Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: John Maynard Keynes

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

Presidential debate moderator Jim Lehrer said there would be six 15-minute segments in the first presidential debate on October 3rd. Devoting the entire first half to “the economy,” he will also cover healthcare, the role of government, and “governing.”

Like the candidates, let’s do some prepping.

The Economy:

In an excellent NY Times column, James Stewart asks, “Are Americans Better Off?” His answer initially takes us to the basic economic yardsticks that EconLife Election Economics looked at last week: GDP, unemployment, household income and inflation. Tepid, all are slowly improving but close to where they were when Mr. Obama entered office (except the inflation rate which has been low).

How affluent we feel--the wealth effect–is a different story. As Mr. Stewart points out, it all depends on who you are. Those who have more feel richer and more secure because stock markets are up, household debt is down, and home prices have started to rise. However, bombarded by foreclosures, student loans, auto loans and unemployment, the less affluent are not feeling better. Add to that anyone living on interest from treasuries and other securities with a “0″ return and you get many people who are not feeling better off.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate will explain whether we are better off.

Healthcare:

Statistics about US healthcare are tough to pin down when you challenge, defend and predict the impact of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. For example, you could judge healthcare on the basis of mortality rates. However, people disagree about mortality rates because the numbers you select depend on whether you look at the causes of death. With many statistics, equally defendable alternatives are probably feasible.

We can be sure, though, that as the average age of our population ascends, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be increasingly stretched. I mention Social Security here because demand for its disability benefit has been soaring.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate will convey the daunting challenges we face because of increasingly inadequate revenue for government programs that relate to health care.

For more detail, you can look at 2 Election Economics posts, Assessing the Quality of Current US Healthcare and Our Aging Population.

Role of Government and Governing:

Here we have the great divide. Whether looking at taxes, healthcare or financial regulation, there is an ideological split. The Keynesian side says government, through taxation and regulation can perpetuate economic health and fairness. By contrast, the Adam Smith/Hayek/Friedman perspective says economic prosperity and US freedom depend on the incentive to benefit from hard work, education and entrepreneurship.

Where are we? I hope that each candidate explains and presents the implications of his economic philosophy.

EconLife presented more detail about Keynesian economics here, and the Hayekian view, here.

A final thought: Most articles about the presidential debates focus on “turning the tide,” Janet Brown, the person who organizes the debates, practicing, what to call the president, what each candidate needs to achieve. You see that sadly, few articles are preparing us for content.

Sources and Resources: My thanks to James Stewart for his ideas about being better off and to the LA Times, as the only news source I could locate with an outline of debate topics.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

Comparing Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan economics, people name John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich von Hayek. Having looked at Hayek several weeks ago, let’s turn to Keynes now.

During 1934, with unemployment high and production low, British economist John Maynard Keynes was reported to have crumpled up a pile of towels rather than just one after washing his hands in a U.S. restaurant. His goal he said (if this really happened and no one is sure) was to create more jobs.

More than businesses though, Keynes (1883-1946) believed that a contracting economy needed the job creation that government could provide through deficit financing. Government spending would then multiply as it passed from hand to hand. Just pay a worker, he spends his income, the recipient then spends it, businesses have to expand and an inflated total of spending enters the GDP.

Like the New Deal, it was okay to have people plant pine trees and build airports. It was ideal to establish a social security program that provided incomes people would spend. The Keynesians believe that when government diminishes unemployment, consumers spend more and businesses, feeling some optimism, expand. Then tax revenue increases, government repays the money it borrowed and the deficit shrinks.

By contrast, Friedrich von Hayek said prices are the key. During his 1920s/30s dialogue with John Maynard Keynes at the London School of Economics, Hayek reminded us that during a recession the price of labor falls, the price of capital declines, interest rates sink. Lower prices ultimately transform the price incentives that generated the recession. They become enticing messages that say, “Hire, Expand, Borrow.” According to Hayek, rather than government and politicians, only the individual business people that hear that message know the appropriate answers. (Please see EconLife entry on Paul Ryan’s economic muse.)

Supporting a Keynesian approach, President Obama proposed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the $787 billion bailout program that ballooned to $840 billion in 2011. As a Congressman from Wisconsin, VP candidate Paul Ryan voted no. Currently, the Romney/Ryan team says it is time to inspire the private sector with less government.

Sources and Resources: There are lots of excellent articles on John Maynard Keynes. For a readable summary, this John Cassidy New Yorker article is very good, I got my “towel story” here from WSJ.com, and econtalk has a good discussion of the Wapshott book on Keynes and Hayek. For the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,  the NY Times has the spending details, this government site gives an overview, and EconLife has some analysis.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Obama/Biden and Romney/Ryan Issues

People tend to ask, “Who??” when Friedrich von Hayek is named as Paul Ryan’s economic muse. Our purpose right now is to get to know some Hayek basics to see what Ryan brings to the Romney/Ryan candidacy.

Austrian born, a naturalized British citizen, a University of Chicago professor, Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992) was an economist who saw firsthand the Austrian hyperinflation that followed WW I. Working for the Austrian government, in just 9 months, through 200 pay increases, Hayek blamed government when his salary rose from 5,000 kronen to 1 million but his buying power remained the same. At the London School of Economics, supporting less government, during the 1930s and through the war, he debated John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946; an advocate of government stimulus programs for an economy in depression).

Thinking of Hayek, we can remember two words: prices and freedom.

Prices:

  • Hayek believed that prices provide crucial information. In a market economy, millions of individuals use prices to figure out value as they make decisions about what to produce and what to buy. Without markets, there are no prices. Without prices, there can be no data on which to base production and distribution decisions. Any attempt by government to do central planning was futile because government could not possibly gather the countless bits of pricing information that millions of businesses and consumer use to make individual decisions.

 

Freedom:

  • Hayek said that economic freedom could not be separated from political freedom. Whenever government curtailed the right of the individual to use prices to make buying and selling decisions, it was limiting a fundamental right.

 

As a result, though, Hayek challenged the world’s idealists and optimists by saying you cannot use government to make the world a better place because it will not work. Since government cannot have the (price) data to make the appropriate decisions that only countless individuals separately know, it will ultimately create huge problems like the Austrian hyperinflation that following the WW I.

As the Chair of the House Budget Committee, with Hayek’s ideas as some of his rationale, Representative Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has sought to diminish the healthcare role government is playing through Medicare and Medicaid. In future posts, we will look at the specifics.

My Sources: I started getting to know Paul Ryan through this New Yorker article and an NPR Fresh Air podcast interview of Ryan Lizza, its writer. To become more familiar with Friedrich von Hayek and his most famous book, The Road to Serfdom, I read Nicholas Wapshott’s Keynes Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics and Sylvia Nasar’s Grand Pursuit The Story of Economic Genius.  For a much shorter bio, I suggest econlib summary of Hayek and his ideas.

Election Economics Topics:

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (2) Add a Comment

The Congress and the Deficit

Reading about John Maynard Keynes’s investing acumen in last Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, I wondered whether being a Keynesian could involve more than your attitude about the role of government.

So, as a teacher, I created this “Am I a Keynesian?” quiz:

  1. When you get your lowest mark in economics on a standardized test, do you blame the test writers? On the British civil service examination that got him a job in the India Office in 1907, Maynard Keynes received the second best grade. Hearing that he had fared worst on the economics section of the exam, he said, “I evidently knew more about the Economy than my examiners.” And, he was right.
  2. Do you own an auspicious art collection? Using profits from currency speculation in 1919 and 1920, Keynes purchased paintings by Seurat, Picasso, Matisse, Renoir and Cezanne.
  3. Are you a good investor? Keynes was an extraordinary investor. Reacting to his mediocre record during the 1920s, he switched his investing style from a macro approach to a long term bottom-up stock picking perspective and his returns soared. The results have been cited as better than Peter Lynch, Warren Buffett and John Templeton.
  4. During the morning, do you remain in bed to sip your tea, read reports, and call stockbrokers? Every day, for a half hour after awakening, Keynes started working in bed.
  5. Would you like to marry a Russian ballet dancer? Described by Sylvia Nasar as, “a Russian ballerina with a voluptuous body and a droll sense of humor but no obvious intellectual interests,” Lydia Lopokova married Keynes in 1925. (The Keyneses honeymooned at her parents’ home in St. Petersburg. He had a lot to say about the Russian economy.)
  6. Do you sound like a mathematician? Having met with Keynes during the early evening on May 28, 1934, FDR said, “he had ‘a grand talk with Keynes and liked him immensely’ but complained that he talked like a ‘mathematician.’”

During his talk with FDR and in a subsequent NY Times letter to President Roosevelt, Keynes recommended deficit spending to jumpstart the economy.  And that is why, today, those of us who supported the $800 billion, 2009 stimulus spending are Keynesians.

My sources: The Worldly Philosophers by Robert Heilbroner, Grand Pursuit by Sylvia Nasar, John Maynard Keynes by Robert Skidelsky, Keynes and Hayek: The Clash That Defined Modern Economics by Nicholas Wapshott. And, this WSJ article.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Congress and the Fiscal Cliff

It would be so nice if we could say, “Yes, the 2009 stimulus was a good idea,” or “No, it was not.” Instead, the debate continues.

Discussing his new book, journalist Michael Grabell tells us that we are unnecessarily dividing ourselves between government believers and disbelievers when the focus should be on designing programs that work. Grabell says the problem was not the $787 billion. Stimulus planners chose the wrong “shovel ready” projects. States were unprepared for a tsunami of money.  As a whole, the initiative had inadequate “oomph” to create a sustainable recovery.

Where did it work? He says to look at Cash for Clunkers, the program that paid us to trade in our old, emission spewing jalopies for new models. Grabell says the program successfully stimulated car production and supported car dealers.

Not everyone agrees.

An op-ed in the Boston Globe described why stimulus dollars made used car prices soar. On the supply side, car dealers had to destroy the old gas guzzling vehicles they received. On the demand side, with joblessness soaring, more people needed cheaper, “pre-owned” transportation. Less supply? More demand? Equilibrium price rises.

As you can see, the facts abound to applaud or condemn the impact of the 2009 Stimulus Act . Sometimes I even wonder which comes first, the facts or the conclusion. Exhibiting “confirmation bias,” first we walk in with our bias, and then we find a slew of facts to support what we believe in.

The Economic Lesson

In his General Theory on Employment, Interest, and Money, British economist John Maynard Keynes said that nations should borrow during a recession. Then, by using the money to “prime the pump”, fiscal activism stimulates business expansion, the recession ends, government revenue surges, and the debt is repaid.

An Economic Question: How might “confirmation bias” affect your economic analysis about the impact of government spending?

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment