5 ms·

But the whole sentiment that looks down on poverty and exalts exorbitant wealth in of itself which the author underlines, emerges from the same train of thought

But the whole sentiment that looks down on poverty and exalts exorbitant wealth in of itself which the author underlines, emerges from the same train of thought that treats labor and full employment as the end of all ends. There's little functional difference between the conservative presenting a just world where hard work ensures success, from a social democrat who argues for large-scale centralization to shuffle people into the same capitalist institutions they allegedly look down on because "people want jobs". They're both far-reaching implicit assumptions of a labor theory of value in structuring a society. Indeed, it was the neo-Keynesian focus on full employment that led to short-sighted reliance on economic models like expectations-agnostic Phillips curves and IS-LM models with interest-sensitive money demand to the exclusion of other macro considerations, that ultimately culminated in a stagflation bust in the 1970s. Nor was this even a perversion of Keynesianism. It was Keynes himself who formulated simultaneous-equations IS-LM in lectures from 1933-1934. Employment as end in of itself also led to mercantilist-era injustices. But again, this is tangential to the issue of money.

crdoconnor 11y ago
Full employment doesn't mean everybody has a job. It just means that everybody who is looking for a job can find a job. As far as I can see, only industrialists who profit from lower wages and a more docile workforce would be against this. >Nor was this even a perversion of Keynesianism. Neo-Keynesianism was absolutely a perversion of Keynesianism. It was an attempt to marry it to Neoclassical economics, which was antithetical to Keynesianism in the first place. >It was Keynes himself who formulated simultaneous-equations IS-LM in lectures from 1933-1934. No it wasn't. It was Hicks and Meade trying to apply some sort of equilibirium fetishism to the theory of interest, employment and money.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Distinction without a difference. Of course there will always be some unemployment for disability or other reasons. As far as I can see, only industrialists who profit from lower wages and a more docile workforce would be against this. Job guarantee proposals are minimum wage. Even if they were not, the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. It's not as if state-administered job guarantees are going to be tools of empowering the working class. It's going to be administered as a neutral tool for economic efficiency. Even then, the industrialists absolutely benefit from easy access to a minimum wage workforce. It was an attempt to marry it to Neoclassical economics, which was antithetical to Keynesianism in the first place. Nonsense. Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No it wasn't. It was Hicks and Meade trying to apply some sort of equilibirium fetishism to the theory of interest, employment and money. Yes, it was. Hicks and Meade only developed one particularly influential variant, and they were inspired by notes from Keynes' lecture attendees who were taught a four-equation model with almost no major difference other than having an exogenous variable for "state of the news" (expectations). Ultimately this was not a major difference, since neo-Keynesians like James Tobin did focus on such areas, and on financial instability as well. Robert W. Dimand documents the origins of IS-LM and Keynes' Marshallian roots in a 2007 paper: http://www.unites.uqam.ca/philo/keynes/docs/dimand.pdf http://www.unites.uqam.ca/philo/keynes/docs/dimand.pdf
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    > the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's incorrect. What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? >Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism.
    - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
      What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge with growths in total factor productivity, central banks still do price level stabilization instead. The monetary disequilibrium economists have written much on this. George Selgin has a great and relatively accessible essay called Less Than Zero that discusses this. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism. But there is no single "modern neoclassicism," that's the point. Yet to somehow deny that Marshall was a neoclassical is to make the term meaningless. The approaches of Marshall, Menger, Walras and others all had important differences despite being ultimately lumped as "neoclassical". Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's a political term used by people opposed to it to describe what they perceive as a shift into corporate rule since the 1970s. Yet this narrative is full of holes, not least of which is the history of mercantilism, imperialism and later corporation-state cooperation. I'll be writing a book on this subject at some point.
      - crdoconnor 11y ago
        >Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge Yeah, that's what happened in the 19th century. It didn't help improve poverty at all - exactly the opposite, in fact. The series of financial crises and subsequent misery is partly what led to the creation of the federal reserve. >Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's strongly linked to neoclassicism. Plenty of neoliberal dogma has its underpinnings in neoclassical ideas (e.g. theory of the firm).

crdoconnor 11y ago

Full employment doesn't mean everybody has a job. It just means that everybody who is looking for a job can find a job. As far as I can see, only industrialists who profit from lower wages and a more docile workforce would be against this. >Nor was this even a perversion of Keynesianism. Neo-Keynesianism was absolutely a perversion of Keynesianism. It was an attempt to marry it to Neoclassical economics, which was antithetical to Keynesianism in the first place. >It was Keynes himself who formulated simultaneous-equations IS-LM in lectures from 1933-1934. No it wasn't. It was Hicks and Meade trying to apply some sort of equilibirium fetishism to the theory of interest, employment and money.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Distinction without a difference. Of course there will always be some unemployment for disability or other reasons. As far as I can see, only industrialists who profit from lower wages and a more docile workforce would be against this. Job guarantee proposals are minimum wage. Even if they were not, the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. It's not as if state-administered job guarantees are going to be tools of empowering the working class. It's going to be administered as a neutral tool for economic efficiency. Even then, the industrialists absolutely benefit from easy access to a minimum wage workforce. It was an attempt to marry it to Neoclassical economics, which was antithetical to Keynesianism in the first place. Nonsense. Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No it wasn't. It was Hicks and Meade trying to apply some sort of equilibirium fetishism to the theory of interest, employment and money. Yes, it was. Hicks and Meade only developed one particularly influential variant, and they were inspired by notes from Keynes' lecture attendees who were taught a four-equation model with almost no major difference other than having an exogenous variable for "state of the news" (expectations). Ultimately this was not a major difference, since neo-Keynesians like James Tobin did focus on such areas, and on financial instability as well. Robert W. Dimand documents the origins of IS-LM and Keynes' Marshallian roots in a 2007 paper: http://www.unites.uqam.ca/philo/keynes/docs/dimand.pdf http://www.unites.uqam.ca/philo/keynes/docs/dimand.pdf
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  > the idea that industrialists benefit from a "docile workforce" is couching things in a questionable Marxian reserve army of labor analysis. Maybe. But that doesn't mean it's incorrect. What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? >Keynes came from the neoclassical Marshallian tradition. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    What's your explanation for the much-observed fact that most of the productivity gains of the last thirty years haven't trickled down to most of the workforce? Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge with growths in total factor productivity, central banks still do price level stabilization instead. The monetary disequilibrium economists have written much on this. George Selgin has a great and relatively accessible essay called Less Than Zero that discusses this. No one in modern economic theory belieces the Marshallian tradition is identical to modern neoclassicism - never mind neoliberalism. But there is no single "modern neoclassicism," that's the point. Yet to somehow deny that Marshall was a neoclassical is to make the term meaningless. The approaches of Marshall, Menger, Walras and others all had important differences despite being ultimately lumped as "neoclassical". Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's a political term used by people opposed to it to describe what they perceive as a shift into corporate rule since the 1970s. Yet this narrative is full of holes, not least of which is the history of mercantilism, imperialism and later corporation-state cooperation. I'll be writing a book on this subject at some point.
    - crdoconnor 11y ago
      >Monetary policy is one of the main reasons. Instead of letting a secular deflation emerge Yeah, that's what happened in the 19th century. It didn't help improve poverty at all - exactly the opposite, in fact. The series of financial crises and subsequent misery is partly what led to the creation of the federal reserve. >Neoliberalism isn't even an economic idea. It's strongly linked to neoclassicism. Plenty of neoliberal dogma has its underpinnings in neoclassical ideas (e.g. theory of the firm).