Vernengo On Recent History Of Macroeconomics

Matias Vernengo argues that, "The fundamental problem of the neoclassical/marginal approach, and the importance of Keynesian analysis, can ONLY be properly understood in light of the 1960s capital debates."

Vernengo is riffing off a Krugman post on his New York Times blog. A commentator on that brings up John Eatwell's 1980s work on capital theory and Keynes. See also this Krugman post on Keynes' debunking of the idea that unemployment is caused by excessively high wages.

Update (12 October 2011): Peter Cooper has two posts discussing Vernengo's views.

The European Union: A Prescient Sraffian Economist

"It is my view that the European project for arriving at economic and monetary union (EMU) should be regarded as the combined result of a radical change, since the late 1970s, in the principal economic policy objective of the major industrial countries - an epoch-making shift in emphasis away from unemployment and poverty to the objective of reducing inflation; and of the theoretical restoration that has occurred over the last twenty years, with the revival of pre-Keynesin conceptions in macroeconomic thinking. This view, which I have discussed elsewhere ..., makes it reasonable to believe also that the project's fortunes will reflect developments in these two ambits. Specifically, one can sensibly expect the EMU project to be definitively abandoned as soon as the social impact of actual unemployment will again make the pursuit of its reduction each government's main focus of concern, at the same time leading to a rejection of the 'natural' rate concept of the economy.

This process of gradual abandonment of the project, however, is likely to be delayed as regards countries in which the EMU is seen as a means of solving a 'commitment problem' in their national economic policies - an irreplaceable source of discipline, that is to say, with respect to inflation, government budget deficits and government debt." -- Massimo Pivetti (1999). "High Public Debt and Inflation: On the 'Disciplinary' View of European Monetary Union". In Value, Distribution and Capital: Essays in Honour of Pierangelo Garegnani (edited by Gary Mongiovi and Fabio Petri), Routledge.

I think federal systems are a good idea. I'm hoping a European government capable of conducting fiscal policy and issuing "euro-bonds" will emerge under the pressure of events.

International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education

I recently stumbled upon this journal. Its first issue was in 2009, and the articles in the third issue of the first volume are available for download by non-subscribers.I like Fred Lee's article, "A Heterodox Teaching of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory". He mentions my favorite criticism:

"Another example is that in a system of production with produced inputs with circular production, a change in a factor input price generates collateral effects that invalidates the ceteris paribus, partial equilibrium methodology underpinning the derivation of the slope of the constant output factor input demand function. This not only makes the function meaningless, it also undermines partial equilibrium analysis. However, this well-known point is simply ignored." -- Frederick S. Lee

Fathers And Children and Rediscovering Fire

1.0 Turgenev's Novel
I recently stumbled across an English-language copy of the Turgenev novel where the title was translated as in this blog post. This reminds me that I once listed the following pairs of economists:

• John Bates Clark, John Maurice Clark
• Milton Friedman, David Friedman
• John Kenneth Galbraith, James Galbraith
• John Neville Keynes, John Maynard Keynes
• James Mill, John Stuart Mill
• Auguste Walras, Marie Esprit Leon Walras
• Sidney Weintraub, Eliot Roy Weintraub

I now find I can add another pair of names, Edward J. Nell and Guinevere Liberty Nell.

One way of reading the series of models in Sraffa's Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities is as an historical series. Later models in the series apply to an institutional setup that followed earlier models. Some, including maybe Engels, have read Marx in this way. The labor theory of value is alleged to apply to a pre-capitalist, late medieval artisan economy. The transformation of values into prices of production is then a historical process occurring with the emergence of capitalism. Be that as it may, Edward Nell's work on the theory of Transformational Growth, fits well with this literature.

2.0 Rediscovering Fire
Guinever Liberty Nell has written a book, Rediscovering Fire: Basic Economic Lessons From the Soviet Experiment (Algora Publishing, 2010), in some ways in a very different tradition. She also considers institutions in different historical settings. But consider that Peter Boettke and Peter Leeson, in the George Mason tradition, appear in the acknowledgments. I gather she currently works for the Center for Data Analysis of the Heritage Foundation. She notes her differences with her family:

"I also thank my brother Jacob for introducing me to Alec Nove's work, which was the inspiration for writing this book. I must also thank Thomas W. Moore IV for endless intellectual battles that helped me challenge the beliefs I was raised with, and my sister Miranda for then debating with me endlessly from the other side."

Her book is dedicated as so:

"To my mother for raising me in confidence in my own creativity and ability, and my father for infusing me with the economics 'bug'."

The book is organized in somewhat repetitive themes. Aside from the introduction and conclusions, chapters treat competition, (un)employment, profit (impact on the firm), profit (impact on the economy), middlemen and trade, prices, money, regulation, democracy, corporations. Each of these substantive chapters consists of an introduction, a summary of the socialist argument, a description of the soviet experience, lessons to be drawn, and a conclusion. I'm not finished; I'm in the chapter on prices.

In many cases, I disagree with her account of the socialist argument. For example, she writes:

"Under socialism, workers were to be paid according to work, while under communism they would be paid according to need. According to theory, workers were to receive the full value of their product." -- Guinevere Libery Nell, Rediscovering Fire, p. 61.

As far as I am concerned, this claim is explicitly contradicted in Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program. Lenin knew this work quite well, he writes about it in State and Revolution. As another example, Nell writes:

"Marx did not believe in gains from trade... However, there are several reasons why both parties can gain from an exchange. One is that division of labor enables one person to make a product at lower cost than another person can make it." -- Guinevere Libery Nell, Rediscovering Fire, p. 92.

But Marx, in Capital explicity states that such gains from trade exist. On the other hand, she extensively references Nikolai Bukharin and Evgenii Preobrazhensky's The ABCs of Communism, which I have often seen referenced as a primer to Bolshevikism. I think Nell would agree with me that the book concentrates more on economic history than the history of economic thought.

I'm no expert on Soviet history (I'm best on the 1920s, I think). Nevertheless, I'll record my impression that I find the thematic organization confusing. In some chapters, she writes about either war communism, the New Economic Program, the collectivization of agriculture, or the 1965 reform, for example. But these analyzes are not arranged chronologically. If she ever produces a new edition (paperback?), perhaps she can include a short chronology or timeline.

I'm willing to accept, say, war communism as an attempt to construct a close to pure socialist economy. But I found Nell's attempts to apply lessons directly to current institutions in the United States economy unconvincing. Maybe pure planning of an entire economy cannot be done. I don't see why a large amount of planning and regulation is therefore inappropriate for specific sectors (for example, utilities or health) in certain settings. On the other hand, she is often careful to be tentative in her suggestions. Maybe Obama "may" want to consider some unintended consequence in restructuring health insurance. A somewhat facile objection to her lessons can easily be constructed. Of course, the Soviet experience with planning did not work very well. They did not have powerful networked computers.Maybe this objection would be less likely to arise if she had taken more of a historical and less of a thematic approach.

3.0 An Open Request
But that's not what I want to talk about. I wonder whether Nell would be willing to share any anecdotes about growing up. Is she able to discuss political disagreements with family members without rancor? I guess of more interest to me would be whether she has formed personal impressions of Joan Robinson, Pierangelo Garegnani, or Anwar Shaikh. On the other hand, if her stories would be like those in Jan Myrdal's memoir Childhood, who seems not to have got on with much of his family, I don't know that I want to hear about it.

Davidson On Obama's Job Plan

Paul Davidson discusses Obama's job plan. The blogger "Lord Keynes" presents links to other reactions to Obama's speech. (I dislike the use as pseudonyms of historical names of still current interest.)

Nick Rowe, Confused

Nick Rowe comments on the Cambridge Capital Controversy in comments to this post:

"Don't take my answer as authoritative.

As far as I can see, the Cambridge-Cambridge Capital Controversy has had almost zero impact on modern macroeconomics. My guess is that not many have much knowledge of that debate. (I have *some* knowledge, through my own curiosity 30 years ago, but not much). The existence of a natural rate is treated as unproblematic. There is some possibility allowed that monetary policy might have some long-run non-neutralities, (multiple equilibria), but even here the focus is more on natural rates of output and unemployment, rather than on the natural rate of interest itself (though one would almost always imply the other).

The concept and existence of the natural rate of interest plays a central role in modern Neo-Wicksellian/New Keynesian macroeconomics...

In my own case, recently I made the more modest critique that the natural rate may exist, and be unique, but we cannot come anywhere close to observing it in real time...

And that's leaving aside the problem that different financial assets will have different natural rates, and the spreads between them may vary over time, especially in a financial crisis.

Now, funnily enough, there is one small exception *I know about* (others may know of others) to my statement that macroeconomists ignore CCCC. David Laidler recently wrote a paper for the CD Howe that explicitly used CCCC to critique the Neo-Wicksellian monetary policy of the Bank of Canada. And David is a monetarist!

...I, personally, remain unconvinced by the Cambridge critique. *As far as I can see*, if a Walrasian/Arrow-Debreu equilibrium exists, and is unique, it defines within it a natural rate of interest (subject to qualifications in my question below). *As far as I can see* a lot of the CCCC debate was really about whether the natural rate could be determined *independently of preferences*. And (outside of very special one-good Y=F(K,L) models) it cannot. So what? I say. Preferences matter too, in determining relative prices including intertemporal prices like interest rates.

BUT, the chances of getting a nicely-well-behaved downward-sloping Investment demand function (and hence IS curve) out of anything other than a one-good model? I wouldn't bet on it. But my hunch is that the complications that arise from firms being sales-constrained (ignored in the Walrasian model) are more important than anything coming out of CCCC. Hence this post.

Now, my question: I never found Sraffa easy to understand. Sraffa said (I think) that the natural rate on wheat would, in general, be different from the natural rate on barley. Right? If so, is this what he meant:

Suppose the relative price of barley against wheat is rising at (say) 1% per year. Then, under perfect competition, and free flow of capital across sectors, the barley natural rate of interest must be one percentage point lower than the wheat natural rate of interest.

Is that what Sraffa was saying? (With all due allowance for over-simplification?)" -- Nick Rowe

I doubt Rowe is aware of the existence of Colin Rogers. I don't know what it means to talk of a natural rate of interest in the Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal equilibrium. (This is certainly not Wicksell's long period approach.) Money does not exist in the model. For every numeraire, one will get another interest rate (for a loan for one one period of the numeraire good, starting at a designated time period). Which of these many interest rates is the "natural rate"? (It would help if when Rowe asks his question about Sraffa on own rates of interest of barley and wheat, he would bring up that he referencing Sraffa's critique of Hayek, not the more mature Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities.) Rowe has not grasped that classical economics and extensions of the economics of Keynes provide different theories of distribution. One need not close Sraffa's model by assuming intertemporal utility-maximization. I don't see why I need I care about Rowe's hunches on "importance", although, I suppose, he gets points for recognizing the arbitrariness of a downward-sloping investment demand function.

"Those re-switching examples never seemed to me to pay enough attention to the term structure of interest rates. There was always a flat term structure assumed. Not to mention how the term structure of investment would interact with the desired term structure of saving and consumption at the aggregate level, to create a term structure of interest rates." -- Nick Rowe

I find this incomprehensible. Let the interest rate on a loan for n years be 100 r_n percent. Typically, in a reswitching example, the following relationship holds:

1 + r_n = (1 + r₁)ⁿ

This is a term structure of interest rates. Suppose one wanted to allow expectations of future yearly interest rates to differ from the current yearly interest rate. That is easy to introduce, but those extra degrees of freedom make it even easier to show violations of traditional neoclassical parables. Although it's easy to construct closed reswitching examples, I don't see why mainstream economists cannot consider open models.

Bill Woolsey's comment in the same thread is too stupid to bother with. I would think it possible to discuss analytical points somewhat separately from ideology.

Elsewhere

• Arindrajit Dube takes the opportunity of Alan Krueger's nomination, as chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, to note that Card and Krueger's work has stood the test of time. He also notes the bias in Neumark and Wascher's work.
• Dean Baker's new book, The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive is now available. What is the point of the cover photo of Biscuit? Is it that poodles are losers; progressives should try to emulate a bigger, more assertive breed? (Anyway, I am currently reading Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer - And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class; so I'm not enthusiastic about reading a similarly themed book right away.

David Henderson, Idiot

David Henderson tells us:

"Then, in my late teens, I started to learn economics. I started to understand that the vast majority of income in a relatively free society is earned. It's true that a small number of wealthy people did get their money by fraud or dishonesty. More common, especially in societies with lots of government controls, were people who got wealthy by using political pull. But I started to see that the typical high-income person in a relatively free society gets his or her income the old-fashioned way--by earning it." -- David Henderson

I suppose it is good that some economists are willing to expose themselves, or their teachers, as incompetent. Economists refusing to teach theories that collapsed half a century ago, except as history, would be better. Even if markets were perfectly competitive, marginal productivity would not be a theory of income distribution. In neoclassical economics, properly understood, no sense can be attached to the claim that the rich earn their income. But, of course, markets are not perfectly competitive in the United States. The ever increasing income and wealth being seized by the top quintile, or 10%, or 1%, or 0.1%, etc. is the result of the exercise of political power.

Noah Smith, who probably thinks of himself as a liberal opposing "libertarians" (that is, propertarians), is not much better. In his discussion, he fails to mention any empirical facts about the increasing and astonishing unequal distribution of income in the United States. He fails to discuss whether or not gross inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth is consistent with the smooth expanded reproduction of a capitalist economy. And he fails to discuss whether having an income distribution in the United States that has not been matched since the 1920s might have something to do with current recessionary conditions. Instead, he writes about feelings. As far as feelings go, the vast majority of Americans should be angrier. "Let fury have the hour, anger can be power/D'you know that you can use it?"

Scholarly Fantasies

Maybe many that read old books might find interest the rediscovery of works whose existence was previously unknown or thought to be gone forever. Some examples:

• The Gospel According to Thomas and other gnostic manuscripts: Two Egyptian farmers discovered the Nag Hammadi library in 1945. This story is fairly incredible. While these Egyptian brothers pursued a feud with one of their neighbors, they left them in the keeping of their mother. She, in turn, I guess, started a fire with them every morning, until a coptic priest recognized their importance. And then they were smuggled out of Egypt.
• Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur: While cataloging the Winchester College library, in 1934, Sir Walter Fraser Oakshott discovered a manuscript of this book. This manuscript suggests that Malory conceived his work as a collection of tales. Caxton, the printer, edited it into an unified tragedy.
• Third edition of François Quesnay's Tableau Économique: Marguerite Kuczynski, in the late 1960s, asked the heirs of Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours if they had any printed works by Quesnay in their possession. And the Eleutherian Mills Historical Library told her "Yes".
• David Ricardo's unknown correspondence and manuscripts: Piero Sraffa's discovered, in 1934, a bundle in F. E. Cairnes castle at Raheny. Raheny is near Dublin, and F. E. Cairnes, son of a 19th-century economist, had recently died. The bundle contained 57 letters from Ricardo to James Mill and various manuscripts written by Ricardo
• Ludwig Von Mises' papers from his apartment in Vienna: Unbeknownst to Mises, the Nazis preserved these after Mises fled. The Soviets captured them from Germany at the end of WW II, catalogued them, and preserved them in the KGB archives. Richard Ebeling brought them back from Russia in 1996 after their discovery by western scholars after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Video Strategy Games As A Testbed For Decision Theory

Daniel MacDonald occasionally mentions video games. It turns out some researchers use strategy video games for exploring decision theory models. (Partially observable Markov decision processes and partially observable stochastic games are examples of such models for decision theory.) Frans A. Oliehoek and others at the Intelligent Systems Lab, at the University of Amsterdam, have developed the Multi-Agent Decision Process (MADP) Toolbox, "an open source C++ library for decision-theoretic planning under uncertainty in multiagent systems."

Some researchers, I guess in this lab, have integrated MADP into StarCraft, a real-time strategy game. StarCraft has a science fiction setting, and MADP routines are used to calculate policies for one of the three races in the game.

I consider Edward Castronova one the most interesting researchers exploring the intersection of computer games and economics.

Don't tell Brad DeLong (who at one time found he had to choose between playing Civilization or doing economics) about this post.

Quiggin Fortunate In His Enemies; Williamson Still A Fool

• An attack by Michael Stutchbury in The Australian. (Even the title is a lie - social democrats are not on the "far left".)
• John Quiggin responds.
• Stephen Williamson reviews Zombie Economics. We learn "DSGE has no implications, and therefore can't be wrong. Indeed DSGE encompasses essentially all of modern macroeconomics."
• John Quiggin tries to correct Williamson.
• Noah Smith also tries.
• Paul Krugman links to Smith and gently chides Williamson.
• Stephen Williamson comically explains this is not pulling rank: "Zombie Economics reads like fringe economics (Austrians, Post-Keynesians, etc.). In fringe economics, the game is dismissing things you know little about, and offering little that is actually constructive."
• Stephen Williamson provides an even worse elaboration, as if Krugman's point were that his synthetic Nobel makes him right.

Hahn On Regression In Macroeconomics

One can find many amusing quotes from such as Frank Hahn and Robert Solow on trends in macroeconomics after Robert Lucas. I get this one second-hand:

"One should now ask how the present mess came into being. For macroeconomics today is in a state which astronomy would be if Ptolemaic theory once again came to dominate the field. There can be few instances in other disciplines of such a determined turning back of the clock. A great deal of what is written today as well as the policy recommendations which have been made would be thoroughly at home in the twenties. So something needs explaining and I hope that some good intellectual historian will attempt to do so soon." -- Frank Hahn (1985) (as quoted in Philip Mirowski's More Heat Than Light, p. 411).

Do I need to note some economists today would still find Hahn's opinion apposite?

Economists Joining The Austrian School In The Wilderness

Around 1940, the Austrian school of economics collapsed. Who did most to propagate the Austrian school in the interval between this collapse and the 1974 South Royalton conference? I'd like to formulate this question so it's clear I'm talking about generations following Ludwig Von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

David Friedman has recently refuted some fantastic claims on behalf of Murray Rothbard. (See also Friedman on Rothbard's willingness to advocate lying.)

For me, two names pop to mind - Israel Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann. I don't think of Murray Rothbard as somebody that academics need pay any attention to, other than historians studying the American right during the second half of the twentieth century. I think one can draw many analytical parallels between Lachmann and Robinson's views on capital. I'm also interested, with Lachmann, in G. L. S. Shackle, a Post Keynesian economist. I don't find Kirzner's views on entrepreneurship as of as much interest. I like Kirzner better on the history of the Austrian school and in his attempts to differentiate Mises from Robbins in their views on methodology. What did Rothbard contribute, other than political polemics and rants for 'zines read by only a handful of true believers? I know some will cite his books. But I don't find much in Man, Economy, and State other than repetition of Mises, including Mises' unwillingness or inability to accurately state the views of his contemporaries.

Although I am quite aware of the difficulties of this metric, I looked to see who among these three managed to publish, after the Austrian-school revival, in economic journals I find of interest and that cannot be perceived as a ghetto for the Austrian school. I have handy what purports to be a complete bibliography for Lachmann, a couple of Kirzner collections, and google searches for Rothbard. I think impressive Lachmann's 1976 survey in the Journal of Economic Literature. I expected to find Kirzner had more impressive outlets for a few of his papers. Since I note that Kirzner contributed the survey article on the Austrian school for the first edition of The New Palgrave, I suppose I should also note his New Palgrave articles on "Economic harmony" and (with Roger Garrison) on Hayek, as well as Murray Rothbard's New Plagrave articles on "Catallactics", "Frank Fetter", "Imputation", Mises, and "Time Preference". I'm not sure this evidence leads to my conclusion.

Bibliography

• Edwin G. Dolan (editor) (1976). The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics, Sheed and Ward.
• Israel Kirzner (). "Entrepreneurship, Entitlement, and Economic Justice", Eastern Economic Journal.
• Israel Kirzner (). "Menger, Classical Liberalism, and the Austrian School of Economics", History of Political Economy.
• Israel Kirzner (1987). "The Austrian School of Economics", in The New Palgrave: Dictionary of Economics (Ed. by J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and Peter Newman), Macmillan.
• Hansjörg Klausinger (2006). "'In the Wilderness': Emigration and the Decline of the Austrian School", History of Political Economy, V. 38, N. 4: 617-664.
• Ludwig Lachman (Mar. 1976) "From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society", Journal of Economic Literature: 54-62.
• Ludwig Lachmann (1980). "Review of Hayek's Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. III", Journal of Economic Literature, V. 18: 1079-1080.
• Louis M. Spadaro (1978).New Directions in Austrian Economics, Sheed Andrews and McMeel.

Murphy On Sraffa's Victory In Debates On ABCT

Robert P. Murphy has provided electronic access to his article, "Multiple Interest Rates and Austrian Business Cycle Theory". Murphy presented this paper at a Liberty Fund conference a number of years ago. (At least one other has commented on this paper. Has Murphy on his blog brought up his papers, also growing out of his PhD thesis, in the Journal of the History of Economic Thought?)

Many fanboys of so-called Austrian economics that you may meet, especially on the Internet, are ignorant of economics, including the economics of the Austrian school. For some reason, proclaiming themselves to be members of this tribe and moralizing about outsiders fills an emotional need for some. Even among academics adhering to this school, I have noticed little discussion, for example, of the distinction between Mises' Evenly Rotating Economy and Hayek's notion of plan compatibility in an intertemporal equilibrium. (I can provide caveats.)

These strictures do not apply to Murphy. He is fully aware of this distinction. And he accepts that the variation of own rates of interest among commodities outside steady states overthrows Hayek's exposition of Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) in Prices and Production. Murphy should and does acknowledge the correctness of Sraffa on this point in his debate with Hayek over ABCT.

In my critique of ABCT (on other grounds), I end up with a bibliography consisting almost exclusively of recent work by heterodox economists. Murphy's bibliography is like this, except his heterodox economists are drawn exclusively from one school.

Nevertheless, Murphy should include a selection of references from other traditions, including mainstream economics. No matter what one may think of mutualism, Kevin Carson (2004) is not a good cite for "a modern statement of classical price theory". Kurz and Salvadori (1995) is a more canonical modern statement. Debreu (1959) and Arrow & Hahn (1971) are standard references for intertemporal equilibrium. Hahn (1982) explains how own-rates of interest vary among goods in such models. Boehm (1986) strives to distinguish the mainstream concept of intertemporal equilibrium from Hayek's. Hicks (1946) and Grandmont (1977) are two canonical statements of temporary equilibrium. Samuelson (1958), Diamond (1965), Benhabib (1992 & 2008) and Geanakoplos (2008) describe Overlapping Generations (OLG) models.

Economists have established, I think, that conditions on the parameters of short-run equilibrium models (e.g., in intertemporal and temporary equilibrium models) fail to limit the dynamics of equilibrium paths in such models. I like to draw on the Cambridge Capital Controversies and on the Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu theorem to argue for this result.

Since the dynamics are unlimited, one should be able to construct examples in such models of cycles. Of the literature I have read, I find, perhaps because of my own limitations, too few concrete examples. It is my understanding that cycles can arise in these models, even if expectations are being fulfilled and plans continue unchanged. This may be an unduly restrictive approach to expectations, but, given the current hegemony of neoclassical economics, other approaches need an explicit motivation. Post Keynesians and, I guess, the Austrian school have such a motivation in their emphasis on historical time. But I do not see Murphy connecting up this emphasis to his story in his paper. (I need to reread his section on "Meeting Sraffa's Objection" with more attention to ensure the story is coherent.) Murphy wants agents in his story to make mistakes through responses to the monetary authority. But these are basically barter models. Introducing money into such models is challenging, and Murphy might want to examine some attempts in the literature.

I think established results should lead one to drop an insistence on methodological individualism (or microfoundations) in macroeconomic research along these lines. In any case, I fail to see what is specifically "Austrian", especially inasmuch as the Austrian school relates to the ABCT, about such a description of business cycles.

Bibliography

• Kenneth J. Arrow and Frank H. Hahn (1971). General Competitive Analysis, Holden-Day [I haven't read this].
• Jess Benhabib (editor) (1992). Cycles and Chaos in Economic Equilibrium, Princeton University Press [I haven't read this].
• Jess Benhabib (2008). "Chaotic Dynamics in Economics", in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition. (ed. by S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume), Palgrave Macmillan.
• Stephan Boehm (1986). "Time and Equilibrium: Hayek's Notion of Intertemporal Equilibrium Reconsidered" in Subjectivism, Intelligibility, and Economic Unerstanding (ed. by I. M. Kirzner), New York University Press.
• Kevin A. Carson (2004). Studies in Mutualist Political Economy.
• Gerard Debreu (1959). Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium, Yale University Press.
• Peter A. Diamond (Dec. 1965). "National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model", American Economic Review, V. 55, Iss. 5: 1126-1150.
• John Geanakoplos (2008). "Overlapping Generations Model of General Equilibrium", in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd edition. (ed. by S. N. Durlauf and L. E. Blume), Palgrave Macmillan.
• Jean Michel Grandmont (Apr. 1977). "Temporary General Equilibrium Theory", Econometrica, V. 45, N. 3: 535-572.
• Frank Hahn (1982). "The Neo-Ricardians", Cambridge Journal of Economics, V. 6: 353-374.
• J. R. Hicks (1946). Value and Capital: An Inquiry into Some Fundamental Principles of Economic Theory, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press,
• Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori (1995). Theory of Production: A Long-Period Analysis, Cambridge University Press.
• Robert P. Murphy. "Multiple Interest Rates and Austrian Business Cycle Theory".
• Paul A. Samuelson (Dec. 1958). "An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money", Journal of Political Economy, V. 66, N. 6: 467-482.

Against Hegemony Of "Overton Window"

I don't see why some people are so willing to talk about the "Overton Window". Another theory is available to discuss how and why some range of ideas become hegemonic in a society. And this is a theory of politics that was formulated when the left was doing poorly.

Actually, reading more of Antonio Gramsci's prison writings has been and probably will continue to be on my to-read list for a long time.

Some More On Hayek And Sraffa

1.0 Introduction
I have previously discussed Sraffa's review of Prices and Production, Hayek's reply, and Sraffa's rejoinder. I thought I would bring up today a couple of other aspects of that debate.

2.0 Hayek Changes His Notion Of Equilibrium
The traditional neoclassical equilibrium concept, in the period roughly from 1870 to 1930, is roughly of a stationary state. Neoclassical economists in this period erroneously thought that one could define such an equilibrium, given tastes, technology, and endowments, including the endowment of capital, by some or another definition of capital. As Walras recognized, such an equilibrium can never be expected to be established. At most, actual capitalist economies can be expected to be tending towards this kind of equilibrium at any point in time.

This was Hayek's equilibrium concept in Prices and Production. He put forth another equilibrium concept in The Theory of Capital, a concept he had been developing for some time. (Hayek is very clear on this in Chapter 2.) This equilibrium concept is of plan compatibility, a concept formally equivalent in some sense to the Arrow-Debreu model of intertemporal equilibrium.

Given spot prices, a monetary interest rate, and the past history of an economy, entrepreneurs, based on their economic theories, form expectations about future prices and the expectations and plans of others. They form their plans based on these expectations. Equilibrium exists if all these plans are mutually compatible. Under this equilibrium concept, no need exists for entrepreneurs to plan to produce the same quantities period after period. Likewise, consumers might plan to consume different quantities in different periods. Furthermore, entrepreneurs and consumers will generally expect spot prices to vary over time.


Hayek's equilibrium concept of plan compatibility, as I understand it, cannot be used to ground Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

3.0 Austrian Business Cycle Theory Outside Of Historical Time
Sraffa destroyed Hayek's version of Austrian Business Cycle Theory, as Robert Skidelsky notes.

I am amused in noting part of Sraffa's critique. Keynes sets his General Theory in historical time, not logical time. I read Sraffa as pointing out that Hayek's theory, like neoclassical theory on Keynes's reading, is set in logical time:

"That the position reached as the result of 'voluntary saving' will be one of equilibrium... is clear enough; though the conclusion is not strengthened by the curious reason he gives for it.¹³

But equally stable would be that position if brought about by inflation; and Dr. Hayek fails to prove the contrary. In the case of inflation, just as in that of saving, the accumulation of capital takes place through a reduction in consumption. 'But now this sacrifice is not voluntary, and is not made by those who will reap the benefit from the new investments... There can be no doubt that, if their money receipts should rise again [and this rise is bound to happen as Dr. Hayek promises to prove] they would immediately attempt to expand consumption to the usual proportion', that is to say, capital will be reduced to its former amount; 'such a transition to less capitalistic method of production necessarily takes the form of an economic crisis'...

As a moment's reflection will show, 'there can be no doubt' that nothing of the sort will happen. One class has, for a time, robbed another class of a part of their incomes; and has saved the plunder. When the robbery comes to an end, it is clear that the victims cannot possibly consume the capital which is now well out of their reach. If they are wage-earners, who have all the time consumed every penny of their income, they have no wherewithal to expand consumption. And if they are capitalists, who have not shared in the plunder, they may indeed be induced to consume now a part of their capital by the fall in the rate of interest; but not more so than if the rate had been lowered by the 'voluntary savings' of other people.

¹³The reason given is that 'since, after the change had been completed, these persons [i.e., the savers] would get a greater proportion of the total real income, they would have no reason' to consume the newly acquired capital... But it is not necessarily true that these persons will get a greater proportion of the total real income, and if the fall in the rate of interest is large enough they will get a smaller proportion; and anyhow it is difficult to see how the proportion of total income which falls to them can be relevant to the 'decisions of individuals'. Dr. Hayek, who extols the imaginary achievements of the 'subjective method' in economics, often succeeds in making patent nonsense of it." -- Piero Sraffa (March 1932)

And again:

"The first question is whether, as Dr. Hayek asserts, the capital accumulated by 'forced saving' will be, 'at least party' dissipated as soon as inflation comes to an end: 'It is upon the truth of this point that my [Dr. H's] theory stands or falls'. My simple-minded objection was that forced saving being a misnomer for spoliation, if those who had gained by the inflation chose to save the spoils, they had no reason at a later stage to revise the decision; and at any rate those on whom forced saving had been inflicted would have no say in the matter. This appeal to common sense has not shaken Dr. Hayek: he describes it as 'surprisingly superficial', though unfortunately he forgets to tell me where it is wrong." -- Piero Sraffa (June 1932)

The distribution of endowments - who owns what - is a datum for traditional neoclassical theory. Disequilibria employment, production, and purchases will change this data. So one cannot expect, contrary to Hayek, the previous equilibra corresponding to previous data to be restored after the economy is on some disequilibrium path for some extended time.

Sraffa, like later Post Keynesians, suggested a coherent economic theory must be set in historic time.

References

• P. Garegnani (1976) "On a Change in the Notion of Equilibrium in Recent Work on Value and Distribution", reprinted in Keynes's Economics and Theory of Value and Distribution (edited by J. L. Eatwell and M. Milgate, 1983), Oxford University Press.
• F. A. Hayek (1935) Prices and Production, 2nd. Edition, Routledge and Sons.
• F. A. Hayek (June 1932) "Money and Capital: A Reply", Economic Journal, V. 42: 237-249.
• F. A. Hayek (1941) The Pure Theory of Capital, University of Chicago Press.
• M. Milgate (1979) "On the Origin of the Notion of 'Intertemporal Equilibrium'", Economica, V. 46, N. 1: 1-10.
• P. Sraffa (March 1932) "Dr. Hayek on Money and Capital" Economic Journal, V. 42: 42-53.
• P. Sraffa (June 1932). "A Rejoinder", Economic Journal, V. 42: 249-251.

Against The TSSI: Some Literature

The Temporal Single System Interpretation (TSSI) is a reading of Marx in which Marx's theory of value, including his approach to the transformation problem, is internally consistent. I think of Alan Freeman and Andrew Kliman, among the extensive community developing the TSSI, as the most prominent advocates. And, for me, Andrew Kliman's book, Reclaiming Marx's "Capital": A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency (Lexington Books, 2007) is the canonical statement, for now, of the TSSI. (I have already posted some initial reactions to Kilman's book.)

The purpose of this post is to list some literature criticizing the TSSI, often harshly. At least some of the articles in the bibliography have replies and responses. Despite the tone of some of this literature, I think the TSSI worth engaging with. On my lengthy to-do list is, some day, to carefully step through Kliman's refutation of the Okishio theorem and through refutations of Kliman's refutation. The Okishio theorem refutes Marx's law of the declining rate of profit.

If one were curious about what Marxists economists have to say today, one might browse recent back issues for some of these journals.

Bibliography

• Simon Mohun and Roberto Veneziani (Summer 2007) "The Incoherence of the TSSI: A Reply to Kliman and Freeman", Capital and Class, V. 31: 139-145.
• Gary Mongiovi (Fall 2002) "Vulgar Economy in Marxian Garb: A Critique of Temporal Single System Marxism", Review of Radical Political Economics, V. 34, N. 4: 393-416.
• Ernesto Screpanti (Jan. 2005) "Guglielmo Carchedi's 'Art of Fudging' Explained to the People", Review of Political Economy, V. 17, N. 1: 115-126.
• Ajit Sinha (Summer 2009) "Book Review: Reclaiming Marx's 'Capital'", Review of Radical Political Economics: 422-427
• Roberto Veneziani (2004) "The Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marx's Economics: A Critical Evaluation", Metroeconomica, V. 5, N.1: 96-114.
• Roberto Veneziani (Fall 2005) "Dynamics, Disequilibrium, and Marxian Economics: A Formal Analysis of Temporal Single-System Marxism", Review of Radical Political Economics, V. 37, N. 4: 517-529.

Too Long; Didn't Read

Tom Walker mentions Paul Lafargue The Right to be Lazy. I started reading this book months ago and did not get much further than the description of the horrors of nineteenth century working conditions. Is not finishing in the spirit of the piece?

J. R. Hicks' Use of "Malinvestment"

In the influential Value and Capital: An Inquiry Into Some Fundamental Principles of Economic Theory (2nd edition, Oxford, 1946), J. R. Hicks writes:

"...it is the strict interpretation - divergence between expected and realized prices - which is of central importance theoretically. Whenever such a divergence occurs, it means (retrospectively) that there has been malinvestment and consequent waste. Resources have been used in a way in which they would not have been used, if the future had been foreseen more accurately; wants, which could have been met if they had been foreseen, will not be satisfied or will be satisfied imperfectly. Thus, disequilibrium is a mark of waste, and imperfect efficiency of production." -- J. R. Hicks, p. 133, my emphasis.

This passage occurs in Hicks' introduction of the method of temporary equilibrium. I think Hicks relied heavily on Hayek in developing this method¹. But I see a large difference in Hicks' use of "malinvestment" here and Hayek's account in Prices and Production.

For Hayek's version of ABCT, malinvestment occurs when entrepreneurs more or less share the same systematic expectations and plans. In explaining business cycles, he abstracts from non-systematic mistakes in capital investments. Hayek thinks entrepreneurs will invest in too capital-intensive techniques when monetary authorities set the interest rate too low. They will tend to adopt a capital structure in too many high-order goods and not enough low-order goods are produced, as compared to the capital-structure justified by consumer tastes².

Hicks, on the other hand, is considering a case in which all spot markets clear, but some ongoing production could be the result of variation among entrepreneurs in expectations or plans. Since some expectations or plans are incorrect, he characterizes this state as a disequilirium. Hicks does not posit a systematic bias in plans or expectations for his use of the term "malinvestment". Consequently, his business cycle theory is quite different from Hayek's.

Footnotes

1. Hicks mentions Hayek in his acknowledgments. I'm surprised to see he also acknowledges criticisms from Sraffa.
2. This theory cannot be sustained.

Robert Nozick, The Refutation Of Rational Choice, Etc.

"Robert Nozick has a unique place in the annals of rational choice theory: he refuted it." -- Ian Hacking (1994)

My reaction, when reading this, was, "What?" Hacking is referring to a paper by Robert Nozick¹ on Newcomb's Paradox. I'm fairly sure I've read something about this paradox, but I had to look it up.

Suppose there exists a psychic that has shown themselves to be extremely reliable in their predictions. And the psychic has presented you with a choice, based on one of their predictions. You are presented two boxes, one transparent and one wrapped such that you cannot see the contents. The rules are that you can take either:

• Just the opaque box, or
• Both boxes.

The transparent box contains $1,000, as you can plainly see. If the psychic has predicted you will pick just the opaque box, they have placed $1,000,000 in it. If they have predicted you will pick both boxes, they have ensured that the opaque box contains nothing. The prediction has been made, and the boxes have been sealed. You know all these conditions but not what the prediction was. What should you do?

Apparently many initially are very decided on what they would do. But people split half-and-half on what that is. Anyways, Hacking states that this example shows that two principles of rational decision-making are not necessarily consistent². I guess he is correct, and I'm in no position to challenge that this is of philosophical interest³. But, since no such psychic can exist, I find other examinations of rational choice theory of more practical import.

By the way, I want to give a qualified defense of Stephen Metcalfe's comments in Slate on Nozick's Wilt Chamberlin example⁴. Strictly speaking, Metcalf's confusion about which Keynes comment was on which Hayek book is irrelevant to these comments later in the article⁵. And I accept that he doesn't describe the logic of Nozick's argument⁶. Neither did I. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the rhetorical force of the argument comes from elements of the argument extraneous to its strict logic. And that is what Metcalf does⁷.

Footnotes

1. Nozick's "Reflections On Newcomb's Paradox" (in Knotted Doughnuts and Other Mathematical Entertainments (ed. by M. Gardner), W. H. Freeman, 1986).
2. Choose dominant strategies. Maximize mathematical expected utility.
3. I find Wittgenstein perennially fascinating.
4. Metcalf's Slate followup is here.
5. So is the fact that Nozick was smoking dope during the period in which he wrote Anarchy, State, and Utopia; I was startled to find he mentions in his book his experiences while under the influence. More by Brad DeLong on Nozick is here. Even more can be found in the Delong's blog archives.
6. By the way, Yglesias is mistaken in concluding, "Since as best I can tell nobody does hold such a [patterned] theory [of distribution]". Nozick explicitly states that marginal productivity gives such a patterned theory. Nozick is confused, since marginal productivity, correctly understood, is a theory of the choice of technique, not a theory of distribution.
7. Although I am not convinced appealing to guilty regret over the history of race relations in the United States has anything to do with Nozick's rhetoric.