that is a terrible article, that displays either the author's fundamental misunderstanding of "Keynesian stimulus" (whether you like those packages or not) or else the author's assumption that nobody else understands the idea, and that he would be able to draw a straw man and then have a gleeful ceremony burning his construct.
Keynesians believe that prices play no coordination role? in what universe?
He presents the case that expansionary spending had at best no effect in mitigating (or ending) the great depression as fact. There is certainly not a consensus viewpoint in his direction on this issue... if anyhing there is a near consensus on the opposite viewpoint.
Keynesians believe that stimuluses should go on forever? (and so "predicted a severe postwar depression once the stimulus of government spending on war ended.") I don't think so. Whether you believe them or not, Keynesians believe that prices coordinate the market in the long run, however occasionally the market can get temporarily trapped in a short run non-optimal sub-equilibrium below the full-employment level of output, or can get trapped on an adjustment trajectory where the return to full employment will occur at a pace slow enough to cause significant and undue short run costs. They believe you can provide an endogenous shock to the economy that will hasten the adjustment trajectory..... THEN they believe that you should continue the counter cyclical policies by REDUCING spending or INCREASING taxes in the good times (both to build up a war chest to pay for future recessions, and to reduce the imputus towards overheating).... whether or not Government can actually play this role in reality is a huge question (can governments actually cut spending and raise taxes in good times as Keynesians prescribe? Can they time the markets AT ALL?) but that isn't what the author discusses... (perhaps it isn't exciting enough) instead he makes up a position that nobody believes, and attacks that. Quaint.
Same story for the mumbo-jumbo about inversing Say's law. Yes, dude... there was a huge investment boom that went along side the consumption boom following WWII..... your point? Keynesians would state that the economy had broken out of the hysterosis "bad-equilibrium" and that the shock had worked... I am not at all sure whatthehell he is stating that his strawman Keynesians would claim.... ?
there is MUCH to criticize in the idea that govt policy (particularly fiscal policy) can routinely time markets and then effectively try to steer the economy away from a inefficient (temporary) equilibrium... but papers like this ignore the true issues and try to manhandle the debate into a more convenient bogey man debate. It is not useful at all.
|