Keynes Betrayed

" To complete the reconciliation of Keynesian economics with general equilibrium theory, Paul Samuelson introduced the neoclassical synthesis in 1955...

... In this view of the world, high unemployment is a temporary phenomenon caused by the slow adjustment of money wages and money prices. In Samuelson’s vision, the economy is Keynesian in the short run, when some wages and prices are sticky. It is classical in the long run when all wages and prices have had time to adjust....

... Although Samuelson’s neoclassical synthesis was tidy, it did not have much to do with the vision of the General Theory...

... In Keynes’ vision, there is no tendency for the economy to self-correct. Left to itself, a market economy may never recover from a depression and the unemployment rate may remain too high forever. In contrast, in Samuelson’s neoclassical synthesis, unemployment causes money wages and prices to fall. As the money wage and the money price fall, aggregate demand rises and full employment is restored, even if government takes no corrective action. By slipping wage and price adjustment into his theory, Samuelson reintroduced classical ideas by the back door—a sleight of hand that did not go unnoticed by Keynes’ contemporaries in Cambridge, England. Famously, Joan Robinson referred to Samuelson’s approach as 'bastard Keynesianism.'

The New Keynesian agenda is the child of the neoclassical synthesis and, like the IS-LM model before it, New Keynesian economics inherits the mistakes of the bastard Keynesians. It misses two key Keynesian concepts: (1) there are multiple equilibrium unemployment rates and (2) beliefs  are fundamental. My work brings these concepts back to center stage and integrates the Keynes of the General Theory with the microeconomics of general equilibrium theory in a new way. "

Prosperity for All: Pages 25-26

Why Markets Fail

" I will make here a simple but strong claim. Free trade in competitive markets does not, in general, lead to a Pareto Optimal outcome. I will show that that there are two reasons why markets fail. The first is a systemic failure of financial markets. The second is a systemic failure of labor markets. In the following sections I will explain why both financial markets and labor markets fail, and I will present a policy that can improve the standard of living for all of us. Laissez-faire capitalism is a good deal better than the central planning that was implemented in Maoist China or Soviet Russia. However, unregulated free markets can sometimes go very badly wrong. There is no excuse for a society that condemns 50% of its young people to a life of unemployment.  We can and must seek prosperity for all."

Prosperity for All, Page 9.

Which Free Market?

"When Hayek criticized socialism, he was informed by experience. Beginning in the 1920s, Soviet leaders pursued central planning as an alternative to the free market system as a way of allocating resources, and China followed suit when the communists came to power in 1947. Hayek’s critique proved prescient as the failed experiments of communism were swept away with the opening of China to trade in 1972 and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

Hayek believed that central planning was inferior to free markets and that market capitalism is the best possible form of social and economic organization. He was right to infer that some form of market organization is better than central planning at allocating resources and creating wealth. But, that observation does not help us to decide which form of market organization is to be preferred.

There is no such thing as the free market. All market systems operate within systems of rules that define which property rights will be enforced and which will not. Those rules are themselves determined by the interaction of human beings in a political process that is still evolving. We cannot just decide that goods will be allocated in a free market. We must decide which free market. That is what I mean by institutional design."

Prosperity for All Chapter 1, Pages 7-8. 

Classical and New Keynesian Schools of Thought

“There are two leading explanations for the very slow recovery in the unemployment rate, and the continuing low growth of labor productivity, in the aftermath of the Great Recession. One group of classical economists clings to pre-Keynesian ideas that blame the recession on bad economic policy. The second group of New Keynesians seeks to resuscitate failed interpretations of Keynes on which the profession gave up, rightly in my view, during the 1980s. Both groups are wrong.” (Pages 12-13, Prosperity For All)

 

The Role of the State

"The question we must ask ourselves is not: Do we wish to live in a free market or a socialist economy? It is: What set of regulations can we put in place to ensure markets provide the maximum prosperity for all?

If a politician or commentator argues that the state should intervene in a contract between two or more people, the burden is on him or her to provide a clear explanation for the failure of free markets to deliver an optimal outcome. Any argument for the control or regulation of markets must be clearly defended. I have such a defense. There is a simple answer to the question: Why do markets fail? In the following pages I explain that answer and I offer a set of policies designed to ameliorate and, I hope, to prevent the worst effects of financial crises."

Prosperity For All, Page 2