Consumption makes the world go around, world go around

My thanks to Tel for bringing this to my attention. I Want to be a Consumer, a Poem by Patrick Barrington. Henry Hazlitt, in his Failure of the “New Economics”, quotes this poem, which can be viewed as a critique of Keynesian economics. Hazlitt wrote:

The natural consequences of the Keynesian economic philosophy were vividly portrayed by Patrick Barrington (two years before the particular rationalization that apeared in the General Theory) in his poem in Punch [Issue of April 25, 1934]

Some ideas are just in the air. The poem was written two years before Keynes got around to showing how well before his time this young lad was. From a Keynesian point of view, what is really socially wrong with his ambition?

I Want to be a Consumer

“And what do you mean to be?”
The kind old Bishop said
As he took the boy on his ample knee
And patted his curly head.
“We should all of us choose a calling
To help Society’s plan;
Then what do you mean to be, my boy,
When you grow to be a man?”

“I want to be a Consumer,”
The bright-haired lad replied
As he gazed up into the Bishop’s face
In innocence open-eyed.
“I’ve never had aims of a selfish sort,
For that, as I know, is wrong.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the world along.

“I want to be a Consumer
And work both night and day,
For that is the thing that’s needed most,
I’ve heard Economists say,
I won’t just be a Producer,
Like Bobby and James and John;
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help the nation on.”

“But what do you want to be?”
The Bishop said again,
“For we all of us have to work,” said he,
“As must, I think, be plain.
Are you thinking of studying medicine
Or taking a Bar exam?”
“Why, no!” the bright-haired lad replied
As he helped himself to jam.

“I want to be a Consumer
And live in a useful way;
For that is the thing that’s needed most,
I’ve heard Economists say.
There are too many people working
And too many things are made.
I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And help to further Trade.

“I want to be a Consumer
And do my duty well;
For that is the thing that’s needed most,
I’ve heard Economists tell.
I’ve made up my mind,” the lad was heard,
As he lit a cigar, to say;
“I want to be a Consumer, Sir,
And I want to begin today.”

Who would use a word like ‘phantasmagorical’ in an economics text?

I met with my publisher today and we briefly discussed a third edition of my Free Market Economics. It’s now on the agenda but distantly since I have pretty well said what I want to say. I bring this up for a series of additional reasons, and let me start with this much appreciated comment on a previous post:

Hi Steve

Off topic here (apologies Cats) but I wanted to congratulate you for finding an opportunity to slip the wonderful word ‘phantasmagorical’ into your book . To find such a word embedded within an economic text was a great little ‘Easter egg‘! I am about half way through and am thoroughly enjoying it. I only studied economics in high school but have always had more than a passing interest in the subject. Jump forward 20+ years and I am bashing my way through an MBA and found your book really relevant for my elective unit on ‘Entrepreneurship’, a great refresher on some of the base principles of the subject and a refreshing perspective on the functions of supply and demand in any economy.

Cheers Nathan

And then, also just today, there was this from a student who is studying from the book as part of an online course I run. He had a question to ask about a coming test, but then wrote this:

For the book, I have to say I really enjoy it and though I really hope you don’t mind in me giving some suggestions as such. Firstly just on the premise on the book i could see it being a love hate for some students just as it continuously goes through as an argument of sorts rather than laying down the facts as they should be, if you know what I mean. Not a dig just meaning that if it were more just this is as it is then we could just focus on that.

The second one is on the explanations for say’s law and the business cycles. I have kind of found for me in learning it I keep trying to apply it to real life as we should and ended up looking through all of the recessions in the past. And actually looking at them it makes the classical views blatantly obvious and correct even in the great depression where there wasn’t a reduction in the demand but that the economy was rapidly changing to the more modern economy with the setting of the public market for stocks. Not sure if I explained that quite right, though what I am getting at is if in the explanations or even in an assignment we were looking at what has caused every recession it would really hammer in the concepts of the book and prove that they in fact are correct and that Keynes is some funded by government full of shit fraud.

Again really enjoying the book now that I have got into it, just more on the output as I really hope it would become universal proof of the correct concept.

I will think about what I can do now that the issue has come up, but I have to say I am very reluctant to mess with the text again. It’s not perfect, but it remains the only anti-Keynesian textbook available anywhere in the world and there’s much else in it besides.

“I am a Keynesian,” Bowen declares proudly

These people don’t get it. They just don’t get it. I want to write, “such idiots they are”, but I am much too polite for that. From Paul Kelly’s column today on Keating and Swan loom large in Bowen’s thinking:

“I am a Keynesian,” Bowen declares proudly. “I would take a Keynesian approach to fiscal management. We can’t rule out the need for a government to stimulate domestic demand sometime over the next decade.” It is an unambiguous statement of belief.

Given Australia’s lower economic growth and doubts about economic recovery, Bowen as treasurer resorting to fiscal stimulus would be a live option. It reminds us that Bowen is a politician formed by the 2008-09 global financial crisis and is a champion of the huge fiscal stimulus put in place by Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan at that time. . . .

In his book The Money Men, Bowen rejects the main criticisms of the Rudd-Swan stimulus. While admitting the outcome was “imperfect”, Bowen says Swan was tested like no treasurer since Labor’s Ted Theodore during the 1930s and concludes that Swan, in relation to the GFC, “got all of the big calls right”.

The evidence of cloth between the ears never gets more evident than dealing with someone who actually sat in Parliament first through the Costello years and then through the years of economic management under Wayne Swan and thinks that Swan got it right. Those Costello years, when everything was going so well because the world economy was so placid. Like through the Asian Financial Crisis and the Dot-Com bust, you mean. They went well here because, for a change, we didn’t have a Keynesian in charge. How really out of it do you have to be to say this:

As Bowen says, Labor’s $46 billion second stimulus package of February 2009 triggered a debate that dominated “at least the next five years of Australian politics”.

It dominates us now because the deficits and debt will remain a problem for years on end. And now this clown wants to come back into government and add to the problems in the same way that they did the last time we gave them the chance. And if you really want to start to worry, try this on for size:

For Bowen, economic growth is the mission. He wants a competitiveness strategy “sector by sector”, says it is “not the job of Canberra” to determine where the new jobs come from but identifies the sectors that he sees as a priority and the skills deemed to be ­essential.

Picking last year’s winners is a tried and true strategy of failure, but back it will come if we give these people the chance to turn the Australian economy into the same kind of wreck that Obama has managed in the United States.

We have the most sensible and sophisticated central bank in the world

Among the many blessings Australia has that keep the economy trundling along in spite of international devastation is our central bank. It runs the most accurate policy of any bank in the world, and has refused to follow the fashion into zero rates of interest found elsewhere. Here’s the latest news: Interest rates: RBA refuses to blink, keeping cash rate at 2pc despite IMF downgrade:

The Reserve Bank has defied mounting global economic gloom, keeping interest rates on hold for the fifth month in a row and expressing confidence in APRA’s efforts to keep a lid on ­investment lending in the frothy Sydney and Melbourne housing markets.

As the International Monetary Fund downgraded its economic growth forecasts yet again, including those for Australia, Reserve Bank governor Glenn Stevens issued almost a carbon copy of his previous month’s monetary statement, whose tweaks if anything suggested even less desire to reduce the 2 per cent cash rate. . . .

“The available information suggests that moderate expansion in the economy continues,” Mr Stevens said, dumping last month’s qualifier of ‘most of’ and once again pointing to the strength of the jobs market. In the only other major change from last month, Mr Stevens suggested APRA’s efforts to dampen the growth of investor housing lending were “helping to contain risks that may arise from the housing market”.

The bit on the housing market even makes me think that if they were about to shift, rates would be going up. Sounds good. Low interest rates will kill you, as the US economy so clearly demonstrates, or at least it would if only there was am economic theory to explain why that was.

It’s not the lack of spending – it’s the lack of value adding

Exhibit A in what is wrong with Keynesian economics, in fact all modern macro, has been the United States. This is the main headline at Drudge that comes with the picture:

frowny face

JOBS DRY UP

Here are the sub-heads that spell out the disaster:

Record 94,610,000 Americans Not in Labor Force…
Participation Rate Lowest Since 1977…
Record 56,647,000 Women Not Working…
‘Payrolls Disaster’…
‘Fed never going to raise rates’…
IT’S UGLY!
FLASHBACK: IT’S GOING TO BE GREAT…
Markets at ‘panic levels’…

You elect a socialist who thinks he can direct the economy, keeps interest rates well below equilibrium, promotes crony capitalists at the expense of genuine competition, and makes war on cheap forms of energy and this is what you get. But what truly gets to me is that Samuelson-clone economic theory cannot be eliminated from policy and from the minds of the majority of economists. If they still think you can make an economy grow from the demand side after all of this, I don’t know what it would take to get them to see just how wrong modern economic theory is. It’s not the lack of spending. It’s the lack of value adding. If they cannot tell the difference, they should go back and read Adam Smith and J.S. Mill.

Another one liner – lots of laughs

Here is a single one-line entry from Drudge today:

LEW: USA goes broke next month…

Why worry? Donald, or maybe Hillary, will be able to make it all better around a year and a half from now:

“Based on this new information, we now estimate that Treasury is likely to exhaust its extraordinary measures on or about Thursday, November 5,” Lew wrote in a letter to Boehner. “At that point, we could be left to fund the government with only the cash we have on hand, which we currently forecast to be below $30 billion. This amount would be far short of net expenditures on certain days, which can be as high as $60 billion.”

Lew said the date could still fluctuate somewhat from Nov. 5, but the letter makes clear that the situation is more urgent than anticipated by lawmakers and staffers who expected to be able to bundle a debt limit increase with an early-December spending package.

“Without sufficient cash, it would be impossible for the United States of America to meet all of its obligations for the first time in our history,” Lew wrote.

This would all be coming to a country near you except that our creative new PM is finding ways to increase taxes on the wealthy.

Gross Output further explained

This diagram might help to explain the concept of the Gross Output first discussed in this post: A Triumph for Supply-side “Austrian” Economics and Say’s Law. The diagram shows the economy divided into its various stages of production. Adding them all up gives you a measure of the whole economy, not just the final output. Note that each stage is larger than the one above which indicates that there has been value adding activity going on.

GO

The problem with double counting is massive if you are trying to measure final output. If, however, you are trying to work out the level of activity across every part of the economy, it is not the central problem, and this is especially so if you are interested in proportions. If the data were divided into where jobs were, the division between the different parts of the economy that took in the stages of production would make perfect sense. If we were trying to measure jobs and counted only those who were in retail and personal services, we would immediately see what was wrong with the stat. GO tries to make up some of the deficiencies in knowing only final output and ignoring the economy’s interior.

A Triumph for Supply-side “Austrian” Economics and Say’s Law

The almost total inability of economists of the mainstream to make sense of the macroeconomy is because they look only at final demand. To them, the rest of the economy is a black box about which they know next to nothing. And emphasising how little they even understand about what they need to know, the most important statistic for the past seventy years has been the national accounts which measures how much final output is produced. It is why there are still economists who think that our economy is 60% consumption, when that part of the economy is around 5% at best. The rest is that vast hinterland of productive efforts that move resources from the ground and the forest through various stages of processing to the distributors and then, but only then, to retail outlets for final sale. The man who has done the work of Hercules in overturning this shallow and narrow approach is Mark Skousen. Do you wish to know more about this approach and how better to understand how an economy works, this is the go-to book, now released in its third edition. The title of this blog post is also the title on his own press release, so for a change it’s not just me.

Mark Skousen, The Structure of Production. New York University Press

Third revised edition, 2015, 402 pages. $26 paperback. Available on Kindle.

From the cover:

In 2014, the U. S. government adopted a new quarterly statistic called gross output (GO), the most significance advance in national income accounting since gross domestic product (GDP) was developed in the 1940s. The announcement comes as a triumph for Mark Skousen, who advocated GO twenty-five years ago as an essential macroeconomic tool and a better way to measure the economy and the business cycle. Now it has become an official statistic issued quarterly by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U. S. Department of Commerce.

To buy the book: NYU, Amazon
Quarterly data for Gross Output can be found at the BEA site here.
For Skousen’s latest quarterly report on GO, see this.

Since the announcement, Gross Output has been the subject of editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and other financial publications, and is now being adopted in leading economics textbooks, such as Roger Leroy Miller’s new 18th edition of Economics Today. Economists are now producing GO data for other countries, including the UK and Argentina.

In this third printing of Structure of Production, Skousen shows why GO is a more accurate and comprehensive measure of the economy because it includes business-to-business (B2B) transactions that move the supply chain along to final use. (GDP measures the value of finished goods and services only, and omits most B2B activity.) GO is an attempt to measure spending at all stages of production.

As Dale Jorgenson, Steve Landefeld, and William Nordhaus conclude in “A New Architecture for the U. S. National Accounts,” “Gross output [GO] is the natural measure of the production sector, while net output [GDP] is appropriate as a measure of welfare. Both are required in a complete system of accounts.”

Skousen concludes, “Gross Output fills in a big piece of the macroeconomic puzzle. It establishes the proper balance between production and consumption, between the ‘make’ and the ‘use’ economy, between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. And it is more consistent with growth and business cycle theory. Because GO attempts to measure all stages of production (known as Hayek’s triangle), it is a monumental triumph in supply-side ‘Austrian’ economics and Say’s law.”

Using GO, Skousen demonstrates that consumer spending does not account for two-thirds of the economy, as is often reported in the financial media, but is really only 30-40% of total economic activity. Business spending (B2B) is over 50% of the economy, and thus is far larger and more important than consumer spending, more consistent with economic growth theory, and a better measure of the business cycle. (See chart below.)

About the Author

MARK SKOUSEN is a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University in California. He has taught economics and finance at Columbia Business School, and is a former economic analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. He received his Ph. D. in economics at George Washington University (1977). He is the editor-in-chief of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies, and author of several books, including The Making of Modern Economics.

Reviews

“Now, it’s official. With Gross Output (GO), the U.S. government will provide official data on the supply side of the economy and its structure. How did this counter revolution come about? There have been many counter revolutionaries, but one stands out: Mark Skousen of Chapman University. Skousen’s book The Structure of Production, which was first published in 1990, backed his advocacy with heavy artillery. Indeed, it is Skousen who is, in part, responsible for the government’s move to provide a clearer, more comprehensive picture of the economy, with GO.” — Steve H. Hanke, Johns Hopkins University (2014)

“This is a great leap forward in national accounting. Gross Output, long advocated by Mark Skousen, will have a profound and manifestly positive impact on economic policy.” –Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine (2014)

“Skousen’s Structure of Production should be a required text at our leading universities.” (referring to second edition) –John O. Whitney, Emeritus Professor in Management Practice, Columbia University

“Monumental. I’ve read it twice!” (referring to first edition, published in 1990) — Peter F. Drucker, Clermont Graduate University

“I am enormously impressed with the car and integrity which Skousen has accomplished his work.” — Israel Kirzner, New York University

“The history of economic thought should in no way be disconnected from current issues in economics”

I wrote a book about this very subject as part of what I could do from preventing the European Research Council from turning the history of economic thought into a sub-sub-set of the History of the Human Memory. Now it is part of the very ethos of HET in Europe:

The issues of inequalities confirm the ESHET’s firm belief that the study of the history of economic thought should in no way be disconnected from current issues in economics and beyond, and could in fact help provide historical perspectives on standard views about the subject.

Oh yes indeed. There will come a time, and it’s not far off, when economists will start to relearn their history which, among other things, contains a vast storehouse of ideas that have been lost or forgotten but are as valid if not more so than the ones we now have in our currents economic texts.

A lesson in central bank policy

This is a reply to a query at the History of Economics website by Tom Humphrey on the form and aims of central bank policy as undertaken by the Fed in 2009:

You asked if the Fed, early in the crisis, wasn’t engaged in credit, not monetary, policy when it bought and/or loaned against questionable commercial bank assets while simultaneously paying interest on excess reserves.

The answer, of course, is that you are right. The Fed indeed was engaged in credit, not monetary, policy. It sought to help banks by changing the composition not the size of their balance sheets. To this end it did two things.

First, it bought and/or discounted at the discount window non-liquid, potentially questionable assets from the banks, paying for those assets by crediting banks’ reserve accounts. At the same time, the Fed paid positive interest to the banks if they would hold those new (excess) reserves idle. In so doing the Fed enhanced the liquidity and safety of bank balance sheets while inducing the banks to hold their reserves idle rather than using those reserves to expand loans and deposits.

Here was credit policy par excellence. The swap of reserves in exchange for questionable non-monetary assets altered the composition of bank balance sheets. But because banks had a powerful incentive not to expand their loans and deposits, the size of bank balance sheets remained unchanged.

In sum, monetary policy aims at altering the size of bank balance sheets. It does so by inducing banks to raise or lower their volume of loans and deposit. By contrast, credit policy aims at improving bank safety and liquidity. It does so by changing the composition, not the size, of bank balance sheets. Early in the financial crisis the Fed primarily was pursuing credit policy rather than monetary policy.