Every dollar of increased government spending must correspond to one less dollar of private spending. Jobs created by stimulus spending are offset by jobs lost from the decline in private spending. We can build roads instead of factories, but fiscal stimulus can’t help us to build more of both. This form of “crowding out” is just accounting, and doesn’t rest on any perceptions or behavioral assumptions.
I may be too bold, but I’m willing to take the risk, and so recommend Cochrane and other Chicago economists to make the following addition to their reading lists …
Government borrowing is supposed to “crowd out” private investment.
The current reality is that on the contrary, the expenditure of the borrowed funds (unlike the expenditure of tax revenues) will generate added disposable income, enhance the demand for the products of private industry, and make private investment more profitable. As long as there are plenty of idle resources lying around, and monetary authorities behave sensibly, (instead of trying to counter the supposedly inflationary effect of the deficit) those with a prospect for profitable investment can be enabled to obtain financing. Under these circumstances, each additional dollar of deficit will in the medium long run induce two or more additional dollars of private investment. The capital created is an increment to someone’s wealth and ipso facto someone’s saving. “Supply creates its own demand” fails as soon as some of the income generated by the supply is saved, but investment does create its own saving, and more. Any crowding out that may occur is the result, not of underlying economic reality, but of inappropriate restrictive reactions on the part of a monetary authority in response to the deficit.
William Vickrey Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism
I think a lot of the work in Keynesian economics has gotten too far away from thinking about individuals and their decisions at all. Keynesians don’t often worry about what actual individuals are doing. They look at mechanical statistical relationships that have no connection with what real individuals are actually doing.
Robert Lucas Interviewed in The Margin
And this comes from an economist who repeatedly has argued that progress in economics lies in the pursuit of the ambition to “tell better and better stories” and who in search of a “technical model-building principle” adapts the rational expectations view, according to which agents’ subjective probabilities are identified “with observed frequencies of the events to be forecast” and equivalent to “true” probabilities. A hypothesis that he maintains
will most likely be useful in situations in which the probabilities of interest concern a fairly well defined recurrent event, situations of ‘risk’ [where] behavior may be explainable in terms of economic theory … In cases of uncertainty, economic reasoning will be of no value … Insofar as business cycles can be viewed as repeated instances of essentially similar events, it will be reasonable to treat agents as reacting to cyclical changes as ‘risk’, or to assume their expectations are rational, that they have fairly stable arrangements for collecting and processing information, and that they utilize this information in forecasting the future in a stable way, free of systemic and easily correctable biases.
Robert Lucas (1981) Studies in Business-Cycle Theory
Living in his self-made analogue and unrealistic rational-expectations-glass-house this guy should not throw stones.
Olivier Blanchard, the IMF’s chief economist, recently wrote:
“We in the field did think of the economy as roughly linear, constantly subject to different shocks, constantly fluctuating, but naturally returning to its steady state over time. Instead of talking about fluctuations, we increasingly used the term “business cycle.” Even when we later developed techniques to deal with nonlinearities, this generally benign view of fluctuations remained dominant.”
The models that macroeconomic practitioners developed reflected this essentially linear view. Blanchard went on to observe that although macroeconomists did not ignore the possibility of extreme tail risk events, they regarded them as a thing of the past in developed countries … If you get the policy settings right, linear models will work.
Except that they won’t. And that is because these models are not realistic views of how the economy actually works. Representative agents aren’t actually representative of anyone. Rational expectations are driven as much by emotion as logic …
Leaving banks out of economic models, or – worse – modelling their money-creating function incorrectly, made it impossible for mainstream economists to understand the significance of the build-up of credit that led to the financial crisis. The warnings came principally from people outside mainstream economics, particularly the followers of Hyman Minsky. After the crisis, Minsky’s “financial instability hypothesis”, long consigned to a dusty shelf in a dark cupboard, suddenly became hot news. Unsurprisingly, since we had just lived through something that looked very like a “Minsky moment”.
Clearly, the exclusion of the financial industry from models of the macroeconomy was a major omission. Equally clearly, the fact that most macroeconomists did not, and to a large extent still do not, understand the mechanisms by which money is created and circulated in the modern monetary economy, is a big, big problem. Central banks are now “adding” the financial sector to existing DSGE models: but this does not begin to address the essential non-linearity of a monetary economy whose heart is a financial system that is not occasionally but NORMALLY far from equilibrium. Until macroeconomists understand this, their models will remain inadequate …
Some of the most influential people in macroeconomics have spent their lives developing theories and models that have been shown to be at best inadequate and at worst dangerously wrong. Olivier Blanchard’s call for policymakers to set policy in such a way that linear models will still work should be seen for what it is – the desperate cry of an aging economist who discovers that the foundations upon which he has built his career are made of sand. He is far from alone.
By the early 1980s it was already common knowledge among people I hung out with that the only way to get non-crazy macroeconomics published was to wrap sensible assumptions about output and employment in something else, something that involved rational expectations and intertemporal stuff and made the paper respectable. And yes, that was conscious knowledge, which shaped the kinds of papers we wrote.
More or less says it all, doesn’t it?
And for those of us who do not want to play according these sickening hypocritical rules — well, here’s one good alternative.
We are storytellers, operating much of the time in worlds of make believe. We do not find that the realm of imagination and ideas is an alternative to, or retreat from, practical reality. On the contrary, it is the only way we have found to think seriously about reality. In a way, there is nothing more to this method than maintaining the conviction … that imagination and ideas matter … there is no practical alternative”
Robert Lucas (1988) What Economists Do
Sounds great, doesn’t it? And here’s an example of the outcome of that serious think about reality …
In summary, it does not appear possible, even in principle, to classify individual unemployed people as either voluntarily or involuntarily unemployed depending on the characteristics of the decision problems they face. One cannot, even conceptually, arrive at a usable definition of full employment as a state in which no involuntary unemployment exists.
The difficulties are not the measurement error problems which necessarily arise in applied economics. They arise because the “thing” to be measured does not exist.
As made clear from my Friedman-post earlier today, we have pretty little to learn from libertarians on questions of fairness and wage discrimination. Happily there are others who have something of substance to say instead of just talking nonsense:
So let’s say a woman faces discrimination by this definition – she loses out to a man with weaker credentials. “Loses out” itself is pretty vague and could reasonably be consistent with several different observed labor market outcomes, two of which are:
Outcome A: She gets hired to the same job as the man but at lower pay, and
Outcome B: She doesn’t get the job and instead takes her next best offer in a different occupation at lower pay. Let’s further say that she is paid her real productivity in this job.
Let’s say the woman’s wage in Outcome A and the wage in Outcome B is exactly the same.
Under Outcome A, a wage regression with occupational dummies and a gender dummy is going reliably report the magnitude of the discrimination in the gender dummy. Under Outcome B, a wage regression with occupational dummies and a gender dummy is going to report all of the discrimination under the occupational dummies. If you interpret the results thinking that “discrimination” as Scott D defines it is only in the gender coefficient, you would say there is discrimination in the case of Outcome A, but that there’s no discrimination in the case of Outcome B.
It would be one thing if these were very, very different sorts of discrimination but these are two reasonable outcomes from the exact same act of discrimination.
This is why people like Claudia Goldin see occupational dummies as describing the components of the wage gap and not as some way of eliminating part of the gap that isn’t really about gender.
“Equal pay for equal work” is a principle that I should hope everyone can agree on. It’s great stuff. And I for one think the courts might have some role to play in ensuring the principle is abided by in our society. But it’s a pretty vacuous phrase when it comes to economic science. It’s not entirely clear what it means or how it can be operationalized. Outcome A is clearly not equal pay for equal work, but what about Outcome B? After all the woman is being paid “fairly” for the work she ended up doing. Is that equal pay for equal work? You could make the argument but it doesn’t feel right and in any case it’s clearly incommensurate with the data analysis we’re doing. When two things are incommensurate it’s typically a good idea to keep them separate. Let “equal pay for equal work” ring out as a rallying call for a basic point of fairness and don’t act like you can either affirm it or refute it with economic science. As far as I can tell you can’t.
Until , when the banking industry came crashing down and depression loomed for the first time in my lifetime, I had never thought to read The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, despite my interest in economics … I had heard that it was a very difficult book and that the book had been refuted by Milton Friedman, though he admired Keynes’s earlier work on monetarism. I would not have been surprised by, or inclined to challenge, the claim made in 1992 by Gregory Mankiw, a prominent macroeconomist at Harvard, that “after fifty years of additional progress in economic science, The General Theory is an outdated book. . . . We are in a much better position than Keynes was to figure out how the economy works.”
Baffled by the profession’s disarray, I decided I had better read The General Theory. Having done so, I have concluded that, despite its antiquity, it is the best guide we have to the crisis …
It is an especially difficult read for present-day academic economists, because it is based on a conception of economics remote from theirs. This is what made the book seem “outdated” to Mankiw — and has made it, indeed, a largely unread classic … The dominant conception of economics today, and one that has guided my own academic work in the economics of law, is that economics is the study of rational choice … Keynes wanted to be realistic about decision-making rather than explore how far an economist could get by assuming that people really do base decisions on some approximation to cost-benefit analysis …
Economists may have forgotten The General Theory and moved on, but economics has not outgrown it, or the informal mode of argument that it exemplifies, which can illuminate nooks and crannies that are closed to mathematics. Keynes’s masterpiece is many things, but “outdated” it is not.
Much recent discussion about potential price inflation seems to take as a given that it would be sparked by a pickup of wage growth. But looking at data from the non-financial corporate sector–which accounts for well more than half of all private-sector economic activity and for which rich data are available–what’s really striking about price growth since the end of the Great Recession is how much of it has been driven by risingprofits, not rising labor costs. In fact, labor costs have been essentially flat between the end of the Great Recession and the first quarter of 2014. Profits earned per unit sold, on the other hand, have been rising at an average annual growth rate of nearly 9% since the recovery’s beginning. To the degree that there is any inflationary pressure in the U.S. economy over that time, it is surely not coming from labor costs.