Robert Lucas on the slump

13 Feb, 2013 at 12:47 | Posted in Economics | 1 Comment

In a recent lecture on the US recession – Robert Lucas gave an outline of what the New Classical school of macroeconomics today thinks on the latest downturn in the US economy and its future prospects.

Lucas starts by showing that real US GDP has grown at an average yearly rate of 3 per cent since 1870, with one big dip during the Depression of the 1930s and a big – but smaller – dip in the recent recession.

lucasAfter stating his view that the US recession that started in 2008 was basically caused by a run for liquidity, Lucas then goes on to discuss the prospect of recovery, maintaining that past experience would suggest an “automatic” recovery, if the free market system is left to repair itself to equilibrium unimpeded by social welfare activities of the government.

As could be expected there is no room for any Keynesian type considerations on eventual shortages of aggregate demand discouraging the recovery of the economy. No, as usual in the New Classical macroeconomic school’s explanations and prescriptions, the blame game points to the government and its lack of supply side policies.

Lucas is convinced that what might arrest the recovery are higher taxes on the rich, greater government involvement in the medical sector and tougher regulations of the financial sector. But – if left to run its course unimpeded by European type welfare state activities -the free market will fix it all.

In a rather cavalier manner – without a hint of argument or presentation of empirical facts – Lucas dismisses even the possibility of a shortfall of demand. For someone who already 30 years ago proclaimed Keynesianism dead – “people don’t take Keynesian theorizing seriously anymore; the audience starts to whisper and giggle to one another” – this is of course only what could be expected. Demand considerations are simply ruled out on whimsical theoretical-ideological grounds, much like we have seen other neo-liberal economists do over and over again in their attempts to explain away the fact that the latest economic crises shows how the markets have failed to deliver. If there is a problem with the economy, the true cause has to be government.

While Greg Mankiw’s – one of the leading “New Keynesians” – only comment to this was a rather uninformative “I don’t always agree with Lucas, but I almost always find him thoughtful and thought-provoking,” Paul Krugman’s comment was more adroit:

[A]s is obvious to everyone but the hermetic inhabitants of the freshwater world, the attempt to explain business cycles in terms of rational expectations and frictionless markets has failed; and Keynesian economics continues to be very useful. But to concede that, to even consider the possibility that we’re in a demand-shortfall slump of the kind Keynes diagnosed, would be an incredible comedown for Lucas.

My rational expectation is that 30 years from now, no one will know who Robert Lucas was. John Maynard Keynes, on the other hand, will still be known as one of the masters of economics.

1 Comment

  1. Hello Professor,
    Sorry again Professor for this ridiculus written english,
    Im a french doctoral student,
    The Alfred Schutz’s circular retroactive feature of dialectic and what iv said about cogito ergo sum leads me to the paramount theme of the ideology of alterity where the cogito emerges and retroactively transformed into a sum different from the cogito.

    Accordingly, the circular character of the dialectical process confers to re-presentation and re-cognition an ideological dimension.

    Ideology is a retroactive abstract signal without any reference to material reality but representing the ruling relation wityhin this reality: this is the very definition of dialectical materialism.

    The ideology of re-presentation raises the issue prices as the ideology of evaluation in market: does price really re-present value?

    Prices are “objective knowledge” that is to say signals or symbols as ideology wich are anonymous and detached from material content of the commodity.

    Schutz entails us to examine the role of prices: prices plays a ideological role in markets , as an illusion or ideology they are separated from the content of commodity but we are forced to beleive in it .(Hayek’s price signal theory, Keynes’s beauty contest, Marx’s commodity fetichism).

    As paradoxical as it may appears Marx Keynes and Hayek proposed the same materialist theory of prices that is to say prices without any reference to material content while it symbolized ruling relations at work in reality.

    This is the very definition of Marx’s”commodity fetichism”.

    The self or the identity is retroactively determined by ruling relations in objective material reality: the ideology of the “otherness” that is to say the I becomes retroactively the Me. Me is maked retroactively different from the I (in inner time there’s an identity or a tautology: I is I) by the retrospective effect of materialist dialectic.

    The circular retroactive movement of the dialectic entails us to raise a very prominent about re-presentation: does marriage really re-present love, does democracy really re-present the people.

    Re-presentation ( as re-construction) is what we used to call the retroactive moment of the dialectical process determines by material ruling relations.

    In inner time we feel love(construction) but institution as ideology translate retroactively(re-construction) love into marriage etc…… as in hegelian terms “freedom is the intellection of determinism” although Hegel obviated the time dimension and reasoning in terms of identity and tautology without taking accoung of dialectical critical materialism( the retroactive phase of the dialectical process).

    Thank you.

    Nadir.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.