Subscriber Content Preview | Request a free trialSearch  
  Go

The Deal Economy 2013

Home    |    Event    |    Blog    |    Awards
Print  |  Share  |  Discuss  |  Reprint

Some thoughts on 'A Short Comment on Keynes'

by Robert Teitelman  |  Published July 29, 2011 at 1:40 PM
keynes125x100.jpgJosh Marshall at Talking Points Memo offered up a brief moment of reflection Thursday in the midst of continuing chaos at the debt ceiling circus. His post, "A Short Comment on Keynes," suggests that "Keynes has taken a mighty hit. But my read of the situation is that the hit is almost entirely in the realm of politics rather than economics." He then goes on to wrestle with the notions Keynes is associated with by so many. "There's something in the nature of the political economy, forces vastly stronger today than they were 80 years ago, [sic] that leads to this," he writes. "And there's a simple paradox. It does make some intuitive sense that the government should have to tighten its belt when the rest of the country is. Only it's not true. And like a disoriented pilot without instruments to guide, what definitely makes sense can prove fatal." Not to pick at this, but: well, yeah. Sometimes our metaphors, our commonsense view of the world, can kill us. It's not that Keynes has not taken a particularly mighty hit from a bunch of Tea Party legislators that may not be able to spell his name; the cartoon version of Keynes has been taking whacks from the right since the '70s. In fact, the financial crisis and fallout has done quite a bit to resurrect the man and his supple, often-paradoxical, occasionally murky thought (see Paul Krugman's "The Return of Depression Economics" and Robert Skidelsky's "Keynes: The Return of the Master"), as distinct from the related, but more rigidly quantitative "Keynesianism" of the post-war years. I'm not sure what Marshall means by "something in the nature of the political economy, forces vastly stronger today than they were 80 years ago," but I do know one big difference between the two eras: When Roosevelt foolishly tried to balance the budget in 1937, Keynes' "General Theory" was just being published. The notion of deficit spending to restart or drive demand was little more than a gut call, lacking the theoretical underpinning Keynes and his successors would provide. In short, it was easy to fall for the paradox. There's no excuse today except ignorance or partisanship. Lastly, there are many deep disagreements in economics, but on the basics (and Keynesianism, as even Richard Nixon once admitted, is one of them), there's no lack of instruments. You have to deliberately close your eyes.
 
So in the end, Marshall is correct: Politics trumps economics. Marshall does, however, open the way for some further thoughts on Keynes and the current situation. What is the politics of the Tea Party really suggesting here? To eliminate Keynesian-type pump priming when demand and capacity utilization have stalled is to eliminate fiscal policy as an economic tool. It's to send us back to before the Great Depression, when the only real actions that could be taken in the event of the clockwork-like crashes that occurred were for private interests to bail out the system; this almost never happened. (It's easy here to confuse fiscal and monetary policy, which is the other tool in a crisis: And in fact in Tea Party circles, the Federal Reserve is as great a bogeyman as Keynes.) In short, calls for legislation like a federal balanced budget would remove many of the shock absorbers on the economy and emasculate both the executive and the legislature as economic players. This is pretty ironic given the attacks on Obama for not doing more on jobs. "Cut, Cap and Balance" is thus purely in the spirit of the gold standard (which Keynes argued fiercely to kill in Great Britain): a rigidly, mechanistic control of the economy that was "beyond" politics, beyond democratic (small "d") control and did great harm, both economically and politically.  
 
The other issue that makes "something in the nature of the political economy vastly stronger" is the presence of social welfare spending in this bitter absurdity of a fight. Keynes has nothing to do with the fact that Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs are rising; though he's often branded a Socialist, even a Communist, Keynes was really a classic, if updated, 19th century liberal and an active member of the British Liberal Party. Like Obama, he had some surprisingly conservative views, both politically and economically; he was ultimately a pragmatist of genius. Now it's true that the seeming success of Keynesian economics in the postwar years allowed states to fund ample, growing and popular social welfare schemes, including George W. Bush's and congressional Republican's last hurrah: the Medicare prescription drug plan. But those two issues -- the use of deficit spending to smooth economic volatility and the funding of a social welfare safety net -- are really two different issues. After all, a powerful state built using Keynesian principles also funds a vast defense establishment. Why is Keynes not blamed for that?
 
In the end, Keynes' argument does speak to how, in a mass democracy, the government can try to buffer the citizenry, particularly those who can least afford it, from the depredations of economic cycles. The Tea Party view of the world offers two alternatives, which are as dangerously ludicrous given the nature of liberal democracy as the Versailles Treaty that Keynes so famously derided in "The Economic Consequences of the Peace": that economic cycles will magically disappear once the government leaves the scene or that we will all have to suffer through the bad times in order to earn the good. The first is fantasy; the second is a kind of demented neo-Puritanism. Keynes wanted none of it. - Robert Teitelman
Share:
Tags: General Theory | John Maynard Keynes | Josh Marshall | Keynes The Return of the Master | Paul Krugman | Robert Skidelsky | Talking Points Memo | The Economic Consequences of the Peace | The Return of Depression Economics
blog comments powered by Disqus

Meet the journalists

Robert Teitelman

Editor in chief

Bob Teitelman, editor in chief and a member of the company’s executive committee, is responsible for editorial operations of print and electronic products. Contact



Movers & Shakers

Launch Movers and shakers slideshow

Goldman, Sachs & Co. veteran Tracy Caliendo will join Bank of America Merrill Lynch in September as a managing director and head of Americas equity hedge fund services. For other updates launch today's Movers & shakers slideshow.

Video

Fewer deals despite discount debt

When will companies stop refinancing and jump back into M&A? More video

Sectors