Robert Reich's Blog

Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

My Photo
Name: Robert Reich

Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

John Maynard Keynes: The Abridged Version

The notion that government deficits may be good has an odd ring these days. For most of the past two decades, America's biggest worry has been inflation brought on by excessive demand. Inflation soared into double digits in the 1970s, budget deficits ballooned in the '80s, Bill Clinton got great credit for erasing the deficit in the '90s, and George W. Bush then pushed deficits up again. But some 60 years ago, when 1 out of 4 adults couldn't find work, the problem was lack of demand. That old problem is now re-emerging.

Where do can we find guidance? One source: John Maynard Keynes.

Some background (via a piece I wrote several years ago):

Kaynes hardly seemed cut out to be a workingman's revolutionary. A Cambridge University don with a flair for making money, a graduate of England's exclusive Eton prep school, a collector of modern art, the darling of Virginia Woolf and her intellectually avant-garde Bloomsbury Group, the chairman of a life-insurance company, later a director of the Bank of England, married to a ballerina, John Maynard Keynes — tall, charming and self-confident — nonetheless transformed the dismal science into a revolutionary engine of social progress.

Before Keynes, economists were gloomy naysayers. "Nothing can be done," "Don't interfere," "It will never work," they intoned with Eeyore-like pessimism. But Keynes was an unswerving optimist. Of course we can lick unemployment! There's no reason to put up with recessions and depressions! The "economic problem is not — if we look into the future — the permanent problem of the human race," he wrote (liberally using italics for emphasis).

Born in Cambridge, England, in 1883, the year Karl Marx died, Keynes probably saved capitalism from itself and surely kept latter-day Marxists at bay.

His father John Neville Keynes was a noted Cambridge economist. His mother Florence Ada Keynes became mayor of Cambridge. Young John was a brilliant student but didn't immediately aspire to either academic or public life. He wanted to run a railroad. "It is so easy ... and fascinating to master the principles of these things," he told a friend, with his usual modesty. But no railway came along, and Keynes ended up taking the civil service exam. His lowest mark was in economics. "I evidently knew more about Economics than my examiners," he later explained.

Keynes was posted to the India Office, but the civil service proved deadly dull, and he soon left. He lectured at Cambridge, edited an influential journal, socialized with his Bloomsbury friends, surrounded himself with artists and writers and led an altogether dilettantish life until Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo and Europe was plunged into World War I. Keynes was called to Britain's Treasury to work on overseas finances, where he quickly shone. Even his artistic tastes came in handy. He figured a way to balance the French accounts by having Britain's National Gallery buy paintings by Manet, Corot and Delacroix at bargain prices.

His first brush with fame came soon after the war, when he was selected to be a delegate to the Paris Peace Conference of 1918-19. The young Keynes held his tongue as Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau imposed vindictive war reparations on Germany. But he let out a roar when he returned to England, immediately writing a short book, The Economic Consequences of the Peace.

The Germans, he wrote acerbically, could not possibly pay what the victors were demanding. Calling Wilson a "blind, deaf Don Quixote" and Clemenceau a xenophobe with "one illusion — France, and one disillusion — mankind" (and only at the last moment scratching the purple prose he had reserved for Lloyd George: "this goat-footed bard, this half-human visitor to our age from the hag-ridden magic and enchanted woods of Celtic antiquity"), an outraged Keynes prophesied that the reparations would keep Germany impoverished and ultimately threaten all Europe.

His little book sold 84,000 copies, caused a huge stir and made Keynes an instant celebrity. But its real import was to be felt decades later, after the end of World War II. Instead of repeating the mistake made almost three decades before, the U.S. and Britain bore in mind Keynes' earlier admonition. The surest pathway to a lasting peace, they then understood, was to help the vanquished rebuild. Public investing on a grand scale would create trading partners that could turn around and buy the victors' exports, and also build solid middle-class democracies in Germany, Italy and Japan.

Yet Keynes' largest influence came from a convoluted, badly organized and in places nearly incomprehensible tome published in 1936, during the depths of the Great Depression. It was called "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money."

Keynes' basic idea was simple. In order to keep people fully employed, governments have to run deficits when the economy is slowing. That's because the private sector won't invest enough. As their markets become saturated, businesses reduce their investments, setting in motion a dangerous cycle: less investment, fewer jobs, less consumption and even less reason for business to invest. The economy may reach perfect balance, but at a cost of high unemployment and social misery. Better for governments to avoid the pain in the first place by taking up the slack.

Keynes had a hard sell, even in the depths of the Depression. Most economists of the era rejected his idea and favored balanced budgets. Most politicians didn't understand his idea to begin with. "Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist," Keynes wrote.

In the 1932 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt had blasted Herbert Hoover for running a deficit, and dutifully promised he would balance the budget if elected.

Keynes' visit to the White House two years later to urge F.D.R. to do more deficit spending wasn't exactly a blazing success. "He left a whole rigmarole of figures," a bewildered F.D.R. complained to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins. "He must be a mathematician rather than a political economist." Keynes was equally underwhelmed, telling Perkins that he had "supposed the President was more literate, economically speaking."

As the Depression wore on, Roosevelt tried public works, farm subsidies and other devices to restart the economy, but he never completely gave up trying to balance the budget. In 1938 the Depression deepened. Reluctantly, F.D.R. embraced the only new idea he hadn't yet tried, that of the bewildering British "mathematician." As the President explained in a fireside chat, "We suffer primarily from a failure of consumer demand because of a lack of buying power." It was therefore up to the government to "create an economic upturn" by making "additions to the purchasing power of the nation."

Yet not until the U.S. entered World War II did F.D.R. try Keynes' idea on a scale necessary to pull the nation out of the doldrums — and Roosevelt, of course, had little choice. The big surprise was just how productive America could be when given the chance. Between 1939 and 1944 (the peak of wartime production), the nation's output almost doubled, and unemployment plummeted — from more than 17% to just over 1%.

Never before had an economic theory been so dramatically tested. Even granted the special circumstances of war mobilization, it seemed to work exactly as Keynes predicted. The grand experiment even won over many Republicans. America's Employment Act of 1946 — the year Keynes died — codified the new wisdom, making it "the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government ...to promote maximum employment, production, and purchasing power."

And so the Federal Government did, for the next quarter-century. As the U.S. economy boomed, the government became the nation's economic manager and the President its Manager in Chief. It became accepted wisdom that government could "fine-tune" the economy, pushing the twin accelerators of fiscal and monetary policy in order to avoid slowdowns, and applying the brakes when necessary to avoid overheating. In 1964 Lyndon Johnson cut taxes to expand purchasing power and boost employment. "We are all Keynesians now," Richard Nixon famously proclaimed. Americans still take for granted that Washington has responsibility for steering the economy clear of the shoals, although it's now usually the Fed chief rather than the President who carries most of the responsibility.

Keynes had no patience with economic theorists who assumed that everything would work out in the long run. "This long run is a misleading guide to current affairs," he wrote early in his career. "In the long run we are all dead."

41 Comments:

Anonymous Donnie said...

Nice intro to Keynes, but how exactly is his theory relevant today? I'm not convinced. How, for example, throwing away 700 G$ (we don't have) to people and banks that have (wisely) no intention to spend it or lend it, is suppose to make disappear an eventual recession?

Everybody's talking about Keynes, but nobody is willing to go into details about how this will work.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous raiderz said...

So George Bush must be a Keynesian.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger Jason said...

From my understanding, the economy works by people spending and loaning money. Perhaps that's overly simplified. So, you're right in that if someone, ANYONE throws 700 Gs away to someone who won't spend it, it won't help the economy. it seems to me, that's a political statement: the government needs to be doing something, but it can't be seen as replacing the job of private industry. *especially* to people with more traditionally conservative fiscal values.

I am of the opinion that if private corporations won't spend money, and individuals can't / won't spend money, then the government HAS to spend money in order for the economy to work. Whether that means deficit spending or not, it needs to be done.

Banks won't lend money despite having overnment reassurances? Maybe the government should do it. If, for no other reason, to jolt the banks into lending money.

Bank: Hey! The Government is taking away our business! That's not fair!

Government: We're not taking away business if you aren't selling anything. Get off your rump, stop hording the money we gave you (or already spent on acquisitions), and GET TO WORK so the rest of America can!

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Donnie said...

Right on, raiderz.
George Bush is the Keynesian in chief: big spender and war-monger. No wonder we've had half a decade of growth!

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger Crane said...

Every leader worth his salt turns into Keynes at some point of time or the other. Bush was faced with a tough choice of the Euro eclipsing the dollar. He took steps he thought would save the dollar.
Lets see how Obama leads us.

http://what-is-bankruptcy.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger Crane said...

Obama is in a position to do something different. War or no war its the economy that needs to be fought for.

Bankruptcy

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Mr. Reich,

The only good government deficit is one caused by lowering taxes during a recession. THAT is what stimulates REAL economic growth.

But, seeing as how EVERY tax cut since World War II has resulted in MORE revenue, Keynesian folly is proven WRONG even on THAT level.

Sorry! The Chicago School of economic theory wins again! (as always)

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Donnie said...

Jason,

It's not just that banks won't lend. It's also that people don't want to borrow. And you can't force them to do that. Even if you believe that «government must do something».

You have to look at why we're in this mess in the first place: too much spending, not enough saving. The Keynesian solution: spend! spend! It doesn't make sense. We need a big correction to start over this economy on a sound basis. we can't spend our way out of this.

As long as government will throw money after bad, the market won't be able to adjust and separate bad firms from sound ones. this will prolong the recession, like it did in the thirties. Problem is, many people think that government «must» do something. So they will, unfortunately, do something (like bailing out the big three, thereby postponing their inevitable collapse).

It's not a case of conservative vs liberals, I just think the logic of keynesianism is flawed, and nobody can make a convincing case of the opposite.

But I'm still listening...

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Greg said...

Sorry but I do not believe the Keynesian theory will work for us. Japan tried it and look at how their stock and real estate markets have faired. We need to move toward economic principles that can lead to a real sustained economy. I highly recommed the following book.

Economics in One Lesson
http://jim.com/econ/contents.html

Hard medicine from lowering our standard of living will get us out of this deflationary hole eventually. The governement is notorious for making economic decisions that are unproductive. With this increased spending, the government may put itself at risk for failure.

I am starting to feel the desire to revolt from the US because I see how I will be paying for the sins of others without my consent even though I have managed my financial life in an almost ideal fashion. The future may lead to severe civil unrest if the government continues down this path.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Doug said...

G. Bush and the Iraq War was cash spent for a war that, as money spent, increased the capitaliztion value of military industies, ie, Halliburton. Unlike WWII, when the huge investment in infrastructure for the war lead to an increased capacity for production output within the country as a whole, the Bush Administration deficits were limited to profit making opportunities for corporations with no allegiance to anyone other than their stockholders. Simply put, as US citizens, what have we got to show for all these years of deficits?

I don't know Keynes enough to know if he discerned WHAT the deficits should be used for. Any administration can have deficit spending. But for what?

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Corporate America does not care about jobs or even the US economy. They really want globalization at any cost and at the expense of the American living standards. The government must trump corporate control over our economy. The economy is middle class America. The government must create an environment where American prosperity comes first above excessive corporate profits. Corporations are subsidized by the government by laws/courts, military, police, and infrastructure. In turn, corporations must balance the needs of middle class because the middle class is providing the consumption, taxation, and productivity.
Bubbles and excessive greed can bring down a government (as we are witnessing now), if no controls and policies are in place to protect against the huge imbalances that disturb entire generations of American life.
Government has more then just supply and demand to balance, they have a culture to foster, a society to flourish, and a responsibility to each and every American for a better life.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger Linda said...

RR's latest blog is re-emphasizing Keynes theory and I think he is trying to make us believe that it really can work no matter how insane it seems to keep on borrowing. Maybe we should be patriotic and try to believe this.

Many people are saying that we need to revive Main Street America, those small local businesses that benefit real people and rather than big corporations. I myself do very little shopping on Main Street because just about everything has gone out of business. There is a flower shop where I bought a bouquet for funeral, very beautifully arranged. There is a bike shop we patronize because the guy is so friendly and does so much to support biking inthe community. Like everybody else, I do most of my shopping at the Big Box stores out in the malls...Kroger, Busch's, Michaels, Joanne, Target, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Meijer, Home Depot, Staples..the list goes on. (Actually, I refuse to shop at Walmart.) These are stores are owned by huge corporations, not local people, and I would imagine that the great majority of the goods they sell were produced in China and other Asian countries.

We used to have a really nice pharmacy/general store owned and run by a single family for several generations...it did a whopping business, but Rite Aid bought it last year and closed it so they could open a new ugly brick store.

A few weeks ago I took a trip to Old Quebec City...one of my favorite cities in North America...it is a shopper's paradise. There are no big box stores, no Asian goods. There are a myriad of small shops and galleries and nearly every single one of them goods produced in the province of Quebec only. The Quebecois are very proud of their local culture, and the quality of these goods is way beyond what I can find in the U.S. Beautifully designed clothing created locally, using local fabrics, furs, and leathers. Original jewelry. Handmade lace, sculpted trinkets and art designed by Indians, art galleries on every corner...everything is locally produced. The Old Quarter is filled with small restaurants, small boutique style hotels...and it is all thriving. Notably, there are very few large buildings...it's a very European style city..with lots of windy streets lined with small townhouses, and it is full of life.

Why can't the U.S. do the same thing, what do we need to do to bring back regional economies and to foster locally produced items?

It is hard to find anything that is locally produced in Michigan anymore. Many of the so-called "farm stands" buy their food and other items from major cities, not local producers..

Our county is one of the biggest producers of lamb in the country, but guess what...you can't buy lamb in a local market. Why? Because all the lamb goes to Chicago where is then redistributed to restaurants.

Is there any way to revive Main Street if Americans continue spend most of their dollars at the Big Box stores? And what how does spending on imported goods help our small businesses and economy?

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Those who look to government bureaucrats to make their lives better will always be disappointed.

Let government police the streets and protect the shores. Leave the rest to the private sector. Let people vote with their wallets. If the consumers really want it, the entrepreneurs will provide it. Consumers always make better choices than bureaucrats.

Central planning never works, never has, never will.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@SBVOR

"Consumers always make better choices than bureaucrats."

The problem is that 50% of consumers are below average. And bureaucrats are consumers too. Consumers (and bureaucrats) don't always use their brains - hence why people are still driving SUVs around the US.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Anon,

I see…

And, you see yourself (and your proxies) as better qualified to decide for these poor dupes what they should purchase and from whom?

That is precisely what the Liberal Fascists who run Steamboat Springs have done. They have made it illegal for “big box” retailers to sell their goods here.

The result? A recent poll in our local paper indicates about 85% of responders did not plan to purchase their Xmas goodies locally.

Heck, the ONLY people who buy much of anything locally in this town are touristas! Lots of people drive their SUVs 3 hours to Denver (6 hours, round trip) to stock up on groceries at Sam’s (and STILL save bundles of money). Denver gets the sales tax and we get zippo.

I guess you and your proxies aren’t so smart after all.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Pat said...

Keynes Schmeynes--it's in the effing Bible. Or if the Bible's not your bag, a Broadway musical.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Blogger Jordan said...

SBVOR
You are right in short term, but in long term of 30 years everyone suffers. It turns out that poorest in US loose their job so that those in china or africa can have job. So middle and wealthy have to pay higher taxes in order to cover needs of poorest. And we loose abillity to build better defense, to cover SS and health problems. Yes, Bush will be celebrated much later that he enriched the poor all over the world on expense of the US.

How? you ask.
By allowing much freer trade with other countries and not using antitrust laws. Biggest companies Like wallmart, GM are allowed to transfer their manufacturing oversees or simply buy from China where labor is cheap. That gives them overwhelming advantage over smaller domestic companies which are run out of business, thanks to free market. There are no free market rules when one company can go to where cheaper labor is and other company can not. Over 30 years period, only biggest companies survive. It is not becouse of economy of size, but because monopoly on cheaper labor market.
Add to that trade dollar defficit that other countries like China, that was saved by US, can dump and bring down US Treasury and dollar.

Tuesday, 02 December, 2008  
Anonymous Lyle Burkhead said...

China is in the same position now that the US was in as the Great Depression began. They are the up and coming industrial power with an export-oriented economy and a trade surplus. They should be trying to stimulate domestic demand.

The US is in a very different situation, and the stimulus that worked in 1941 would have different effects now. Keynes famously said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The facts have changed, and if Keynes were alive today he would not be giving Obama the same advice he gave Roosevelt.

Unlike most of the posters here, I have actually read Keynes - not just the General Theory but most of his other books as well. He had a profoundly original mind. If the expression "out of the box" did not exist, it would have to be invented just for him. Now, tragically, his thought has been reduced to sound bites and clichés. If he were alive today, he would not recommend continuing to do the same thing we have been doing. Our financial system, based on globalization and securitized debt, is broken, and there is no use trying to fix it by tinkering with it. I think Keynes would propose something radical, some kind of system reboot. He might take up the line of thought introduced by Linda in her post about Quebec: "what do we need to do," she asks, "to bring back regional economies and to foster locally produced items?"

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Anonymous Chris D. said...

I wonder if most of the success of mid-20th Century Keynesianism was really due to the coincidence of the Western shift from agriculture to mass-production manufacturing. All that infrastructure built during the New Deal was perfectly timed to facilitate this. And, the fact that the war destroyed Europe's industry didn't hurt either. Let's say we renew all of America's delapidated infrastructure. Then what?

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, the accelerator was pushed on too hard, and too long. Public/private debt to GDP is at 350%, and the US is now utterly dependent upon constantly rolling over foreign loans. The origin of the Great Depression was the immense quantity of debt that built up in the 20s. When it could not be repaid, credit for normal activity shut down. The public sector was the only sector that could still borrow domestic savings, and public borrowing put domestic savings back into use.

Today, we have no significant domestic savings. Foreign loans to the private sector have shut down, and again only the public sector can borrow from overseas. However, public borrowing is not putting domestic savings back into use this time. Now the public sector is only borrowing more from overseas. The result will be different.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Sandwichman said...

Lyle Burkehead is 100% right. The facts have changed and Keynes wouldn't be giving Obama the same advice he gave Roosevelt.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Linda said...

Lyle, Sandwichman, Jordan, Donnie, Greg, SBVOR, Jordan, Art...others...

I think we all need to do some reading. Lyle, what would you recommend from Keynes? Sandwichman, I have noted the book you mentioned earlier about containing growth...can you reference it again, and do you have other suggestions?

I was a big fan of Wallerstein's but I am beginning to think the viewpoint he takes---the macro view--has limited applicability. You also have to look from the inside out. After studying anthropology, I became an artist, and I am convinced that fostering the creative arts....music, theatre, painting, weaving, handicrafts...etc... could do a lot to bring back regional and local economies.

If the economy does fail and we have a serious energy crisis, the regional economies are going to be what keep people alive. We won't have cheap transportation anymore...we'll have to rely on what we an find locally.

In some ways, we already have a grass roots economy going...Garage Sales!!! Local resale shops. These stores don't do a lot to "stimulate" the economy but they do a lot keep people going. Local art fairs are another. Farmers markets.

Many businesses (like our local art supply stores) have gone out of business because they can't compete with the web, but the web itself could be stimulate a lot regional production, because it allows individual entrepreneurs to sell their goods and to acquire raw materials more cheaply. The web also saves on energy because it reduces the need to physically travel to the market, and limits shipping costs to individual items which can be efficiently handled by UPS, USPS and others.

We need a reading list.. I'd like to order some books today!!

Linda

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Jordan,

You keep on dreaming.

I am sure your Socialist Utopia is just around the corner.

It always is.

Free Markets, though lacking any utopian promise, are always a better alternative to government intervention (whose utopian promise always leads to even greater misery). And, that misery only gets worse in “[the] long term”.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Jordan said...

Anonynus
We do not have domestic savings? Reason is, that all savings are tied up in derivatives. Most of the derivatives are useless means of tieing up excess savings, basically a speculation on other investments. I do not have percise numbers but i would go guessing.
CDS (Credit default swaps) are sold for about $14 trill and it is a main reason that banks have to hold about $54 trill in reserves just in case CDS are cashed in when a loan fails. There are another derivative in amount of $55trill and if i am corect in 30:1 average leverage ratio there is another derivative in amount of $55 trill. That would be about $180 trilllions in derivatives that provide $65 trill in loans that are used in US market. All derivatives except first level securities are just speculative waste that did this damage. Sound lending should be consiting only of first level derivative.
If those banks bankrupt and clear debts there would be about $100 trillions saved out of almost $300 in total debt. $20 trill was trown away on commissions and fees just to implement all transactions and speculations.

Those $100 trillions saved would be more then sufficient to combat deflation and to use purposfully to stop foreclosures, and invest in infrastructure.

And it is impossible to restart local industries as long as there are huge corporations who can just go to other countries where labor is cheap. Use antitrust laws to make it difficult for them to kill local industries. And implement the rules that only specialized corporations can do import/export not every corporations. No need for tariffs, just to make it more difficult.
Implement higher taxes to kapital to prevent future imbalance of fundamentals.
It is in spirit of Keynes to keep the balance of consumers, products and kapital in order to have full employment.

Lyle
facts do not change, only our knowlege of facts change. Consider yestrdays announcement that we have been in reccesion for the whole year before they knew it. Facts did not change there. It is defunct cherypicking of informations that messed up economist's calculations. Over time they did cherypicking of information just to prevent public announcement of bad news, knowing what effect bad news have on confidence in economy that is %70 service based. Cherypicking for too long confused them also to belive such bull......
It is evolution

Idea of Keyneisam is to keep balance between consumer's buying power and investment kapital. Otherwise, deflation or inflation will be corective balancing mechanisam to restore balance.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Linda said...

Jordan,

I think facts do change. The America of WWII was a country of few, but very strong powerful corporations but also many small restaurants, shopkeepers, tailors, shoe repair shops, grocers, and the like, in the city as well as in the country. These business owners were members of the communities they lived in, sensitive to the need, tastes, and personal issues of the people that patronized them.

The web and the information revolution is making a permanent change in the way we communicate and do business.

Globalization has been a great leveling mechanism, it has allowed China to become stronger, and it has weakened the American economy to the extent that we now have to borrow from the Chinese to keep going. It has also made business very impersonal. The goods that are produced are mass produced without regard to individual or idiosyncratic needs and tastes, or regional differences.

Culture is becoming too homogenized. We are losing all our diversity. Diversity on a cultural level is as important as it is on a biological level, diversity is the matrix of selection, adaptation, evolution, survival.

The world is now a different place and I think we need a new vision.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Jordan said...

SBVOR
Your absolutist thinking is influenced by ideological blindness.
First socialisam is not utopia, communisam is.
Second, I am not calling for socialisam, just for more socialist kapitalisam. I am strong believer in free market, and would like to see better regulations of it, not these tangentual complex regulations. Which are cause for missuse of government to mess up the forces of free market as they did.
Government uses different tax breaks to control (plan) economy. It is annother weaker version of planned economy.
Only huge corporations have kapital to search for cheaper foreign labor. They push out smaller companies by using free market forces. Only lately, internet allowed smaller companies to do same, after damage is done. But that will cause total transfer of jobs oversees. Monopoly on cheaper labor is not free market.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Jordan said...

Linda
i totaly support you in all that. I am just talking about present forces that prevent all that change. I am talikng about how it came that Wall-mart pushed out all those local small diversified shops. It is a gradual shift over 70 years that did cought eye only of few progressive thinking. Remember anti-wallmart movement that could do nothing to stop it, but they were only ones seeing that structural shift and damage to diversity?

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Blogger Linda said...

Jordan...

Good !!!...so are you accepting the idea that there are socioeconomic changes that have happened. But are they permanent and irreversible? Is there a way to get rid of the Walmarts? Is there a way to get the small businesses and local arts going again? This is where I am a total loss because I have no experience or expertise in microeconomics.

However, I do have some first hand experience in the arts and gov't grants to sponsor the local arts, encourage shows and competitions could do a lot.

One of the cool things about being physically creative is that it makes people feel empowered... you learn that you can do a lot more than just create art. You can also fix things in your house and you can grow a garden and you can share with your neighbors. It is important for people to keep their material skills as well as their intellectual skills...this was the premise of Montessori schools which got their start in the 30s and are still so popular today.

You and others here seem to have a much better experience with microeconomics than I do...how can we stimulate local and regional economies, the grass roots producers?

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Anonymous Lyle said...

Jordan - It is true that individual facts don't change. The Keynes principle can be restated to take this into account: "When my realize that my old perception of the facts was wrong, I change my mind," or "When I understand the facts in a new context, I change my mind," or "When I find myself dealing with a different set of facts than I was dealing with before, I change my mind about the appropriate course of action."

The point is that conditions change, and policies that worked in an earlier situation will not have the same effect under different conditions.

In the 1920s, the US was lending money to the rest of the world. That was the situation as we entered the Depression. Now, the US borrows from the rest of the world, especially China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. This is an example of a fact (or a condition, a constellation of facts) that has changed. When I say the facts have changed, I mean the situation has changed.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Anonymous Lyle said...

Donnie - "How, for example, throwing away 700 G$ (we don't have) to people and banks that have (wisely) no intention to spend it or lend it, is suppose to make disappear an eventual recession?"

The people who are doing such things may be invoking his name, but this was not his idea.

Toward the end of his life, Karl Marx said "I am not a Marxist." If Keynes had lived long enough, eventually he would have said "I am not a Keynsian." He never said that governments should run up more and more debt under all circumstances. So-called Keynsian policies are a caricature of what he actually said.

Wednesday, 03 December, 2008  
Anonymous Arthur James said...

You'd think Robert Reich would check his facts. At the Paris Peace Conference, Keynes did not "hold his tongue as Woodrow Wilson, David Lloyd George and Georges Clemenceau imposed vindictive war reparations on Germany". He worked himselfinto the ground to prevent this!

Markwell's book on "Keynes and International Relations" has a chapter full of evidence of this.

Thursday, 04 December, 2008  
Blogger Jim S. said...

Thank you for an excellent summary of Keynes and his work, but you did leave out one not-so-minor detail. Keynes said that governments should spend, at deficit when necessary, but he also said that government should run surpluses during boom times to repay the debt from the deficit years. That is the part that politicians are always reluctant to do. Everybody loves tax cuts, but there are times to raise them, too. That is one of the reasons that I think the Bush administration will be remembered as a disaster. The federal budget was balanced, and the national debt was decreasing. I thought that theologians could use that as proof that a loving God exists and is active in human affairs, but that moron kicked it away to give tax cuts to his buddies, who didn't need them. Now the feds need to spend to revive the economy, but we are already in hock to our eyebrows. I no longer envy my children.

Thursday, 04 December, 2008  
Blogger MT said...

Doesn't a Keynesian fix hinge on people "buying American" when they spend their government pay? Will that happen in this age of free trade, WalMart, cheap shipping and instant information flow to and from anywhere around the world? Isn't it quaint that Toyota pays Americans to build some of the cars it sells to us? Japanese must have trouble pronouncing "NAFTA." (Or I guess it's that they're exploiting our national glut of cheap truck parts, which relies on the Big Three making mutually redundant gas guzzlers faster than dealers can give them away for 0% down plus a free fill-up).

Sunday, 07 December, 2008  
Anonymous John Lawrence said...

Anonymous:

Because capitalism concentrates financial resources in fewer and fewer hands and puts more and more workers out of work, government has to make up for it by pumping money into the hands of the laid off workers to fill their basic needs. Thus public enterprise replaces private enterprise as redistributor of wealth and employer of last resort. The money can be recycled by taxing the rich concentrations of wealth, but this hasn't been done under Reaganomics.

This pump priming eventually creates jobs and redistribution of wealth through taxation with government as the intermediary can create new and more productive industries. We need capitalism's innovation, but can't allow concentrations of capital as has happened under 30 years of Milton Friedman-Alan Greenspan-Ayn Rand style supply side economics.

It takes a balance between capitalism and socialism as western European and even formerly communist societies have discovered. The US just hasn't figured this out yet. It's the last to the table. Maybe after the complete bust of Reaganomics the US finally will.

Thursday, 11 December, 2008  
Blogger M.G. said...

Economist should study more the economics for Joe the Plumber. Ask a plumber how to fix the flow of money not Keynes.

Sunday, 14 December, 2008  
Anonymous Cindy said...

Obama needs to approve a stimulus package to preserve and improve the infrastructure. That kind of spending will provide jobs and in my opinion is the best way to improve the economic picture.

Monday, 15 December, 2008  
Anonymous Dugger69 said...

Lord Keynes famously referred to the "tyranny" of the gold standard. It's true that gold was, if not a tyrant, at least a pretty strict disciplinarian. But, having lived through eight years of GWB, I'm beginning to think that putting the government in an economic strait-jacket is the least of all possible evils. Certainly it would make it much harder for politicians to start wars if they had to go to the people and say: "We need to raise your taxes." The people would probably say: "Whoa! Wait a minute."

I would feel much better about Keynesian economics if we could somehow elect people like, say, John Maynard Keynes. But, given the kind of people we actually do elect, a strait-jacket may be exactly what is needed.

Thursday, 18 December, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

Thursday, 12 February, 2009  
Anonymous Dilettante said...

Keynes made very specific observations about the relationship between capital efficiency and null factor demand constraints in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" that explains all of this. Who here actually read it? LOL

Wednesday, 18 March, 2009  
Anonymous V. Ilyich said...

"We need capitalism's innovation, but can't allow concentrations of capital as has happened under 30 years of Milton Friedman-Alan Greenspan-Ayn Rand style supply side economics."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...

You are astute in recognizing that there is a clear hegemony of ownership equity in the world. Are you proposing that we organize into worker-led central planning commissions and convert the property of the imperialist and kulaks into our state sanctioned enterprise?

Wednesday, 18 March, 2009  
Anonymous Bucket Trucks said...

i80equipment is an online New & used bucket trucks store. Offers a wide variety of Digger Derrick Trucks, Boom Trucks & Crane Trucks.

Thursday, 09 July, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home