Thoughts after reading Steven Kates’: “Why Your Grandfather’s Economics Was Better Than Yours: On The Catastrophic Disappearance of Say’s Law”
Keynesianism has dominated economic thought and shaped public policy since the 1930s. John Maynard Keynes’ General Theory revolutionized economics and made the demand side of the equation paramount. Recessions, in his mind, were caused by insufficient demand. Fix the demand failure and you get the economy out of recession.
This theory refuted classical economics, specifically what had become known as Say’s Law. Professor Steven Kates tells us why : Keynes said insufficient demand led to recessions; classical economists, on the other hand, said there was no such thing as a demand deficiency. Keynes’ contribution, as Ludwig von Mises noted in 1950, was abandoning classical economics and offering a different way (the polar opposite way in fact) of fixing recessions.
Recessions could be fixed by government deficit spending according to Keynesians. This called for government to step in during recession and pump money (inject tax-pay dollars) into the economy. This will pick up the slack and will eventually put the business cycle back into equilibrium.
The General Theory relied upon the writings of Thomas Malthus, a late 18th century/early 19th century intellectual best known for his thoughts on overpopulation. In 1820, Malthus wrote a treatise on economics-Principles of Political Economy– that argued the recession in Britain following the Napoleonic Wars was a result of excessive savings/investment in the economy.
In other words, there was insufficient demand in the economy. This demand deficiency led to a breakdown in the business cycle and put the British economy into recession.
Malthus’ writings went against the classical consensus of his contemporaries, specifically the writings of David Ricardo and Jean-Baptiste Say. Classical economists said that demand played no role in understanding the business cycle.
Ricardo wrote to Malthus in 1821 shortly after the publication of Malthus’ Principles, saying: “men err in their productions…there is no deficiency in demand.” That point, along with several others, fused together and became known as Say’s Law. Say’s Law dominated economic thought throughout the 19th century, but was abandoned when it (and classical economics generally) looked impotent during the Great Depression.
There are several propositions in Say’s Law. Most importantly, there is no demand deficiency. Both Malthus and Keynes argued that excessive savings/investment would lead to an excess/glut of goods/services in the economy. Classical economists said this was nonsense. There is no such thing as excessive supply. Any unused supply was put into savings/investment which lead to capital formation. In other words, no hoarding of supply took place.
The second proposition is just as important as the first. Demand is constituted by supply. Read that again. Demand is made up of supply. It won’t grow unless there’s a growth in supply. Value added productivity must occur for demand to increase.
20th century British economist Henry Clay put it this way:
An increase in the supply of cloth is an increase in the demand for other things; and vice versa, an increase in the supply of anything else may constitute a demand for cloth. What is divided among the members of society is the goods and services produced to satisfy its wants; and the same goods and services are both Supply and Demand.
Nice comment. It should be noted that Keynesian economists tend to have more friends in Government than economists with a more libertarian bent. Shame, but true, I suppose.