LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TSE Archives


TSE Archives

TSE Archives


TSE@PO.MISSOURI.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TSE Home

TSE Home

TSE  June 2016

TSE June 2016

Subject:

Keynes Letter to Eliot (FW: [pen-l] CEPR: EU Should Assure Smooth Transition, Abandon Threats/Punishment, Change Failed Econ Policies"

From:

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

T. S. Eliot Discussion forum.

Date:

Fri, 24 Jun 2016 13:52:27 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (141 lines)

Here's the Eliot reference:

***To many people, shorter working hours and early retirement appear to be common-sense solutions for unemployment. But they are not, because they are not based on any coherent theory of what determines unemployment. The only theory behind them is the lump-of-output theory: output is a given. In this section we have shown that output is unlikely to remain constant.

This is simply FALSE. Shorter working hours is based on the same theory as full employment fiscal policy: Keynes’s theory. But don’t take my word for it. In an April 1945 letter to T.S. Eliot, Keynes wrote:

The full employment policy by means of investment is only one particular application of an intellectual theorem. You can produce the result just as well by consuming more or working less. Personally I regard the investment policy as first aid. In U.S. it almost certainly will not do the trick. Less work is the ultimate solution. ****

=====

The whole post is below, if anyone cares.

Carrol


-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 12:30 PM
Cc: PEN-L
Subject: Re: [pen-l] CEPR: EU Should Assure Smooth Transition, Abandon Threats/Punishment, Change Failed Econ Policies

Very good. I think attention also needs to be drawn to a couple of key concepts in this "structural reforms" ideology: "NAIRU" and "flexible labor market policies." I discussed these a few days ago in and EconoSpeak blog post: "The Iatrogenic and Incoherent "Theory" of Flexibility"


http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2016/06/the-iatrogenic-and-incoherent-theory-of.html



In its report on "The long-term decline in prime-age male labor force participation <https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160620_cea_primeage_male_lfp.pdf> ," President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers writes:


Conventional economic theory posits that more 'flexible' labor markets—where it is easier to hire and fire workers—facilitate matches between employers and individuals who want to work. Yet despite having among the most flexible labor markets in the OECD—with low levels of labor market regulation and employment protections, a low minimum cost of labor, and low rates of collective bargaining coverage—the United States has one of the lowest prime-age male labor force participation rates of OECD member countries.

Although it has indeed become conventional, the 'flexible' labor markets mantra is not a theory. It is dogma. An article of faith. The theory behind the nostrum of flexible labor markets is Milton Friedman's natural rate theory of unemployment, which, as Jamie Galbraith pointed out twenty years ago, was constructed by adding expectations to the empirical Philips Curve observation of a relationship between unemployment and inflation:


The Phillips curve had always been a purely empirical relation, patched into IS-LM Keynesianism to relieve that model's lack of a theory of inflation. Friedman supplied no theory for a short-run Phillips curve, yet he affirmed that such a relation would "always" exist. And Friedman's argument depends on it. If the Phillips relation fails empirically— that is, if levels of unemployment do not in fact predict the rate of inflation in the short run—then the construct of the natural rate of unemployment also loses meaning.

Galbraith's evisceration of the natural rate theory and NAIRU is incisive, persuasive and accessible. Read it <http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.11.1.93> .

At the other end of the flexibility spectrum, intellectually, is Layard, Nickell and Jackman's Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market. In their influential textbook, Layard et al. grafted the dubious NAIRU concept onto the archaic lump-of-labor fallacy claim to create their own chimera hybrid, the LUMP-OF-OUTPUT FALLACY.

Galbraith's "Time to Ditch NAIRU" has 293 citations on Google Scholar. Layard et al's "Unemployment" has 5824.

To appreciate the pretzel logic of Layard et al., one has to first understand that the old fallacy claim is essentially an inversion of the "supply creates its own demand" nutshell known as Say's Law. Jamie's dad, John Kenneth Galbraith, had argued back in 1975 that Say's Law had "sank without trace <http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2014/06/says-law-sank-without-trace.html> " after Keynes had shown that interest "was not the price people were paid to save... [but] what was paid to overcome their liquidity preference" and thus a fall in interest rates might encourage cash hoarding rather than investment, resulting in a shortfall of purchasing power.

So, at one end of their graft Layard et al. were resuscitating the old canard that Keynes had supposedly "brought to an end." At the other end of the graft was Friedman's tweaking of an atheoretical empirical observation -- the Philips Curve -- that was "patched into IS-LM Keynesianism to relieve that model's lack of a theory of inflation. (James Tobin once elegantly described the Phillips curve as a set of empirical observations in search of theory, like Pirandello characters in search of a plot.)" And let's not even get started with IS-LMist fundamentalism <http://econospeak.blogspot.ca/2015/03/middle-sized-facts-vs-is-lmist.html> .

Churchill's "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" quip about the Soviet Union has nothing on Layard et al.'s antithetical and anachronistic graft on a tweak of an atheoretical patch on an unsatisfactory "attempt to reduce the General Theory to a system of equilibrium," as Joan Robinson described IS-LM "Keynesianism":


Whenever equilibrium theory is breached, economists rush like bees whose comb has been broken to patch up the damage. J. R. Hicks was one of the first, with his IS-LM, to try to reduce the General Theory to a system of equilibrium. This had a wide success and has distorted teaching for many generations of students. Hicks used to be fond of quoting a letter from Keynes which, because of its friendly tone, seemed to approve of IS-LM, but it contained a clear objection to a system that leaves out expectations of the future from the inducement to invest.

And by "expectations," Keynes clearly had in mind uncertainty, not honeycomb equilibrium.

So that's the tangled 'theory' behind 'flexible' labor market policy prescriptions. A regurgitated dog's breakfast of contradiction and amnesia. Layard et al.'s lump-of-output fallacy flexibility chimera thus resembles a sort of a theoretical ouroboros chicken-snake swallowing its own entrails:


To many people, shorter working hours and early retirement appear to be common-sense solutions for unemployment. But they are not, because they are not based on any coherent theory of what determines unemployment. The only theory behind them is the lump-of-output theory: output is a given. In this section we have shown that output is unlikely to remain constant.

This is simply FALSE. Shorter working hours is based on the same theory as full employment fiscal policy: Keynes’s theory. But don’t take my word for it. In an April 1945 letter to T.S. Eliot, Keynes wrote:


The full employment policy by means of investment is only one particular application of an intellectual theorem. You can produce the result just as well by consuming more or working less. Personally I regard the investment policy as first aid. In U.S. it almost certainly will not do the trick. Less work is the ultimate solution.


On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Robert Naiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:12 AM
Subject: NEW RELEASE: EU Authorities Should Pledge to Assure a Smooth Transition, Abandon Threats and Punishment, and Change Failed Econo
To: [log in to unmask]






New Release from CEPR

CEPR <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5fevPQDdu%2BXTCulWf5o%2FVLpob0EX9jOZ>

NEW RELEASE:


EU Authorities Should Pledge to Assure a Smooth Transition, Abandon Threats and Punishment, and Change Failed Economic Policies in Europe <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=e%2BWA9N5yY2cfkGG9AznVc7pob0EX9jOZ>

For Immediate Release: June 24, 2016
Contact: Tillie McInnis, (202) 293-5380 x117 <tel:%28202%29%20293-5380%20x117>

              Mark Weisbrot, (202)-746-7264 <tel:%28202%29-746-7264> , [log in to unmask]

Washington, D.C. — Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, issued the following statement on the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European Union:

“Fear triumphed over fear as voters in the UK voted to leave the European Union. Fear of immigration and terrorism, as well as the fears felt by those whom globalization has hurt, beat the fears and threats of punishment from EU governments who tried to intimidate voters into staying within the European Union.
“Now it is time for European authorities to change their tactics and their policies: instead of trying to punish the UK in order to intimidate other electorates, they must begin to offer a positive vision for Europe, with more democracy, transparency, and most importantly economic policies that offer hope for the future.
“While the movement in the UK to leave the EU had right-wing, anti-immigrant and xenophobic leaders, in most of Europe that is not the driving force of the massive loss of confidence in European institutions. The driving force in most of the European Union is the profound and unnecessary economic failure <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=t7kDAvxbFsJDiIhVlhFLNLpob0EX9jOZ> of Europe, and especially the Eurozone, since the world financial crisis and recession.
“It has cost European citizens millions of jobs, trillions of dollars in lost income, and is sacrificing "a generation of youth at the altar of fiscal consolidation and “structural reforms.” It has delivered an overall unemployment rate in Europe that is twice the level of the United States; more than seven years of depression in Greece <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jtzmdpFscdACgGnIC0mFabpob0EX9jOZ> ; more than 20 percent unemployment in Spain <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=CVq%2BrCavv0dT6NjInst3%2FLpob0EX9jOZ> , and long-term stagnation in Italy. In recent weeks French workers have been fighting against <http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=yVFuUCbqclcHn0%2BH7oh2NLpob0EX9jOZ> “structural reforms” that seek to undermine employment protections and the ability of organized labor to bargain collectively.
“If not for this profound long-term economic failure, and the continued pursuit of policies that reduce most people’s living standards, the exit of the UK from the European Union would not provoke fears of dissolution.
“Many people in Eurozone countries have very serious grievances against the unaccountable European authorities that have ruined their economies. If the EU governments could not intimidate UK voters into staying, they will be unlikely to intimidate people who have 2-4 times the unemployment rate as the UK.
“Instead of trying to punish UK voters, EU authorities should immediately pledge to help make the transition non-disruptive and as smooth as possible. To do otherwise would be to punish the rest of Europe as well, and to once again injure the global economy, in order to carry out threats made before the referendum. This would only create more discontent and more anti-European sentiment, and further weaken the European Union.”
###











--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Progressive Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask]
To post to this group, send email to [log in to unmask]
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/group/pen-l/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/msgid/pen-l/CALMNhNQ9OYCJ60nrdWcG8O3%3DK2V3qXuJjtrq6bYaebDkXdqMSw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/msgid/pen-l/CALMNhNQ9OYCJ60nrdWcG8O3%3DK2V3qXuJjtrq6bYaebDkXdqMSw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/optout.





--

Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Progressive Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [log in to unmask]
To post to this group, send email to [log in to unmask]
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/group/pen-l/.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/msgid/pen-l/CANz%2BBQzHAAZhC6XQyhOn%3D0eLw5miJGJ25Z_2hfXbC52axpOn1g%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/msgid/pen-l/CANz%2BBQzHAAZhC6XQyhOn%3D0eLw5miJGJ25Z_2hfXbC52axpOn1g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/a/mail.csuchico.edu/d/optout.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



PO.MISSOURI.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager