I've been thinking that the fundamental difference is that, in Keynes's story, people make quantity adjustments, whereas in Hayek's they make price adjustments.
I think it's that for Hayek price adjustments lead to quantity adjustments, while for Keynes the lack of the necessary price adjustments means that people can't make the necessary quantity adjustments.
I think that there's also a much deeper incongruity. Hayek thought that a fall in consumption and increase in savings would lead to an increase in investment. Keynes saw the relationship between consumption and investment as direct -- which is why a lot of economists today mock that commonly cited excerpt where Hayek claims that an increase in consumption will lead to an increase in unemployment, but proving it would require a lecture full of math (this is Hayek's Ricardo Effect). Keynes' opinion is evident in the fact that he thought investment (D2<) would fall as greater amounts of wealth were accumulated, since he postulated that the marginal propensity to consume falls as income grows.
"Keynes the lack of the necessary price adjustments means that people can't make the necessary quantity adjustments."
See my comment to unknown below.
"Keynes saw the relationship between consumption and investment as direct..."
And that is because increased savings does not result in the price adjustment that it does for Hayek -- the interest rate does not fall prompting more investment.
It's not just about the rate of interest. The rate of interest is not the 'price' that Hayek is referring to (if interest is a price at all ,even); he refers to profits, or intertemporal differentiations between the prices of outputs.
Could you maybe give a concrete example for each to show what you mean? Sounds like it might be an intereting theory, but I am confused as to what, exactly, you mean...Thank you.
Also, here is Victoria Chick on this topic, from her 1983 book Macroeconomics After Keynes, p. 271 (in response to the Leidjonhufvud thesis),
"It is held that in Keynesian economics prices are assumed to be unaffected by expansion until full employment and then only prices will be affected; allowance for bottlenecks modifies this proposition. The current conventional wisdom is that Keynes 'nullifies the Marshallian adjustment by means of prices' and proposed quantity adjustment instead. Any reader who has got this far must realise that simply is not so."
"It is held that in Keynesian economics prices are assumed to be unaffected by expansion until full employment and then only prices will be affected..."
But Jonathan, I was talking about the focus of Keynes's story versus the focus of Hayek's.
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
I think it's that for Hayek price adjustments lead to quantity adjustments, while for Keynes the lack of the necessary price adjustments means that people can't make the necessary quantity adjustments.
ReplyDeleteI think that there's also a much deeper incongruity. Hayek thought that a fall in consumption and increase in savings would lead to an increase in investment. Keynes saw the relationship between consumption and investment as direct -- which is why a lot of economists today mock that commonly cited excerpt where Hayek claims that an increase in consumption will lead to an increase in unemployment, but proving it would require a lecture full of math (this is Hayek's Ricardo Effect). Keynes' opinion is evident in the fact that he thought investment (D2<) would fall as greater amounts of wealth were accumulated, since he postulated that the marginal propensity to consume falls as income grows.
"Keynes the lack of the necessary price adjustments means that people can't make the necessary quantity adjustments."
DeleteSee my comment to unknown below.
"Keynes saw the relationship between consumption and investment as direct..."
And that is because increased savings does not result in the price adjustment that it does for Hayek -- the interest rate does not fall prompting more investment.
It's not just about the rate of interest. The rate of interest is not the 'price' that Hayek is referring to (if interest is a price at all ,even); he refers to profits, or intertemporal differentiations between the prices of outputs.
Delete"It's not just about the rate of interest."
DeleteWho said it was "just" about the rate of interest?
"The rate of interest is not the 'price' that Hayek is referring to"
I did not think there was a single price he was referring to at all!
"(if interest is a price at all ,even)"
You don't do *that*, do you?
Could you maybe give a concrete example for each to show what you mean? Sounds like it might be an intereting theory, but I am confused as to what, exactly, you mean...Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYes, unknown: Faced with a drop in orders, the Hayekian firm lowers its prices, while the Keynesian firm reduces output and lays off workers.
DeleteAlso, here is Victoria Chick on this topic, from her 1983 book Macroeconomics After Keynes, p. 271 (in response to the Leidjonhufvud thesis),
ReplyDelete"It is held that in Keynesian economics prices are assumed to be unaffected by expansion until full employment and then only prices will be affected; allowance for bottlenecks modifies this proposition. The current conventional wisdom is that Keynes 'nullifies the Marshallian adjustment by means of prices' and proposed quantity adjustment instead. Any reader who has got this far must realise that simply is not so."
"It is held that in Keynesian economics prices are assumed to be unaffected by expansion until full employment and then only prices will be affected..."
DeleteBut Jonathan, I was talking about the focus of Keynes's story versus the focus of Hayek's.