Blog-Reference and Blog-Reference
Lars Syll summarizes: “Unfortunately, Jones macroeconomics textbook is not the only one containing this kind of utter nonsense on Keynes. Similar distortions of Keynes’s views can be found in, e. g., the economics textbooks of ‘New Keynesian’ economists like Greg Mankiw and Paul Krugman.”
Economics textbooks are false from Samuelson’s classic to this day.#1 Not only because of occasional distortions but because both Walrasian microfoundations and Keynesian macrofoundations are axiomatically false. Therefore, it does not suffice to rectify occasional distortions and misrepresentations.
One can readily agree with Lars Syll “Keynes in General Theory devoted substantial attention to the subject of wage rigidities, he certainly did not hold the view that wage rigidities were ‘the reason … for the high unemployment of the Great Depression’.” This, though, cannot alter the fact that Keynes’ employment theory as a whole is provably false.
Keynes’ critique of Orthodoxy was always spot on but from this does not follow that his own approach was much better. Keynes based macroeconomics on logically and conceptually defective foundations and neither After-Keynesians nor Post Keynesians nor New Keynesians nor Anti-Keynesians have realized his foundational blunder in 80+ years.
Keynes defined the formal core of the General Theory as follows: “Income = value of output = consumption + investment. Saving = income − consumption. Therefore saving = investment.” (p. 63)
This syllogism is defective because Keynes never came to grips with profit: “His Collected Writings show that he wrestled to solve the Profit Puzzle up till the semi-final versions of his GT but in the end he gave up and discarded the draft chapter dealing with it.” (Tómasson et. al.)
Keynes had NO idea of the fundamental concepts of economics, viz. profit and income. Because profit is ill-defined, the whole theoretical superstructure of Keynesian macroeconomics falls apart: (i) all I=S/IS-LM models are provably false; (ii) the investment multiplier is formally defective; (iii) the error/mistake in Keynes’ profit theory remained undetected; (iv) the error/mistake in Keynes’ employment function remained undetected.#2
The rectification of Keynes’ false employment function gives the correct relationship between wages and unemployment.#3 The price mechanism does NOT work as supposed, that is, a reduction of the average wage rate does NOT increase employment for the economy as a whole. The correct systemic Employment Law says exactly the opposite.
From this follows for economic policy that the third tool in addition to monetary and fiscal policy is needed. What has to be achieved is a rectification of the price mechanism. This has nothing to do with stickiness or frictions or other imperfections. Fact is: the perfectly working price mechanism INCREASES unemployment in the economy because there is a positive feedback loop built right into the core of the market economy. Macro-economically it is NOT wage rate down ― employment up, but it is wage rate down ― employment down. This and NOT stickiness is the crux.
Textbook economics has not gotten the price mechanism right to this day. Supply-demand-equilibrium is simply a bad joke. Economic policy advice never has had sound scientific foundations. Applied textbook economics, both in the Walrasian and Keynesian versions, ruins the economy.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The father of modern economics and his imbecile kids
#2 Keynes’ Employment Function and the Gratuitous Phillips Curve Disaster
#3 Toward a non-Neanderthal employment policy
Related 'The GDP-death-blow for the economics profession' and 'Microfoundations are dead for 150+ years: high time to move on' and 'To this day*, economists have produced NOT ONE textbook that satisfies scientific standards' and 'All behavior-based economic textbooks are false' and 'Economics textbooks ― tombstones at the Flat-Earth-Cemetery' and 'The new economic Paradigm requires a new textbook'
***
Wikimedia AXEC106k
