consumption spending and total spending if we are to have

138
00:18:33.560 --> 00:18:35.640
of Full Employment.

139
00:18:35.640 --> 00:18:44.480
But this portentous discovery could be applied not only to investment, but to anything whatever.

140
00:18:44.480 --> 00:18:51.040
If we divide the amount of spending necessary for full employment into spending on everything

141
00:18:51.040 --> 00:18:58.080
else but beer, plus the spending on beer, then full employment depends on the amount

142
00:18:58.080 --> 00:19:05.080
spent on beer, or putting it into the same Keynesian phraseology as that quoted above.

143
00:19:05.960 --> 00:19:12.720
To justify any given amount of employment, there must be an amount of beer consumed sufficient

144
00:19:12.720 --> 00:19:19.720
to absorb the excess of total output over what the community chooses to spend on everything

145
00:19:19.960 --> 00:19:26.960
else but beer when employment is at the given level. And you can also put all this into

146
00:19:26.960 --> 00:19:32.200
All this into an impressive set of mathematical equations.

147
00:19:32.200 --> 00:19:38.600
I may anticipate later discussion here by pointing out that the difference between consumption

148
00:19:38.600 --> 00:19:45.520
and investment is at least to some extent arbitrary, and not at all as clear-cut as

149
00:19:45.520 --> 00:19:49.200
Cain sometimes makes it out to be.

150
00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:54.960
Is the purchase of a house a consumption expenditure or an investment?

151
00:19:54.960 --> 00:20:01.080
If you buy it as a home, it is considered a consumption good, but if you buy it to rent

152
00:20:01.080 --> 00:20:05.420
to somebody else, it is an investment.

153
00:20:05.420 --> 00:20:10.820
This would apply as well to an automobile or a power mower.

154
00:20:10.820 --> 00:20:16.620
Consumption and investment goods are not necessarily different kinds of goods.

155
00:20:16.620 --> 00:20:22.620
They change their nature with their state of processing, whose hands they are in, or

156
00:20:22.620 --> 00:20:26.460
for the Changing Purposes of Their Owners.

157
00:20:26.460 --> 00:20:33.300
Having made his great division between consumption and investment goods, Keynes proceeds to build

158
00:20:33.300 --> 00:20:37.100
the whole of Keynesian economics upon it.

159
00:20:37.100 --> 00:20:44.780
He sums this up in the following paragraph, on page 28, and in a series of eight propositions

160
00:20:44.780 --> 00:20:47.540
on the next page.

161
00:20:47.540 --> 00:20:52.820
These two pages might be called the heart of Keynesian economics.

162
00:20:52.820 --> 00:20:58.980
As I have already stated, the propositions will be analyzed at length in the following

163
00:20:58.980 --> 00:21:07.380
pages, but as this is our first acquaintance with them, we may make some preliminary remarks.

164
00:21:07.380 --> 00:21:13.780
Given the propensity to consume, he begins, and the rate of new investment, there will

165
00:21:13.780 --> 00:21:21.220
There will be only one level of employment consistent with equilibrium, page 28.

166
00:21:21.220 --> 00:21:27.660
The independent clause in this sentence would be completely true, especially without the

167
00:21:27.660 --> 00:21:30.980
dependent phrases.

168
00:21:30.980 --> 00:21:41.340
There is only one level of employment consistent with full equilibrium, and that is full employment.

169
00:21:41.340 --> 00:21:51.060
This is true by definition. If there is unemployment, there must be disequilibrium somewhere.

170
00:21:51.060 --> 00:21:58.620
When Keynes writes, the effective demand associated with full employment is a special case, only

171
00:21:58.620 --> 00:22:05.540
realized when the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest stand in a particular

172
00:22:05.540 --> 00:22:17.900
He is either resorting to inexcusable mystification, or he is writing nonsense.

173
00:22:17.900 --> 00:22:22.820
With equilibrium there is always full employment.

174
00:22:22.820 --> 00:22:28.740
We could, of course, write the foregoing sentence from Keynes like this.

175
00:22:28.740 --> 00:22:35.340
Full employment is a special case only realized when there is full employment, which in turn

176
00:22:35.340 --> 00:22:43.140
is only realized when consumption and investment are together sufficient to provide full employment.

177
00:22:43.140 --> 00:22:49.540
This would be true, but it would all be true by the very definition of our terms.

178
00:22:49.540 --> 00:22:55.020
We would only put the statement in that form as a sort of joke, as if one were to say,

179
00:22:55.020 --> 00:23:01.660
a week is a special case, only realized when it contains just seven days, no more and no

180
00:23:01.660 --> 00:23:04.380
no less in succession.

181
00:23:04.380 --> 00:23:12.340
Equilibrium, in short, exists only when the conditions of equilibrium are fulfilled.

182
00:23:12.340 --> 00:23:16.020
One of those conditions is full employment.

183
00:23:16.020 --> 00:23:21.540
And full employment always exists when there is equilibrium.

184
00:23:21.540 --> 00:23:28.920
When Keynes speaks, therefore, as he does here and elsewhere of equilibrium with underemployment,

185
00:23:28.920 --> 00:23:31.380
he is talking nonsense.

186
00:23:31.380 --> 00:23:39.640
This is a contradiction in terms, like talking of an orderly chaos, or a triangular circle.

187
00:23:39.640 --> 00:23:46.940
When Keynes speaks, in short, of an equilibrium with unemployment, he is not really speaking

188
00:23:46.940 --> 00:23:53.200
of a position of equilibrium at all, but of something quite different.

189
00:23:53.200 --> 00:24:01.160
He is speaking of a frozen situation, a frozen disequilibrium, a situation in which some price

190
00:24:01.160 --> 00:24:18.160
The price, interest rate, or wage rate, or many prices, interest rates and wage rates, are prevented either by contract, labor union resistance, or government intervention, from adjusting to an equilibrium level.

191
00:24:18.160 --> 00:24:25.160
This flagrant misuse of terms is one of the central fallacies of the whole Keynesian system.

192
00:24:25.160 --> 00:24:31.160
When this misuse is recognized, his whole system collapses.

193
00:24:31.160 --> 00:24:39.160
All this is not to argue, as Keynes sometimes likes to pretend the neoclassical economists do argue,

194
00:24:39.160 --> 00:24:49.160
that unemployment or disequilibrium is impossible, or even that full employment or full equilibrium is the usual state of affairs.

195
00:24:49.160 --> 00:24:57.680
On the contrary, the best neoclassical economists have always recognized that completely full

196
00:24:57.680 --> 00:25:05.040
employment or perfect equilibrium is never a fact, any more than perfection in any human

197
00:25:05.040 --> 00:25:07.280
condition.

198
00:25:07.280 --> 00:25:14.960
The concept of equilibrium is primarily an economist's methodological tool of thought.

199
00:25:14.960 --> 00:25:21.900
Nor because perfect equilibrium is never realized in practice, can this be dismissed as a useless

200
00:25:21.900 --> 00:25:24.040
tool of thought.

201
00:25:24.040 --> 00:25:31.700
An engineer speaks of a frictionless engine, or one of 100% efficiency, realizing quite

202
00:25:31.700 --> 00:25:39.180
well that no engine is frictionless, and no machine 100% efficient.

203
00:25:39.180 --> 00:25:44.900
But he needs these concepts as benchmarks, standards, tools of thought.

204
00:25:44.900 --> 00:25:52.340
A mathematician deals conceptually with points without dimensions and lines without thickness,

205
00:25:52.340 --> 00:25:58.440
though the points and lines in his textbook do have dimensions and thickness, or they

206
00:25:58.440 --> 00:26:01.260
could not be seen.

207
00:26:01.260 --> 00:26:08.260
The mathematician finds it highly valuable and even indispensable to use concepts of

208
00:26:08.260 --> 00:26:16.440
Irrational numbers and imaginary numbers, such as the square root of minus 1, the reality

209
00:26:16.440 --> 00:26:22.560
or rationality of which he may find it embarrassing to explain.

210
00:26:22.560 --> 00:26:28.780
The economist too finds logical difficulties when he tries to think through the concept

211
00:26:28.780 --> 00:26:31.660
of perfect equilibrium.

212
00:26:31.660 --> 00:26:38.540
But such difficulties are encountered with nearly all the leading concepts of economics.

213
00:26:38.540 --> 00:26:48.400
Perfect competition, full employment, a stationary economy, supply curves, demand curves, etc.

214
00:26:48.400 --> 00:26:54.860
It is not my purpose here to discuss the merits of any particular concept, but most of those

215
00:26:54.860 --> 00:26:59.460
just named are useful and necessary tools of thought.

216
00:26:59.460 --> 00:27:05.980
The concept of equilibrium is indispensable either for so-called static or so-called

217
00:27:05.980 --> 00:27:08.300
dynamic theory.

218
00:27:08.300 --> 00:27:14.820
The error comes either when equilibrium is thought of as an existing fact or ridiculed

219
00:27:14.820 --> 00:27:18.980
merely because it is not an existing fact.

220
00:27:18.980 --> 00:27:24.820
What is real is an ever-present tendency toward equilibrium.

221
00:27:24.820 --> 00:27:43.440
Keynes' error lies in using the word equilibrium in two quite different senses, one of which

222
00:27:43.440 --> 00:27:46.580
is entirely invalid.

223
00:27:46.580 --> 00:27:52.100
This is the confusion of equilibrium with a situation that for one reason or another

224
00:27:52.100 --> 00:27:59.260
Neither is merely frozen, such as prolonged mass unemployment because of a prolonged maladjustment

225
00:27:59.260 --> 00:28:06.300
between prices of different commodities, or between individual wage rates, or, most often,

226
00:28:06.300 --> 00:28:10.220
between prices and wage rates.

227
00:28:10.220 --> 00:28:18.100
All of Keynes's propositions and deductions on pages 28-31 are the result of a misconception

228
00:28:18.100 --> 00:28:22.100
or misstatement of neoclassical theory.

229
00:28:22.100 --> 00:28:29.820
We need not, therefore, try here to disentangle the errors in detail, but one general comment

230
00:28:29.820 --> 00:28:32.080
should be made.

231
00:28:32.080 --> 00:28:38.820
Keynes absurdly talked as if no classical economist had ever heard of panics, depressions

232
00:28:38.820 --> 00:28:41.000
or unemployment.

233
00:28:41.000 --> 00:28:47.020
Of course the assumptions of static equilibrium or the assumptions of a stationary economy

234
00:28:47.020 --> 00:29:00.020
are not in themselves sufficient to deal with business cycles, but they are necessary methodological preconditions for the understanding of business cycles.

235
00:29:00.020 --> 00:29:09.020
Unless we understand static assumptions, we cannot understand dynamic assumptions.

236
00:29:09.020 --> 00:29:14.020
Derision of Thrift

237
00:29:14.020 --> 00:29:24.020
In section 3 of chapter 3, Keynes really lets himself go for two and a half pages, 32 to 34.

238
00:29:24.020 --> 00:29:28.020
There is, strictly speaking, no argument here.

239
00:29:28.020 --> 00:29:36.020
Merely derision of the classical economists and of whatever they happen to think was an economic virtue.

240
00:29:36.020 --> 00:29:53.340
Ricardo conquered England as completely as the Holy Inquisition conquered Spain.

241
00:29:53.340 --> 00:29:57.460
The Inquisition conquered Spain by force and torture.

242
00:29:57.460 --> 00:30:01.860
The only force Ricardo used was the force of logic.

243
00:30:01.860 --> 00:30:07.880
If we bring Keynes's comparison up to date, we shall have to say that Keynes has conquered

244
00:30:07.880 --> 00:30:14.340
the present Anglo-American academic world, and the present Western political world, almost

245
00:30:14.340 --> 00:30:20.980
as completely as Marx has conquered Russia and China.

246
00:30:20.980 --> 00:30:27.780
Not only was Ricardo's theory accepted by statesmen and by the academic world, but controversy

247
00:30:27.780 --> 00:30:43.780
This has almost been the fate today, alas, at least in the universities of non-Keynesian economics.

248
00:30:43.780 --> 00:30:50.780
The great puzzle of effective demand with which Malthus had wrestled vanished from economic literature.

249
00:30:50.780 --> 00:30:57.100
You will not find it mentioned even once in the whole works of Marshall, Edgeworth and

250
00:30:57.100 --> 00:31:05.460
Professor Pigot, from whose hands the classical theory has received its most mature embodiment.

251
00:31:05.460 --> 00:31:11.900
It was provincial of Keynes to treat his Cambridge teachers as representing the highest point

252
00:31:11.900 --> 00:31:16.800
reached by economics prior to his own emergence.

253
00:31:16.800 --> 00:31:23.480
After all, among his predecessors, there were Menger and Boehm-Bawerk in Austria, Walrus

254
00:31:23.480 --> 00:31:32.180
in Switzerland, Wichsel in Sweden, John Bates Clark and Irving Fischer in America, and Jevons

255
00:31:32.180 --> 00:31:35.640
and Wichstead in his own country.

256
00:31:35.640 --> 00:31:44.160
And among Keynes's contemporaries, such figures as Mises, Hayek, Anderson, Knight, and Röpke

257
00:31:44.160 --> 00:31:52.160
were carrying the logical rigor and unity of economics much beyond the point where Marshall had left it.

258
00:31:53.160 --> 00:32:06.160
It, the great puzzle of effective demand, could only live on furtively below the surface in the underworlds of Karl Marx, Silvio Giselle, or Major Douglas.

259
00:32:06.160 --> 00:32:12.160
Economic underworld is a felicitous description of this literature.

260
00:32:12.160 --> 00:32:20.160
But Keynes seemed to imagine that his avowed association with it would suddenly make it respectable.

261
00:32:20.160 --> 00:32:27.160
The completeness of the Ricardian victory is something of a curiosity and a mystery.

262
00:32:27.160 --> 00:32:33.160
Far less of a mystery than the completeness of the Keynesian victory.

263
00:32:33.160 --> 00:32:39.160
The Ricardian system, at least, had an elegant self-consistency.

264
00:32:39.160 --> 00:32:45.160
It was logical within its assumptions, within its limited frame of reference,

265
00:32:45.160 --> 00:32:53.160
and it did not hopelessly confuse, as the Keynesian system does, short-term effects with long-term effects,

266
00:32:53.160 --> 00:32:57.160
or static theory with dynamic theory.

267
00:32:57.160 --> 00:33:06.080
It, the completeness of the Ricardian victory, must have been due to a complex of suitabilities

268
00:33:06.080 --> 00:33:11.440
in the doctrine to the environment into which it was projected.

269
00:33:11.440 --> 00:33:19.480
As the Keynesian victory must have been due to the political environment of 1936.

270
00:33:19.480 --> 00:33:24.400
That it reached conclusions quite different from what the ordinary uninstructed person

271
00:33:24.400 --> 00:33:31.640
would expect added, I suppose, to its intellectual prestige.

272
00:33:31.640 --> 00:33:37.040
Keynes certainly reached conclusions quite different from what the ordinary uninstructed

273
00:33:37.040 --> 00:33:44.840
person would expect, for instance, that saving is a sin and squandering a virtue, and perhaps

274
00:33:44.840 --> 00:33:50.040
this had added to its current intellectual prestige.

275
00:33:50.040 --> 00:33:56.440
That its teaching, translated into practice, was austere and often unpalatable, lent in

276
00:33:56.440 --> 00:33:58.640
virtue.

277
00:33:58.640 --> 00:34:05.520
The virtue of Keynes's teaching is that it praised thriftlessness, reckless spending,

278
00:34:05.520 --> 00:34:11.160
and unbalanced budgets, and was therefore extremely palatable to the politicians in

279
00:34:11.160 --> 00:34:13.920
power.

280
00:34:13.920 --> 00:34:22.420
That it was adapted to carry a vast and consistent logical superstructure gave it beauty.

281
00:34:22.420 --> 00:34:28.560
This is true, as much unfortunately cannot be said for Keynesian economics, which is

282
00:34:28.560 --> 00:34:35.440
jerry-built and inconsistent without economy or elegance.

283
00:34:35.440 --> 00:34:41.680
That it could explain much social injustice and apparent cruelty as an inevitable incident

284
00:34:41.680 --> 00:34:46.960
in the Scheme of Progress, and the attempt to change such things as likely on the whole

285
00:34:46.960 --> 00:34:52.460
to do more harm than good, commended it to authority.

286
00:34:52.460 --> 00:34:58.360
As Keynes's doctrine of government spending, artificially low interest rates, and printing

287
00:34:58.360 --> 00:35:04.420
press money commends it to present-day political authorities?

288
00:35:04.420 --> 00:35:10.800
That it afforded a measure of justification to the free activities of the individual capitalist

289
00:35:10.800 --> 00:35:17.480
attracted to it the support of the dominant social force behind authority.

290
00:35:17.480 --> 00:35:24.160
This is pure Marxian demagogy which attributes beliefs to discreditable motives rather than

291
00:35:24.160 --> 00:35:27.160
to disinterested logic.

292
00:35:27.160 --> 00:35:34.220
A reply in kind might be that the popularity of Keynes's theory in academic circles reflects

293
00:35:34.220 --> 00:35:40.600
the poorly paid academician's envy of the successful businessman.

294
00:35:40.600 --> 00:35:47.080
But although the Ricardian doctrine itself has remained unquestioned by orthodox economists

295
00:35:47.080 --> 00:35:53.720
up to a late date, its signal failure for purposes of scientific prediction has greatly

296
00:35:53.720 --> 00:35:59.960
impaired in the course of time the prestige of its practitioners.

297
00:35:59.960 --> 00:36:06.280
The implied claim that Keynesian economics can make possible scientific prediction of

298
00:36:06.280 --> 00:36:15.520
of Future Business Fluctuations is pure claptrap. No system of economics can do this. The most

299
00:36:15.520 --> 00:36:22.460
that any economic reasoning can do is to say that such-and-such conditions, if they existed

300
00:36:22.460 --> 00:36:30.040
in isolation, would tend to have such-and-such results. The Ricardian system for all its

301
00:36:30.040 --> 00:36:35.880
Malthus' shortcomings did this much better than the Keynesian system.

302
00:36:35.880 --> 00:36:42.880
Forecasts based on Keynesian theory have had a pathetically bad record.

303
00:36:42.880 --> 00:36:49.560
Four professional economists after Malthus were apparently unmoved by the lack of correspondence

304
00:36:49.560 --> 00:36:55.720
between the results of their theory and the facts of observation.

305
00:36:55.720 --> 00:37:01.240
Keynes' lack of correspondence existed mainly in Keynes' mind.

306
00:37:01.240 --> 00:37:06.840
Keynes never troubled to compare his own theory with the facts of observation.

307
00:37:06.840 --> 00:37:13.060
As we shall see later, he was fond of making sweeping statements, not only without any

308
00:37:13.060 --> 00:37:19.440
attempt at statistical proof, but even where statistical proof already existed of their

309
00:37:19.440 --> 00:37:25.360
lack of correspondence with the facts of observation.

310
00:37:25.360 --> 00:37:31.420
The celebrated optimism of traditional economic theory which has led to economists being looked

311
00:37:31.420 --> 00:37:37.700
upon as candides, who, having left this world for the cultivation of their gardens, teach

312
00:37:37.700 --> 00:37:43.160
that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, provided we will let well

313
00:37:43.160 --> 00:37:49.540
alone, is also to be traced, I think, to their having neglected to take account of the drag

314
00:37:49.540 --> 00:37:57.900
on Prosperity which can be exercised by an insufficiency of effective demand.

315
00:37:57.900 --> 00:38:04.300
Keynes here allows his own rhetoric to carry him so far away from reality that it is hard

316
00:38:04.300 --> 00:38:08.540
to know where to begin in dissecting the passage.

317
00:38:08.540 --> 00:38:13.700
First of all, traditional economic theory was not celebrated in the popular mind for

318
00:38:13.700 --> 00:38:17.780
optimism, but for pessimism.

319
00:38:17.780 --> 00:38:24.420
Rothwell's famous epithet, The Dismal Science, sums up the popular 19th century judgment

320
00:38:24.420 --> 00:38:27.620
of the economic theory of the day.

321
00:38:27.620 --> 00:38:34.060
Malthus's laws of population were thought to condemn the world to eternal existence

322
00:38:34.060 --> 00:38:38.420
at the merest subsistence level for the masses of the people.

323
00:38:38.420 --> 00:38:46.320
Ricardo's so-called iron law of wages, never his own description, was thought to make improvement

324
00:38:46.320 --> 00:38:54.120
in real wages impossible, at least without a slow increase in the wages fund.

325
00:38:54.120 --> 00:39:00.760
Still again, it was not Candide who was the incurable optimist of Voltaire's blistering

326
00:39:00.760 --> 00:39:09.240
novel, but Pangloss, and Candide did not decide to cultivate his own garden until after his

327
00:39:09.240 --> 00:39:13.280
optimistic illusions had been completely shattered.

328
00:39:13.280 --> 00:39:20.960
Finally, the neoclassical economists never assumed prosperity and full employment, except

329
00:39:20.960 --> 00:39:24.760
on the assumption of equilibrium.

330
00:39:24.760 --> 00:39:30.200
They did not assume that there was always equilibrium, but they did assume that there

331
00:39:30.200 --> 00:39:38.020
was a constant tendency back to equilibrium, however much disturbed, as long as competition

332
00:39:38.020 --> 00:39:43.160
and free prices and wages prevailed.

333
00:39:43.160 --> 00:39:49.840
For there would obviously be a natural tendency towards the optimum employment of resources

334
00:39:49.840 --> 00:39:55.520
in a society which was functioning after the manner of the classical postulates.

335
00:39:55.520 --> 00:40:01.400
It may well be that the classical theory represents the way in which we should like our economy

336
00:40:01.400 --> 00:40:09.660
to behave, but to assume that it actually does is to assume our difficulties away.

337
00:40:09.660 --> 00:40:16.260
This passage merely shows that Keynes did not understand what the neoclassical postulates

338
00:40:16.260 --> 00:40:18.140
really were.

339
00:40:18.140 --> 00:40:24.380
It is because the labor unions and the politicians intervened to prevent the self-adjustments

340
00:40:24.380 --> 00:40:30.980
that would otherwise have taken place in the economy that prolonged mass unemployment and

341
00:40:30.980 --> 00:40:35.620
underemployment of resources occurred.

342
00:40:35.620 --> 00:40:45.620
Mises blamed on the classical postulates the very stagnation caused by policies based on the Keynesian postulates.

343
00:40:45.620 --> 00:40:56.620
For the Keynesian postulates and the Keynesian policies existed years before Keynes approved and tried to systematize them in the general theory.

344
00:40:56.620 --> 00:41:17.620
They were, as we shall see, simply the old, old postulates and policies of inflationism, building up to an inevitable crash, government restrictionism, government price stabilization policies, and wage rates inflexible in the downward direction.

345
00:41:17.620 --> 00:41:32.620
The flexibility of wages, prices and markets postulated by the neoclassical economists was prevented, and then the consequences were blamed on the neoclassical economics.