On The Ideological Function Of Certain Ideas Of Friedman And Barro

A Simple Keynes-Like Model

1.0 Introduction
I want to comment on an ideology that would lead to an acceptance of:

• Milton Friedman's Permanent Income Hypothesis (PIH)
• Robert Barro's so-called theory of Ricardian Equivalence

My claim is that Friedman and Barro were each responding, in their own way, to the (policy implications suggested by) Keynes' General Theory. So first, I outline, very superficially, some ideas related to the General Theory. I then briefly describe how Friedman and Barro each tried to downplay these ideas, before finally concluding.
I have a number of inspirations for this post, including Robert Waldmann's assertion that the denial of the PIH is consistent with the data; Brad DeLong noting Simon Wren-Lewis and Chris Dillow commenting on the incompetence of, say, Robert Lucas; and Josh Mason pointing out the nonsense that is taught in graduate macroenonomics about the government budget constraint and interest rates.
2.0 Governments Can End Depressions
The figure above illustrates some basic elements of Keynes' theory. This specification of a discrete-time, dynamic system includes an accounting identity for a closed economy, namely, that national income in any time period is the sum of consumption spending, investment, and government spending. And it includes a behavioral relation, namely, a dynamic formulation of a consumption function. In this system, consumption is the sum of autonomous consumption and a term proportional to national income in the previous period. One should assume that the parameter b lies between zero and one.
A policy consequence follows: government can lift the economy out of a depression by spending more. Government spending increases national income immediately. Through the consumption function, it has a positive feedback on next period's income, as well.
3.0 The Permanent Income Hypothesis
Suppose you are hostile to this policy conclusion and, like the current Republican party in the USA, dislike your fellow countrymen. How might you suggest a theoretical revision to the system structure to mitigate the influence of current government spending? One possibility is to suggest more terms enter the consumption function. With the proper manipulation, current government spending will have a smaller impact, since current income will have a smaller impact on consumption.
So, suppose the consumption function does not contain a term multiplying b by income lagged one period. Instead, assume b multiplies an unobserved and (directly) unobservable state variable which, in turn, is an aggregate of current income lagged multiple periods (Y_{t - 1}, Y_{t - 2}, ..., Y_{t - n}). Call this state variable "permanent income", and assume the aggregation is a matter of forming expectations about this variable based on a number of past values of income.
This accomplishes the goal. Current government spending can directly affect current income. But to have the same size impact as before on future income, it would have to be maintained through many lags. The policy impact of increased government spending is attenuated in this model, as compared to the dynamic system illustrated in the figure. 4.0 "Ricardian" Equivalence
One can go further with unobserved state variables. Suppose that households consume based less on recent income, but, once again, on expected values of future income. And suppose that consumers operate under the mainstream economist's mistaken theory of a government budget constraint. So consumers expect increased income today, if it results from increased government spending, to be accompanied by some combination of future decreased government spending and increased taxes. So the same current upward shock to the system causes an expectation of a future downward shock.
This is the theory of Ricardian equivalence. And, like the PIH, it suggests that Keynesian effects are not as dependable as otherwise would be the case.
5.0 Conclusion
The above story portrays economics as driven by results favorable to the biases and perceived self-interests of the extremely affluent. One would hope that academic economics is not entirely like this.

Economists For The General Reader

What economists would you expect somebody with a general university education to have heard of? My list is quite short:

• Adam Smith
• Karl Marx
• John Maynard Keynes

I expect these authors to function mostly as symbols in the popular consciousness. I might expect Americans above a certain age to have heard of John Kenneth Galbraith and Milton Friedman. Would they have heard of Paul Samuelson? He did have a column in Newsweek for a while. I first became aware of the existence of Joan Robinson by seeing a reference to her as the "British Galbraith". From what I've read, Nicholas Kaldor also had a certain public presence in Britain for a certain generation.

Given the highly technical nature of academic economists these days, it is hard for economists to invite the public into their discussions. I guess a theme of this blog is that most academic economists are not to be trusted. Others, such as Steve Keen, Fred Lee, and Bill Mitchell say fairly much the same. But I am not opposed to thinking of economics as a technical subject. I do not think I have resolved a tension here in my own mind.

Elsewhere

• Steve Denning, a writer for Forbes, describes Milton Friedman as being the source of "The world's dumbest idea". (I have written on Milton Friedman's confusion. incoherence, and lack of integrity, as well as Michael Jensen's (ir)responibility. See also Unlearning Economics.)
• Mike Konczal on Philip Mirowski's new book.
• Henry Scowcroft on the need for communicating economics to the public.
• Michael Lind on supposedly "Econ 101". Noah Smith complains about the public impression of what economists teach.
• Robert Neild on a 1981 anti-monetarism petition. I am especially amused about him losing his cool in a debate with Milton Friedman.
• Mark van Vugt and Michael Price, two psychologists, I gess, comment on Homo Economics. They link to a website which has David Sloan Wilson as editor in chief.
• Floyd Norris, in the New York Times, explains that Steve Keen foresaw the global financial crisis better than Ben Bernanke did.