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.

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.

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.

2000

I cannot believe it! How did it happen? My 2000th post.

It was for the first 1500 just a private thing for me. Now there are others who read it which I am very pleased to see and am glad to have the company. Not many, and this still remains my place to put random thoughts, although I do make more of an effort now. But it is no longer completely private.

It is also just past the third anniversary since I started on September 23, 2012. 2000 posts at 200 words is 400,000. I could have written War and Peace instead. What was the first line: “Well, prince, so Genoa and Lucca are now just family estates of the Buonapartes!” Ah well, too late. Hooked on blogging instead and it’s lucky for us that Tolstoy wasn’t. And I am happy to say that my son is still my most certain reader – hi Joshi. What kind of world will it be when we hit number 3000. Not that far from now, but largely an open plain.

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.

Pedro Schwartz discusses Keynes and Say’s Law

Pedro Schwartz is the President of the Mont Pelerin Society so you will not be surprised to find that he has just written an article criticising Keynes, with the lurid title, Keynes as Lucifer. But what we also have in common is our interest in John Stuart Mill. In 1973, he wrote one of the few books ever written on Mill’s economics, The New Economics of John Stuart Mill, which I am now re-reading. That I had read it perhaps two decades ago is why it feels so fresh. Everything had fallen from my mind about the book, but I have in the meantime re-discovered Mill for myself. But here we are discussing Schwartz on Keynes, and he begins by trying to explain what cannot be doubted, the grip that Keynes continues to hold over the economics profession.

A number of circumstances and coincidences explain this everlasting fascination with Keynes. First and foremost is the failure to foresee, account for, and remedy the Great Depression of the 1930s—and the same with the Great Recession of 2007-11. Secondly, his own seductive personality fits in supremely with the new morality of the progressive elites. Thirdly, people of progressive intent feel a crying need to find some excuse for continued government intervention in society, after Marxism, socialism, economic planning, imposed egalitarianism, public schooling, and state welfare have signally failed to fulfil their promises or are threatened with impending failure.

Keynes’s rejection of the classical model opened a door to the many who were unhappy with the orthodox belief that supply created its own demand; that unemployment was self-righting; that the gold standard was the best monetary system; that investment could be left in private hands; that the stock market, despite temporary episodes, reflected the fundamental values and trends of the productive system; and in general, that laissez-faire was the best possible social arrangement.

And yet, I fear, I will have to disagree with him when he comes to discuss Say’s Law. Here he writes:

Say’s Law, which holds that supply always find its demand, was the bugbear of Keynes. The classicists founded on it their belief that full employment was the natural state of a free economy and there could be no involuntary unemployment in a competitive labor market, barring the frictional unemployment of people changing jobs. On the contrary, for Keynes, the engine of growth was aggregate demand (the sum of consumption and new investment): and the normal situation of a free economy was one where that aggregate demand was insufficient to guarantee the full employment of resources. This shortcoming was due to the tendency of consumption always to lag behind income, leading to excessive saving; and investment depending capriciously on the animal spirits of entrepreneurs. It was necessary for the state to use those excessive savings to top up flagging investment. Laissez-faire was not the best policy.

This is not Say’s Law as explained by Mill. The very reason for this issue even entering into economic discourse at the time was because economists in the 1820s were debating whether demand deficiency was the cause of the recessions they were observing and came to the virtually unanimous view that demand deficiency did not cause recessions even while many other factors did. It is with a heavy heart I see that even someone who has studied Mill as intensively as Pedro Schwartz does not get Mill’s point. Keynes’s ability to beguile and mislead is extraordinary and apparently never-ending.

A disgrace to the economics profession – the single most damaging graph in human history

Which has been the most damaging single diagram in the entire history of the sciences? There is not even a contest? The graph is, without any doubt, the Keynesian-cross diagram invented by Paul Samuelson which has been depriving economists of the ability to make sense of economic events since first published in the first edition of his Economics text in 1948.

keynesian cross

The idea for honouring this diagram has occurred to me with the publication by Mark Steyn of his just published book, “A Disgrace to the Profession” which he describes as “the story of the 21st century’s most famous graph and the damage it has done both to science and public policy”. Ah, but the present century is still young and although the harm the hockey stick has undoubtedly caused may well already be calculated in the billions, the harm Samuelson’s 45-degree diagram has done may be calculated in the trillions, and the damage it is doing is far far from over.

For those unfamiliar with the Keynesian-cross, it shows an upward sloping aggregate demand curve which reaches equilibrium where it crosses the 45-degree line at a level of national income well below the level of production that would employ everyone who wants a job. The answer, therefore, is an increase in public spending which pushes the line upwards and therefore pushes the equilibrium level of production along the horizontal axis to the right which then allows everyone to find a job.

The policy has, of course, never ever worked, but the trillions of dollars of public sector waste have drained our economies of astonishing levels of wealth that have kept our living standards well below their potential now for seventy years.

I have written my own book on the disgrace to the economics profession Free Market Economics which is now in its third edition. It takes apart Samuelson’s piece of beguiling illogic which has mesmerised the profession since it was first published. It is itself the very height of junk science, which has never on a single occasion given advice that has allowed an economy to raise its level of production and return an economy to full employment. It has, instead, led governments to pour their trillions into one wasteful project after another, of which green energy is only the latest, and while wildly expensive is for all that far from the most expensive example.

Economists who use any of these Keynesian diagrams starting with Samuelson’s are throwing sand in their own eyes. Profoundly shallow it is almost impossible to explain to someone who has been taken in by these graphs why they have been so badly misled. But there you are. No stimulus has ever worked but we still teach the diagrams that say public spending will bring our economies out of recession and give us strong and balanced growth. Do you believe that after what has gone on since 2009? Does anyone? A disgrace, but what is even more disgraceful is that the entire profession continues to accept a theory that has never worked. And there is the diagram that has corrupted the understanding of more individuals than any other diagram in human history.

Why don’t economists get it?

China, India, Japan, US and Europe have weakening or underperformaning GDP growth. And by no coincidence at all, these are all economies that have tried a Keynesian expenditure program to end recession. The thing that is most astonishing is that there is virtually no economist of the mainstream who could even explain it. And as the article points out, this is even happening as the price of oil has plummeted.

Here’s a clue about what’s wrong with modern theory. Our economies are not saving too much. Our economies are being plundered of their savings by our governments who are wasting our resources on projects that will never bring a positive return. Go back to the stimulus packages and other government-directed expenditures of 5-6 years ago – some of which were even ludicrously described as infrastructure investment. What you are seeing today is the absence of the private sector projects that were forestalled back then. We are ruining our economies, and the economics profession is at the heart of the problem. Aggregate demand does not make an economy grow. Economies only grow if there is value adding investment. Seems obvious. Why don’t economists get it?