Economics

¿Qué mató a la macroeconomía?

Nov 16, 2021 Robert Skidelsky

LONDRES – El problema con la facilitación cuantitativa (FC), señaló medio en broma en 2014 el entonces Presidente de la Reserva Federal Ben Bernanke acerca del programa de compra de bonos emprendido por la Fed, es que “funciona en la práctica, pero no funciona en la teoría”. Se podría decir lo mismo sobre la política macroeconómica en general, en el sentido de que no hay ninguna teoría sólida que la respalde. Los gobiernos “estimulan” por rutina la economía para “luchar” contra el desempleo, pero con una teoría que niega que exista un desempleo contra el cual luchar.

Aparte de los refinamientos matemáticos, la economía ha vuelto a lo que era hace un siglo: el estudio de la asignación de recursos determinados, más la teoría cuantitativa del dinero. La macroeconomía –la teoría de la producción como un todo, inventada por John Maynard Keynes- prácticamente ha desaparecido.

Por ejemplo, ¿qué causa el desempleo? La respuesta estándar es la “rigidez descendente de los precios”. Un peluquero que cobra $14 la hora, pero que puede trabajar de forma rentable solo a $13 la hora, escoge no hacerlo. Esa opción es, entonces, voluntaria, lo que refleja una preferencia por el ocio, o una decisión de no ser peluquero. Lo mismo es cierto para todos los trabajadores de una economía. Visto así, lo que denomina desempleo es una opción por no trabajar.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Robert Skidelsky

Writing for PS since 2003
208 Commentaries

Robert Skidelsky, a member of the British House of Lords and Professor Emeritus of Political Economy at Warwick University, was a non-executive director of the private Russian oil company PJSC Russneft from 2016 to 2021. The author of a three-volume biography of John Maynard Keynes, he began his political career in the Labour party, became the Conservative Party’s spokesman for Treasury affairs in the House of Lords, and was eventually forced out of the Conservative Party for his opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

Didier Vanoverberghe Nov 21, 2021

Macroeconomics is hurted, not totally killed, uncertainty is an important point not the only one.
Macro was hurted by the Cambridge controversy with the Sraffa mistake, Capital has a definition within imperfect maket with uncertainty. The most important is the Wealth definition. Friedman made a very important mistake with the pih, he defined Wealth as the discounting sum of the revenues, instead of revenues minus reinvestments, this leads to a constant income. By this way he forgot the investment effect that is growth. The same is with the Ricardo Barro equivalence, Barro forgot the investment in his demonstration.
Two other examples to demonstrate classical Macro is inefficient today:
All governments use gdp that is an expenditure approach (expenditures: consumption+ investment+...). Will you manage your invested money by the expenditure side or use the gain side ? Governments use only the expenditure side (investment as a cost), where gains are profits wages and taxes. The wealth created per period approach is the right solution for macroeconomics.
Another question: who is the richer a person with $300 000 of Capital and $40 000 income per year or $400 000 of Capital and $30 000 income per year ? Only Weath can give the answer.
Keynes made another mistake with multiplier, this underestimate the investment effect. Which company will manage investment within a one year period ? Use the AK model the investment will bring (1+A) *inv, about 1.2 *investment the imf find, where the investment effect is during 20 years.

If you want a solution for the rebirth of macro :
https://www.logineco.com/category/Wealth/
And ssrn Didier Vanoverberghe
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joe Ryan Nov 21, 2021

Prof. Skidelsky (like Keynes and the advocates of the Job Guarantee Program) regards macroeconomics as being about combating unemployment because he regards employment as the way of meeting the worker's basic necessities.

Why?

We don't ask rentiers to be employed in order to consume. Or retirees. Or children.

The implicit reasons for linking an individual's consumption to the same person's employment seem to be two. One, some labor is necessary to produce what we consume. Two, capitalists need a lever to get people to make money for them.

From the point of view of access to basic necessities, we may reject both these considerations. As regards the first reason, the output needed for middle-class consumption (plus making good the depreciation of capital goods) can be reached without employing the whole traditional work force. As regards the second, the people who are capitalists are wealthy and can consume on the basis of their wealth (as well as by the same means as workers do) without employing anyone.

Obviously, we already provide a lot of basic necessities in ways that are not linked to employment. So, sharing clearly works, not just via social security but, as noted above, for rentiers and children. It hasn't killed the economy.

Instead of forced employment, we should do more of that sharing — expanding social security and the like.

Employment should be seen less as a distributional tool and more as being not only socially necessary but also as part of a person's life, just as consumption is. Working conditions matter. The opportunity to be productive matters. Dignity matters.

Just as we have social security etc. for consumption, we also try to improve the work place in the above respects. But that effort seems half-hearted. Further de-linking consumption from employment will allow us to do a better job of improving the work place.

Finally, wasteful and destructive production could be cut back by further de-linking consumption from employment.

At present, the imperative for "growth" stems from two sources. One, C+I+G: investment is needed for "full" employment. Two, investment increases capitalists' wealth. We can jettison both these motives and pursue growth instead as merely a statistical artifact of the process of innovation and improvement of living standards.
- Andrés Galia Nov 21, 2021
  
  I am not sure that ANY consumption should be part of a person's life. Only consumption to protect that life should be considered. I do not need to consume water bottled in plastic containers and imported 10,000 miles from where I live to sustain my life. I do not need to have a cell phone and change it every year to support my life. But the eEconomy does, and that is the problem.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Rech Nov 17, 2021

"Macroeconomics is the child of uncertainty."

Yes it is. But it is also the child of various fallacies of composition.

The phenomenon at the base of the main FoC is that one person's spending is another's income. This immediately invalidates supply demand analysis as supply and demand curves become interdependent.

And mainstream economics places great store on Say's Law, which is another way of expressing the above dictum about spending and income, in explaining why full employment equilibrium is always in place but then, in contradiction, also relies on supply demand analysis.

However, while Keynes decried Say's Law as a rationale for full employment, he effectively also used it (and the above described FoC) to undermine the classical argument that a fall in real wages across the economy will increase employment.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Wolff Nov 16, 2021

I would argue that the different outcomes between theory and practice are actually the different resultant impacts of the application of two very different philosophies: Reason (Rationalism) and Practicality (Pragmatism).

The philosophy of Rationalism, established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 at the end of the Thirty Years War between Catholics and Protestants in Europe, established a framework for collaboration versus competition to end the war. War is NEVER Rational (by the philosophical definition of Rationalism as favoring collaboration over competition) but war is often Practical (determined by the Situation and how to reverse it through implementing a combative response to correct a subjective crisis by one of the competitors .)

So what is practical in a competitive situation is often irrational over the long term and what is rational over the long term often goes against what is practical to resolve the subjectively assessed situational crisis in the immediate moment.

Both Rationalism and Pragmatism are also applied in Foreign Relations concurrently, as means to preserve both competition in the short run and collaboration in the long run.
- Constance Morley Nov 21, 2021
  
  Good points. Let us also recall that 'Westphalian philosophy of rationalism' is based on 19th century notions of "rational man" well-known and largely banned from macroeconomics with all the best of intentions. However, the worst of "rational man" with unhindered greed and absolutist definitions of freedom have persisted along with white supremacy in hard-right conservatism that threatens political and economic stability especially in the context of global climate crisis. I suggest that macroeconomics must redefine "rationalism" along with conceptions of "the self" to finally move away from the mounting dangers of racist greed. Such an effort can open many new discussions.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.